In the comments on my last post, Alon wrote, "What I've heard from rail advocates is the exact opposite - i.e., complaints that Obama should've spent all the $8 billion on HSR, and not on low-speed lines in Ohio and Wisconsin." I may actually have been misreading the criticism of the plan from rail advocates, and there may be two dissatisfied groups: one group who argued that the money should be spread around the country boosting key lines to conventional speeds like 90 miles per hour, and the other that argued that it should be concentrated on getting a small number of demonstration corridors in the same league with the TGV.
The Obama administration plan was presented as an initial step in getting lots of high-speed corridors built around the country. In contrast to both the "quick network" group and the "quick high-speed" group, the stimulus plan could be thought of as a "slow high-speed network" plan - a slow way to build high-speed trains. In that case, consider my last post a rebuttal to the "quick network" critics. In this post I'm going to take on the "quick high-speed" critics.
First of all, the stimulus was a nationwide plan, and its primary goal was to put people to work so they wouldn't be restless, and pay them so that they would spend money on American goods and services. Ideally you want the jobs to be created in places where unemployment is highest. Failing that, you at least want them to be spread evenly throughout the population.
Second, the President was proposing to spend eight billion dollars, and as leader of the country he's expected to spend taxpayer money fairly. Spending fairly means different things to different people, but most Washington politicians feel that "fair" means their constituents get some. Obama had to at least try to give some to everyone. That's why he had the application process, where even Wyoming and South Dakota were encouraged to apply for high-speed rail funding.
If Ray LaHood had stood up one day and said, "Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to spend eight billion dollars, divided up between California, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut," what would have been the reaction? All the Republicans would have screamed about government bailouts to rich coastal cities, and the Democrats would probably not have had the guts to keep the funding in the stimulus bill.
Third, it's the first principle of negotiating that you ask for what you want and settle for what you need. Obama seems to have forgotten this in the health care debate, and in the overall size of the stimulus, but his rail plan was a pretty good example.
It's true now that austerity-crazy governors in Wisconsin, Ohio, New Jersey and Florida have "given back" high speed rail money, but in some sense this is the best of both worlds. It allows rail projects in Vermont, Washington and Michigan to get significant boosts in their allocations, and it boosts the money for California even higher.
The Federal DOT hasn't yet announced which projects will get the reallocated money from Florida, but in the end, the money will probably be concentrated along the coasts and in the Saint Louis-Chicago-Detroit corridor. Who thinks that that would have passed if it had been in the original plan?
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Obama's rail strategy
In 2009, the President announced that the stimulus package would include eight billion dollars for high speed rail construction. Since then, he has budgeted additional funding for rail and chosen specific corridors to spend the money on. This high-speed rail plan has been widely derided as a boondoggle, even by many rail advocates. They argue that what was really needed were targeted upgrades to corridors that already had high ridership. Furthermore, they felt it would be preferable to get these corridors upgraded to "normal speed rail," because the benefits of high speed rail would not be worth the expense.
Those rail advocates may be right about the best things to build. If Obama were absolute dictator, maybe that's what he should have done. But he's part of a political system, and each of these projects requires support from several partly independent actors in the system. In that light, the rail plan was based on a relatively sound strategy, and is starting to look better and better.
Remember that there are four kinds of mode choices that people make: single trips, habits, investments and subsidies. Habits are predominantly chosen on the basis of availability and value, but the other three are often made on the basis of glamour, and occasionally amenities.
Subsidies, in particular, are decisions about the future. At the current pace of passenger rail construction in the United States, many of the politicians making decisions about passenger rail will be old or dead before a rail system could be of practical value to most of their constituents. They're making decisions for generations to come, which puts a lot of the discussion in the realm of fantasy and glamour.
Roads have a definite glamour to them. Although there are plenty of train songs and movies, and some about buses, ships, airplanes, spaceships, airships, bicycles, walking and even dogsleds, most of the media fantasies in the past sixty years have focused on cars. The dubious connection between driving and freedom is hammered into us in almost every half hour of television, every magazine. The road builders and airlines have a hand in this too. Visions of the future often involve wider roads, faster cars, faster planes and even flying cars and jetpacks.
The road plans currently being promoted all involve expanding the road network. Even if it's only a modest expansion like the Kosciuszko Bridge, it's still a step on the way to Tomorrowland. In contrast, the pragmatic vision of many rail advocates is a step on the road to the rail network we had in 1960. A lot of transportation geeks would be happy to have that back, but to the general public it's not exactly an inspiring vision. We had that back in 1960 and people chose to drive instead. Now the road network is vastly bigger than it was in 1960; why would people choose rail?
Obama and LaHood needed a vision of the future that would compete with the car vision, while still being in reach. The only thing that can do that is high-speed rail, with at least one demonstration corridor.
Those rail advocates may be right about the best things to build. If Obama were absolute dictator, maybe that's what he should have done. But he's part of a political system, and each of these projects requires support from several partly independent actors in the system. In that light, the rail plan was based on a relatively sound strategy, and is starting to look better and better.
Remember that there are four kinds of mode choices that people make: single trips, habits, investments and subsidies. Habits are predominantly chosen on the basis of availability and value, but the other three are often made on the basis of glamour, and occasionally amenities.
Subsidies, in particular, are decisions about the future. At the current pace of passenger rail construction in the United States, many of the politicians making decisions about passenger rail will be old or dead before a rail system could be of practical value to most of their constituents. They're making decisions for generations to come, which puts a lot of the discussion in the realm of fantasy and glamour.
Roads have a definite glamour to them. Although there are plenty of train songs and movies, and some about buses, ships, airplanes, spaceships, airships, bicycles, walking and even dogsleds, most of the media fantasies in the past sixty years have focused on cars. The dubious connection between driving and freedom is hammered into us in almost every half hour of television, every magazine. The road builders and airlines have a hand in this too. Visions of the future often involve wider roads, faster cars, faster planes and even flying cars and jetpacks.
The road plans currently being promoted all involve expanding the road network. Even if it's only a modest expansion like the Kosciuszko Bridge, it's still a step on the way to Tomorrowland. In contrast, the pragmatic vision of many rail advocates is a step on the road to the rail network we had in 1960. A lot of transportation geeks would be happy to have that back, but to the general public it's not exactly an inspiring vision. We had that back in 1960 and people chose to drive instead. Now the road network is vastly bigger than it was in 1960; why would people choose rail?
Obama and LaHood needed a vision of the future that would compete with the car vision, while still being in reach. The only thing that can do that is high-speed rail, with at least one demonstration corridor.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Who's representing Queens?
On Saturday I pointed out that the "Community Advisory Councils" convened by the Department of Transportation for the 34th Street busway project are heavily weighted towards the small minority of neighborhood residents who are NIMBYs opposed to the project, largely because the DOT has solicited no participation from residents of Queens, Staten Island or Waterside Plaza.
There is one person who claims to represent Queens, at least in some sense, at these Community Advisory Council meetings. He is not a bus rider, though; I have never heard him address a transportation question from any point of view other than a driver's. His name is Corey Bearak.
Bearak lives in a part of Eastern Queens where it is considered embarrassing for any middle-class person to get around without a car. For trips to Manhattan it is understood that some people have to leave their cars at home, but in Bearak's version of the American Dream everyone will somehow be able to drive and park everywhere even in Manhattan - for free, of course.
For many years Bearak has been involved with an organization called the Queens Civic Congress, a confederation of neighborhood groups. The Congress provides a useful forum for community boosters to share information, but it goes far beyond its mission when it takes positions on controversial issues, claiming to represent the views of the people of Queens, as they did with congestion pricing. Its member organizations are not representative, and the organizational structure of the Congress itself is not representative, but the Congress still takes positions as though it were.
Bearak has attended meetings of the Community Advisory Council, but it is not clear what segment of "the community" he is there to represent. He is a paid lobbyist and spokesperson (and probably webmaster) for the "Committee to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free." He is also a paid Policy and Political Director for the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1056, a lame union representing the drivers for many of the MTA Bus lines that were taken over by the City a few years ago.
What's Bearak's role in the Community Advisory Council for the 34th Street Transitway? You can get a hint from this PDF (Bearak has the quirk of blogging in PDF files and classic rock quotes):
None of this is intended as an attack on Bearak, who's a nice enough guy. I disagree with him on numerous issues and I think that the whole anti-congestion pricing campaign has been slimy and dishonest from the start. I'm also very suspicious of what he's up to with regards to the Transitway. But he's got a particular agenda and a particular code of ethics, and he sticks to them.
My main criticism is of the DOT. Why did they limit the "community" to people living right near 34th Street? Why concede the frame that the only "community" that matters is the tiny group of people who really care about curbside car access? And once they did, why did they then let Bearak in? They wound up with a bunch of entitled NIMBYs screaming about not being able to get bottled water delivered by truck, and a guy who seems to be paid to attack the Bloomberg Administration - and no express bus riders to balance them out! Strategic geniuses they ain't.
The DOT needs to open up the process to people who actually favor the Transitway. Put signs on all the buses that use the Transitway, and invite a bunch of people in Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island to come out and say how much they want it! Until the DOT does that, they just look like a bunch of masochists.
There is one person who claims to represent Queens, at least in some sense, at these Community Advisory Council meetings. He is not a bus rider, though; I have never heard him address a transportation question from any point of view other than a driver's. His name is Corey Bearak.
Bearak lives in a part of Eastern Queens where it is considered embarrassing for any middle-class person to get around without a car. For trips to Manhattan it is understood that some people have to leave their cars at home, but in Bearak's version of the American Dream everyone will somehow be able to drive and park everywhere even in Manhattan - for free, of course.
For many years Bearak has been involved with an organization called the Queens Civic Congress, a confederation of neighborhood groups. The Congress provides a useful forum for community boosters to share information, but it goes far beyond its mission when it takes positions on controversial issues, claiming to represent the views of the people of Queens, as they did with congestion pricing. Its member organizations are not representative, and the organizational structure of the Congress itself is not representative, but the Congress still takes positions as though it were.
Bearak has attended meetings of the Community Advisory Council, but it is not clear what segment of "the community" he is there to represent. He is a paid lobbyist and spokesperson (and probably webmaster) for the "Committee to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free." He is also a paid Policy and Political Director for the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1056, a lame union representing the drivers for many of the MTA Bus lines that were taken over by the City a few years ago.
What's Bearak's role in the Community Advisory Council for the 34th Street Transitway? You can get a hint from this PDF (Bearak has the quirk of blogging in PDF files and classic rock quotes):
At a recent (November 4) meeting concerning the proposed 34th Street Transitway, a consultant for the project several times told residents with their concerns that that these plans only resulted because the city did not get “Congestion Pricing.” Hmmm......You can read more of Bearak's dispatches about the Transitway and other issues on his website.
As Derek & the Dominos sing and play, Tell The Truth.
None of this is intended as an attack on Bearak, who's a nice enough guy. I disagree with him on numerous issues and I think that the whole anti-congestion pricing campaign has been slimy and dishonest from the start. I'm also very suspicious of what he's up to with regards to the Transitway. But he's got a particular agenda and a particular code of ethics, and he sticks to them.
My main criticism is of the DOT. Why did they limit the "community" to people living right near 34th Street? Why concede the frame that the only "community" that matters is the tiny group of people who really care about curbside car access? And once they did, why did they then let Bearak in? They wound up with a bunch of entitled NIMBYs screaming about not being able to get bottled water delivered by truck, and a guy who seems to be paid to attack the Bloomberg Administration - and no express bus riders to balance them out! Strategic geniuses they ain't.
The DOT needs to open up the process to people who actually favor the Transitway. Put signs on all the buses that use the Transitway, and invite a bunch of people in Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island to come out and say how much they want it! Until the DOT does that, they just look like a bunch of masochists.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Why the 34th Street Transitway matters
The Post has gone all-out against the 34th Street Transitway this week. On Tuesday, Steve Cuozzo spewed another of his rants about Commissioner Sadik-Khan, focusing on the pedestrian plaza planned as part of the Transitway. Today, the paper published an editorial entitled "Save 34th Street!" -as if there were anything lovable about the current state of the road.
Right after pointing out that the city plans to allow buses the entire length of the street, the Post editors write, "34th Street is to run eastbound only from Fifth Avenue, and westward from Sixth Avenue, rendering the road useless as a thoroughfare." It won't be useless as a thoroughfare, because buses and pedestrians will still be able to move in both directions. Here's a handy chart provided by the DOT:
That's right, private car and taxi drivers and passengers are less than ten percent of the users of 34th Street. I don't think the bus riders and pedestrians - the other ninety percent - would feel that the street was "severely degraded" by expanded sidewalks, a pedestrian plaza, slower car traffic and a protected busway.
The editorial continues: "Sadik-Khan came to the Department of Transportation from a nonprofit do-goodnik shop hell-bent on “reducing car dependency” — that is, giving automobiles the old heave-ho from Manhattan." They are clearly not talking about Sadik-Khan's former employer, Parsons Brinckerhoff, a for-profit engineering firm that builds bridges as well as transit facilities. It's not exactly a fair characterization of the Federal Transit Administration or the Dinkins Administration either.
The best I can think of is that for two years prior to becoming Transportation Commissioner she was on the Board of Trustees of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign. You might call Tri-State "a nonprofit do-goodnik shop hell-bent on reducing car dependency," but they're certainly not hell-bent enough for me, and in any case, she was one of sixteen board members, and probably too involved with her paying work for Parsons to do much for Tri-State. The Post might be confusing her with her Director of Policy, Jon Orcutt, who has been Executive Director of both Tri-State and Transportation Alternatives. Clearly, Tri-State and T.A. have influence at DOT, but they don't run the entire place.
The Post then calls on the City Council to essentially harass Sadik-Khan and do what they can to shut down the project. This could be a disaster, because it could train the Council to react this way to any plan to speed buses. They already have a Pavlovian reaction to any opportunity to pander to drivers about parking; we don't want to see them doing this with buses.
This is a good opportunity to review the many reasons why we want this project to succeed:
For all these reasons, you should come out and fight for the Transitway. Blog about it! Tweet about it! Write letters to the editor! Tell your friends! Go to meetings! Contact Transportation Alternatives to find out how you can be involved!
But most importantly, contact your City Council member. Tell them that you want the 34th Street project to succeed, both as a Transitway and as a pedestrian project. Remind them how many of their constituents use transit. Tell them not to be intimidated by anti-pedestrian and anti-transit editorials in the Post. Tell them not to cave, and not to pander!
Right after pointing out that the city plans to allow buses the entire length of the street, the Post editors write, "34th Street is to run eastbound only from Fifth Avenue, and westward from Sixth Avenue, rendering the road useless as a thoroughfare." It won't be useless as a thoroughfare, because buses and pedestrians will still be able to move in both directions. Here's a handy chart provided by the DOT:
That's right, private car and taxi drivers and passengers are less than ten percent of the users of 34th Street. I don't think the bus riders and pedestrians - the other ninety percent - would feel that the street was "severely degraded" by expanded sidewalks, a pedestrian plaza, slower car traffic and a protected busway.
The editorial continues: "Sadik-Khan came to the Department of Transportation from a nonprofit do-goodnik shop hell-bent on “reducing car dependency” — that is, giving automobiles the old heave-ho from Manhattan." They are clearly not talking about Sadik-Khan's former employer, Parsons Brinckerhoff, a for-profit engineering firm that builds bridges as well as transit facilities. It's not exactly a fair characterization of the Federal Transit Administration or the Dinkins Administration either.
The best I can think of is that for two years prior to becoming Transportation Commissioner she was on the Board of Trustees of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign. You might call Tri-State "a nonprofit do-goodnik shop hell-bent on reducing car dependency," but they're certainly not hell-bent enough for me, and in any case, she was one of sixteen board members, and probably too involved with her paying work for Parsons to do much for Tri-State. The Post might be confusing her with her Director of Policy, Jon Orcutt, who has been Executive Director of both Tri-State and Transportation Alternatives. Clearly, Tri-State and T.A. have influence at DOT, but they don't run the entire place.
The Post then calls on the City Council to essentially harass Sadik-Khan and do what they can to shut down the project. This could be a disaster, because it could train the Council to react this way to any plan to speed buses. They already have a Pavlovian reaction to any opportunity to pander to drivers about parking; we don't want to see them doing this with buses.
This is a good opportunity to review the many reasons why we want this project to succeed:
- Calming car traffic on 34th Street will almost certainly save several lives and prevent a host of injuries.
- It will make getting around much easier, saving 5-10 minutes on every trip for the people who already use the 34th Street buses, either to homes or workplaces along 34th Street, or to the Port Authority, the Javits Center, Waterside Plaza, or Brooklyn, Queens and New Jersey.
- By making it easier to travel across 34th Street, it will invite more people to use these buses, some of whom will probably switch from cars. It will also invite people to live and work in places that are convenient to get to by bus from 34th Street.
- Many of these people will identify as pedestrians and transit riders, and support pedestrian and transit improvements.
- There will be capacity in the busway for more buses, and bus lines throughout Manhattan can be rerouted through it, simplifying the network.
- It will serve as a flagship for bus improvements in the city in a way that Fordham Road can't, because there are a lot of people who won't go to Fordham Road. They don't know what they're missing, but they still won't go.
- A defeat on this issue will be symbolic, showing drivers that Sadik-Khan is vulnerable. Politicians and bureaucrats who see this getting killed will avoid doing anything like it in the future. Residents who see it getting killed will get discouraged and not ask for any new transit.
For all these reasons, you should come out and fight for the Transitway. Blog about it! Tweet about it! Write letters to the editor! Tell your friends! Go to meetings! Contact Transportation Alternatives to find out how you can be involved!
But most importantly, contact your City Council member. Tell them that you want the 34th Street project to succeed, both as a Transitway and as a pedestrian project. Remind them how many of their constituents use transit. Tell them not to be intimidated by anti-pedestrian and anti-transit editorials in the Post. Tell them not to cave, and not to pander!
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Who is "the community"?
Earlier this month I used the 34th Street Transitway project to illustrate the limitations of the "David and Goliath" script in reporting news. Greg Mocker had a nice report with a regular QM21 rider who had collected 375 signatures in favor of restoring cuts to her bus line.
I observed that most of the news reports up to now about the 34th Street Transitway had been focused on NIMBYs fighting to preserve the right to pick up and drop off at the curb on their street, while ignoring the benefit to bus riders. Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer made a very wishy-washy statement on Channel 5 about the transitway. The DOT has been holding regular "Community Advisory Council"kvetchfests meetings in an attempt to calm these concerns.
The problem is that the "stakeholders" that the DOT has invited to this "Community Advisory Council" seem to only be from the immediate area of 34th Street. It is widely acknowledged that many people from outside the area transfer to the 34th Street buses from subways, ferries and other buses, but as far as I know there has been no effort to reach out to any of them. I don't think there are any NYU Medical Center employees represented. The M16 is the only transit service for Waterside Plaza, but no Waterside residents were at the meetings.
As I've also mentioned, express buses from Queens and Staten Island bring thousands of passengers through 34th Street, but the DOT has not invited any of them to these meetings either. Mocker helped put me in touch with the QM21 rider, and I asked her about the "Community Advisory Council" meetings.
Angus Grieve-Smith, a regular reader who is also an occasional rider of the QM1/5/6, says that there are no signs about any hearings or "Community Advisory Council" meetings posted on those lines either.
So what's going on? Is the DOT trying to make a hard time for itself by packing meetings with people who want to kill this project? Do they believe that curb access is the only relevant issue?
I also have a question for all you "BRT" proponents out there. Do you factor these situations into your choice of which mode to support? Competition for streetspace and curbspace is clearly not an intrinsic feature of buses, but it is an intrinsic feature of any dedicated surface transitway that uses space previously reserved for cars. When you talk about "BRT" being so much easier to build, do you take into account roomfuls of wealthy entitled NIMBYs screaming about curbside dropoffs and property values?
I observed that most of the news reports up to now about the 34th Street Transitway had been focused on NIMBYs fighting to preserve the right to pick up and drop off at the curb on their street, while ignoring the benefit to bus riders. Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer made a very wishy-washy statement on Channel 5 about the transitway. The DOT has been holding regular "Community Advisory Council"
The problem is that the "stakeholders" that the DOT has invited to this "Community Advisory Council" seem to only be from the immediate area of 34th Street. It is widely acknowledged that many people from outside the area transfer to the 34th Street buses from subways, ferries and other buses, but as far as I know there has been no effort to reach out to any of them. I don't think there are any NYU Medical Center employees represented. The M16 is the only transit service for Waterside Plaza, but no Waterside residents were at the meetings.
As I've also mentioned, express buses from Queens and Staten Island bring thousands of passengers through 34th Street, but the DOT has not invited any of them to these meetings either. Mocker helped put me in touch with the QM21 rider, and I asked her about the "Community Advisory Council" meetings.
No one advised us of any Town Hall Meetings. The passengers should always be included in decisions that’s being made for them. Town Hall Meetings and Forums should always have Passengers attend their meetings. Who speaks on behalf of them? Never one day there is a notice posted on the Bus inviting anyone to a hearing.
Angus Grieve-Smith, a regular reader who is also an occasional rider of the QM1/5/6, says that there are no signs about any hearings or "Community Advisory Council" meetings posted on those lines either.
So what's going on? Is the DOT trying to make a hard time for itself by packing meetings with people who want to kill this project? Do they believe that curb access is the only relevant issue?
I also have a question for all you "BRT" proponents out there. Do you factor these situations into your choice of which mode to support? Competition for streetspace and curbspace is clearly not an intrinsic feature of buses, but it is an intrinsic feature of any dedicated surface transitway that uses space previously reserved for cars. When you talk about "BRT" being so much easier to build, do you take into account roomfuls of wealthy entitled NIMBYs screaming about curbside dropoffs and property values?
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Rigorous data
Last week, fellow bloggers Brooklyn Spoke, Aaron Naparstek and I traded tweets with Daily News reporter Adam Lisberg over an article he wrote about the difficulty of "reporting rogue bikers." Aaron took Lisberg to task for making it a story about "bike wars" and not police enforcement or 311 reporting in general. Brooklyn Spoke and Howard Wolfson pointed out the skewed perspective of Lisberg and his source, Nancy Linday: 1800 pedestrians have been killed by cars in the past ten years in New York, and only seven by bicycles.
It is very much to his credit that Lisberg chose to engage with four random guys on Twitter about his reporting. Aside from a little snark and defensiveness, he was generally polite and focused on the issues. I think I speak for Aaron and Brooklyn Spoke when I say I want to be constructive and supportive. I think Lisberg is curious about transportation issues and cares about the people of this city, and wants to see fairness and justice prevail. I am confident that he will produce a lot of quality reporting about the city's transportation issues in the future.
It is in that spirit of constructive engagement that I will now tear apart Lisberg's article. In summary, he says that the quality of the data that the city provides is inconsistent and favors its pro-cycling agenda. As evidence, he presents a breakdown of the calls to 311 and the reports of a Chinatown resident named Nancy Linday, who spent a lot of time reporting unlawful behavior by cyclists.
Let's start with the data. Lisberg writes:
I've also been hit by a skater, and it wasn't fun. I was waiting to cross Seventh Avenue on foot one evening in Midtown, against the light, and looking uptown for cars. This jerk going against traffic body-checked me and knocked the wind out of me. If I hadn't been so stunned I would have grabbed his backpack and knocked him off his skates.
No, I wasn't seriously injured. In fact, I wasn't injured at all, just rendered uncomfortable for about thirty seconds, and a bit shaken for an hour. In fact, that was a lot more than happened to Linday, as Lisberg reports: "When she dialed 311 in October to complain that a bike almost hit her on the sidewalk at 58th St. and Fifth Ave., she said her call was transferred to 911 and back again."
The best response to that came from Gothamist commenter Tom Giebel: "The city needs to start a new system, maybe 211, for people who feel the need to report things that almost happened." When I was hit by that skater, I didn't call 311. I've been almost hit by bicycles tons of times and haven't called 311. I would say that pretty much every day I almost get hit by a car, but I don't call 311.
My overall point here is that skaters and skateboards use bike lanes and endanger pedestrians, so it makes perfect sense to lump them together. This is not a sign of lack of rigor; if anything, the fact that the DOT only measured cyclists using the Prospect Park West bike lane on one day is less rigorous. Combining complaints about cyclists and skaters only seems odd if you have a particular axe to grind against cyclists, as Linday clearly does.
This brings me to my second major criticism of Lisberg: he doesn't consider the source. He identifies Linday only as someone who "lives in Chinatown, works in midtown and says both places are full of out-of-control cyclists." Linday has a very uncommon name, and a few minutes googling revealed that she's a professional urban planner who's worked with Fred Kent and Holly Whyte on placemaking, and concluded that bicycles ruin the pedestrian environment. Note that Kent had the opposite conclusion, and that another Project for Public Spaces alumnus, Andy Wiley-Schwartz, is now working for the Department of Transportation, incorporating bicycle facilities into public plazas among other things. Linday is also a runner, and maybe she doesn't like sharing the Central Park loop road with cyclists.
There are three possibilities. The first is that Lisberg didn't bother to do that search, which means he was sloppy and got played. The second is that he did the search but didn't think it was worth reporting, which means he didn't grasp what was going on. The third is that he thought it was worth reporting but withheld that information, which means he was dishonest with his readers.
How then to interpret these paragraphs:
Let's connect that with an article written by Deputy Mayor Goldsmith, who oversees both the cops and the people who set bike policy. Interestingly, he just released a website where you can track 311 calls, including "Bike/Roller/Skate Chronic" (it's under "Public Safety"). Goldsmith writes, "The citizen with a thoughtful idea is not always the loudest. Many citizens with legitimate concerns or constructive suggestions may not enjoy either crowds or microphones. Avenues for their civic engagement ought to exist too."
So a well-informed professional with an agenda to distort the city's decision-making process spends a lot of time compiling data and harassing the city, and gets an NYPD sergeant's attention. She then calls up a Daily News reporter, who runs with her angle and fills in the David vs. Goliath script with a token quote from the heartless bureaucrats. Lisberg takes no time to consult a single cyclist, even though he considers himself a fan of Aaron Naparstek's work, or to situate Linday's concerns in the overall context of threats to pedestrian safety. Again, here's hoping he'll do better next time.
I want to end by pointing out that many citizens with legitimate concerns may not enjoy spending a day tabulating lawbreaking, or even an hour haranguing a hapless 311 operator. I personally have gotten discouraged reporting cars parked on the sidewalk and given up, but I would note that the 311 map includes a lot more examples of "Illegal Parking" (which lumps sidewalk parking in with blocked hydrants and a lot of other issues) than of "Bike/Roller/Skate Chronic." There are many reasons why legitimate complaints do not go reported, and counting complaints doesn't give you a real sense of how much people care about the issue. Complaint counts should be taken with a huge grain of salt, and definitely not used as the main basis for policy decisions. I don't have a solution, but Linday's goal is a recipe for disaster.
It is very much to his credit that Lisberg chose to engage with four random guys on Twitter about his reporting. Aside from a little snark and defensiveness, he was generally polite and focused on the issues. I think I speak for Aaron and Brooklyn Spoke when I say I want to be constructive and supportive. I think Lisberg is curious about transportation issues and cares about the people of this city, and wants to see fairness and justice prevail. I am confident that he will produce a lot of quality reporting about the city's transportation issues in the future.
It is in that spirit of constructive engagement that I will now tear apart Lisberg's article. In summary, he says that the quality of the data that the city provides is inconsistent and favors its pro-cycling agenda. As evidence, he presents a breakdown of the calls to 311 and the reports of a Chinatown resident named Nancy Linday, who spent a lot of time reporting unlawful behavior by cyclists.
Let's start with the data. Lisberg writes:
That's because while the agency installing bike lanes is tracking their benefits closely, the agency that runs 311 doesn't even distinguish between complaints about bicycles and roller skates.Uh, no. It's just not necessary to distinguish between skates and bikes in this context. I've traveled at least as many miles on skates in this city as on a bike, and I used the same infrastructure. I skated in the street, and when there was a bike lane I used it. If the Prospect Park West bike lane had been there fifteen years ago, I would have been in it.
In other words, in the city's bike wars, the downside of cycling isn't counted as rigorously as the upside.
I've also been hit by a skater, and it wasn't fun. I was waiting to cross Seventh Avenue on foot one evening in Midtown, against the light, and looking uptown for cars. This jerk going against traffic body-checked me and knocked the wind out of me. If I hadn't been so stunned I would have grabbed his backpack and knocked him off his skates.
No, I wasn't seriously injured. In fact, I wasn't injured at all, just rendered uncomfortable for about thirty seconds, and a bit shaken for an hour. In fact, that was a lot more than happened to Linday, as Lisberg reports: "When she dialed 311 in October to complain that a bike almost hit her on the sidewalk at 58th St. and Fifth Ave., she said her call was transferred to 911 and back again."
The best response to that came from Gothamist commenter Tom Giebel: "The city needs to start a new system, maybe 211, for people who feel the need to report things that almost happened." When I was hit by that skater, I didn't call 311. I've been almost hit by bicycles tons of times and haven't called 311. I would say that pretty much every day I almost get hit by a car, but I don't call 311.
My overall point here is that skaters and skateboards use bike lanes and endanger pedestrians, so it makes perfect sense to lump them together. This is not a sign of lack of rigor; if anything, the fact that the DOT only measured cyclists using the Prospect Park West bike lane on one day is less rigorous. Combining complaints about cyclists and skaters only seems odd if you have a particular axe to grind against cyclists, as Linday clearly does.
This brings me to my second major criticism of Lisberg: he doesn't consider the source. He identifies Linday only as someone who "lives in Chinatown, works in midtown and says both places are full of out-of-control cyclists." Linday has a very uncommon name, and a few minutes googling revealed that she's a professional urban planner who's worked with Fred Kent and Holly Whyte on placemaking, and concluded that bicycles ruin the pedestrian environment. Note that Kent had the opposite conclusion, and that another Project for Public Spaces alumnus, Andy Wiley-Schwartz, is now working for the Department of Transportation, incorporating bicycle facilities into public plazas among other things. Linday is also a runner, and maybe she doesn't like sharing the Central Park loop road with cyclists.
There are three possibilities. The first is that Lisberg didn't bother to do that search, which means he was sloppy and got played. The second is that he did the search but didn't think it was worth reporting, which means he didn't grasp what was going on. The third is that he thought it was worth reporting but withheld that information, which means he was dishonest with his readers.
How then to interpret these paragraphs:
The next day, she took careful note of every lawbreaking cyclist she saw near her office. A day later, she said, she dialed 311, demanded the operator take notes and dictated them for more than an hour.To me all that says is that if you've got an agenda and are willing to harass a 311 operator, you will be rewarded by the police. Thanks, NYPD! And then, Lisberg reveals Linday's agenda: "That may sound like an example of 311 working - but Linday said she wants those complaints to be tabulated by the people who set bike policy in the city, not just the cops who have to stop the rogue bikers."
It got a response: A sergeant from the Midtown North Precinct called her within days, gave her his direct line and told her to call him anytime with bike problems.
Let's connect that with an article written by Deputy Mayor Goldsmith, who oversees both the cops and the people who set bike policy. Interestingly, he just released a website where you can track 311 calls, including "Bike/Roller/Skate Chronic" (it's under "Public Safety"). Goldsmith writes, "The citizen with a thoughtful idea is not always the loudest. Many citizens with legitimate concerns or constructive suggestions may not enjoy either crowds or microphones. Avenues for their civic engagement ought to exist too."
So a well-informed professional with an agenda to distort the city's decision-making process spends a lot of time compiling data and harassing the city, and gets an NYPD sergeant's attention. She then calls up a Daily News reporter, who runs with her angle and fills in the David vs. Goliath script with a token quote from the heartless bureaucrats. Lisberg takes no time to consult a single cyclist, even though he considers himself a fan of Aaron Naparstek's work, or to situate Linday's concerns in the overall context of threats to pedestrian safety. Again, here's hoping he'll do better next time.
I want to end by pointing out that many citizens with legitimate concerns may not enjoy spending a day tabulating lawbreaking, or even an hour haranguing a hapless 311 operator. I personally have gotten discouraged reporting cars parked on the sidewalk and given up, but I would note that the 311 map includes a lot more examples of "Illegal Parking" (which lumps sidewalk parking in with blocked hydrants and a lot of other issues) than of "Bike/Roller/Skate Chronic." There are many reasons why legitimate complaints do not go reported, and counting complaints doesn't give you a real sense of how much people care about the issue. Complaint counts should be taken with a huge grain of salt, and definitely not used as the main basis for policy decisions. I don't have a solution, but Linday's goal is a recipe for disaster.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Peak oil, climate change and buses
Jarrett has a thought-provoking post about the age-old rail versus bus debate. But he buries what I think is the biggest advantage that trains have over buses:
As I wrote last month, some time in the next century we will get to a point where it will be difficult to build more infrastructure, and the pace of construction will drop precipitously. The infrastructure we have then will be more or less what we will have for the following hundred years. The easier it is to maintain and the less energy it requires to operate, the more energy will be available for other purposes.
This is one of the reasons why I get so frustrated with organizations like the Los Angeles Bus Riders' Union that promote buses over trains. Less extreme but still frustrating are the Pratt Institute and the Straphangers Campaign here in New York, and the Institute for Transportation Development Policy which is based here but operates worldwide. There are a few arguments they make, some more defensible than others.
The most obviously bogus argument is that we should never spend anything on capital; all the money should go to running buses as cheaply as possible. If you take that to its extreme the buses will eventually fall apart, so nobody really believes that we shouldn't spend anything on capital. What remains is to find the right balance between capital and operating costs.
Those who argue that we should be spending less on capital owe us an explanation for why we should do this while the government is not spending less on car infrastructure. After all, it's the relative value of transit that will ultimately drive the mode shifts necessary to accomplish most of our goals, and if we stop investing in transit while others continue to invest in roads, the relative value of transit will decline.
The most defensible argument is that we should be investing in transit expansion, but it should be "BRT" (something better than a regular mixed-traffic local bus, to be eternally negotiated downward) and not rail. These arguments clearly ignore the long-term cost of maintenance and operations.
Suppose we could get a network of exclusive busways in all the corridors of the Commute Plan (for instance, PDF), or for the same price we could get exclusive rail of some kind in six of the eleven corridors (I'm just pulling that number out of my ass). And then we run out of oil, and only the rich can drive. People are left using the transit system that's built. Which would you rather have: the rail one that will last for years, or the roads that will get more and more potholed as the years go on?
Some variable cost differences. Broadly speaking, bus-based projects that use portions of existing roadway will be much cheaper than building rail for those same segments would be. Beyond that, costs for bus vs. rail projects can be hard to compare. Capital costs for rail include vehicles, while a busway is sometimes run with an existing bus fleet. Certain bus-rail comparisons in certain corridors may turn up significant differences in operating cost that may be valid in that situation, but need to be checked carefully to ensure that they assume the same factors on both sides.Well, sure it's hard, and we need to be careful. But let's focus on ongoing maintenance and operations. Is there really any disagreement on the fact that train cars last longer than buses, that railroads last longer than asphalt roads, and that maintenance per passenger is cheaper for rail infrastructure, both vehicles and roads? Similarly, is there any disagreement that trains are cheaper to operate per passenger, in terms of energy and personnel?
As I wrote last month, some time in the next century we will get to a point where it will be difficult to build more infrastructure, and the pace of construction will drop precipitously. The infrastructure we have then will be more or less what we will have for the following hundred years. The easier it is to maintain and the less energy it requires to operate, the more energy will be available for other purposes.
This is one of the reasons why I get so frustrated with organizations like the Los Angeles Bus Riders' Union that promote buses over trains. Less extreme but still frustrating are the Pratt Institute and the Straphangers Campaign here in New York, and the Institute for Transportation Development Policy which is based here but operates worldwide. There are a few arguments they make, some more defensible than others.
The most obviously bogus argument is that we should never spend anything on capital; all the money should go to running buses as cheaply as possible. If you take that to its extreme the buses will eventually fall apart, so nobody really believes that we shouldn't spend anything on capital. What remains is to find the right balance between capital and operating costs.
Those who argue that we should be spending less on capital owe us an explanation for why we should do this while the government is not spending less on car infrastructure. After all, it's the relative value of transit that will ultimately drive the mode shifts necessary to accomplish most of our goals, and if we stop investing in transit while others continue to invest in roads, the relative value of transit will decline.
The most defensible argument is that we should be investing in transit expansion, but it should be "BRT" (something better than a regular mixed-traffic local bus, to be eternally negotiated downward) and not rail. These arguments clearly ignore the long-term cost of maintenance and operations.
Suppose we could get a network of exclusive busways in all the corridors of the Commute Plan (for instance, PDF), or for the same price we could get exclusive rail of some kind in six of the eleven corridors (I'm just pulling that number out of my ass). And then we run out of oil, and only the rich can drive. People are left using the transit system that's built. Which would you rather have: the rail one that will last for years, or the roads that will get more and more potholed as the years go on?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)