Seven Transportation Improvements Everyone Can Agree On

The Reason Foundation, a free-market think tank, is not always a transportation reformer’s best friend. Its scholars gave Florida Gov. Rick Scott inaccurate advice he then used to justify killing high-speed rail in his state. They want to prevent the gas tax from funding “peripheral” programs like transit and active transportation. But Reason Foundation experts have teamed up with Transportation for America and Taxpayers for Common Sense to champion seven cost-effective and eminently “reasonable” strategies for improving transportation outcomes even in the midst of a budget crisis.

Can we agree to stop building towns that look like this? Photo: ##http://newsdesk.org/2010/05/cul-de-sac-communities-increase-air-pollution-health-risks/##Newsdesk.org##

Leaders of the three groups briefed an audience on Capitol Hill today about the points of unity among them. Obviously, there were many issues they couldn’t come to consensus on, but it’s worth spotlighting the things even these disparate groups agree on. And it’s worth asking: if they’re so non-controversial, why aren’t they happening everywhere?

The seven innovations being highlighted by Transportation for America, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the Reason Foundation are:

1. Transportation scenario planning – Rather than planning for a future just like the present, metros and states can use a more dynamic planning process, often used by the military but increasingly adopted by policy-makers, which brings together a variety of community stakeholders to envision how the future could look under a variety of possible scenarios. They come up with a “preferred scenario” and set policies and goals oriented toward achieving that scenario.

2. High Occupancy Toll lanes – Sometimes derided as “Lexus lanes,” these lanes are reserved for carpoolers but are also open to those willing to pay for a quicker trip with less congestion. HOT lanes can use dynamic pricing to change the cost of driving on the lanes based on demand to keep congestion on those lanes low enough to guarantee a 45 mile-per-hour speed, according to Shirley Ybarra of the Reason Foundation, Virginia’s Secretary of Transportation from 1998 to 2002.

3. Bus Rapid Transit – Latin America has pioneered a host of innovative ways to make bus service faster, more reliable, and more pleasant. The buses travel in their own designated lane, preferably physically separated from other traffic, to keep from getting stuck in the same traffic jams as everybody else. The stations often are more elaborate platforms, with fares collected at the station, to speed the boarding process. BRT is scalable, allowing cities to test the waters with a modest system and then improving stations, real-time bus tracking, fare collection systems, and lane separations as the system matures.

4. Intelligent Transportation Systems – Everyone seems to agree that E-ZPass (and even boothless “open road tolling”), traffic light optimization, electronic transit fare payments, and real-time transit tracking are improvements cities and states can make right now to get the most out of their existing capacity, potentially staving off the perceived need to expand. Despite the consensus on the utility of these tools, however, states are still slow to implement them, so let this be a tri-partisan push for them to get on it. A 2005 GAO report found that ITS reduced delays by 9 percent where it was implemented.

5. Inter-city Buses – Libertarians love inter-city buses because they use virtually no subsidies (except for those that build and maintain the roads they drive on). Operators like BoltBus and MegaBus offer clean and comfortable rides with wi-fi service. Inter-city buses were the fastest-growing transportation mode in 2010. Erich Zimmerman of Taxpayers for Common Sense added that bus service does a good job of connecting rural areas, too. About 78 percent of rural Americans have access to inter-city bus travel, he said.

6. Telework – We can all get behind this one, right? Doing your part to reduce vehicle-miles-traveled by working in your pajamas from your easy chair? Ybarra says educating employers is always the challenge – employees get it intrinsically. Once managers are convinced workers will be equally – or more – productive at home, they tend to embrace the idea.

7. Local street connectivity – Call it Operation Cul-de-Sac. Suburban growth models did away with traditional urban grids that allow easy access from one place to another through a variety of routes. In their place, they built high-traffic arterial roads that connect little cul-de-sac communities that don’t connect any other way. This puts so much pressure on the arterials that people end up using interstates to go just a couple of exits to take the kids to school, said James Corless of Transportation for America. And that keeps the interstates from efficiently performing their primary job: moving people between states. Besides, when the only roads that go anywhere are high-speed arterials without sidewalks or bike lanes, your only option is to drive, even for short trips. Better just to have functional grids that give people more options of how to get from point A to point B.

As pressure grows on state and city budgets, these cost-effective measures will become more and more essential to keep the transportation system functioning. The federal government has made it clear that it can’t be counted on to fund transportation at a level that would even keep it in a state of working condition, so low-cost ways to improve performance will be the saving grace of states and metros that want to do more than tread water until Congress has a change of heart and decides to dedicate new revenues.

  • Anonymous

    In my mind, there are three main reasons to work for “livable communities.” First: less imported oil; second: healthier people via more walking and biking; and third: reducing household’s financial load by reducing the number of cars they have to have or at least reducing the miles they have to put on them. Others may add global warming as a fourth reason.

    So, looking at it from that point of view, really, only 1, 6, and 7 address these points to a significant degree. Especially 7.

  • Anonymous

    You know, I wouldn’t even mind “towns that look like this” so much if there were connecting walk/bike paths between cul-de-sacs. Fine, the cars can’t go everywhere, but there’s no real reason why there shouldn’t be easy access for neighbors who live on adjacent cul-de-sacs.

  • Peeeeceeee

    To katenonymous: But there would still be nowhere to go.

    Call me crazy, but I’m still skeptical about “bus rapid transit” as some sort of unalloyed good that we can all agree upon.  Seems to me that this is something generally done in situations and places where there really ought to be a train, but the money (or in the First World, the political will) isn’t there.  It also would seem to run the risk of disrupting organic community life in the same way freeways do, no?

    As for this: “Once managers are convinced workers will be equally – or more – productive at home, they tend to embrace the idea.” …well, that’s true.  And they also often go on to embrace the idea of having the work done more cheaply in a place where they can take advantage of global wage arbitrage.  Gee, I wonder why the libertarian Reason Foundation would be so quick to get behind *that* one?

  • I like the way you lay this out, tach1. But why doesn’t BRT count toward your goals? Or inter-city buses? As for HOT lanes, they (or more to the point, HOV lanes) do help reduce automobile use in D.C. and San Francisco where “slugging” is a common practice — “slugs” wait in line off the highway to be picked up by a driver looking to put more people in the car so they qualify for the carpool lanes. Lots of people commute that way every day — fast, free, reliable. http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture-society/slugging-the-peoples-transit-28068/

  • geust

    I have to agree. Connect the cul-de-sacs and you could get a nice, quiet walk/cycle route that does not have to follow the winding streets. The route would be more direct, meaning it would be shorter. Less traffic noise and pollution, safer for kids.

    Peecee says that there’s nowhere to go. Maybe, but thats car centric zoning issue. Mix the zones a little so people would have jobs, shops and schools nearby. And kids would enjoy greater mobility even in pure sleeping suburb.

  • Anonymous

    As geust points out, though, that’s a zoning issue, not a cul-de-sac issue. What if that center area were something other than a golf course? What if small businesses were permitted on corners? Then there would be places to go.

  • Willie Green

     This report should be titled “Seven diversions that fail to addrress the real challenge’

    Our present transportation infrastructure evolved around the abundant availability of petroleum based, fossil fuels. And in the coming years, as global consumption depletes relatively cheap, tradional source, production is shifting to more costly “unconventional” oil shales and tar sands.Like it or not, this paradign shift in the cost of fuel WILL dictate a similar shift to more affordable transportation. This IS what will drive consumer demand for passenger rail systems: light rail for local commuters… high speed rail to displace regional, short-hop commuter airlines.

    High occupancy lanes and riding on buses are totally inadequate to address this reality.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

A Brief Reply to Heritage’s Ronald Utt, PhD

|
Readers, Ronald Utt has written a memo for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, on Barack Obama’s transportation policy. Typically, when presented with an article from a group not known for its progressive views on urban issues, I’ll read through the piece at least twice to make sure I’ve gotten the argument. I’ll have […]

How Local Transportation Decisions Can Put Public Health Front and Center

|
Transportation projects often have profound consequences for public health, whether negative (in the case of fossil fuel-burning highway expansions) or positive (in the case of calorie-burning bike-friendly, walkable streets). So why don’t cities and states always consider health impacts when evaluating a transportation project or policy? That’s the question at the heart of a new […]

The Koch Brothers’ War on Transit

|
Transit advocates around the country were transfixed by a story in Tennessee this April, when the state chapter of Americans for Prosperity made a bid to pre-emptively kill Nashville bus rapid transit. It was an especially brazen attempt by Charles and David Koch’s political network to strong-arm local transportation policy makers. But it was far from […]

The Long, Ugly Road to a Federal Transportation Plan

|
You’ve likely been hearing a lot, on this blog and others, about the coming expiration of the federal transportation bill. Come September 30, Congress has to have a plan in hand to fund the nation’s trains, buses, bikes, bridges and roads — or pass an extension of the 2005 federal bill, locking in the same […]

The Split Between Pragmatic Conservatism and Anti-Transit Extremism

|
In the final installment of a three-part series on Wisconsin’s sputtering tech sector, Bruce Thompson at Urban Milwaukee notes that his home state ranks near the bottom of Democratic-leaning states on the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation’s “New Economy Index.” If a strong start-up economy is linked to Democratic voting patterns, as ITI’s data shows, […]

Can We Bike Our Way to a Stable Climate?

|
Crossposted from the Frontier Group.  Earlier this week, I had the chance to talk about the role of bicycling in addressing climate change at the National Bike Summit in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the League of American Bicyclists. The conversation was framed around the Paris climate agreement – the pact signed by 195 nations in December […]