Transport Nexus

A Failure of Governance

On February 18, 2021

I am absolutely appalled by the failure of governance in the state of Texas that resulted in a severe weather event turning into an absolute calamity for millions of people. This is the definition of a man-made problem similar to the levee failures in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina in that failure of government to exercise proper oversight resulted in infrastructure failure.

So I wanted to share my thoughts on this failure in better detail that I can on Twitter.

The Texas debacle is a failure in governance and the inability of Texas politicians to provide decent public service. 1/10
— Ryan Richter, AICP (@transportnexus) February 18, 2021

Lack of Regulation

The issue stems from a historic lack of regulation in Texas in which the electric industry had not had any (I mean, zero) regulation until the formation of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) in 1970. (Two things of note, the irony of its name and the fact that its website isn’t secure – not providing an encrypted connection – so be careful entering information).

Even still, to this day, ERCOT, which is structured as a non-profit organization, is made up largely of energy industry insiders with little oversight from the State. Apparently, one third of ERCOT’s board doesn’t even live in Texas, for what its worth.

Because of a deregulated industry in which a ton of companies were competing on price alone, costs are low for customers. But look what played out. Turns out costs are low because no investments were made into the physical plant. The utilities had no reserve capacity, nor the ability to import electricity, because the Texas power grid is separate from the national grid.

Lack of Investment

So Texas finds itself in a situation where there is no incentives for investing in the physical plant. Just incentives to quickly and cheaply bring power on-line. Thus, when faced with weather this severe, the system is unable to handle the load. It is because of the failure to invest in making the physical plant stronger and more adaptable. And while this cold weather has brought historic low temperatures to Texas, the state has seen low temperatures before and has faced blackouts before (ten years ago to be exact). But Texas refuses to learn its lessons.

So now we see the finger pointing. Texas Governor Greg Abbott is, predictably, shifting blame away from him and towards ERCOT. ERCOT is blaming a lack of regulation (shockingly)! Blame is shared all around. But at some point, Texas needs to assume responsibility for the regulation and oversight of a public utility so important to modern society that it cannot function without it.

Government Competence

We – as citizens – should expect competent governance. Competence necessarily means regulation of utilities for the benefit of all citizens. It means strong oversight roles for the state and strong roles for the private sector. Protecting the public safety. Investing in government to manage its role as necessary to serve the above. Without competence governance you get a failure of governance. A failure that, often times, has catastrophic results.

How to get a Starbucks (or a Trader Joe’s) in your Community

By Ryan Richter

On January 16, 2021

In Uncategorized, Urban Design

The urban planning questions we should be asking about these businesses.

I have been involved in many downtown community plans professionally and have been active in my own neighborhood on economic development concerns and the question that I hear asked most often is along the lines of

Why can’t we get a Starbucks (or Trader Joe’s) in our community?

And the answer I generally give is along the lines of “why do you want a chain business that typically collects money from the community and spends it elsewhere?”

This isn’t typically a satisfactory answer, so let me extrapolate a bit. See, Starbucks and Trader Joe’s are seen as status signifiers – meaning that a neighborhood that has these stores is seen as having “made it” in whatever that means. Indeed, a Harvard Business School study has quantified the effect of having Starbucks on the community as increasing home prices by 0.5% in a year.

So, if you are a homeowner, why wouldn’t you want such a store?

Urban Design

There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with having a major corporate chain in your community. In fact, most communities have them. The key is over-reliance on chains at the expense of small business. And the other key, in terms of urban planning is the urban design of these stores.

When evaluating a chain through an urban planning lens, a better way to look at the development is by urban design – that is, the architecture of the building, its site design and the context of the larger community. Thus, a Starbucks with a drive thru or a Trader Joe’s with 300 parking spaces is going to have a much larger impact in the context of a pre-war urban neighborhood in terms of its design and traffic impacts.

Take, for example, a recent proposal for a Starbucks in the 41st Ward on Harlem Avenue.

Rendering of Starbucks. Source: Nadig Newspapers

Does this look like the kind of thing anyone wants to see in an urban neighborhood? In fact, community members that evaluated the proposal said this:

Committee member Tony Chiavola expressed traffic concerns about the proposal, adding that a nearby Starbucks at Harlem and Northwest Highway creates traffic congestion at that intersection.
“What the heck do we need anther coffee shop in the neighborhood,” member John Kwasinski said. “I don’t see any reason it needs to be” rezoned for commercial use.

I wonder if Mr. Kwasinski would say the same thing if the Starbucks rendering looked something like Weston’s Coffee and Tap Co. in Jefferson Park.

In fact, I was quoted in the news a few years ago raving about how Weston’s Coffee would be “great for our community” precisely because of its reuse of an existing building and location across from the Jefferson Park Transit Center.

It turns out the people, even those not familiar with urban planning, instinctually get urban design and it’s impacts on their lives. Which is why you see complaints about auto-oriented development in residential areas. And why urban design that is inherently walkable tends to attract far less negative attention.

Perhaps the best question to ask about these types of developments is “what is the urban design context within which these businesses will be built?”

Hyperloop

By Ryan Richter

On January 15, 2021

In High Speed Rail

I’ve been writing on social media about my disdain for Elon Musk’s foray into solving mass transit problems with the hyperloop for some time. But now we have evidence of a test ride with real people by Virgin Hyperloop in the Nevada desert. CNN covers the event, which is basically a commercial, though their article is a little more circumspect.

Whisking people at speeds of 100 MPH is, of course, an important achievement, despite the fact that Amtrak already achieves speeds of up to 150 MPH on sections of its Acela service.

No doubt, achieving speeds of up to 760 MPH, as hyperloop technology promises to do would be a game changer for intercity travel. The fundamental problem with it is the hyperloop is an unproven technology and Elon Musk, et. al’s constant undercutting or ignorance of actual construction and land acquisition costs itself is a problem. But beyond the technology, the costs, the personalities, it’s the shiny newness of the hyperloop that attracts outsized attention and serious money.

Transit Planner Jarrett Walker has a term for this – elite projection – which is

the belief, among relatively fortunate and influential people, that what those people find convenient or attractive is good for the society as a whole.

The thing is, existing, proven technology already exists that can solve much of the problems that hyperloop is purported to solve – the ability to move people at incredibly fast speed. It’s called high speed rail (HSR) and it has been around for two generations.

High Speed Rail

In Illinois, where I live, a HSR project is underway to increase speeds Amtrak’s Lincoln Service between Chicago to St. Louis. The 300 mile route today takes 5.5 hours. Current plans are to get maximum speeds up to 120 MPH, which would result in travel times of around four hours. This is significant as these travel times would beat out travel time via car by an hour – the kind of time savings that results in modal shifts.

But what if we could increase speeds to 220 MPH? This is at the upper bound for speed on HSR and is the game changer that hyperloop purports to be. Even better, this speed is obtainable on current rights-of-way using proven HSR technologies.

At 220 MPH, it’s now possible to travel from Chicago to St. Louis or Cincinnati or Detroit in just under two hours. It’s possible to travel to Cleveland in just over two hours and Minneapolis/St. Paul in 2:40. At these travel times, it opens up the Midwest urban economy to much closer linkages between its large cities.

HSR at 220 MPH is far more obtainable than hyperloop at 760 MPH and achieves much of the same benefits as hyperloop. Even better, HSR achieves these benefits without the technology and land acquisition problems that hyperloop brings. It’s past time to focus public policy on attainable outcomes than pie-in-the-sky shiny objects.

The real Blue Line problem

By Ryan Richter

On February 27, 2018

In Heavy Rail (metro), Transit-Oriented Development

Boarding signs at Jackson. Source: CTA

After reading and discussing the article, The CTA’s Blue Line has a big problem, I’ve decided I need to weigh in on this. Because, guess what, the Blue Line does not actually have a big problem – in

fact, it’s a victim of its own success! That doesn’t mean there isn’t any problems that can’t be addressed, and the author points out a few of them. They are:

Rapid ridership increases at certain stations on the O’Hare branch of the Blue Line, though not a population boom as the author suggests.
Older train cars (notably the 2600 series)
At capacity infrastructure (of which Your New Blue, a track and signal modernization program seeks to address)

So why do I say that the CTA Blue Line is a victim of its own success? What can be done about the real problems the Blue Line does have?

The Blue Line is a Success

At a time when CTA bus ridership is in decline and rideshare (Uber and Lyft) are chipping away at overall CTA ridership, the ridership increases on the Blue Line are an unheralded success. As fare revenue supports operations, the CTA depends heavily on its riders to subsidize the service. Larger urban planning goals like transit-oriented development also support the sunk costs of the CTA by generating a market dependent on transit for at least some of its trips. As a larger policy goal, we should be supporting TOD in every place it can be built, while also doing transit system planning to accommodate market demand. The Blue Line ridership is approaching historic highs. That is a testament to how well the CTA runs the line as much as it is to policy and geography.

What are the Real Problems of the Blue Line

That said, TOD has strained the Blue Line and presented some very real problems. These problems are antiquated train sets, congested stations, ADA accessibility, capacity and power constraints. Let’s take a closer look at each problem:

Antiquated Train Sets

MP 05 train, Paris Metro. Source: Wikipedia

The Blue Line runs the oldest train sets in the CTA roster, the 2600 series. These cars were built in the early to mid 1980s for the CTA, though they’ve been rehabbed since then. The 2600 series train sets are not optimized for efficient passenger loading, due to their perpendicular seating arrangement, which creates bottlenecks in each of the vestibules. The newer 5000 series train sets that are on the CTA Red and Green Lines have longitudinal aisle-facing seating that allow for wider aisles. This seating configuration increases passenger capacity by 20-30% per train car.

The proposed 7000 series cars that the CTA is purchasing will also have longitudinal seating and will replace the 2600 series cars on the Blue Line by 2020. While they will not be open gangway, a style of train design that allows a passenger to walk from car to car seamlessly (shown at right), they should also increase capacity similarly to the 5000 series. That said, the Blue Line has a track configuration which would be optimal for open gangway design, which would drastically improve train capacity.

A more radical solution than open gangway design would be a move to driverless trains. Train sets like this dramatically reduce labor costs, thus allowing more frequent train service all day. Driverless trains could give the CTA the flexibility to run rush hour service virtually the entire day if it wanted, due to the substantial labor savings.

Congested Stations

Weekday ridership at certain stations on the Blue Line have grown significantly since 2002 including California (109%), Western (75%), Logan Square (64%), O’Hare (58%), Division (54%), Belmont (32%) and Damen (29%). My own Blue Line station (Jefferson Park) saw a 7% increase during this time period.

These increases in ridership have contributed to increased passenger crowding per train car, platform crowding at the station level, train delays due to boarding/alighting, all of which may cause some passengers to wait for several trains before boarding. Ways to alleviate this might mean creating more access and egress points at certain stations. Line level improvements might mean extending all station platforms to accommodate 10 or 12 car train sets. A 10 car train allows for 25% more capacity than an existing 8 car train.

ADA Accessibility

Per the Americans with Disabilities Act, public transit providers like the CTA are required to make their system accessible to the public. In practice, this means that any significant station renovations include accessibility features, most notably elevators. The Your New Blue program added an elevator at Addison, though not at California, Damen or Division, where ridership growth has been strongest.

Capacity Constraints

Capacity constraints occur not just in terms of passenger volume, but also in the number of trains running along the line at any given time. And the number of trains run is governed by schedule, availability of equipment, capacity at the rail storage yard, signaling equipment and power capacity. Your New Blue is modernizing signal technology, which will allow the CTA to reduce headway, or space, between trains.

Modernization of the power substations will allow for more trains. The existing Blue Line is constrained by its power plant, which is largely maxed out.

However, even with a modern power plant, the CTA still needs somewhere to store the trains. And storage yard capacity, particularly in Forest Park, would need to be increased to allow more train sets on the line.

When all else fails, a more drastic solution to capacity constraints may involve the addition of railway sidings and/or additional mainline track. Existing Blue Line two-track configuration precludes the kinds of express services that might be offered. Additional mainline track allows the CTA flexibility to segment its route based on passenger volume. It may even allow express O’Hare trains. However, this solution is probably least likely if only because land acquisition and/or tunneling would likely be cost prohibitive.

So how do we fix it?

It is easy to blame the transit for your commuting headaches. And it is even easier to blame new people for crowding your train. But don’t blame the service provider. Demand better service. Because in the end, transit is by far the most efficient way to get around the City of Chicago.

Connecting to the North Branch Trail

By Ryan Richter

On September 20, 2016

In Bicycle, Maps, Transport Modes

North Branch Trail. Source: Forest Preserve District of Cook County

The North Branch Trail, which has been planned for over 10 years, will finally be opening this week (well, Phase I anyway. Phase II is under construction until next year). Extending the existing eastern trailhead from Caldwell Avenue and Devon Avenue in Edgebrook is essential to making the trail easier to access by bike, as Caldwell and Devon are very difficult terrain for on-street bike riders. So while I am ecstatic about the trail’s southeastward extension, I am still a bit troubled with the connectivity to the trail by bike, at least for those riders who are using Central Avenue to connect to the trail. Let’s go to the maps.

Right now, the Phase I trail head will be in the Forest Glen Woods, adjacent to Forest Glen Avenue, which is a small side-street that can take a rider to Elston Avenue, which has buffer protected bike lanes all the way to downtown. But if you live west of the trail head, you’ll likely want to use Central Avenue to access the trail, as it crosses Central at a stop light in Edgebrook Woods. But getting there is dicey. While Central Avenue is a “signed bike route” according to the City of Chicago’s official map, I can find no evidence of a sign, not to mention any sort of road markings indicating Central as a bike route. The image below shows Central Avenue between Bryn Mawr and Elston Avenues, a typical cross-section of Central Avenue on the far northwest side.

Now, Central is actually a decent road to bike on, as it is generally only one lane in each direction and traffic volumes are fairly low. However, Central widens after the curve just north of Elston Avenue on the approach to Edgebrook Woods (background and on left) and the road is very forgiving for drivers that want to exceed the speed limit.

It is precisely this section of Central that is simultaneously closest to the crossing of the North Branch Trail and also the most dangerous approach to the trail itself. The City should prioritize the improvement of access to the trail, as specifically called for in the City’s bike plan.

As such improvements come to the fore, I would recommend we carefully study a road diet for Central Avenue. I envision a road diet to do the following:

Reduce the number of through lanes from two lanes in each direction to one.
Install a barrier protected bike lane in the southbound direction between Edgebrook Woods and Leonard Avenue.
Install a buffer protected bike lane in the northbound direction between Central Avenue and Edgebrook Woods.

Ideally, I could see a road diet on Central through Edgebrook Woods entirely up to Lehigh Avenue or Caldwell, but congestion issues around the railroad tracks may negate this. A barrier protected bike lane would provide the safest path between the trail crossing and Elston Avenue. However, on the northbound side, there are driveways that access Central Avenue which would necessitate a more porous bike lane.

This is my back of the envelope thinking for accessing the new extension of the North Branch Trail. How would you make the trail easier to access?