Fund public transit! Call your legislators and Gov. Patrick

For those of you with short attention spans for this sort of thing, I'm going to start with my call to action and then move into the essay portion of it.

Did you or someone you know get stuck in Tuesday night's transit nightmare as a result of the red line train derailment? Were you relying on the red line to get you home, or on one of the buses that got pulled off its regular route in order to scramble for the tens of thousands of people who normally get around on the red line? Did you, perhaps, miss your commuter rail train, which runs infrequently after prime hours, due to the delays all over the system? Or were you in a car, and found yourself mired in gridlock as people who normally commute by public transit fled to cabs and private vehicles?

However you feel about the MBTA, effective and reliable public transportation is essential to the daily functioning of the greater Boston metro area. You don't even have to use it for it to make your life better, because if the more than one million daily trips currently served by the MBTA switch to cars, you can believe your commute would not be improved. Our roads don't have the capacity to serve all those trips by car, and our land mass doesn't have the capacity to expand roads to serve them, even if we did want to become Los Angeles.

If public transit makes your life better, call your legislators and the Governor's office today to insist that they fund an effective and reliable public transit system. To find your legislators' information, click here and enter your information. You want to call or write to your Senate and Representative in General Court. Governor Patrick's contact information is at the bottom of this post.

When you call, say that you rely on public transit, and that you want better funding and/or debt relief for the MBTA.

Okay, now I'm going to get into some nitty gritty about the MBTA and its history and why, even if you think it's been mismanaged in the past, it needs more money going into the future:

Also, why do I care? How does this relate to pedestrian advocacy? A robust and reliable public transportation infrastructure supports and encourages the use of walking as a primary or secondary mode of transportation. As a dedicated walker who hopes never to have to own a car in order to function in my life, I'm deeply invested in seeing public transit work well for broad swaths of the population. In Boston and surrounding communities, as in many other cities across the country, this hope is threatened by significant disinvestment in public transit by state and local governments.

In general, the MBTA is pretty great. Oh, sure, I have some of the same complaints that many people do, including poor late night coverage, doubts about effective management, frustration at rising fares without improvements, and annoyance at poor communication with riders when things go wrong. Still, I'm able to use it as my primary mode of urban transportation for distances further than a couple of miles (which I typically walk.) The fact that I and others can rely on it that way often goes unremarked as we focus on our complaints, but it's worth remembering that part of the bad rap the MBTA gets is simply that we're all more likely to be vocal about complaints than compliments.

Why will more money make things better?

In the major transportation reorganization in the state this year, many of the issues people pointed to regarding mismanagement were addressed. Compensation rules are in line, now, with other state transportation departments, and upper management of the MBTA is being reorganized, as well, to improve the agency.

Since 2000, the MBTA has suffered increasing debts due to a change in funding structure. Prior to 2000, the state covered the difference between MBTA revenue and expenditures (and before you complain that public transit needs to pay its own way, I'd like you to show me any road in the state of Massachusetts that does the same -- and most of them are free!!). Starting in 2000, the MBTA started receiving money from sales taxes collected. Unfortunately, due to a slower economy than predicted and the increase in internet spending at that time, these revenues were lower than expected. Paired with Big Dig debt that was shifted to the MBTA, this made a bad situation worse.

Today, one third of every dollar the MBTA spends goes to debt service. This is an immense amount of money. Think what public transit could do with 30% more money! One long-term solution to the problem of funding the MBTA is to reduce their debt load so that money isn't going down the drain every day. But where will that money come from? Increased taxes, naturally. Governor Patrick tried this summer to increase the state gas tax, some of which revenues would have given the T an immense boost. He couldn't muster the political will to make that happen, however, so instead, tens of thousands of people yesterday paid with their time after a train derailment, just as people every day pay with their time when the green line is slow, or there's a switch problem at JFK or a bus doesn't come as scheduled.

I don't care about the MBTA as an agency, but I care a heck of a lot about public transit in the Boston area. It needs more money to work better now and to keep working in the future. Across the country, transportation infrastructure, including transit (like the MBTA), roads and bridges, is suffering deterioration and years of underfunding. Now is the time to change that pattern, and giving mass transit in Massachusetts a boost is part of the solution. Call your legislators and the governor today to encourage them to make forward thinking the bottom line.

Also, consider joining the T Rider's union to advocate for better public transit in the Boston metro area.

Boston, MA Massachusetts State House
Office of the Governor
Office of the Lt. Governor
Room 280
Boston, MA 02133

Phone: 617.725.4005
888.870.7770 (in state)
Fax: 617.727.9725
TTY: 617.727.3666

Santa should have cookies AND veggies if he's going to walk

I am utterly charmed by this analysis of Santa's energy expenditure while delivering presents.

According to our Holiday Calorie Calculator, if Santa had a cup of carrot and celery sticks at each household instead of cookies and milk, he would only consume 50 calories at each house and would only be eating 4.6 billion calories. Because he is burning off 13 billion calories by walking, he would actually lose all of his weight and disappear. A combination of veggies at most households and cookies or skim milk every few households would keep him in energy balance.

Travel lanes vs parking vs active transportation

Getting back to removing travel lanes, we need to become bolder in our thinking and stop believing there’s a level playing field out there. The cities that have high rates of walking and bicycling also have conditions where driving is difficult, expensive, even painful. We cannot continue to think we can add or create walking and bicycling infrastructure while maintaining mobility for drivers and hope to see anything more than a miniscule modal shift. Rare and expensive parking is part of the needed pain for drivers, but off-street parking should be reduced before on-street parking is threatened. We should be advocating for new traffic engineering rules such as “Never have more than two lanes of traffic in each direction.” “Never require a person to cross more than three travel lanes at once.”

Michael Ronkin

Active modes of transportation -- walking and biking (among other, less common forms like, say, rollerblading) -- are an important element of moving people from place to place in urban areas. Because urban space is so constrained, this is more true than in, for example, suburban or rural areas, though those spaces could also benefit from increased biking and walking, where possible. Of course, the density in urban areas also facilitates these choices: you have to have things worth walking or biking within a reasonable distance for that.

If you've been paying attention to this stuff, you're probably aware of the increasing focus on parking, and the way it spreads out human settlements while also making it easier for people to deal with their cars. Cheap or free parking has a lot to answer for in the eyes of new urbanists, smart growth proponents, and others who love the vitality of urban areas. Are cities for cars, or are they for people?

It made my day

A friend recently introduced me to the entertaining website It Made My Day. It has nothing to do with pedestrianism or urban planning; it's just funny little stories about things that made people happy.

So what does that have to do with WalkBoston? Well, I just read one that made my day:

I was in my backyard doing yard work when I heard my neighbor’s two children playing loudly. I realized they were playing cops, but instead of robbers, the offender had run a stop sign, driven in the carpool lane by herself, and changed lanes without signaling.

This just warms the cockles of my traffic-geeky heart.

Texting while driving

Today's Boston Globe reports that the Boston City council is developing a measure to ban texting while driving in the City of Boston.

This is great. As far as I can tell, no one doubts that texting and driving are incompatible activities, and, yet, many people combine them. I will admit that, although I very rarely drive, I have texted while driving.

I know it's unsafe, that it distracts me from the road, and that people like me are exactly the problem. I imagine that other people are in the same position. In the moment, I feel like, if I can just get the text sent, some important piece of information will have been exchanged and then I'll be back at my normal capacity for safe driving. It only takes a moment! This makes it feel more okay than drunk driving, even though studies indicate that it makes you a worse driver than someone who's slightly drunk. That, combined with the inevitable "but I'm a better driver than most people" belief leads to people texting while driving, even though they (we) know better.

As with so many choice is life, I think it's okay for people to make bad choices if the consequences land squarely on their own shoulders. Unfortunately, choices that make people less safe drivers frequently injure and kill people who are not involved in the decision-making process. Given that, I'm in support of policies that encourage people to make the right choice, and this is one of them. I hope the City council is right that this move will spur Massachusetts to finally adopt a similar policy state-wide.

Less texting while driving will make our roads safer for everyone, and that's better.

Six bills to keep an eye on at the federal level

Every six years, the federal transportation bill needs to be re-authorized. The current one is overdue to be reauthorized -- the vote on it was postponed from October to December 18. The following bills could move forward as their own pieces, or get bundled into the broader re-authorization. If any or all of them are of interest to you, it's absolutely worth a call to your legislators. For help finding your senators' and representative's contact information, click here.

Livable Communities Act (S. 1619 / H.R. 3734) – Gives local governments the tools to integrate their transportation, housing, economic development, energy and environment needs by authorizing $400 million in competitive planning grants and $3.75 billion over three years for implementation of sustainable development projects. The bill also creates an inter-departmental council responsible for coordinating sustainable development policies at Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency and others.

Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733) – Allocates 2.4% of the proceeds from auctioned emissions permits to fund clean transportation projects that help reduce carbon emissions. The Senate’s climate bill more than doubles the amount for clean transportation in the House version and substantially incorporates language from a separate marker bill known as CLEAN-TEA (S.575 / H.R. 1329).

Federal Assistance for Transit Operations (H.R. 2746) – Allow public transit agencies representing cities larger than 200,000 people to flex part of their capital transit funds for operating expenses, creating greater flexibility for use of federal dollars in urban areas.

Complete Streets (S.584 / H.R. 1443) – Ensures that all users of the transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, children, older individuals and individuals with disabilities are able to travel safely and conveniently on and across federally funded streets and highways.

Another goal included in the national transportation objectives bill is tripling transit use, cycling, and walking.

National Transportation Objectives (H.R. 2724) – Sets quantifiable national transportation objectives to ensure that federal transportation investments advance national purposes tied to health outcomes, improvements in the areas of energy efficiency, environmental protection, economic competitiveness, safety, safety, connectivity and equal access. This would be the first time the country has established a set of quantifiable national transportation objectives since the Eisenhower-era bill that appropriated money to build the interstate highway system. Some targets in the current version of the bill: reducing driving by 16% and reducing the average household’s combined housing and transportation costs by 25%, over a 20-year period.

Transportation Workforce Development Funding (H.R. 2444) – Requires that 0.5 percent of federal Surface Transportation Program and Highway Bridge funding go toward workforce development and job training. Dedicated funding for workforce development in transportation sector will greatly benefit communities that are currently left out of the labor force, especially low income communities and communities of color.

Transportation for America and the reauthorization of the transportation bill

You all probably already know about Transportation for America, the excellent transportation and lobbying organization that is bringing transportation interests to national planning, beyond the simple cars-and-highway message that has been so prevalent for the last several decades. If you don't, you may want to check them out.

One of the things you can do right off the bat there is send a note to friends and family to encourage them to support more comprehensive thinking in this year's reauthorization of the transportation bill.

Spread the word!

Jaywalking: use your brain so you don't lose it

It won't come as a surprise to anyone to hear that I'm a pretty brazen pedestrian. When I'm in a crosswalk, I don't always wait meekly on the curb for cars to stop as they ought to but often don't; many times, I'll step -- with care -- into the crosswalk and bully drivers into yielding to me as the rules of the road require. I have been known to knock on the windows of cars that have stopped in the middle of crosswalks to point out to the driver that he or she is blocking my way, and once or twice, I have used my newspaper to whack the windshield of a car that ignores the crosswalk in order to save a few seconds. I don't necessarily advocate for others doing the same, but it is important to me that users of all modes share the streets, and when I'm on foot, I consider crosswalks my domain.

Still, though, when I'm out and about in and around Boston, I see a lot of incredibly bad pedestrian behavior. Over the weekend, I was driving along the Riverway in Boston around 9PM, and a couple of young guys crossed in front of me. They were in a crosswalk, at a light ... but crossing against the light. In the dark. On a fast-moving street. After screeching (literally) to a halt on the wet pavement, it was all I could do not to jump out of my car and yell at them. No driver wants to hit a pedestrian, and that moment of a close call is terrifying.

One of my mantras about safety is that everyone is 100% responsible for being safe all the time. Stepping into a crosswalk without looking and attending to oncoming cars makes me 100% responsible for the accident, just as the driver who fails to pay attention and yield is also 100% responsible. In that case, the law is on my side, which would, no doubt, make my stay in the hospital exactly the same as if the law weren't on my side.

I also abhor bad pedestrian behavior because I think it makes other users less respectful of pedestrians in general. I'm not going to tell people not to jaywalk -- there are times when the design of a city or roadway makes it nearly impossible not to, and many more times when the design makes it extremely impractical. But do you really trust strangers to care as much about your life as you do? If you're going to jaywalk, do it with care -- for everyone's sake.

What factors lead to this accident?

Last Monday, my colleague Kate came to work with news from near where she lives in Revere of a pedestrian struck and killed. We haven't found the story in the Globe, yet, but here are a couple of small pieces about it:
WHDH
FOX

Obviously, these are pretty sketchy and preliminary, and there's more information to be had, but I have some questions:

Was the pedestrian in a crosswalk? How fast was the car going? What was the speed limit?

The WHDH article includes a quote from a witness:

"Between the car being black, the pedestrian being dressed in black, with the weather being what it is and the poor lighting...it was just a tragic accident," said Keith Donnelly, a witness.

While wearing black at night does reduce one's visibility to cars (at a week-long festival I attend, people who don't make themselves visible at night are called "darkwads"), there are other factors at work in this -- and other -- accidents, and which we often take for granted and forget to consider:

Design speed: We all know what a speed limit is, and we all know we break it at least some of the time. This is because the speed that a section of roadway is engineered to handle gives us cues that tell us we're safe at higher speeds. Studies have shown that drivers recognize and understand the subconscious clues of roadway engineering and limit themselves by design speed rather than posted speed at least some of the time. Is the design speed for this stretch of road appropriate for the pedestrian use it gets?

If the pedestrian was in a crosswalk, how well-signed and -lit is the crosswalk? Especially if this is a fast stretch of road where pedestrians are relatively infrequent, it's important to call attention to crosswalks and make them as visible and noticeable as possible.

If the pedestrian wasn't in a crosswalk, is it because pedestrian needs aren't served here? Where was the nearest crosswalk?

Yes, drivers are responsible for being attentive to other road users, and pedestrians are responsible for the same, but sometimes the deck is stacked against all users. Whenever I read about a pedestrian accident, I want to know if this was one of those times.

Traffic accidents -- both lethal and non -- are a tragedy for us all.

Complete streets in the news

The concept of "complete streets" -- streets and roadways that are designed not primarily for cars and secondarily for everyone else, but designed right off the bat with all users in mind -- is gaining traction and attention throughout the fields of transportation and urban planning around the US and the world.

Yesterday, US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood wrote on his blog a post titled "Report, petition call for safer roadway planning". In it, he cites Transportation for America's recent report, Dangerous by Design.

Bike and pedestrian advocates have been pushing this message for years, and it's pretty darn exciting to see the conversation really moving into the mainstream.

Does your neighborhood contain complete streets?

More on jaywalking

Continuing with the questions and answers that came up during my chat on the Boston Globe last month:

One of the participants in the chat (Kelly) commented:

Also I've noticed, there is no uniform pedestrian system in Boston. In cities like New York, the lights always cycle through pedestrian walk signs. At the intersection of Beacon St. and Park where dozens of pedestrians cross every cycle, you have to push the button, the walk sign will not appear unless you do. Many people aren't used to that-they expect the walk signal to cycle through because that happens automatically at many other intersections.

And another commenter (Michael) said:

Some how In Seattle, pedestrians and motorist obey the laws in a very civil manner which tells me that enforcement is the issue here in MA. People in Seattle will wait for the light to change before walking even if there are no cars in site.

These two comments go together very nicely, and here's why: Michael is arguing that enforcement would solve the problem of jaywalking in Boston, and Kelly is pointing out that other cities have uniform systems for pedestrians.

If you've spent much time walking around Boston, you've probably noticed what Kelly did: sometimes there's a button for you to push to get a WALK and sometimes there isn't. Sometimes when you push the button, it works, and sometimes it appears to do nothing. If there's no button, you really have no idea if you just didn't find the button or if you'll get a WALK or what.

All of this says to people on foot that their needs have not been strongly considered in the design and construction of the city. And if their needs aren't being met, why should they obey the law? I don't think jaywalkers are like bank robbers and going out of their way to break the law. They're just people trying to run errands and get things done over the course of the day.

So then if I'm a person who crosses when it says DON'T WALK but I'm walking with the green light, fine, that's jaywalking, even though it's probably pretty reasonable from a traffic flow and safety perspective in most cases (lots of intersections all over the state, country and world are set up with pedestrians getting the WALK along with the parallel green), but it's a small chip in the block of the habit of obeying laws that pertain to walkers.

So, where does that leave all of us? We want the streets to be safe for drivers, for cyclists, and for walkers. AND we want people in cars, on foot, and on bikes to be able to get their errands done. Does simply enforcing existing laws succeed in doing that?

Walk rather than T!

Getting around Boston by T and on foot? Check out these10 MBTA trips you should walk instead. Our own Wendy Landman helped identify these!

A defense of jaywalking

Monday, Slate published an article by Tom Vanderbilt (of Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do fame) titled A defense of jaywalking. In it, Vanderbilt addresses some of the complexities of data available about pedestrian behavior, the history of street-use paradigms, and biases in crash reporting.

This is a great article, and if you're interested in jaywalking, walking in urban areas, or mode-sharing paradigms, I think you'll find it worth reading. Check it out!

Why we need pedestrian advocacy ...

Do you walk around your neighborhood and think to yourself, "Hey, this isn't so bad. I can walk from my house to the store to the bus stop and it's really not so hard ..."? Or does your neighborhood look more like this:



(From There, I Fixed It.)

Jaywalking in Boston

As I posted earlier in the month, Boston pedestrians were featured in an article in the Boston Globe a couple of weekends ago. As a followup to that, the Globe asked me to participate in an online chat on the topic the week after the article came out. I did, and the result was a pretty interesting Q&A discussion between me and a variety of Globe readers. For the next few posts here, I'll be adapting some of the questions and answers from that session for us to read here.

First, a bit of introduction. What's the story with jaywalking, anyway?

Jaywalking is kind of a way of life around here. But there's more to it than people just disregarding laws and sometimes their own safety.

When you're in a car, you're pretty much limited to moving along a few limited paths -- streets. But when you're on foot, you have a lot more flexibility, and the way a city is built and designed can encourage you or discourage you from obeying laws that apply to you. And the infrastructure of the city can work well for cars, or for pedestrians, or both (and let's not forget bikes!). When a lot of people are breaking the law, that's a sign that the existing structures aren't working, not merely that people are profligate rule-breakers.

Why would I, as a pedestrian, wait to cross lawfully if it's going to take me 3-5 minutes to cross an intersection that I can see I can cross safely during a break in traffic? It doesn't make sense for me to do that, and it reflects an infrastructure that says in various subtle ways that my needs are not part of the equation, which encourages me to disregard them entirely.

On the other hand, in cities where pedestrians feel like they count, you'll see them waiting at a corner for the WALK light to come, even if there's no oncoming traffic. So, we know it can be done.

Somerville Community Path Sign ribbon cutting!

Pedestrians in Boston

The front page article on this week's Sunday Globe was Crossing to their own beat: Injuries up, but jaywalking abounds on Hub’s busy streets, which had a few quotes from yours truly. That article also has a link to a video about the traffic monitoring setup at City Hall.

I'm sorry that the article focuses so much on the question of fines and enforcement for jaywalking, when I think that, ultimately, that's just a piece in the puzzle of safe street management. There's talk of increasing fines for jaywalking in Massachusetts (currently a laughable $1), which may make sense as a part of a larger strategy for making better use of our streets for all users, but seems to me the wrong place to start. Fines don't improve the street experience for anyone, after all, and what we'd really like to see is a change in how we think about and use streets, rather than a reentrenchment of the same old, same old.

I want this cop's job

The video in this post makes me so happy. I've been watching it from time to time just to give myself a lift.

Next step: Get some Massachusetts municipalities to do the same. At up to $200 per crosswalk violation, it would more than pay for itself.

Walking can be a game!

Research has shown that wearing a pedometer can help people be more active (1, 2). This is great, but ... is it fun? Well, it can be, if your pedometer is also a play-along game like this one!

Hit by a bus

Yesterday, the daughter of a friend of mine was hit by a bus in Davis Square. She's okay, thankfully, but it makes me think about how vulnerable pedestrians are every day. Of course, this is one of the reasons that WalkBoston and other advocacy organizations are so important, even in areas like Davis Square that are reasonably pedestrian friendly.

I don't know the details of what happened beyond what's reported here in the Somerville Journal. And to some degree, I don't need to know the details, because all the issues are the same with pedestrians, vehicles, and crosswalks. And here's what they are:

Pedestrians, we have the right of way in crosswalks in Massachusetts. But, because we're walking around in our vulnerable skins, we should always remember that it doesn't matter whose right of way it was if we get hit -- the hospital visit is the same no matter what. Use care, don't assume cars see us or are prepared to stop for us if they do see us.

Drivers, I know that you're sometimes in a hurry, and driving is stressful, and frequently what you most want is to finish whatever it is that has you in your car so you can stop dealing with traffic and the frustrations that go with it. Still, it's your job to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks, even if you had to stop five times already and are running late. But you really don't want to be the driver who hit a pedestrian, right? Right.

It's easy to be wrapped up in what we're doing, and in our agendas and the hurry and bustle of our days. Each of us needs to be responsible for our own safety, while also taking care of the people we're sharing our space with.