Highway shoulders can become bus lanes, but it takes work

Archive of entries posted by

Highway shoulders can become bus lanes, but it takes work

Posted by Dan Malouff on May 10, 2013

Photo from Minnesota DOT.

Why not let buses drive on highway shoulders to get around congestion? That can be done, and it does often work, but it’s not quite as simple as putting a sign up and saying “let’s do it”.

CDOT is planning shoulder lanes on US-36 as part of the BRT project there. The original plan for US-36 was to have buses use the planned HOT lanes, but the HOT lanes are in the middle, difficult to access from buses that frequently enter and exit the highway. So shoulder lanes there will give buses the more direct lanes they need.

But why stop there? Most highways have shoulders, and a lot of them have buses. With pressure mounting to stretch dollars and improve mobility, creative ideas like putting buses on shoulders make a lot of sense.

The main complicating issue is that highway shoulders are usually too narrow and not free enough from obstructions to immediately open them up to buses. Interstate highway standards call for 9 foot shoulders, but you need at least 10 feet for a bus, and really 11-12 feet is preferable. So a typical highway shoulder will have to be beefed up in order to be used as a bus lane.

That’s a lot easier, and cheaper, than just about anything else you could do. But it’s still a construction project that has to be planned and funded.

On US-36 CDOT is incorporating 12-foot shoulders into its designs for the reconstruction that’s already happening for HOT lanes. But in places that aren’t already undergoing reconstruction, putting buses on shoulders isn’t as easy.

For safety reasons, buses are usually only permitted to go 35 miles per hour when using shoulders next to congested traffic. But that’s enough to get by the worst jams. If traffic is moving faster than that, buses just stay in the regular lanes.

Minneapolis has an extensive network of over 300 miles of shoulder bus lanes on highways. But it’s taken them over 20 years to get there. They have a continuous program that adds a few miles each year. They started with the low-hanging fruit, and have worked up to more complicated stretches.

This idea can improve bus service, draw more riders to transit, and reduce highway congestion. It’s win-win-win. But it takes planning, and isn’t free. CDOT should be commended for using it on US-36, but should also consider where else it might work.

Filed under Multi-Modal Transport, Transit.

2 Comments

Read Walkable City, by Jeff Speck

Posted by Dan Malouff on May 6, 2013

Walkable City describes the benefits of urbanism, and proscribes how to make good urbanism happen. It’s a worthy read, for both newbies and hardened Jane Jacobs veterans.

I don’t read many mass market city planning books anymore, because so many of them say the same things. But when I heard one of the authors of Suburban Nation had his own book, I had to give it a shot. Suburban Nation is still the most eminently readable and easy to understand discussion of 20th Century suburbs, and why urban neighborhoods are better.

In some ways, Walkable City is like all those other books. It says mixed use and transit are good, wide highways and blank walls are bad. Most of us in the city planning world already know these things.

But Walkable City is worth reading, because Speck gathers a mountain of data supporting most of the arguments in contemporary urbanism, and then presents it in a convincing, methodological, and easy to read way. If you already know the basics, Walkable City is the most complete reference available.

And it does have new arguments. For example, Speck’s discussion of walkable architecture is intriguing, and explains in detail why it isn’t the ornament of historic buildings that makes them superior to most contemporary ones, but that they have layers of interesting things to look at, from different scales, and that walkers can interact with them in ways other than staring at a wall (even a decorated one).

Maybe I just like the book because I’m in it. Much to my surprise. I was reading it one day on the Metro and then, unexpectedly, on page 58, saw my own name, quoted regarded LEED architecture.

But perhaps the best thing I can say about Walkable City is this: After reading the first couple of chapters in a cafe, I went home, got a pen, and started over. Now my copy is covered with notes and squiggles from front to back.

Filed under Advocacy, General Urbanism, Pedestrians, Walkability.

4 Comments

Foxx has the makings of a great Transportation Secretary

Posted by Dan Malouff on May 2, 2013

Earlier this week, President Obama nominated Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx as the next Secretary of Transportation. If Foxx’s experience in Charlotte is any indication, he’ll make a strong choice.

During his nomination press conference, Foxx said “cities have had no better friend” than the US Department of Transportation under outgoing Secretary Ray LaHood, and that if confirmed he would hope to “uphold the standards” LaHood set. That’s great news.

The fact that Foxx comes from a major central city is also a huge benefit. It means he understands urban needs, which aren’t just highways.

Charlotte may not be New York, but it’s made great strides in the right direction. The city’s first rail line opened a few years ago, and a streetcar line is under construction now. Charlotte also gained bronze-level status as a bike friendly community in 2008, and launched bikesharing in 2012.

Foxx has been a strong advocate for urban rail, especially streetcars. He knows transportation and land use are tied at the hip, and has fought repeated attacks on Charlotte’s streetcar by former Mayor and current North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory.

He’s also worked as an attorney for bus manufacturer DesignLine.

Foxx also knows that state Departments of Transportation can sometimes be part of the problem. At the federal level, it’s common for USDOT to delegate responsibilities and funding to state DOTs, under the assumption the states have a better understanding of local needs. But state DOTs aren’t any more local than any huge centralized government. And since they usually focus on highways, the result is that federal dollars mostly go to highways as well.

Since Foxx fought with the state over Charlotte’s streetcar, he knows that funneling everything through state DOTs means states hold the cards. He knows that can hurt cities.

Of course, no one can really predict what kind of Secretary Foxx will be. When progressive champion Ray LaHood was first tapped for the job, the blogosphere worried his history as a Republican from rural Illinois meant he’d be a status quo highway builder.

But we do know that Foxx has made a priority of building transit in his home city, and has had to fight to make it happen.

Filed under General Urbanism, Multi-Modal Transport.

1 Comment

Breaking: Obama taps Charlotte mayor as next Transportation Secretary

Posted by Dan Malouff on April 29, 2013

President Obama today officially nominated Anthony Foxx to be the next federal Secretary of Transportation. Foxx is the Mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, and will have to be confirmed by Congress before he can take office. Foxx will replace outgoing Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

DenverUrbanism will have more about Mr. Foxx, and what cities can expect from him, later this week.

Filed under General Urbanism, Multi-Modal Transport.

Comment

What are America’s densest neighborhoods?

Posted by Dan Malouff on April 3, 2013

Last week’s post about Colorado’s densest neighborhoods showed where density is clustered in Denver and other Front Range cities. Now let’s look at the densest spots in the core areas of other large cities around the US.

This post shows the census tract density of the central county (only) in each of America’s 20 largest Urban areas, in both 2000 and 2010. The list is in order of size, so New York is first, LA second, and Denver 18th.

Note that the scale on these maps is different than on the Colorado ones from last week, since the scale of density in cities nationwide is more broad than just within Colorado. All the maps in this thread do show the same scale compared to each other.

1. New York: America’s biggest city breaks the scale. While others on this list might have a few neighborhoods in the top density category, which on these maps is 40,000 ppsm and higher, New York is covered end to end. It’s one of only 4 cities with any tracts above 100,000 ppsm. Its peak is 200,000 ppsm.
2000	2010

2. Los Angeles: Despite its reputation for sprawl, LA compares favorably to the densest cities after New York. Its peak density of 94,000 ppsm is 4 times denser than Denver’s peak of 23,000 ppsm.
2000	2010

3. Chicago: Home to probably the single-densest census tract in America, a 508,000 ppsm anomaly that’s just a single high rise, and is so small it’s not visible at normal scale. Besides that tract, Chicago tops around at about the same level as LA.
2000	2010

4. Miami: Thanks to more narrowly-drawn census tracts along its high-rise coast, Miami’s peak density shot up from 38,000 ppsm in 2000 to 77,000 ppsm in 2010, but the actual change wasn’t as significant on the ground.
2000	2010

5. Philadelphia: Philadelphia’s peak rose from 54,000 ppsm in 2000 to 64,000 in 2010.
2000	2010

6. Dallas: Despite a lot of regional growth, Dallas’ density dropped significantly. It has fewer dense tracts in 2010 than in 2000, and its peak is down to 44,000 ppsm from 57,000 ppsm.
2000	2010

7. Houston: Unlike Dallas, Houston appears to be densifying. Oddly, its densest area, with 55,000 ppsm, is not the core.
2000	2010

8. Washington (with Arlington & Alexandria): Washington’s peak density increased from 57,000 ppsm to 66,000 ppsm. Note that this map includes 2 jurisdictions in addition to the central county, unlike all others on this list.
2000	2010

9. Atlanta: Not only is Atlanta shockingly sparse, its densest tract fell from 41,000 ppsm in 2000 to just 21,000 ppsm in 2010. The explanation? A downtown public housing complex was demolished, erasing the population of the densest 2000 tract.
2000	2010

10. Boston: One of only 4 cities with a tract above 100,000, Boston has a single tract that reaches 110,000 ppsm.
2000	2010

11. Detroit: Detroit’s peak density of 18,000 ppsm is about the same as in 2000, but the number of mid-density tracts above 10,000 ppsm declined significantly as the city continued to empty.
2000	2010

12. Phoenix: Phoenix tops out at 23,000 ppsm, the same as central Denver. But unlike Denver, Phoenix is strongly de-centralized. It has no visible downtown core, and its 23,000 ppsm tract is in the suburbs.
2000	2010

13. San Francisco: San Francisco has more tracts above 100,000 ppsm than any city except New York. It tops out at 161,000 ppsm.
2000	2010

14. Seattle: With a peak of 51,000 ppsm and a small but significant core, Seattle is smaller than the other big coastal cities on this list, but still strongly centralized and quite dense.
2000	2010

15. San Diego: While downtown San Diego densified compared to 2000, and its 50,000 ppsm peak is higher, some of its other denser neighborhoods are sparser in 2010. The densest area is Mission Valley instead of the core.
2000	2010

16. Minneapolis: Of all the cities on this list, Minneapolis looks the most similar to Denver. Its distinct core of moderate density neighborhoods topped out at 25,000 ppsm in both 2000 and 2010.
2000	2010

17. Tampa: By far the sparsest city on this list, Tampa’s peak of 13,000 ppsm means it has no tracts in the 3rd or 4th categories, and precious few crack even into the 2nd. Boulder and Aurora are denser, Lakewood is about the same.
2000	2010

18. Denver: Denver is like a hybrid of sparse sunbelt cities and dense coastal ones. Like coastal cities, Denver has a noticeable core of dense neighborhoods near downtown. But like the sunbelt ones, Denver’s densest spot is in a suburban area, a 31,000 ppsm tract in Glendale. Denver’s urban peak of 23,000 ppsm is slightly lower than it was in 2000, when Capitol Hill was 26,000 ppsm. The drop is most likely due to demographic changes, as more singles but fewer families live in the same places. Densities increased in downtown and LoDo, but not yet enough to be visible at this scale.
2000	2010

19. Baltimore: Baltimore’s lone tract in the densest category is an impressive 86,000 ppsm, but that tract is down from a whopping 176,000 ppsm in 2000. Why such variation, and why 1 tract so much denser than all the others? That one extreme tract is a prison.
2000	2010

20. Saint Louis: Saint Louis’ losses have been less drastic than Detroit’s, but they still hurt. Its peak is down to a Tampa-like 13,000 ppsm, from 15,000 ppsm in 2000.
2000	2010