If D.C. is going to be ready for the arrival of electric cars later this year, it's going to have to begin installing more public charging stations, like this one in Oregon. Photo: Todd Mecklem, flickr.

They’ve been all over the news lately – the Chevrolet Volt, the Nissan Leaf, the Tesla Roadster. And they’re coming soon: Electric vehicles are expected to hit the streets late this year. If they make the splash automakers and sustainable transport advocates hope they will, they could change our world. Nissan’s President and CEO predicts that 10% of cars sold by 2020 will be electric vehicles, and 56,000 Americans have already pre-ordered the Leaf.

The success or failure of electric cars does not depend solely on working out the kinks with the cars themselves.  Cities will play a major role in determining how far this technology goes. The municipal level is where two critical issues will be resolved: 1) the reinforcement of the local electric grid and, 2) the development of charging infrastructure. Without effective action on these fronts, electric cars will be basically unusable.

These issues are particularly pressing in D.C. Our hometown is one of the three initial launch markets for the Chevy Volt, which will be cruising down Pennsylvania Avenue by November or December. How electric vehicles are received in Washington, which is not only a test market but also the place where they’ll be experienced by our country’s decision makers, will set the stage for their reception all over the country.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like much is happening in Washington at this time.  The D.C. government has talked about charging stations, but is  waiting for more information from the private sector after issuing a request for information, whose deadline was in February.

Pepco has unveiled two charging stations in its own garage and will open eight more across its service areas in D.C., Maryland, Delaware and southern New Jersey later this year.  Smart meters and smart grid technologies will be incorporated into the stations to collect information about energy consumption. The company also purchased 10 Volts that will be driven by employees as part of a two-year demonstration project to assess the impact of these vehicles on the electric system.

Additionally, a few private businesses have purchased charging stations for installation in their parking garages this summer.

It’s a positive sign that the D.C. government and its partners are taking at least some action, and it’s important to collect information.  However, in comparison to the progress being made by other city governments, these steps seem to fall short of what’s needed, and are moving very slowly considering electric vehicles will be hitting our streets in as little as eight months.

For instance, Seattle, one of the test markets for the Nissan Leaf, plans to install 2,500 public charging stations this year and is working with utilities to find optimum locations. San Francisco hopes to have 60 charging stations installed in public garages by year end, with a thousand more available across the Bay Area in 2011.

General Motors Corp. believes that most Volt owners will charge their vehicles at home or at the workplace, and some cities are exploring how to streamline the bureaucracy owners will need to work through to install private charging stations. For example, San Francisco is revising building codes to require that new structures be wired for car chargers.

Officials in other cities are also tackling concerns about the overloading of the electrical grid that could come with large-scale adoption of electric vehicle technologies. With a single car consuming three times as much electricity as a typical home, there could be a danger of neighborhood blackouts. In response to this worry, Pacific Gas and Electric executives are preparing “heat maps” of neighborhoods that they fear may overload the power grid with their widespread use of electric cars. The utility is also leading a large-scale “smart charging” pilot project later this year where it will connect 200 cars to special charging stations that let utilities control the electrical demand at any given moment.

Additionally, some utilities are taking action to educate consumers about how and when to charge their electric vehicle.

Perhaps spurred on by all of this action, companies in other cities are investing in electric vehicle technology, as well. The Adobe headquarters in San Jose has a dozen charging stations in the parking garage and 18 more coming this year, and the parking lot of Google headquarters already has 100 charging stations.

With so much riding on the effective implementation of electric vehicle infrastructure, the D.C. government should begin implementation soon, perhaps in partnership with  Maryland’s new Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program.

DC's transit system is one of many across the country facing budget and ridership woes during the recession. Photo: MJM, flickr.

As the latest installment of its series Moving through the Recession, TheCityFix DC conducted an email interview with Thomas Harrington, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s Director of Long-Range Planning.  Parts 1 and 2 of the series, featured on TheCityFix Global, documented the 2008 peak in transit ridership and subsequent slippage, as well as the ongoing service cuts being experienced across the nation.  The Washington area is no exception to these trends.  Harrington discusses the impacts of the recession here at home on DC’s transit services and riders. Among his biggest concerns is dealing with an estimated $189 million budget shortfall. According to recent public hearings, he says, people favor moderate fare increases, as opposed to service cuts.

TheCityFix DC: How has the recession impacted Metrorail and Metrobus ridership?

Thomas Harrington: Ridership in Fiscal Year 2010 (July 2009 – June 2010) was down for both Metrorail and Metrobus.  Through the first six months of FY2010, total ridership was 172.6 million trips, 7 million trips below the same period last year and 14 million trips below what we had projected in our budget.

Source: WMATA

The drop in ridership in FY2010 came after a continuous period of growth in both rail and bus ridership from previous years.  Prior statistical analysis has shown that weekday ridership for bus and rail is highly correlated with downtown employment levels.   The drop in bus ridership is more significant than for rail, and we believe that may be due to the state of the economy, which has resulted in a loss of jobs in the service sector.

The overall decrease in Metrorail ridership includes the decrease in ridership that occurred in July and August 2009 and was related to the reduced service levels on the Red Line after the fatal train collision in June 2009.

Author’s Note: According to supplementary materials provided by Harrington, Metrorail is also experiencing a growth in short trips and a decline in long-distance trips.  The economic downturn seems to be impacting longer trips, while the growth of population and activities in the core are influencing the rise in shorter trips.

TCF DC: How has the recession impacted your budget?

TH: As has been well publicized, Metro is confronting a significant shortfall in its fiscal year 2011 operating budget.  If Metro were to offer the services it currently offers without change and to receive the revenues currently forecast, Metro staff estimate the system would experience an operating deficit in FY 2011 of $189 million.

The recession affects Metro’s budget in a few ways.  The most direct impact is the drop in revenues due to the ridership decreases discussed above.  Metro’s advertising contract expires this year, and we expect any new contract to provide significantly lower revenue.  As the economy has faltered, so has the private sector’s ability to maintain or implement costly advertising campaigns.  Finally, the recession has affected all of the local governments in the region, which provide about half of Metro’s total operating and capital budget annually.

The budget shortfall is a result of lower revenues and increased expenses.  For example:

Decrease in Revenues – $74.7 million total

• $23.8 million in revenue due to lower ridership and parking revenues;
• $27 million from a multi-year advertising contract that expires on June 30; and
• $13.3 million in reserve funds that were used in FY2010 and will not be available in FY2011

Increase in Expenditures – $114.5 million total

• $35 million in contractual labor costs;
• $33.9 million in fringe benefits, which includes health care and pension contributions; and
• $27 million in increased our paratransit service (MetroAccess) costs due to higher ridership

Metro’s preliminary budget proposal to close the $189 million shortfall includes a combination of fare increases, Metrorail and Metrobus service reductions (a last resort), changes to the MetroAccess fare structure and service area allowed under the Americans with Disabilities Act and administrative cuts, including a reduction in personnel.  Another $40 million has yet to be identified to fully close the gap.

TCF DC: Do you have any projections of impacts on ridership, commute times or air quality if you were forced to cut service?

TH: Our General Manager and our Board of Directors are always hesitant to reduce service and they have stated publicly that any service reductions will be considered as a last resort.  We know that people rely on us to get from point A to point B and a reduction in service will impact that trip. This is one reason that we look at ridership and travel time impacts when we are considering service reductions.  This type of detailed information is often included in public hearings on service changes.  We do not typically consider air quality impacts. It is unclear whether the service changes considered in the past (for example, adjustments in span of service or headways on a few bus routes) would have a significant impact on air quality.

A public hearing was conducted January 27, 2010 to obtain public comment on proposed measures to bridge the estimated $40 million operating budget deficit Metro is facing at the end of Fiscal Year 2010.  Generally people indicated that they preferred a modest fare increase to a reduction in service. The public hearing report documents some of the service changes that were considered and provides a summary of public testimony.

Author’s Note: Greater Greater Washington has covered the ridership impacts of various proposed service reductions for Metrorail and Metrobus.  For Metrorail, these range from 60,000 riders lost annually with lesser changes like seasonal adjustments and weekend station closures, to 2.7 million riders lost with major cuts, such as widening weekday headways and reducing weekday peak service.  For Metrobus, ridership losses could range from 935,000 to 3,874,000 annually, depending on the severity of service cuts.

Additionally, some of the proposed service reductions – headway widening, reducing weekday peak service, restructuring red line service, etc. – would have clear implications for commute times.

TCF DC: Have you done any analysis of how much users are willing to pay to maintain service at present levels?

TH: We don’t have quantitative data on willingness to pay to save service, but we do have feedback from the public on the subject, which is included in the post-hearing report.  At the January hearing, a majority of respondents were in favor of fare increases and opposed to service cuts.  We heard similar feedback when we considered possible service cuts in 2009.

TCF DC: How could local jurisdictions assist you now and in the future in order to avoid these issues?

TH: The reason for budget shortfalls in recent years is simple – revenues and subsidies have not kept pace with the cost of providing the service that the region demands.  Metro, like all other public transit systems in the U.S., does not fully cover operating costs with farebox revenue.  Funding for Metro’s annual operating budget includes 50% from passenger fares and parking fees, 40% from state and local funds, and 10% from other revenue sources such as advertising.  Metrorail has one of the highest farebox cost recovery ratios in the country – with roughly 80% of costs paid for by customers or from other revenue sources.  Metrobus fares cover about 30% of operating costs, which is similar to other bus systems around the country.  MetroAccess fares cover only 4% of operating costs, a significant concern because of the rapid growth in paratransit trips – up 33% just in the past two years.  In order to sustain public transit service, the region will need to look for new approaches to managing the rise in operating costs, such as priority lanes for buses on roadways and managing the demand for paratransit services.

Because Metro’s bus and rail fares have not kept up with inflation, the region has historically stepped in each year to increase Metro’s operating subsidy to ensure the agency’s fiscal stability.  In recent years, however, Metro’s funders have been significantly challenged to continue providing the subsidy increases.  There is a need for the region to address Metro’s ongoing funding requirements in a more comprehensive and long-term way.

TCF DC: How was Metro impacted by previous recessions?  Were there any lingering effects after the economy picked up?

TH: There have been previous recessions, particularly in the mid-1990s, that had a big impact on Metro.  Typically ridership has rebounded quickly and the overall growth trend has been positive.  In the 1992-1995 timeframe, a significant amount of bus service was reduced in the District of Columbia due to a lack of funding support from the DC government.

TCF DC: Has Metro experienced any other unexpected impacts of the economic slowdown?

TH: No. From the perspective of long-range planning, it has been noteworthy to see how the recession came on the heels of record ridership growth in 2008 due at least in part to high gasoline prices.  While the focus in the short term is on sustaining the system, the long-term outlook suggests that ridership growth will return soon, particularly if gas prices increase.

Metro is projected to continue growing over the next 10 years, with a 20% increase in ridership on Metrorail and 10-15% increase in ridership on Metrobus expected by 2020. MetroAccess, the paratransit service for people who cannot use fixed-route bus or rail systems, is expected to experience the fastest growing ridership over the next ten years with an increase of 112%.

Wisconsin Avenue in DC is slated for bus corridor improvements under the TIGER grant program, which awards funding based on the extent to which a project achieves certain goals. This model should be replicated in new federal legislation. Photo: vpickering, flickr.

Last week, the Senate passed its jobs legislation, which would send $19.5 billion to the highway trust fund and extend the 2005 transportation law (SAFETEA-LU). The House will act on jobs legislation this week.

Among other things, the Senate bill proposes giving $932 million in grants to states using the template of 2009 earmarks. In other words, the bill would keep money flowing to the 2009 beneficiaries of two grant programs created by SAFETEA-LU, directing the majority of funding to four states (California, Washington, Louisiana, and Illinois) and leaving 22 states empty-handed. Critics of this approach, including House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN), would prefer to see these dollars allocated competitively rather than distributed by formula. The House jobs bill would free up the money for a merit-based process, with all 50 states eligible to submit their transport plans.

Supporters of the bill in the Senate argue that opening up funding to a competitive process would not facilitate the quick job creation they’re seeking. However, there is a solution that meets both the Senate demands for swiftness and House calls for a merit-based approach – the funds could be distributed to existing, unfunded applicants to the TIGER program. The TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grant program was a highly successful mechanism for funding quality highway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects. Candidates had to show that they met the program’s goals of maximizing job creation, sustainability, livability and safety. USDOT received more than 1,400 applications worth $57 billion for $1.5 billion in available grants. To address concerns about excluding the states and localities that were not prepared to submit TIGER proposals last time, half of the funding could be reserved for a new round of grants with a short application period and a rapid turnaround time at DOT. (These applicants could also participate in the TIGER follow-up program to which Congress has appropriated $600 million.)

As eight House members from the North Carolina delegation stated in a letter to House leaders, federal transportation dollars should fund “projects of national significance.” Prioritizing transportation investments that further national goals of economic development, environmental sustainability, safety, livability and mobility is the way of the future and the best means to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent on projects with long-term benefits for all Americans. As we move towards a performance-based funding system, the TIGER process provides policy makers an important opportunity to pilot and learn from the use of performance metrics. Congress should take advantage of this chance to expand a valuable grant program that paves the way for future transportation policy.

In response to Oberstar’s objections, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that the funding issue will be “corrected” in later legislation, and it is essential that the Senate follow through on this commitment. Simply extending existing language perpetuates unproductive transportation funding formulas that are heavily weighted towards highways at the expense of transit, bike and pedestrian projects with their many corollary benefits, including greenhouse gas emissions reductions and higher economic multipliers. Our experience with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act showed us that stimulus funds spent on public transportation were a more effective job creator than those spent on highways. Investments in public transit produced twice as many jobs per dollar as investments in roads.

A good first step in targeting transportation funding towards projects that support national goals is the “fix-it-first” initiative currently being discussed that would prioritize the rehabilitation and operation of existing transportation infrastructure – such as repaving roads and preventative bridge maintenance – over the building of new roads. Restoring our transportation systems to a state of good repair would increase safety and reduce fuel usage. Additionally, road and bridge maintenance and repair projects have been found to generate more jobs than new road or bridge projects.

As Congress works through the jobs bill this week, let’s hope that our Senators and Representatives take a comprehensive approach to boosting the economy, doing so in a manner that supports vital American priorities and paves the way for an improved federal transportation reauthorization.

A snow plow gets towed in the aftermath of the blizzard. Photo by theqspeaks.

More questions were asked than answered at this morning’s public oversight hearing on the District’s response to the recent “snow events” (i.e. back-to-back blizzards in February.) The hearing, held in the John A. Wilson Building, was led by Councilmember Jim Graham, who was joined by an official panel of D.C. councilmembers, who tried to understand the successes and failures of the District Department of Transportation’s snow removal efforts.

Which neighborhoods got the best and worst treatment? How effectively did DDOT document what was cleared and what wasn’t? How should the city have engaged with residents to coordinate more volunteer shoveling efforts? To what degree was sidewalk accessibility a part of the city’s snow removal plan? How should DDOT train its front line personnel, in case of another snow emergency? Who’s responsible for clearing sidewalks and bus stops?

These and other questions were still largely unresolved by the end of the meeting and will continue to receive feedback from city leaders and their constituents over a planned series of hearings that will occur over the next several weeks.

The one question that wasn’t asked — but should have been — is about the bigger picture: Did the city learn anything about how it should prioritize pedestrians and transit users when we’re NOT in a snowstorm? It’s great to come up with a more robust emergency response policy — a contingency plan — in the event we get hit with another blizzard, but it would be even better to use the recent “snowmaggedon” experience to identify weaknesses and propose solutions related to the city’s transportation and urban planning decisions, as a whole.

DDOT Director Gabe Klein and Department of Public Works Director Bill Howland gave their testimony in front of about 25 people who attended the hearing. To a large degree, they asserted, the District was successful in responding to the snowstorms, but at the same time, the conditions were hard to measure because there is no clear standard for dealing with 40 to 50 inches of snow. (Klein expressed confidence in dealing with up to 18 inches of the white stuff.) In response, Councilmember Graham said he would like the Council to consider a new set of standards that will hopefully manage the expectations — and thus quell the frustration and anger — of many local residents who faced problems during the region’s unprecedented snowfall.

Besides generating negative feelings and causing a lot of confusion, the snowstorm also placed a huge drain on the city’s finances. Klein, who is “still tallying” the numbers, said the city had already exceeded the $6.2 million budget for snow removal before the historic storms even hit, so he anticipates significant costs over budget.

DON’T BLAME THE MESSENGER

One of the biggest problems that fed many snow-related frustrations — from figuring out which buses were running to coordinating volunteer shoveling activities — was a lack of communication, both between different municipal departments and among local residents.

“Having a lot of volunteers and effectively organizing them are two different things,” Graham said, providing one example of how a communication breakdown prevented successful community-wide engagement. “The city should have a plan.”

But of course, a plan is worthless without a way to broadcast it to everyone. Councilmember Mary Cheh recommended the “use of listservs or some other vehicle.” Councilmember Graham admitted that he sent a direct e-mail to Gabe Klein himself, alerting him to an uncleared section of Livingstone Road. Klein, who has worked hard to improve DDOT’s communications strategy,  gave special shout-outs to Twitter and Facebook during his testimony — hopefully, it’s a sign that DDOT will continue to take advantage of  social media to get the word out about its plans. Consistent and direct communication would ease the worries of many residents who aren’t sure whether or not “help is on the way,” as Cheh said, and it would also help city agencies keep track of its own priorities.

As we mentioned in a previous post, many snow removal efforts were organized at the grassroots level, often through collaborative online tools, like SeeClickFix (whose maps are embedded across TheCityFix local blogs). During his public testimony, David Alpert, the founder of Greater Greater Washingon, highlighted some of his own efforts to organize volunteer outings to clear the snow in neighborhoods like Columbia Heights, Foggy Bottom and Georgetown, as well as on roads like Connecticut Avenue. But, he added, city officials should not just rely on residents but, instead, have a plan of their own.

BOGGED DOWN BY DETAILS

This morning’s hearing also made it clear that there’s a lot of complexity in snow removal. “It’s very technical,” Klein said.

There’s the question of whether to use salt or beet brine to melt snow (who knew the root vegetable was so powerful). Then there’s all that equipment: Bobcats, front-end loaders, plows, tractors…  There’s the management of a GPS-based Snow Response Reporting System. And then there’s the thorny issue of who owns what sidewalk/street/bus stop, and who’s responsible for keeping it safe and clear? Is it DDOT? DPW? NPS? DCRA? WMATA? Clear Channel? Who should be the District’s Snow Commander-in-Chief? (This year, it was Robert Marsili.) To which “Snow University” should we send city personnel to get trained on snow clearance? What snow “simulator” should we buy? What’s the best snow melting machine on the market right now?

When you consider that a 50-inch snowfall is hard to come by, it seems like overkill (…”snoverkill?”) to invest too much effort in determining the best technology to choose. There are faster, low-cost solutions, like revising regulations to make sure cars only park on one side of the street in certain neighborhoods during a snow emergency, as proposed by Councilmember Muriel Bowser. Or hiring unemployed people (or underutilized city staff) to help clear giant snow dams blocking sidewalks, curbs and intersections, as proposed by Councilmember Cheh.

KEEPING PEDESTRIANS IN MIND

The general public was invited to give testimony following the Councilmembers’ discussions and comments. Cheryle Adams, a pedestrian safety advocate, noted that there is a great disparity in the way the city handles pedestrians and automobiles. She said the city should have focused more on deploying small tractors to clear snow from curb cuts and bus stops, rather than just main streets. She said the District snow team should include a strategy for clearing intersections with the highest number of pedestrians, especially during rush hour. And though the snowstorm was an isolated event, it was still indicative of the city’s priorities, Adams said. “During winter snow storms, that’s the greatest test,” she said, referring to pedestrian safety and mobility.

Councilmember Graham agreed and said that DDOT will work to address more pedestrian issues, during its full de-briefing of snow removal efforts. “We’ve spent so much time worrying about how automobiles move, that we’re forgetting how people move on their feet,” he said.

David Alpert from Greater Greater Washington echoed Adams’ sentiments, saying, “It’s vital we have a plan for pedestrian mobility.” Considering half of residents in D.C. commute to work by transportation other than a car, we must ensure pedestrians are safe, he reiterated.

Transportation advocates hope that Senator Voinovich's commitment to bring a reauthorization bill to the floor this year will push lawmakers to agree on new funding sources. Today's panelists support increasing the gas tax, but have an uphill battle ahead in Congress. Photo by jcarlosn.

On the heels of Senator George Voinovich’s announcement earlier this week that the Senate will take up the long-term reauthorization of the U.S. transportation bill this year, Voinovich (R-OH) and several colleagues gathered at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, D.C. this morning to discuss the future of transportation spending. All were eager to get to work on reauthorization. “We need to start preconferencing the bill right now,” Voinovich said.

The panelists, which included Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) and former Senator Slade Gorton (R-WA) showed support for a performance-based transportation funding system, in which money would be allocated based on projects’ ability to further national transportation goals.

Expressing hope for bipartisan cooperation on reauthorization, the legislators maintained that there are greater opportunities to reach across party lines on transportation as opposed to other issues. Senator Gorton discussed how the divides over transportation are more often between states or urban and rural areas, and are driven by the formula funding system. Blumenauer reflected that he’s never seen such alignment of interest on infrastructure-related issues, likely driven in part by the economic crisis. Dedicating adequate funding to transportation will allow Congress to “create jobs in an area where we know jobs will be created” and give the public confidence in at least one sector of the economy, said Voinovich.

Voinovich stressed that conservatives will support reauthorization for its infrastructure, economic and environmental benefits – and the fact that it will cover its costs. However, this ability to pay relies on a gas tax increase, enthusiastically billed as “the right thing to do” by Voinovich but an unpopular measure in Congress. Carper emphasized the need for the White House to provide cover for lawmakers who want to support the increase. However, the Obama administration has not supported raising the gas tax.

Voinovich called on the White House to be more present in the overall transportation bill process, noting that they have not been at the table. Blumenauer cited the need for dialogue between President Obama and John Boehner, Minority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Panelists concurred that addressing transportation funding is integral to dealing with the deficit. “User fees are the way we’re going to break the larger fiscal conundrum,” said Blumenauer.

The Congressmen also stressed the need for a national transportation vision, akin to one put forth by the Eisenhower administration when promoting the Interstate system. Gorton credited the program’s popularity to the fact that the American public understood its goals and saw a return on their investment as highways were built.

The panelists pointed out several additional issues that need work in the coming ten months:

• Redefining the federal-state relationship, with each party taking on an appropriate financial burden
• Resolving the issue of donor-donee states, the competition for funding between states that send more in federal fuel tax dollars than they receive in federal funding and those that receive more than they contribute
• Achieving the right level of flexibility in state and local use of funding
• The eventual need to move to a system where fees are based on vehicle miles traveled. This is currently being piloted in Oregon, and Blumenauer is promoting legislation that would expand the pilot to every state.
• How revenue from a climate cap-and-trade system could fund transportation, and whether it will supplement or replace an increase in the gas tax

Councilmember George Leventhal enters a bi-articulated express bus in Curitiba. Photo via Maryland Politics Watch.

Montgomery County Councilmember George Leventhal wrote a post for Maryland Politics Watch about his recent trip to Curitiba, Brazil, where he learned about bus rapid transit, since Montgomery County is exploring BRT as a transit option for its residents. (Recently, the county’s proposed Corridor Cities Transitway has been examining the bus option. And last year, the Purple Line was also in consideration as a BRT project, though Gov. O’Malley eventually chose light rail.) A self-professed light rail supporter, Leventhal recognizes some of the benefits of BRT and says it would be a good choice for heavily trafficked corridors like Veirs Mill Road, Georgia Avenue and Rockville Pike.

Leventhal had a chance to meet with Nancy Kete, the director of EMBARQ (producer of this blog) and Toni Lindau, director of the Center for Sustainable Transport in Brazil (a member of the EMBARQ Network). “It was a wonderful visit and Curitiba is a beautiful city,” Leventhal said. “I am so happy I made the trip.” Read about the lessons he learned, below:

By George Leventhal

Curitiba, a city of 1.8 million people, is the capital of the state of Paraná in Brazil. In late December, I visited Curitiba at my own expense and was briefed on its Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, one of the world’s first and most highly-regarded. Because Montgomery County is studying BRT as an option for its residents, I wanted to find out how it is working in other communities. I found many positive aspects and some less positive.

My sincere thanks to Silvia Mara Dos Santos Ramos of URBS (Urbanizacao de Curitiba, S/A), the city’s transit agency, and André Vinicius Marchezetti of transportation consulting firm Logitrans, who were the guides for my visit. Officials at EMBARQ, a project of the World Resources Institute, and its Brazilian Center for Sustainable Transport were also extremely helpful in helping me make contact with the guides in Curitiba.

…………………

Lessons for Montgomery County, Maryland

According to Ms. Dos Santos, the rate of automobile ownership in Curitiba is 22%, while transit usage is 40% and the balance of commuters travel by motorcycle or motor scooter, or walk. This helps to explain why ridership of the BRT system is so high and why farebox revenues cover operating costs.

By contrast, in Montgomery County, 66% of workers drive to work alone while only 14.9% commute by rail or bus, according to the 2008 American Community Survey.

Another important difference is the price of gasoline, which is substantially more expensive in Brazil (R$2.49 Brazilian Reals per liter, or approximately U.S. $5.20 per gallon, while I was there) than in the U.S., making automobile travel substantially less affordable for working Brazilians.

The critical question is whether increased frequency, speed and convenience would persuade enough Montgomery County residents to ride the bus to make the system financially sustainable. Even in Curitiba, where per capita income was R$17,977 Brazilian Reals (U.S. $10,005) in 2006, upscale people do not ride the bus – and there are far more upscale people in Montgomery County, where per capita income is U.S. $35,684.

The county’s current Ride-On bus system generates only approximately 15% of its revenue from fares, with the remainder subsidized from general tax revenues. The current budget crisis has highlighted the Ride-On system’s significant expense to taxpayers, although the County Council has so far resisted cuts in Ride-On service proposed by the County Executive. How much more can we afford to expand the bus system even if the current 85% subsidy from all taxpayers decreased to a subsidy of 80%, 75% or lower?

Also relevant is that the county’s bus storage and maintenance facility is at its absolute limit of available space, and a new storage and maintenance facility proposed for Clarksburg has been delayed because of concerns over runoff into Ten Mile Creek, so there is currently no place to store additional buses in the county.

An express bus departs from tube stations.

Curitiba has a long history of transit service, dating back to horse-drawn trolleys in 1887. Planning for 20 primary express bus routes began in 1966 and the system opened in 1974. For more than 35 years, primary roads have been designed to accommodate the BRT system. Municipalities in the Curitiba region served by URBS delegate management of the transit system to URBS, whose board members are appointed by the Mayor of Curitiba.

In Montgomery County, however, major roads would need to be redesigned to accomodate bus rapid transit. The state of Maryland’s recent reconstruction of Route 29 represented a critical missed opportunity to develop express bus lanes in the middle.

Our county’s primary roads (Route 29, New Hampshire Avenue, Georgia Avenue, Connecticut Avenue, Routes 28 & 198, Veirs Mill Road, University Boulevard, Wisconsin Avenue/Rockville Pike, and I-270) are owned, designed and maintained by the State Highway Administration. Close coordination between the county, the state and possibly the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) would be necessary to accomplish the BRT vision. Ridership will be a very important criterion for winning federal funding – and ridership is the key question regarding whether the system can succeed here.

Accommodating through automobile traffic on primary roads will be another key issue. Because the buses travel on a dedicated route, automobiles may not cross primary streets at every intersection. In Montgomery County, this will affect many neighborhood streets whose residents are accustomed to being able to cross major streets or make left and right turns to exit their neighborhoods – all of which could be restricted with rapid bus routes down the center of major streets.

My visit to Curitiba was a great experience and there is no question that I would love to see similar technology employed in Montgomery County. In the near term, I will advocate for BRT on Veirs Mill Road, which along with University Boulevard has just received a federal grant for bus transit improvements, and Georgia Avenue. I am also optimistic about prospects for BRT on the Inter County Connector and the proposal for BRT on Rockville Pike contained in the White Flint Sector Plan, now pending before the County Council.

On the other hand, my visit to Curitiba did not persuade me that BRT compares favorably to fixed-rail systems as an effective inducement for riders to leave their automobiles at home. I will continue to advocate strongly for light rail on the Purple Line and, while I understand that cost factors may ultimately persuade Governor O’Malley to select BRT for the Corridor Cities Transitway, my preference remains light rail for that system as well.

To read the full post, visit Maryland Politics Watch.

The areas around the White Flint metro would fall within the proposed commercial-residential zone, which aims to create mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods. Photo by M.V. Jantzen.

Earlier this week, the Montgomery County Council endorsed revisions to its zoning code that would include a proposed mixed-use zone. The Council is expected to approve the changes next week.

In an effort to update the zoning system to create denser, more walkable suburbs, the Council is supporting a “Commercial-Residential (CR)” zone that would encourage mixed-use projects while allowing taller buildings and reducing parking. The CR zone would be applied in areas with sector or master plans. Developers would be encouraged to contribute to the creation of public spaces and provide urban amenities in exchange for greater densities.

The proposed changes show Montgomery County’s commitment to implementing land use and smart growth strategies that can reduce driving and carbon emissions. Though the Council’s intentions seem to be good, it is receiving criticism from all sides.

The Council’s staff has recommended against the change, suggesting that they wait for the comprehensive zoning code rewrite, planned to begin in the next several months. Critics worry that the new zone is not structured with enough flexibility to allow community input on new projects.

Smart growth advocates are concerned that the requirements for developers are too lax. In many cases, contributions from developers would be suggested but not mandated.

Additionally, some doubt the CR zone’s applicability in smaller communities. For instance, residents of Kensington worry that it won’t be effective there because properties are smaller and owned by companies with more limited budgets. Unlike in the area around the White Flint metro, which is slated for intense development by major developers, Kensington property owners may not be interested in allowances to build bigger in return for providing amenities. As a result, the community may not get needed amenities.

On the other side, skeptics fear taller buildings will bring the “Rosslynization” of Montgomery County.

The Audobon Naturalist Society faults the plan for limiting green space in favor of density and neglecting to mandate green design standards for development projects.

What do you think – does the CR zone go too far or not far enough?

Snow removal priorities are called into question when students must walk to school in the road two weeks after the snowstorms. Photo: WTOP.

For many of us, memories of Snowmageddon and Snoverkill are fading along with the melting snow.  But the region’s recent snowstorms are still affecting the lives of pedestrians in Columbia, Maryland.  Even worse, these pedestrians are schoolkids who are being forced to risk their safety when walking to class.

This morning, about two weeks after the storms, WTOP reported that students on their way to Hammond High School are walking in the road because of large mounds of snow still covering the sidewalks along several blocks of their commute.  Residents have not seen any Public Works staff attending to the blockage, and property owners are unable to remove the snow themselves because it’s icy, extremely heavy, and they have nowhere to put it.

This is still more evidence that cities and towns need to develop more pedestrian-friendly approaches to snow removal.  Specifically, as we mentioned in our post on sidewalk snow removal best practices, local sidewalk clearance prioritization systems should dovetail with national Safe Routes to School efforts, focusing on pathways utilized by students.

Make sure you speak out about these crucial safety issues at the Committee on Public Works and Transportation’s sidewalk snow removal hearing, this Friday at 11:00 am in the John A. Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 500.

Does your snowy city pay adequate attention to the needs of pedestrians and transit users when the white stuff is falling? Montreal uses mini-plows, above, to clear sidewalks. Photo: sfllaw, Flickr.

The Washington, D.C. metro area has the second highest percentage of public transit commuters in the United States, behind only New York City. Many of those riders walk to the Metro or the bus, and 89,000 other commuters walk to work, according to the 2008 American Community Survey. What’s more, local leaders and advocates hope to increase the transit and pedestrian mode shares even further. However, some would argue that the District’s response to the recent record-setting blizzards overlooked the needs of pedestrians and transit users, posing safety hazards, hindering accessibility to bus stops and destinations, discouraging people from taking transit (and potentially encouraging them to drive in unsafe conditions), and costing the city money by slowing school re-openings when kids couldn’t walk to bus stops.

To assist in preparations for the next storm, TheCityFix took a look at how other walkable, transit-friendly cities address pedestrian safety and access during snow events. It’s important to note that many of these cities routinely get a lot more snow than D.C., so some of the practices outlined here may not be feasible in our environment.

Sadly, few U.S. cities assume the responsibility of clearing snow from sidewalks. Like Washington, many require property owners to clear the sidewalks in front of their buildings.

Chicago is a typical example. The Windy City has been getting high marks for snow removal lately, but this praise has been focused on the city’s efficient street plowing methods. The government takes a much less proactive approach to clearing sidewalks. Chicago has a law on the books requiring building owners or tenants to remove snow and ice from any walkway narrower than 5 feet within three hours of snow falling. But earlier this winter, Mayor Daley noted publicly that the City won’t enforce this rule. Instead, officials are focusing on positive reinforcement, distributing door hangers that remind community members of their shoveling responsibilities and recognizing businesses with outstanding snow-removal performance with a thank-you letter and a certificate. Though the Mayor’s statements basically removed all fear of punitive action, some community groups are using the stick rather than the carrot. The Active Transportation Alliance is encouraging residents to post fliers on the doors of neighbors who don’t promptly shovel the areas in front of their homes.

Unlike Chicago, Philadelphia has been actively enforcing its sidewalk clearance laws. The city’s code requires residents to shovel a 30-inch wide path on sidewalks within 6 hours of snowfall. Since a recent storm, officials have begun patrolling the streets and fining residents who do not comply with the law within a one-week grace period. Residents who haven’t shoveled their walks get $50 (per day) tickets. To educate the public about the necessity of this enforcement, leaders stress the serious safety implications of un-shoveled sidewalks and the liability of property owners should someone become injured on a slippery walk.

Madison, Wisconsin has a more comprehensive strategy in place for dealing with pedestrian pathways. Similar to other localities, the City ordinance requires that property owners clear sidewalks of snow and ice by 12:00 pm on the day following the snowfall. Officials target high-mobility pedestrian corridors for strict on-the-ground enforcement. These corridors – including downtown, hospital areas and neighborhoods with high concentrations of elderly and disabled citizens – were identified in community meetings. The day after a significant snowfall, inspectors review the corridors and issue fines to noncompliant property owners. The City itself maintains responsibility for clearing publicly-owned sidewalks, bike paths, crosswalks and bus stops. There are also resources in place to aid residents in complying with the ordinance. The City maintains an easy-to-understand website on sidewalk snow removal policies, provides free sand to property owners, and alerts residents of snow removal deadlines via text messages or emails. Furthermore, the state of Wisconsin is now considering allowing all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) to plow roads and sidewalks.

Hartford, Connecticut also removes snow and ice from city-owned sidewalks, parking lots at municipal buildings, police substation walks and parking lots, publicly-run daycare facilities and recreation center walks and parking lots. Additionally, the Capitol Region Council of Governments has spearheaded efforts to improve winter sidewalk maintenance. Its Regional Pedestrian Plan instructs municipalities to better address snow removal and code enforcement.

Of the cities we reviewed, Montreal takes by far the most proactive role in sidewalk snow removal. Working street-by-street, the City declares temporary no parking zones, uses mini bulldozers to clear the sidewalks and push the snow into the street, then uses powerful snow-blowers to move the snow into dump trucks and hauls it to dumping sites. (Snow is carted away because Montreal receives a lot of it and has very low average temperatures, limiting opportunities for melting.)

Calgary’s approach may not be as ambitious as Montreal’s, but it maintains a priority system that concentrates efforts on high traffic areas first, including downtown pedestrian hot spots, major bus routes and bus stops. 130 kilometers of pathways are kept clear during the winter. Home owners or occupants are not required to shovel sidewalks on this priority list. The City of Calgary is currently revisiting its snow removal policy; an interim policy, meanwhile, puts additional emphasis on clearing bus stops. (This article on snow removal in Calgary also brings up the interesting point of the implications of sprawl for snow removal; Calgary’s spread-out, low-density development pattern means it has 14,000 lane kilometers of road to clear and only 1435 residents per square kilometer to pay for it.)

Other sidewalk snow removal ideas:

• The New York Conference of Mayors suggests in a sample law that cities may remove snow, but charge adjacent businesses for the service.
• For example, in West Hartford Center (CT), a few large property owners pay the town to remove the snow from abutting sidewalks.
• Cities may consider borrowing money from their contingency funds for snow removal. Any unused snow removal funds remaining when winter winds down are returned to the contingency fund.
• To account for the special needs of the elderly and the disabled, cities may allow these groups clemency when it comes to the enforcement of shoveling laws.
• WalkBoston, a non-profit pedestrian advocacy group, has created a best practices guide to addressing pedestrian needs during snow events. Recommendations include creating a social “norm” of responsibility for snow clearance, identifying a municipal point person, setting priorities for clearance, improving monitoring and enforcement, and designing sidewalks better. The group also suggests partnering with safe routes to school programs.

Speak out about the snow removal efforts in your neighborhood (shown here: Connecticut Avenue). Photo: CathrynDC, flickr.

Those of you who have been following snow removal efforts in the D.C. area will now have several opportunities to voice your opinions in the coming weeks.

D.C. Council Member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) has announced that he will hold a series of hearings to evaluate how the city responded to this month’s back-to-back blizzards. These hearings will take place February 26 and March 10. Those wishing to testify should contact the Committee on Public Works and Transportation office at 202-724-8195.

Additionally, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments is organizing a snowstorm after-action conference in March to examine the response to our recent severe weather and to analyze the fiscal impact of closing government operations along with the additional costs of plowing roadways for governments already facing unprecedented budget shortfalls. Public and private sector representatives are invited to attend. The date is TBA. (Check out COG Chairman and At-Large Councilmember Kwame Brown’s profile on TheCityFix Social — we encourage other local offiicals to sign up, as well!)