Presidential hopefuls want to fix mobility and inequality, but struggle to connect the two issues

Joe Biden boards Amtrak's Acela Express train following the end of his Vice Presidential term in January 2017. (Photo courtesy of Delaware Online)

Democratic presidential candidates (some of whom have since dropped out of the race) repeatedly referred to transportation when discussing their proposals to address economic inequality during their October debate:

• Pete Buttigieg cited his own transportation habits – his father drove him to school in a GM car, and now he now owns a Chevrolet Cruze – when discussing how corporations, particularly car companies, have decimated the U.S.’s manufacturing sector in the name of profit.
• Kamala Harris described how a person working a low-income job may turn to driving for Uber in hopes of keeping their family fed and housed.
• Beto O’Rourke reminded viewers that GM didn’t pay any federal income tax this past year (actually, GM hasn’t paid any such taxes since the federal government bailed it out).

The candidates’ discussion demonstrated a desire to achieve goals that more balanced transportation connectivity would catalyze.

But the candidates struggle to address the connection between transportation and inequality, continuing a decades-long trend. Despite making some profound points, they have not clearly articulated how mobility’s one-dimensional nature, which forces many working-class people to hand over thousands of dollars to wealthy auto and oil executives each year, exacerbates disparities.

Equitable land use reform is a hot topic, but candidates’ platforms overlook transportation’s role

The 2020 candidates have consistently expressed support for zoning reform, citing this as a way to address racial and economic segregation stemming from historical redlining and other factors. While several have proposed making some federal transportation-related funds contingent on progress in this area, the candidates’ platforms are missing important details and, in some cases, contain provisions that would perpetuate – and potentially even exacerbate – present-day inequality:

• Frontrunner Joe Biden  is the only high-polling candidate to support revision of local zoning regulations explicitly to facilitate more affordable housing near transit.  While some localities, such as the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego, have made progress in this area, others continue to struggle. Biden also proposes a $10 billion, 10 year program to bolster transit in “high-poverty areas with limited transportation options” and sets ambitious (albeit vague) goals for higher-quality transit, bike, scooter, and pedestrian infrastructure in urban areas. However, he also proposes a 10 percent increase to highway funding; though he proposes the funding go to states that “embrace smart climate design and pollution reduction,” any road widening would induce more driving and stifle progress toward the mobility- and equality-focused goals he has described.  
• Elizabeth Warren’s American Housing and Economic Mobility Act, which she introduced in the Senate this year, would provide $10 billion in grants for infrastructure projects (among other things) on the condition localities reform their zoning regulations. A wide variety of projects would be eligible for the grants, including transit projects. Warren’s platform does cite parking minimums as one type of local regulation that inflates housing costs. However, her transportation proposal (described in a different, more environment-focused section of her platform) is centered largely on electric cars, which would have to be stored somewhere and thus may make it more challenging to lower parking minimums. 
• Bernie Sanders proposes making federal transportation and housing funds contingent on “zoning that ensures racial, economic, and disability integration that makes housing more affordable.” He cites urban interstate highways as a contributor to segregation and sprawl. However, in the climate-focused portion of his platform, Sanders suggests putting an extra $75 billion into the Highway Trust Fund, dedicated primarily to road expansion, to help provide “resilience and justice”.
• Cory Booker proposes tying eligibility for an array of federal infrastructure programs (including the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program) that provide localities a total of $16 billion in funds to zoning reform progress, though he doesn’t specify the milestones that would be used to measure this progress. Also, in the Senate, he has introduced the Transit to Trails Act, which if enacted would fund improved transit service connecting low-income communities and people of color to shared public spaces such as parks.
• Mike Bloomberg's plan shares traits of Warren's; he proposes $10 billion in competitive grants for "municipalities that remove obstacles to the construction of affordable housing in neighborhoods with good schools, transportation, and economic opportunities." While he does not specify the nature of the transportation, his proposal also states that he "prioritized housing near transportation" when mayor of New York, where people often use transit to get where they need to go.     

Urban planning-related aspects of other candidates’ platforms are less specific, but their proposals and experiences still contain some interesting insights into how candidates perceive the inequality-transportation relationship.

• Andrew Yang is the only candidate in contention to explicitly mention NIMBYism in his platform as a challenge to expanding affordable housing supply. Yang also is unique in specifically referencing the U.S.’s massive transit maintenance backlog – the cause of many of the service disruptions that cost low-income workers wages and even threaten their employment – though the transit-related aspects of his plan prioritize electrification of the country’s entire transit fleet (at a cost of $200 billion) rather than just making service more extensive and reliable.
• As a mayor, Buttigieg currently has more direct influence on local transit than any other candidate within striking distance, appointing three of the nine board members who govern South Bend’s TRANSPO bus system. That system – like many others in the U.S. – has suffered a ridership decline in the face of limited service hours and extent. However, the South Bend region recently started a pilot program that subsidizes bus rides for some low-income people. Also, a CityLab analysis found the region to be among the top ten small U.S. metros to live without a car, a way of life that puts as much as $9,300 per year – almost as much as Yang’s proposed $1,000-a-month Universal Basic Income – back in peoples’ pockets.

A national focus on transportation would help leaders address many issues, including inequality

“Transportation is fundamental and affects every aspect of a person’s quality of life,” Scott Goldstein, Policy Director at advocacy organization Transportation for America, told me. “It determines whether you can access jobs, how many jobs you can access, [and] is also central to health outcomes, which certainly relate to inequality.”

Some legislators do fight for the transportation needs of their constituents. For example, Congress’s Future of Transportation Caucus, announced October 19, consists of 21 House Democrats who have committed to supporting more equitable transit. And representatives of rural areas, on both sides of the aisle, have fought to sustain and expand lifeline Amtrak service in their districts.   

But despite these occasional initiatives, transportation doesn’t get the sustained attention from policymakers that these impacts necessitate.

“Transportation is often high on the second list of priorities,” Goldstein said. “It needs to be high on the first list, if not the highest.”

Given this, it’s to be expected that 2020 candidates’ proposals and comments on transportation consist of scattered statements, presented mainly in the context of personal experiences and other policy areas, rather than a detailed plan to improve connectivity itself.

Personal transportation experiences can provide candidates beneficial perspective. For example, many of the candidates – who are seen regularly on Amtrak’s Acela Express train, sometimes even running to catch it or riding together – strongly tout high-speed rail.

But such perspective may not fully inform policymakers on the consequences of existing U.S. transportation. Accordingly, they may act on misguided conclusions that stem from these consequences, but lack context.

For example, the Urban Institute found that car ownership has “considerably greater” effect on earnings than access to (inadequate) transit. Researchers also concluded that those with cars experience “less exposure to poverty,” and “lower levels of cancer risk,” while also moving “to neighborhoods with higher levels of school performance” than those without automobile access. The organization subsequently came out in support of policies that would increase car ownership.

Goldstein emphasized the difference every person can make in facilitating a more cohesive national discussion on transportation connectivity, overcoming the present-day cacophony and catalyzing policy that could have far-reaching benefits, including reduced inequality.

“It takes the public to stand up and request,” he said. “It [also] takes policymakers willing to do something a little different, and be willing to have a tough conversation.”

Capital Bikeshare vs Peloton: The ultimate DC-area cycling showdown

Capital Bikeshare's station across the street from Falls Church, VA's Audacious Aleworks. (Photo by me)

When I don’t have any big plans on weeknights, my recent routine has been pretty consistent: exercise, cook dinner, then settle in for the daily “All Star Trek” marathon on the Heroes and Icons (H&I) channel.

Cheap, corny commercials enhance the entertainment value of the nightly broadcast, which features an episode from every existing live-action Trek series (sans Discovery). Hall-of-Fame slugger Frank Thomas peddles testosterone booster Nugenix with the tagline “she’ll like it too,” while former USC and NFL journeyman quarterback Rodney Peete and his wife tout the purported benefits of weight-loss concoction Lipozene as a doctor deadpans that “his blood pressure and cholesterol have really improved” thanks to the pill. There’s also auto insurer The General, which does everything it can to make car-free life look miserable in its efforts to lure people with utterly horrid driving records (though, refreshingly, I’ve never seen a straight-up car commercial on H&I).

It was through H&I’s ads that I first learned of stationary bike manufacturer Peloton, whose commercials featuring models pedaling endlessly inside luxury homes as the machine yells at them fit right into the channel’s collage. But Peloton, which (like some certain other corporations) calls itself a tech company, rose above the fray, becoming so cool that my apartment complex shelled out $2,245 of us tenants’ rent – or, about one-tenth the cost of building a parking spot in a DC garage – to plop one of the bikes in our building’s gym. Nevertheless, I stuck with our gym’s elliptical and rower, since when I bike, hike, or run I prefer to utilize Rock Creek Park or other parts of our region’s expanding trail network.

But then, Monica Ruiz-portrayed Peloton Wife pedaled an H&I ad to where none had gone before: viral fame.

And that settled it. It was time to break my routine and see how this venture capital-backed bike stands up to the DC transportation system’s most rugged competition: Capital Bikeshare.

Peloton: Vigorous pace, stuck in place

A Peloton ad airs on H&I during a recent edition of "All Star Trek." (Photo by me)

To maximize the tech bro-dystopian vibe of this particular morning workout, I'd thrown on the Hyperloop t-shirt my uncle had gifted me last Christmas. But my Peloton ride was almost over before it started.

I can start my workout on any other machine in my apartment’s gym by – at most – just pressing a button. But the Peloton trendily forced me to create an online account. I nearly defected to our Concept2 rower but backtracked at the last second, surrendered my dignity, and handed over an e-mail address and password to the company and its investors.

I was then presented with a list of virtual classes. But I wanted to enjoy the quiet morning and not be yelled at by someone in a studio 225 miles up the Northeast Corridor. To just start a simple workout, one conducted on my terms, I had to track down a “more” tab, then scroll and click again. But, just as residents of Tijuana somehow navigate their city’s microtransit system, I persevered and was finally able to pedal.     

   

I cranked up the resistance to 60 out of 100, mimicking a trip up Woodley Place, and set out on a 10-mile ride. According to the machine’s possibly-erroneous readings, I cruised along at 22 to 24 mph – unhindered by cars – burning 500 calories and reaching the finish line in under 30 minutes. By the time I hopped off the bike, my Hyperloop shirt was as drenched as a guinea pig in an Elon Musk submarine.

But was I in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “Where Silence Has Lease?” In that episode, the Enterprise’s instruments show the ship traveling straight ahead at high speeds, akin to the Peloton’s readings during my ride, but the crew is unable to find their way out of a bluish void that eventually projects a face – a “damned ugly nothing,” according to Chief Engineer Geordi La Forge.

I never saw a face (though I would have had I taken one of Peloton’s classes). But at the end of the workout, despite all that effort, I hadn’t escaped my apartment’s gym. This wasn’t necessarily a bad thing, as it was raining outside but I could stay in for some sit-ups and weightlifting.

However, Peloton didn’t get me to any of the many amazing DC-area destinations that I’ve biked to over the past few years.

Capital Bikeshare: If only the journey were free from cars

My cycling route from Central DC to Audacious Aleworks. (Screenshot by me)

A couple nights later, I set out from my central DC office to one of those destinations: Falls Church, VA’s Audacious Aleworks Brewery & Taproom. I hopped on a Capital Bikeshare bike by simply scanning the barcode attached to my keychain; no login necessary. (Granted, I did have to create an online account a while back to purchase the $85 annual pass that grants me access to the Lyft-operated system).

The 14-mile route I took – over the 14^th street bridge, down the Mount Vernon Trail past National Airport, then westbound on the Four Mile Run and Washington & Old Dominion (W&OD) Trails to reach Falls Church – was not the shortest possible trip. But much of the ride was on dedicated bike paths, and the W&OD’s long, but gentle grade through the forest – a reminder of the trail’s origins as a rail line – is preferable to the more direct Custis Trail’s sharper undulations through I-66 exhaust.

According to Capital Bikeshare’s own numbers, this workout was not nearly as strenuous as the one Peloton provided. Even though the 1 hour, 20 minute trip (including two brief stops to dock and re-rent my bike, helping avoid overage fees for trips over 30 minutes) took nearly three times as long as my Peloton ride, I apparently burned just 438 calories. Granted, CaBi may have under-counted the calorie burn, as the company’s time-based calculations assumed I’d only traveled 11 miles, rather than 14.

However, interaction with cars – a big part of what reduced the speed I could travel and, accordingly, the strain on my body – created stress that negated any benefits of the more relaxed rate of exertion. If Peloton’s spinning-in-place experience was reminiscent of “Where Silence Has Lease,” this felt like one of the many Trek episodes where the ship must take “evasive maneuvers” in a futile effort to avoid threats such as temporal anomalies, Romulan torpedoes, or a Borg tractor beam.    

To just reach the 14^th street bridge, I had to navigate the perpetual chaos that car-based transportation inflicts on central DC. Then, on the Mount Vernon Trail, I was blinded by car headlights from the adjacent highway in several spots, forcing me to slow – and even stop a couple of times – to ensure I stayed on the bike path. And finally, near the end of the ride I encountered an unanticipated trail closure in Banneker Park that is forcing cyclists to cross hostile Sycamore Street, where I had to dodge an inattentive right-turning Uber driver. (This final detour caused my last segment to take longer than 30 minutes, costing me $1.50).

But on this CaBi ride, I also was treated to some amazing sights that only outdoor cycling can provide. Descending planes bound for DCA roared over the Mount Vernon Trail at Gravelly Point. I threaded between a waterway and a WMATA bus yard on the Four Mile Run trail. And on the W&OD trail, I cruised along though the cool December air, guided only by CaBi’s so-so strobe light and a nearly-full moon that illuminated a lingering dusting of snow from the day before.

And at the end of the journey, I was rewarded by a couple excellent imperial stouts and one of Audacious Aleworks’ tasty grilled cheeses – products the tech industry cannot disrupt.

       

The Washington and Old Dominion trail in Reston, VA, pictured earlier this year. (Photo by me)

Prior to this self-administered competition, I assumed I would find CaBi practical and Peloton absurd. But after my two workouts, I can see that there’s a place for both.

CaBi, though a bit sluggish on hills, is an excellent way to combine exercise and mobility. If you’re really feeling it, continue west on the W&OD another 11 miles past Falls Church, dock your bike at one of the system’s outermost stations in Reston, and head over to Bike Lane Brewing – literally, a bike shop and a top-notch brewery under one roof. And once your workout’s done, you can take public transit back home – or to wherever you want to go – without worry.     

But it’s inevitable that, even if you’re on a comfortable trail for most of your route, at some point you will have to interact with automobiles. Weather conditions also can drastically impact the experience, in some cases rendering a ride impossible.

Indoor stationary bikes do offer a way to avoid these externalities and just let loose, even if they lack the sensation and thrill of an outdoor CaBi ride. The tech-oriented culture surrounding the pricey Peloton, however, is not needed. The plight the protagonists of 2003 Academy Award-nominated French animated comedy film The Triplets of Belleville face – Tour de France cyclists are kidnapped by the mafia and forced to race each other on stationary bikes in a gambling hall – feels more authentic.  

Personally, I’ll continue to primarily use CaBi for my cycling workouts, though I won’t rule out using Peloton again – or maybe, one of the gym’s other, less trendy stationary bikes – in certain situations.  

Federal funding restrictions are stranding thousands of DC-area bus riders

Striking Metrobus drivers rally in front of WMATA headquarters on November 6, 2019. (Photo by me)

This week, Fairfax Connector’s drivers walked off the job, leaving a large swath of DC’s Northern Virginia suburbs with little to no bus service. The labor action expands upon a strike that has suspended or substantially reduced service on 18 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Metrobus routes – also all in Northern Virginia – for more than a month. Combined, bus routes affected by the two work stoppages see nearly 40,000 boardings per weekday.

The disrupted bus routes are all operated under contract by French multinational corporation Transdev. Last year, WMATA contracted out the 18 afflicted routes – which comprise about 5 percent of the DC area’s Metrobus system – in an effort to save $15 million, while Fairfax Connector shifted from a different contract operator to Transdev earlier this year.

The Metrobus drivers have reported that they earn as much as $12 per hour less and pay thousands of dollars more in health care deductibles than drivers of routes operated directly by WMATA, and Fairfax Connector’s drivers have voiced similar frustration with Transdev’s plans for their salaries and benefits.

The current structure of federal transportation funding helps explain WMATA and Fairfax Connector’s ill-fated cost-cutting efforts. But Congress could help transit agencies avoid similar challenges in the future by allowing states and localities to use this funding to operate transit service, rather than just to build and buy things.

***

Today’s federal transportation funding formulas not only are calculated to perpetuate auto dependency, but also fail to account for transit agencies’ core mission: transporting people. Specifically, almost all federal transit funds are reserved for capital expenditures such as infrastructure construction and vehicle purchases, and accordingly are fenced off from system operation. This restriction, in place since 1998, prevents states and localities from substituting federal funds for the operating subsidies they provide, but arguably is a relic of the archaic expectation that public transit – in contrast to other transportation modes – must fund itself.  

Thus, states and localities are responsible for funding most transit operation. A 2015 Transportation for America report describes how this reality puts pressure on agency management to minimize these expenditures at all costs. This squeeze has the greatest effect on bus service since operating expenditures comprise 59 percent of its cost, relative to 42 percent for rail.

 

For WMATA, this pressure is particularly strong, as an agreement between DC, Maryland, and Virginia to provide the agency dedicated long-term capital funding came with a cap on year-to-year changes to operating subsidies. This cap came after WMATA cut service substantially in 2017 following a steep ridership decline the previous year, when maintenance-necessitated service disruptions forced many people to find alternate ways to get where they need to go. Fairfax Connector, which carries many people to and from WMATA bus and rail routes, also faced ridership challenges during the same period, affecting farebox revenue.     

Thus, in both WMATA and Fairfax Connector’s cases, contract bus operation, which research has shown achieves cost savings largely through lower wages and fewer work rules, may have seemed more palatable to both riders and agency management than additional service cuts.

Labor comprises more than 70 percent of WMATA’s operating costs – in line with national figures – so given the funding structure-based pressure the agency logically saw cost-cutting in this area as low-hanging fruit. The agency’s leadership adopted competitive contracting among their primary strategies for keeping expenses down.

Fairfax Connector, which serves a relatively auto-oriented part of the DC region, turned to contract operation much earlier than WMATA did. In fact, Fairfax County is one of several jurisdictions in and around the nation’s capital that have reduced costs by forming their own transit agencies, which often provide contract-operated local bus service, instead of subsidizing additional Metrobus service.

But unlike federal appropriations, transit labor costs are based in market forces, not politics. And as the people who operate our bus systems are tasked with keeping riders safe while navigating the same scary U.S. roads on which more than 36,000 people are killed annually – a job that requires months of rigorous training and can subject workers to high stress, fatigue, and other health problems – these costs are understandably high.

In fact, a national bus driver shortage that has caused delays and necessitated service cuts on urban, suburban, and rural transit systems alike suggests that current compensation for the U.S.’s 430,000 transit workers is not sufficient.

Accordingly, funding formulas that encourage transit agencies to reduce workers’ already-insufficient compensation are likely to catalyze failure.  

***

Advocacy organizations such as TransitCenter and Transportation for America have expressed support for allowing federal funding to be expended on transit operation. TransitCenter, which envisions federal transit operating funds as a match for the subsidies states and localities provide, also has encouraged Congress to redesign some capital transit grants in a manner that encourages localities to operate more service. Such expansion would catalyze increased transit ridership – as has happened in Canada, where per-capita transit service levels are higher than in the U.S. – and a more stable future for U.S. mobility.  

However, if the structure of federal transportation funding is not adjusted to help fund transit system operation and encourage expanded service, transit agencies will be forced to continue defying the labor market. The American public will continue to bear the consequences, through both work stoppages by undercompensated operators and longer-term service reductions stemming from a continued operator shortage.

For people in Northern Virginia, those severe consequences are already here. Those consequences could just be the beginning, as WMATA’s largest employee union has indicated a broader work stoppage – bringing the entire capital region to a halt – is possible if the transit agency proceeds with plans to contract out operation of its Metrorail Silver Line extension, which is set to open next year.   

But at a rally last month for WMATA’s striking Metrobus operators, an environmentalist stood in solidarity with labor interests and suggested a better option.

“We know that for us to invest in transit, we need to invest in the workers who are on the front lines of making the system actually good for our communities and for their families,” Liz Butler, Vice President of Organizing and Strategic Alliances at Friends of the Earth, told the 500-strong crowd. “We want to…make sure that resources are invested into public transportation so that we can have an impact on climate change.”

The rally was held in front of WMATA headquarters, intended to motivate agency officials to step in and encourage Transdev to negotiate in better faith with the striking workers.

But the people who most need to heed Butler’s words work at a much more powerful public-sector headquarters, under a certain iron dome located just a few blocks from WMATA’s Brutalist office building. Because it’s there that, next year, legislators will ride a subway train to their respective chambers and cast a vote reauthorizing hundreds of billions of dollars in federal transportation funding that will shape how we get around for years to come.

DC’s H Street Northeast should go car-free

A car blocks the streetcar tracks on H Street NE, causing an unnecessary delay for riders. (Photo by me)

New York’s 14^th Street Busway has proven a smashing success, and San Francisco’s Market Street is set to emulate its breakthrough.

People in DC should also have the opportunity to enjoy a vibrant, mixed-use corridor that’s both easy to access and free of oppressive automobile traffic. Just about any thoroughfare in the region would benefit from more equitable allocation of space between modes.

But Northeast DC’s eclectic, already transit-rich H Street Corridor is ripe for immediate progress.

H Street has an array of transit and cycling options, but cars impede their safety and performance

The section of H Street NE between Union Station and Bladensburg Road is a robust dual-mode transit corridor.

The fareless DC Streetcar serves five stations along the corridor, complementing WMATA’s local X2 Metrobus (a rare example of a 24-hour transit route in the nation’s capital), the limited-stop X9, and the rush-hour-only X1. The D4, which connects up-and-coming areas including Ivy City and Trinidad to the city center, runs on K Street, just two blocks to the north. Numerous trunk north-south Metrobus routes, including the 90, 92, B2, and D8, intersect the east-west H Street Corridor, and riders can transfer to Metrorail, the DC Circulator, all of the region’s suburban rail lines, and Amtrak at Union Station.

Many people bike to residences and businesses along the corridor. Capital Bikeshare has five stations on H between 3^rd and 15^th streets, as well as numerous others just a block or two away. Additionally, substantial portions of parallel F, G and I streets have bike lanes.

H Street is also an essential connection for intercity buses that serve Union Station’s bus terminal. Routes operated by the likes of Greyhound, Megabus, BoltBus, and Peter Pan traverse the corridor on their way to and from destinations throughout the Northeast.

But all of these options are forced to fight for space with inefficient automobile traffic.

The streetcar is particularly vulnerable to automobile-caused delays because ride-hailing vehicles, people picking up take-out food, and sloppy parallel parkers block its tracks all too often. The H Street Runners Club even holds an annual event at which joggers outpace the streetcar’s 5.7 mph average speed.

Bus riders, who already are disproportionately harmed by traffic congestion, aren’t spared either. Coalition for Smarter Growth and MetroHero gave H Street’s WMATA routes F grades for headway and schedule adherence on their May 2019 Metrobus Report Card; about 40 percent of buses serving these routes operated outside of tolerance.

The street’s existing setup has had deadly results for cyclists who, in spite of the aforementioned bike lanes on parallel roads, must use H Street at times to get home, access their jobs, or patronize the corridor’s businesses. In June 2018, 19-year-old Malik Habib was biking on the street when his wheel got caught in the streetcar tracks. This caused him to fall into the path of a bus in the adjacent lane, and he died in the collision.   

       

What would a car-free H Street look like?

H Street NE currently has six lanes between Union Station and Bladensburg Road, three in each direction. The right-most lanes are primarily for car parking, while automobiles and transit fight for space in the center and left-most lanes. Cyclists have no dedicated right-of-way on H Street, and must choose between riding on the sidewalk, in a traffic lane, or on a parallel street.   

Streetcars operate on tracks in the center lanes and serve stations that consist of sidewalk bulb-outs into the parking lane. Metrobuses also primarily use the center lanes, but serve curbside bus stops (which require a merge into the parking lane to access) rather than the streetcar stations. Intercity buses primarily use the left-most lanes on their way to and from Union Station, and Metrobuses occasionally use this lane to pass.

The corridor would function more efficiently and safely if it is redesigned to prioritize people, as follows:

• The right-most lanes should be converted into raised, protected bike lanes. At streetcar stations, the protected bike lanes would run between the main sidewalk and the bulb-outs, a design that’s succeeded in other cities, such as San Francisco.
• The center lanes would still carry streetcars and Metrobuses. However, without automobile traffic in their way, the streetcars could travel between stations at their designed speed of up to 35 mph. In addition, bus stops and streetcar stations should be consolidated, allowing passengers to simply board whichever service comes first for trips within the dual-mode corridor and eliminating any need for buses to merge into and out of bike lanes to pick up passengers.
• The left-most lanes would be primarily for intercity buses, whose travel times would also improve. Limited-stop Metrobuses could still use these lanes to pass local buses and streetcars, but these interactions would be smoother and safer without automobiles involved. The lanes also would remain open to emergency vehicles.     

H Street businesses already enjoy car-free success

A viable proposal for a car-free H Street will likely draw opposition from the typical sources. Expect opponents to storm public hearings and online comment sections with two primary talking points:

• The improvements would cause nightmarish traffic congestion on nearby streets.
• The improvements would be disastrous for local businesses.

Both of these points, of course, are easy to debunk. Comparable street improvements, both domestic and abroad, have not caused an increase in congestion on parallel roads and in some cases actually reduce travel times for drivers. The reason is simple: there’s still just as much street space, but because people traveling through the corridor use more spatially-efficient modes the street’s capacity increases.

Similarly, while some may argue businesses will fail if drivers can’t park or ride-hailing cars can’t stop right in front of them, such arguments are not evidence-based. In reality, a substantial portion of customers patronizing establishments on comparably transit-oriented corridors do so without getting in a car.

Accordingly, eliminating obstacles to these customers’ access boosts business. And on H Street’s biggest day of business, the corridor is already car-free.

The annual H Street Festival, held in September this year, draws 150,000 people – more than the combined crowd that attended the Nationals’ three World Series home games this past weekend. During the festival, the street is temporarily pedestrian-only. A permanent mix of biking, walking, and multiple transit modes would do even more for businesses’ day-to-day operations.   

A car-free H Street’s benefits would extend throughout DC

Converting H Street NE into a thoroughfare exclusively for transit, biking, and walking would not just improve travel within the immediate corridor between Union Station and Bladensburg Road. Rather, it would immediately make mobility throughout DC more functional, while also catalyzing support for further regional transportation improvements.

H Street’s X-series bus routes currently extend as far east as Capitol Heights, MD and, via Downtown DC, as far west as Foggy Bottom. Also, near-term plans call for extension of the streetcar line to Benning Road Metro Station, doubling its length and providing direct transfers to three additional Metrorail lines. And if improvements reduce vehicle miles traveled – particularly ride-hailing VMT – not only would the corridor be more accessible for all, but lives would be saved region-wide.

Over time, other corridors will want to emulate a car-free H Street’s success, and future bus route realignments – associated with WMATA’s ongoing Bus Transformation Project – would help maximize these corridors’ utility.

For example, an upgraded H Street NE, along with the now-permanent H and I Street NW bus lanes in downtown, could form the beginnings of a dedicated east-west corridor for surface transit. The proposed K Street Transitway will add redundancy and capacity to this crosstown corridor, which would serve as the first phase of an extensive network of frequent, reliable mobility that, in conjunction with Metrorail, connects the region and brings people together. 

To reduce transportation’s environmental impact, let’s make mobility better

A WMATA Metrobus passes an Exxon gas station. Better transit connectivity reduces fuel consumption and makes it easier for people to get where they need to go. (Photo by me)

Transportation is the U.S.’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Unfortunately, the two most widely discussed methods to address this problem seem to be a virtual end to connectivity as we know it or a more deeply entrenched status quo. 

But with the proper planning, we can make mobility better and more sustainable.

Ferries, like the Potomac Water Taxi's Alexandria-Georgetown route pictured here, can fill gaps in local transit systems. But boats are unlikely to become a mainstream form of overseas mobility anytime soon. (Photo by me)  

Two recent high-profile demonstrations have drawn much-needed attention to transportation’s environmental impact, at both local and intercity levels.

In August, Swedish activist Greta Thunberg traveled from England to New York on a zero-emissions sailboat instead of a commercial flight. Then, on Monday, September 23 and Friday, September 27, protesters inspired by Thunberg blocked streets in central parts of DC.

While these efforts were well-intended, they also gave credence to the false narrative that making transportation more sustainable requires substantial personal sacrifice and inconvenience.

For example, few people will find Thunberg’s 15-day voyage a more appealing form of mobility than the many hours-long flights between Europe and the U.S. Even if boating were to re-emerge as a mainstream mode for overseas transportation, long-distance ferries would likely have more in common with lavish cruise ships – which more than double their passengers’ daily carbon footprint for the time they are onboard, among other environmental harm they cause – than with Thunberg’s Spartan sailboat.

Similarly, on the days of DC’s climate protests, the region’s transit system was not bolstered or expanded. Rather, the street shutdowns adversely impacted users of sustainable modes. For example, Friday’s demonstrations on Pennsylvania Avenue resulted in service disruptions on twelve Metrobus routes, while also obstructing one of the primary protected cycling routes through downtown.

Meanwhile, our leaders – even those who understand the science of climate change – are also having difficulty finding effective sustainable transportation solutions.

They talk a lot about electric cars, which – despite large subsidies for buyers – comprise just two percent of new U.S. vehicle sales as car manufacturers embrace more profitable SUVs and pickup trucks. Even as automobiles have become more fuel efficient over time, their cumulative impact on the environment has worsened due to increases in vehicle miles traveled, a harmful trend that electric cars would not alleviate. To make matters worse, electric cars would not fix the dangerous, inefficient, and inequitable nature of present-day auto-dependency, problems that prominent industry figures like Elon Musk don’t seem compelled to address.

Thus, while electric cars could comprise one component of a better-functioning transportation system, they will not solve our most pressing transportation challenges – environmental or otherwise – alone.

When visiting my cousin in an auto-dependent Michigan suburb, I was pleasantly surprised to see their baby watching an English-language version of the South Korean cartoon Tayo the Little Bus, which features talking buses in Seoul's color-coded livery. Exposure to transit can erode stereotypes and make it easier for people to ride. (Photo by me)

There is, however, another way to address transportation’s environmental impact, which wouldn’t require new technology or a major lifestyle disruption: just making it easier for people to take transit, bike, or walk both within and between localities. In places that give these options even moderately adequate attention, like DC and its inner suburbs, people already embrace them as mainstream ways to get where they need to go – not for their sustainability, but for their convenience.

Going forward, climate activists’ efforts should aim to draw attention to these options’ effectiveness, aligning their goals more closely with the public’s mobility needs and demonstrating to our leaders that their focus should be on system diversification, rather than technological hype.

Reducing local car travel offers the lowest-hanging environmental fruit

Combining sustainable transportation options with fun activities can help introduce people to the connectivity these options provide. Pictured here is the entrance to Bike Lane Brewing, a bicycle shop and taproom situated off the Washington & Old Dominion Trail in Reston, VA. (Photo by me)

Cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks comprise about 60 percent of U.S. transportation greenhouse gas emissions, and thus reducing usage of those modes offers the greatest potential for emissions reduction.

While major infrastructure improvements can take years, effectively targeted activism would help us get much more out of the sustainable options we have. These existing options are capable of serving as viable and often superior replacements for plenty of present-day automobile trips, especially the 45 percent that are fewer than three miles in length. However, currently they are substantially underutilized.

Simply exposing people to sustainable connectivity opens peoples’ minds and dispels the negative stereotypes that currently keep people beholden to automobiles. Thus, leading group transit outings, walks, and bike rides oriented around fun destinations involving outdoor activities, food, beer, and sporting events – as organizations including Circulate San Diego, Washington Area Bicyclist Association, and Coalition for Smarter Growth have done – can educate people on how public transportation and other sustainable options can enhance quality of life. Such group outings demonstrate that these options are more than just an occasional means of conveyance to work or a second-rate alternative to car-based modes.

This sort of exposure also works in cyberspace, positively influencing how people talk and think about mobility. For example, the New Urbanist Memes for Transit-Oriented Teens Facebook group, started by a University of Chicago student studying for midterm exams, has swelled to more than 164,000 members. The global group has given rise to numerous local spin-offs and been profiled in major publications including The New York Times and The Guardian.

On Twitter, sustained pushback encouraged thousands of people to unfollow Voice of America reporter Matt Hilburn, who – in operating the Unsuck DC Metro account – regularly peddles false, often racially-charged stereotypes about DC-area transit and the people who use it while whitewashing the real flaws of car-based transportation. And Daniel Schep and Mark Sussman’s How’s My Driving DC app – integrated with the District Department of For-Hire Vehicles’ reporting system – has given people a louder voice against vehicles that block crosswalks, bike lanes, and bus stops, logging more than 12,000 violations since January.

A stopped ride-hailing car blocks DC's H Street Streetcar. (Photo by me)

Future on-street demonstrations, operating in line with the law, would further strengthen this voice while also increasing the safety, capacity, and efficiency of existing roads. Vigilante efforts, such as marking bike lanes via rudimentary equipment such as plungers or plastic cups, have effectively drawn attention to the lack of protection paint provides cyclists and in some cases catalyzed construction of safer permanent infrastructure.

Going forward, activists should organize to keep drivers from parking or stopping in crosswalks, bike lanes, and bus lanes – particularly near schools and other sensitive areas – reducing society’s tolerance for such aggressive and dangerous behavior. Aforementioned How’s My Driving DC, for example, organized a day-long “Data-Informed Bus Lane Blitz” in August during which volunteers reported nearly 300 illegal blockages of pilot bus lanes to the District’s government; local officials have since made the bus lanes permanent.   

And finally, climate activists’ energy would change the dynamics of community planning.

Currently, local planning processes favor small groups of people who oppose any type of change, irrespective of whether or not they benefit the public good. This makes it difficult to develop a coordinated, easy-to-use transportation network, complete with land use patterns oriented around it.

But when larger-scale interests have a strong presence at meetings associated with these planning processes, progress happens. For example, earlier this year cyclists packed an Advisory Neighborhood Commission meeting on a proposed contraflow bike lane in Northwest DC that had been burdened by local opposition; the results of that meeting were favorable, and the bike lane is now in operation. And in DC’s Maryland suburbs, the Action Committee for Transit helped the public overcome the Columbia Country Club and other small groups of residents to make the Purple Line, which is now under construction, a reality.   

Intercity trains, both fast and slow, are often preferable to short-haul flights    

Karlsruhe, Germany's train station, as seen from a TGV train bound for Strasbourg and Paris. (Photo by me)

While air travel is a smaller overall contributor to greenhouse gas emissions than cars, emissions at high altitudes have a more dramatic effect on the climate, meaning improvements to intercity transportation also could have substantial benefits. However, efforts should focus not on overseas flights that provide essential global connectivity other modes currently can’t replicate, but instead on shorter flights serving corridors where sustainable modes can outperform planes. Rail improvements on such shorter-distance corridors, where per-mile aviation emissions are highest, would not only liberate people from security checkpoints and the antics of carriers like Spirit Airlines, but would also reduce automobile travel.

High-speed rail – including the U.S.’s Northeast Corridor, even though that route doesn’t meet the standards of higher-quality systems overseas – consistently supplants air travel along the corridors it serves by facilitating faster, more comfortable, and more affordable door-to-door mobility for travelers. By serving airport rail links and codesharing with airlines – common overseas, and doable even in the U.S. – regional high-speed rail providers even reduce the carbon footprint of overseas trips.

All too often, however, small-scale interests have politicized high-speed rail to further their own agenda. Thus, activists can help bring more scrutiny to these actors. For example, grassroots efforts helped get former congressperson Jeff Denham (R-CA), a vocal opponent of his state’s high-speed rail project who had chaired the House Rail Subcommittee, out of office in 2018. And persistent scrutiny from Streetsblog has helped fact-check Los Angeles Times reporter Ralph Vartabedian, who has written a number of misleading articles about the California project. 

 

Overnight trains are also re-emerging in parts of the world as a viable alternative to air travel. With their afternoon-to-morning runs, enjoyable social environment, and comfortable accommodations, in certain circumstances they are preferable to flying, as well as driving. Long-distance trains also provide essential connectivity to small towns and rural areas, and with infrastructure improvements they can become practical across greater distances – for example, a one-night train averaging 100 mph, just a fraction of what full-on high-speed rail is capable of, could travel from one U.S. coast to the other (currently a three-night rail trip).

Amtrak's long-distance routes, like the Crescent train pictured here in New Orleans, could play a much more prominent role in American mobility than they do. But politics keep the national system's future foggy and unclear. (Photo by me) 

But in the U.S. the national Amtrak system, operating primarily on freight company-owned tracks, faces substantial reliability issues and a financial future that always seems uncertain. The threat of delays – most frequently due to passenger trains having to slow or stop to make way for freight trains – makes the system a less viable option than it should be, particularly for business travel. The ongoing funding uncertainty, meanwhile, has contributed to recent erosion of onboard amenities that is correlated with a decline in long-distance ridership (even as passenger numbers on regional Amtrak routes rise).

Thus, climate activists should expand their focus beyond cities, using existing intercity rail routes to get out to rural areas, where they can interact with residents and local officials. Such efforts don’t have to be overly resource-intensive – for example, the Rail Passenger Association’s Summer by Rail internship, undertaken by one person each year, highlights culture and daily life in often-forgotten parts of America that trains connect. Over time, such efforts would demonstrate the benefits of the connectivity Amtrak’s routes provide and draw attention to the substantial benefits of system expansion, as well as increased dispatch priority for existing routes. 

Transit routes with frequent service and dedicated lanes, like Mexico City Metrobus Line 7 pictured here, draw high ridership due to the effective connectivity they provide. (Photo by me)

Improving sustainable forms of mobility can help save the planet.

But in order to achieve this goal, we must remember that the environmental benefits of transit, biking, and walking are just one of many upsides that improvements to these options offer the public. And a focus on that full array of upsides is what will get people on board.