Bikes and HOT Lanes

Sunday's Washington Post Outlook section published an op-ed piece by Bruce Wright, chairman of Fairfax Advocates for Better Bicycling that was spot on. His key point being that as Virginia moves forward with $1.7 billion of investment to move cars better (the new HOT Lanes), the state absolutely needs to think comprehensively about other modes--in particular cycling. Currently it is difficult or impossible to cross the beltway on a bicycle along most routes. Although I have heard of people doing it, it's pretty terrifying for me to imagine riding on Route 50 where it crosses I-495. Most of the other crossings are no better. There are undoubtedly thousands of people who live only a few miles from their jobs or from other places they want to go, but the Beltway is in between, forcing them to drive those short distances.

In fact, VDOT's Policy for Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations makes this statement: "The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) will initiate all highway construction projects with the presumption that the projects shall accommodate bicycling and walking." Here's a golden opportunity for VDOT to demonstrate that it is not just paying lip service and--in contrast to its performance as reported in a previous post on a VDOT missed opportunity--really understands the value of bicycling and walking as viable travel choices.

Thanks, Bruce, for getting this key issue into the Post where our policy makers are more likely to see it.

Smarter than a 5th-Grader?

The Friday, October 19, Washington Post ran an article by Juliet Eilperin in which she reported that the administration's Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, John H. Marburger III, said that the target of preventing Earth from warming more than two degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, "is going to be a very difficult
one to achieve and is not actually linked to regional events that affect people's lives."

I agree with the first part: it will be difficult to achieve. However, the second part of that statement is undeniably false and, in fact, regional events are already affecting people's lives and are only going to get more severe. The 2003 European heat waves resulted in more than 20,000 excess lives lost and has been linked by scientists to global warming. If that is not a 'regional event that affects people's lives,' I don't know what is. Storm scientists have documented increased storm intensities of tropical storms, including storms like Katrina, which strike me as significant regional events (note of caution here: it is impossible to know if Katrina or any particular storm is more severe due to global warming; what we do know is that the tendency for storms to be stronger is going up.)

It is frustrating to see high-powered officials in the federal government with their heads so deeply buried in the sand. I was recently in the library with my son and browsing in the young adult section. I noticed a book called "Global Warming," and was of course interested in seeing what teenagers might be reading on the subject. Glancing through I noted that the science was solid but a good deal of the information seemed out of date, so I checked the publication date: 1988!! Yes, twenty years ago the basic science on climate change was already pretty much settled and here we are twenty years later with powerful political figures who are--to steal from a popular TV show--dumber than a 5th grader.

More DC Area Commuter Stories

The new Sunday column in the Washington Post on page B2, Commuter, today featured two real people and their actual commutes. I could relate to the first one almost exactly. He lives in Arlington near the East Falls Church Metro (I live in Arlington near the East Falls Church metro) and he works in Reston off Sunrise Valley Drive (I worked in a building about 100 yards from his for about 6-7 months in 2006). Pretty much identical commutes. He drives every day. I drove 2-3 times total in the time I worked there.

As in my post from earlier this month about why people don't use transit more, it appears that this commuter has not been able to get good information. He claims in the article that it would require 3 bus transfers to get from his house to his work. Not true--there is an express bus from the West Falls Church metro that goes directly to his office. It would take a bit longer than his drive (at least in the morning), but certainly a viable option if he's trying to avoid traffic coming home. I'm not sure how he compiled the information about the bus, but clearly he was unable to find good information easily.

However, his better option yet is to bike. The ride is virtually entirely on the W&OD trail. From the article:
"What would you rather be doing?
'I'd rather spend time with my friends, go out into nature, do some biking.' "

Why not do both at the same time? That was my way to and from work for the half-a-year I had the same commute. Biking and out in nature. I saw deer, fox, turtles, bats, groundhogs, birds, joggers, other bikers, and other flora and fauna. Sounds like the perfect solution for him. He's spending $50/week on gas (presumably not all just for his commute, though). He could certainly save some of that by leaving the car at home.

The other commuter lives in Waldorf and works in DC. I don't have any similar experiences to relate for him.

Perhaps most telling about why our traffic is so intractable was their replies to this question: "If you could change one thing about your commute, what would it be?"
Both of them replied that they wished everyone else would get off the road or use transit. This seems like a common sentiment (see my most recent post). . . if all those other people would just quit driving, then it would be so much better for me. Rokas Reipa

We're #2. Do we do it to ourselves?

Today's Washington Post reported on the annual congestion rankings put out by the Texas Transportation Institute, and the DC area tied for 2nd with an average of 60 hours of congestion for peak period commuters.

What caught my eye, though was this tidbit:

"You feel helpless," an Arlington resident was quoted, who drives between Rosslyn and his job in downtown Washington.

Huh? Helpless?!? He DRIVES from Rosslyn to his office on 15th St. NW! I guess that's his prerogative (maybe), but then he has no right to whine about the traffic and claim that he's "helpless." He could freaking WALK to his office in 45 minutes or less. It's at most a 15-minute bike ride--maybe less. He could squeeze on a metro train for 6-7 minutes from Rosslyn to McPherson Square. He could also get a Metrobus to Farragut Square and walk a couple of blocks.

He complains, but he is also actually part of the problem. Remember, when you are sitting in traffic, you ARE the traffic, too. He's doing both himself and everyone else a disservice by not figuring out all his choices, which are many.

What more can we do? Here's a guy with half a dozen options who still chooses to sit in traffic for a 3-mile commute. No one's going to build a new bridge between Rosslyn and DC, nor add any more roads between the river and his office. Widening I-66 won't make any difference to him. The only thing that would improve his drive is if fewer people were driving. But if he's unwilling to get out of his own car, how can he expect everyone else to stop driving, too? He's his own enemy.

Bikes and Road Capacity

About a month ago VDOT repaved a section of North Glebe Rd. in Arlington. According to Charlie Denney, Arlington's bicycle and pedestrian coordinator, VDOT's guidelines require them to make accommodations for bicycles when doing work like this on state highways. For this project that meant that they should restripe the road to allow for bike lanes--or at least narrow the inside lane and widen the outside lane to make more space for cars and bikes to share.

Charlie was in touch with VDOT on the day they were doing the lane painting to remind them of their own guidelines. However, he was unsuccessful in getting them to make any bike-friendly changes to the standard lane widths--a missed opportunity.

According to Charlie, one VDOT official said that before they could make any changes to the plan there would have to be a new road capacity engineering study undertaken. This is, of course, ridiculous, since there would be no actual changes to the lane configurations, intersections or anything--the paint on the road would be moved over a foot or two: no change in capacity. When I hear things like that I often wonder if VDOT includes in their job postings the statement, "Common sense not required," or "Do not expect to be empowered to make intelligent decisions on your own."

Coincidentally, I ride my bike on that section of Glebe Road 2-3 times per week, and I have been paying attention to how the cars and I interact. My experience is that by not narrowing the inside lane to make the outside lane wider, VDOT has actually REDUCED the capacity of the road.
Here's why: I have observed that cars in the outside lane do not feel comfortable passing me in the space provided, so they move over into the middle lane. If there are cars traveling in that lane, then they need to slow and wait for an opening. My presence makes the road effectively one lane (for cars) in my direction rather than two--decreasing the capacity. If there were a bike lane, both the cars and the bike rider (me) would have a defined space to travel in, and both safety and capacity would be improved.

So here's a case where the attitude that roads are for cars only has created a disservice for all road users--a lose-lose.

HOT Lanes Getting Started Up

Today's Washington Post article announcing that work on the N. Virginia HOT lanes will start up early next year is bound to create a lot of "traffic" here, on other blogs and in forums of all types. I think it's great that so many people are really thinking about how to deal with the undeniable problem of traffic congestion in the DC area. And clearly there are differing opinions, which--at least here on the CommuterPage blog--I hope we can express with mutual respect and thoughtfulness.

Problems with traffic congestion are not unique to Washington. One of the great things about our big ol' US of A is that we are big; we have 50 states; we have scores of metropolitan areas. What that means is that we can try different things in different places and learn from those experiences. I'm sure that other metro areas will be watching to see what happens here. "But I don't wanna be the guinea pig," I can hear from some. That's NIMBYism writ large: put it somewhere else; let someone else try it first; make them pay for it. . . .Take that attitude universal and nothing ever happens anywhere at all.

Is this model perfect? I doubt it. Should we allow private ownership of a public good? There's definitely some validity to that point. Will the new HOT lanes be completely fair for all users? It's impossible to be completely fair (and definitions of fair are not even consistent). Will the money get inappropriately used, politicized or even wasted somehow? Um. . .this is DC. Do we need to do something? Absolutely.

I'm excited to see our leaders taking action on something innovative and even controversial with the potential for some real gains. If only they would take a similar attitude towards the tunnel in Tyson's corner--bold and innovative instead of trapped in a bureaucratic morass. Maybe that's the real lesson of these HOT lanes. Look how fast they went from crazy idea to implementation. And how long have we been pursuing that rail line?

More Why People Don't Use Transit

My brother-in-law, who lives in Boulder, comes to the DC area three or four times a year on business, so we like to get together for dinner while he is in town. Today's the day. He's teaching a course in the Springfield area, and we decided to meet him in Shirlington at 6:30 this evening and choose one of the many fine restaurants once we are there.

My wife is attending a seminar today at 2400 N Street NW in DC, which she traveled to by Metrorail. I suggested to her that rather than come home first at the end of the day, she go directly to Shirlington and just meet us there. Neither of us has used transit to get to Shirlington from DC, but I'm savvy, so I know I could use the Metro trip planner to get her there.

So I did, and as usual it gave me three options:
1) Foggy Bottom Metro at 5:51 (Blue line); transfer at Crystal City to the 23A; arrive Shirlington 6:27 (36 minutes)
2) Foggy Bottom Metro at 5:49 (Orange line); transfer at Ballston to the 23A; arrive Shirlington 6:26 (37 minutes)
3) Foggy Bottom Metro at 5:46 (Blue line); transfer at Crystal City to the 23A; arrive Shirlington 6:27 (41 minutes). This one's not another option! It's the same bus as #1, just an earlier train.

None of these is the best choice, though. Being familiar with the area and our transit system, I was pretty certain that there are buses from the Pentagon to Shirlington. Lo and behold, there are. In fact, I learned that she could catch a bus direct from the Pentagon to Shirlington at 5:59, 6:02, 6:07, 6:15 (2 choices of bus) or 6:25. This is clearly the preferred choice--for two reasons. First, it's fastest (how come the metro planner failed to find this choice?). She can catch the train at Foggy Bottom at 6:03 and arrive in Shirlington at 6:27 (24 minutes). Second--and more importantly, it's way more flexible--if she misses her bus, it's a short wait for the next one. With the Metro Planner, if she misses the 6:10 at Crystal City, it's a 30-minute wait for the next bus.

All of this took me a good 10-15 minutes and a high-speed Internet connection to figure out. I'm not even sure if there might be some other good options that I missed (the Way to Go Interactive Shirlington map does not even show the 7E or 7C routes stopping in Shirlington Village). The larger point being that if we want people to use transit, it has to be way, way simpler. If people have to be an expert before they even get started, then they will just hop in their cars.

Let me assure you that if I had given her the Metro Planner options (or she had done it herself and not known to look for a Pentagon option) and she missed the bus by a minute or two, I would never get her to do it again. She would either drive or take a taxi. Or more likely, she would leave her seminar early, come home first and then drive with us to Shirlington, an hour-long exercise rather than 24 minutes.

So I instructed her to go the Pentagon and catch the 7C or the 7E. I had to write it down, though, because the 7A, 7B, 7D, 7F, 7H, 7P, 7W and 7X don't go there or aren't running or something. Why are there 10 different 7's? Just to make it harder on passengers? I'll rant on that on a different post (click here).

Virginia Fines: Right or Wrong?

There has been tremendous coverage in the last month regarding Virginia's new fines for reckless driving and other lawbreaking on the roads.
(A list of the exact fines can be found in this Washington Post article)
(More: ABC News story, Marc Fisher column, list of many articles)

Recent articles have all covered the outcry and rage--seemingly unanimous, or at least widespread--over the outrageousness of these fines. What is much harder to measure, but I believe exists to a great degree, is the support from hundreds of thousands of safe drivers in Virginia. Let the record state that I support strong fines for reckless driving and other unsafe behavior. I am not the slightest bit outraged, because I have absolutely no concern that I will ever be subject to one of these fines, and if they serve to keep people focused on their driving behavior, then good.

I agree that the legislature should look at making improvements to the law. It ought to include out-of-state drivers, too. It doesn't make much sense that a speeding VA driver is somehow more dangerous than a speeding Maryland driver who happens to be in Virginia.

Judges should be given a little leeway to make decisions about those (sarcasm alert!) hundreds of pregnant women rushing to hospitals.

Finland has a progressive system in which fines are pegged to income. There's a certain elegance to this idea, essentially penalizing people with more equal amounts of pain ($300,000/year lawyer fined $3,000; $42,000/year teacher fined $420). Back in 2004, Dr. Gridlock came out opposed to this idea, and despite its appeal to fairness, I think it would be politically impossible in the US.

Is this how we should fund our transportation improvements? Probably not, although having the fines go to providing people with safer alternatives to driving is certainly a good place to put the fine dollars.
There's the odd inverse relationship between success (more safe driving) and funding. If hugely successful at deterring bad driving, the amount of money collected would plummet, and we'd have to go back and figure out something else--something more dependable and regular. As I mentioned in my post the other day, a more direct relationship between use of the system and funding would be better, i.e., tolls and congestion charges that charge people for using the roads.

Mary Peters: The Folly of Higher Gas Prices

Today's (Saturday, August 25) Washington Post included an op-ed by US Dept. of Transportation Secretary Mary Peters (who was just mentioned for other reasons on this blog the other day). Her key point is that raising gas taxes to improve transportation infrastructure (which has been raised in the public's consciousness since the bridge collapse in Minnesota) is the wrong strategy. She cites a couple of reasons:

1) Because the money is deposited into a federal trust fund, its allocation becomes politicized, and Congress is apt to skew the priorities for its use. I would tend to agree with this point.

2) It does little or nothing to reduce traffic congestion, because it does not dissuade people from driving during congested times or on congested roadways. I partially agree. Large gas taxes would push people towards smaller cars and also get them to think about using them less, but it wouldn't necessarily affect congestion. Small increases in the gas tax would probably make little difference.

I am in favor of raising gas prices, but for different reasons and in a different way. Burning gasoline creates environmental damage. Gas taxes could be used more appropriately to offset the damage caused by their use by being used for environmental protection. A better strategy in my mind is that gas taxes could replace wage taxes. The taxes collected would be used to reduce wage taxes. This works well for progressivity of tax policy, because rich tend to buy more gas and poor pay more in wage taxes.

Her key point is that we currently provide virtually all of our roadways for free. Any free good will tend to be overutilized. The infrastructure itself should be priced rather than the gas. I completely agree with this point. If people and businesses were charged for the use of the roads--more during congested times; possibly more for larger, more damaging vehicles--then they would start to make decisions based on their use. That's the idea behind congestion pricing (another recent blog): charge people for their use. If we tolled every road then a lot more people would choose to take the train or bus or ride their bike or otherwise think a bit harder before hopping in their car and driving.

Our New Hybrid: Update #2

As I mentioned in my June post, Arlington County passed a tax break for residents who own hybrid vehicles. I am pleased to report that we have received our personal property tax bill for this year and--just as hoped for--our bill was reduced by $750 because of the break. What would have been a $898 tax bill is only $148.

I must admit that this is an unexpected windfall. At the time we bought the car we were not aware that the county was considering this idea. We are, of course, happy about it.

EPA has now updated their www.fueleconomy.gov website to include the new MPG ratings, which are more representative of real-world driving. It shows our Camry as 34 MPG combined, which is much closer to our experience, instead of the official 39.

Here are the revised fuel efficiency ratings for the cars that qualify for the tax break.

And here are some of the highest mileage 2007 model year cars for comparison (2008 data are not all available yet). Hybrids that qualify are bolded.

Amber Waves of Grain

Today's Washington Post published an article about how surging interest in ethanol as an alternative fuel may increase pollutant flows into the Chesapeake Bay. The crux of the article is that demand for ethanol is causing more farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to plant corn instead of other crops. Corn tends to be more fertilizer intensive, so more fertilizer flows off the fields and eventually ends up in the Bay.

For me, I think the message that keeps reverberating is that there are no silver bullets. Alternative fuels can play a role in helping us toward sustainability, but we have to pursue all paths: more efficient vehicles, better transit services, more well planned communities, etc.

Bike to Work Day Success Story

This morning at the end of my bi-weekly commute to Silver Spring, another sweaty cyclist was sitting in front of my building, clearly having just finished his commute, too. We introduced ourselves and he asked where I bike from. I told him Arlington. He raised his eyebrows and said, "Me, too." (He is now the 5th person I have met in the last three months who bike commutes between Arlington and Montgomery County.) We swapped stories.

His story was that he decided to try out the commute for Bike to Work Day this last May. That convinced him that it was doable on a daily basis. He went out and bought a bike to meet his commuting needs, and now he's an every day commuter.

This was exciting for me to hear. Having participated in BTWD for a long time, I had the sense that everyone was already a bike commuter. It's nice to see--at least for this one commuter--that it was a catalyst for him to become a regular.

The Air We Breathe

Sunday's Washington Post Commuter Page (Page 2 in the Metro section) had a nice discussion of air quality. I have not been able to find it online; evidently it is only in the print edition.

The most striking visual on the page was a graph that showed the comparative emissions across several types of vehicles. Here are the numbers from the table but without the visual impact of the chart:

Nitrogen Oxide Emissions in grams/mile:
Light-duty hybrid (Prius, Civic hybrid) 0.02
Passenger car (Camry, Accord, Malibu) 0.10
Light-duty truck 2 (Cherokee, Caravan, Sienna) 0.30
Light-duty truck 4 (F-150, Sequoia, Land Rover) 0.60
Heavy-duty truck (Hummer, RVs) 0.90

That means it would take 5 carpoolers in a regular passenger car before the emissions would be equal to 5 Priuses or 15 passengers in a minivan to equal 15 Civic hybrids. A big SUV emits 30 times as much ozone-causing pollution per mile than a hybrid! A Hummer 45 times as much!

This table makes it clear that increasing the fleet of hybrid vehicles in our area, particularly if they are replacing other vehicles, would make a big dent in our air quality problems. In fact, DC is doing well with hybrid ownership, double the national average (link). Much of this has been driven by the HOV exemption for clean vehicles, prompting some drivers to invest in hybrids in order to be able to drive on the HOV lanes. This year, also, Arlington County has introduced a tax break for people to buy hybrid vehicles.

These seem like good policies as we strive to improve regional air quality. There has been controversy about whether the clean-vehicle exemption for HOV should be terminated. I think this information supports the position to keep it in place, since 3 single-occupant Priuses only emit 60% or less emissions than a car (or worse, an SUV or minivan) with three passengers. Some parties believe the exemption should end, because too many single-occupant vehicles will clog the carpool lanes. I will only be convinced after much more aggressive efforts, including much higher fines, are taken to eliminate the HOV violators, who I see all the time on I-66.

Keep in mind that owners of these vehicles are contributing to better air quality with 100% of the miles they drive, even though only 15% - 50% of their driving might be on HOV lanes, so it is in the interest of all who want cleaner air to encourage more purchasing of cleaner cars.

(In the interest of disclosure, I own a Toyota Camry hybrid, but do not have the requisite license plates to drive in the HOV lanes. I also have a personal interest in improving air quality, because my daughter suffers from asthma.)

Our New Hybrid: An Update

Back in March I posted about our brand new 2007 hybrid Toyota Camry. It looks silver, but it is actually "titanium!" We've now driven it about 1800 miles, and I have a report.

It has some cool features. Probably the coolest is the "smart" key that allows you to unlock, start and drive the car without ever taking the key out of your pocket or purse. Once you start using a smart key, you'll wish you had one for your house, too. Also, the hands-free Bluetooth connection to your cell phone is a nice convenience and safety feature.

However, the most important feature, fuel economy, has been a big disappointment. We've averaged only about 31 miles per gallon--no better than lots of economy vehicles that are not hybrids. I still feel good that the air quality emissions are much better than the vast majority of vehicles--especially since the DC area has such poor air quality, but I've not been impressed with the mileage. Because the vehicle has regenerative braking and often shuts down instead of idling, it's supposed to be better in city driving, which is the vast majority of what we do. That has not been our experience. We did pretty well on our one road trip to Philadelphia. Our highway mileage was over 40 mpg, and our total trip including the city driving while we were there averaged about 36-37 mpg.

The web site keeps a database of fuel efficiency for the various hybrids. Our mileage is in the bottom 10% of the Camry hybrids reporting there (average is 37 mpg). So, why? I think it's because of the short trips that we take. For mosts trips of under 3 miles it is very difficult to get the car to average above 30 mpg for that trip (oh, yeah, another feature is that it tells you your fuel efficiency for every trip at the end of that trip). It doesn't do well for the first couple of miles. Probably 60% - 70% of our trips are shorter than 3 miles.

The good news is that shortly after we purchased it, Arlington County adopted a tax break for hybrid cars, so we'll save several hundred dollars on our personal property tax this year, which will more than make up for the difference in fuel economy that I had hoped for and what we are actually getting. It won't, however, make up for the greenhouse gas emissions I had hoped we would be reducing.

What's Your Price

Today's Washington Post reported on a joint Post/ABC poll that asked people how current high gas prices are affecting or will affect their driving habits. Only 11 percent said that current prices would curtail their driving in the coming weeks. In fact, gasoline consumption is up 2.6% over the same week as last year.

I find it interesting that the price at which people say they will start to make changes is always about $0.50 - $1 higher than whatever the price is now. However, I believe that most people can only make changes on the margins in the short term (moving, buying a new car, etc. are long-term changes that are also freighted with many other factors). Jackson Landers blogs today about his situation, which is not that atypical for much of America. In the DC area, more people have more choices than he does, but it's not all that much better.

Trying to change our "addiction to oil" cannot be done by raising fuel prices alone. $5 or $6 gas will not change the driving habits of most people very much. It will probably start to change their buying habits; however, even that has only a limited effect. With the advent of leasing over the last decade or two, the people who are most likely to be affected by higher gas prices are actually buying used cars--not new ones. Rich people buy new cars, and they are less influenced by gas prices than by gadgets like navigation systems, safety features, style, etc. Manufacturers don't manufacture cars for the used-car buyers; they manufacture them for the new car buyers.

As much as I like the idea of using economics (I have an MBA after all) to move markets, the only good solution to our oil addiction in the transportation arena is to drastically and rapidly increase fuel efficiency standards. Unfortunately, that has proven to be politically impossible for more than two decades. Good luck, and drive safely this weekend.