Richard Layman

Hierarchy Monocentric vs. polycentric transit networks Mode Frequency Transit Network vs. Transit Route Services integration

Transit network framework: Five scales
International (connections between countries) National (Interstate Highways, Freight railroads, Amtrak) Regional/multi-state covers two or more metropolitan areas (freeways, certain passenger railroad service, inter-city bus) Metropolitan (transit services in a particular metropolitan area such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, NYC, or Washington) Sub-metropolitan (transit subnetworks within a metro, differentiating between foundational cross-jurisdictional services and those within jurisdictions)

Population density shapes transit frequency

Source: Belmont, Cities in Full

DC-Baltimore region
Two commuter focused regional services: Maryland MARC (train + bus) and Virginia VRE (train) + Amtrak, inter-city bus DC Metro: WMATA subway and regional bus; commuter bus, separate bus services provided by each of the jurisdictions, light rail/streetcar planning underway Baltimore Metro: state-managed MTA subway, bus, light rail, commuter bus; separate bus services provided by Annapolis and Howard County + new Baltimore City Circulator

Regional transit services

Washington metropolitan transit network: Core service
Metropolitan Transit Network

² Polycentric ² Trunk line service classified by mode, frequency, system vs. route, price ² crosses jurisdictions, focused on service to major job centers ² WMATA subway system ² Ferry system if added ² Bus Rapid Transit/Commuter Express bus service

Washington metropolitan transit network: Suburban service
Suburban Primary Transit Network ² high frequency* bus and streetcar service within the suburbs ² WMATA or local service ² classify by speed and destination Suburban Secondary Transit Network ² primarily intra-jurisdictional (more monocentric) * Definition of high-frequency is relative and dependent on population density. Center cities typically have higher density and therefore higher transit use. (Partly due to transit dependence and automobility, partly due to efficiency.)

Suburban transit services

Washington metropolitan transit network: DC (Center City) Service
Primary Transit Network: Core of the WMATA system in DC (29 stations); streetcar system; branded city services (Circulator); high frequency WMATA bus service Secondary Transit Network: the other 11 subway stations in the city; other WMATA bus service within the city; water taxi service if added, depending on the routes Tertiary Transit Network*: intra-neighborhood bus services; private shuttle services (employer, university, etc.), shared taxi, jitney
* conceptual

In Washington·s core, the WMATA heavy rail system functions monocentrically.

Center city transit services

Center city transit services

Transit planning: Metropolitan transportation planning vs. operator-driven transit planning Planning the network at the metropolitan level is rare (comprehensive planning vs. grab bag of projects) By default, transit planning is done by the provider and is satisficed based on budget Need to set metropolitan metrics for network breadth, depth, frequency and quality independent of transit service scheduling LOS/LOQ planning for the network vs. LOS delivered by the transit operator

Transportation planning:
choice vs. optimality
Rockville Pike, Montgomery County Capacity in persons/hour of one 12 foot wide road lane by mode

Left: Washington Post. Right: Planning and Design for Pedestrians and Cyclists: A Technical Guide, VeloQuebec

Transit shed:
Catchment area for a transit route/network

Construct the total catchment area (shed) through the sum of the stops/stations on each route/transit line Terminus stations draw from larger areas

Catchment radii from transit stops for 15-minute trip by foot and by bicycle

Source: Planning and Design for Pedestrians and Cyclists: A Technical Guide, Velo Quebec

Transit shed example ² Baltimore County, Maryland
One mile radius from transit stops and stations

Mobility shed: Catchment area for station/stop

Area map inside the Columbia Heights Metro Station. Each circle is ¼ mile/5 minute walking distance

Mobility shed: Catchment area for station/stop
Rings represent the ´shedµ of different modes Typology based on optimality and sustainability Trip distance shapes mode choice (e.g., bike share vs. owned-bicycle³both humanpowered, vs. electric bicycle)

Sustainable transportation hierarchy: Transportation Alternatives, New York City.

Mobility shed: Modes
Active transportation -- Walking -- Bicycling Shared transportation -- Bicycle Sharing -- Car Sharing -- Taxi/Jitney -- Rental Transit -- mode specific to stop -- intra-neighborhood connecting services Owned vehicles -- Electric bicycle, Scooter, Motorcycle -- Automobiles -- Multiple vehicles per household)

Mode shift through focused transportation demand management
Many examples -- TravelSmart, Victoria, Australia -- Arlington County, VA -- Smart Trips, Portland, OR

How these concepts came together

Belmont ² polycentric vs. monocentric transit systems and MUNI/BART vs. WMATA comparison Cervero ² ´commutershedµ (gross grain concept) Transportation demand management planning, Victoria, Australia (TravelSmart) Arlington County Master Transportation Plan ² definition of the primary and secondary transit network

Similar/related concepts
Hierarchy of the urban rail network in Metropolitan Tokyo ² Professor Shigeru Morichi, President, Institute for Transport Policy Studies, Japan Mobility hubs ² University of Michigan Center for Advancing Research & Solutions for Society High-frequency transit services ² HiTrans project, Europe,, + many examples of differentiated service in the U.S. (Minneapolis-St. Paul, Los Angeles, Reno, Portland, etc.)

What doesn·t fit?
Public transit vs. mass transit -- Dial-a-ride/paratransit services Tourist transit -- all-day & multi-day tourist services -- approximately $20+/adult/day

Next steps/Q&A
Refine, test, strengthen, extend ?

Media focused on entertainment, advertising Only a handful of journalists cover urban design, architecture, transportation very well (Toronto Star³Christopher Hume, San Francisco Chronicle³John King, Chicago Tribune³Blair Kamin, Philadelphia Inquirer³ Inga Saffron) Blogs can bring attention to and raise the level of discourse on urban revitalization and transportation planning ² or not May be local or national in scope Opportunity to shape the issues ² may be consulted by elected and appointed officials, journalists and other stakeholders Spaces for advocacy and organizing

National blogs
Transport Connection ² Urbanophile ² The Overhead Wire ² Streetsblog (NYC) ² Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space ²

Local-regional blogs
Greater Greater Washington ² Washcycle (bicycling) ² Transit Miami ² « but there are hundreds, i.e., Streetsblog network Plus tens of thousands of neighborhood blogs

Most blogs are side projects by interested parties Some are sponsored with paid staff (Streetsblog) Group blogs enable coverage of a wider area and more issues (GGW) Challenge finding like-minded, able writers Comment thread quality trends downward, dependent on participants (10/90 rule) Need to set high bar for quality and not every author, post, or blog meets it ´Perfectµ as the enemy of the good vs. being a player Blogs have supplanted e-lists/listservs

Thank you!
Contact information: