METROPOLITAN MASS TRANSIT PLANNING:

TOWARDS A HIERARCHICAL & CONCEPTUAL

FRAMEWORK

PRESENTATION @ UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE

THURSDAY, MARCH 18TH, 2010

Richard Layman
Concepts
 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
– Polycentric
– Trunk line service classified by mode,
frequency, system vs. route, price
– crosses jurisdictions, focused on service
to major job centers
– WMATA subway system
– Ferry system if added
– Bus Rapid Transit/Commuter Express
bus service
Washington metropolitan transit network:
Suburban service
 Suburban Primary Transit Network
– high frequency* bus and streetcar service within the suburbs
– WMATA or local service
– classify by speed and destination
 Suburban Secondary Transit Network

– 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
Capacity in persons/hour of one 12 foot wide
Rockville Pike, Montgomery County 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 – 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 “shed” of different modes
 Typology based on optimality and
sustainability
 Trip distance shapes mode choice
(e.g., bike share vs. owned-bicycle—both
human-powered, vs. electric bicycle)

Sustainable transportation hierarchy:

Transportation Alternatives, New York City.
Mobility shed:
Modes
 Active transportation Transit
-- Walking -- mode specific to stop
-- Bicycling -- intra-neighborhood
 Shared transportation connecting services
Owned vehicles
-- Bicycle Sharing
-- Car Sharing -- Electric bicycle, Scooter,
-- Taxi/Jitney Motorcycle
-- Rental -- 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
Seeds
 Belmont – polycentric vs. monocentric transit systems
and MUNI/BART vs. WMATA comparison
 Cervero – “commutershed” (gross grain concept)
 Transportation demand management planning,
Victoria, Australia (TravelSmart)
 Arlington County Master Transportation Plan –
definition of the primary and secondary transit network
 Similar/related concepts
 Hierarchy of the urban rail network in Metropolitan Tokyo
– Professor Shigeru Morichi, President, Institute for Transport
Policy Studies, Japan
 Mobility hubs – University of Michigan Center for Advancing
Research & Solutions for Society
 High-frequency transit services – HiTrans project, Europe,
http://www.hitrans.org, + 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
 ?
Blogstuff
 Media focused on entertainment, advertising
 Only a handful of journalists cover urban design, architecture, transportation very
well (Toronto Star—Christopher Hume, San Francisco Chronicle—John King,
Chicago Tribune—Blair Kamin, Philadelphia Inquirer—Inga Saffron)
 Blogs can bring attention to and raise the level of discourse on urban
revitalization and transportation planning – or not
 May be local or national in scope
 Opportunity to shape the issues – may be consulted by elected and appointed
officials, journalists and other stakeholders
 Spaces for advocacy and organizing
National blogs
 Transport Connection –
http://thetransportconnection.wordpress.com
 Urbanophile – http://www.urbanophile.com
 The Overhead Wire – http://theoverheadwire.blogspot.com/
 Streetsblog (NYC) – http://www.streetsblog.org
 Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space –
http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com
Local-regional blogs
 Greater Greater Washington –
http://greatergreaterwashington.org
 Washcycle (bicycling) – http://washcycle.typepad.com
 Transit Miami – http://www.transitmiami.com
 … but there are hundreds, i.e., Streetsblog network
 Plus tens of thousands of neighborhood blogs
Lessons
 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
 “Perfect” as the enemy of the good vs. being a player
 Blogs have supplanted e-lists/listservs
Thank you!
 Contact information:
 rlaymandc@yahoo.com