“Owns a hybrid, but drives all around town alone. The kind of car you drive is just one part of the transportation equation. Walking, biking, carpooling, and taking public transportation when you can are also important. Try to drive the most fuel-efficient car in the class of car you need. That car doesn’t need to be a hybrid. Remember that driving less overall by making shopping lists and planning efficient routes saves gas and reduces emissions.”

As far as green hypocrites go there is another type that drives me to distraction: people who work in transit—especially those who spend their days talking to people about the wonders of transit—but don’t use their own services.  But that is a discussion for another day.  I was glad to see Bongiorno’s post because she makes an argument for not driving around by yourself, even in a hybrid and she connects that to transit.  What she omits is the reasoning; many of her readers took her to task for being a scold and at least on this point I think it was because she failed to make the argument.  Let me fill it in.

Prius ads notwithstanding, motorcars do not biodegrade. Photo Scheib

Automobiles are the largest non-point source of pollution (a factory is a point source but taken in aggregate motorcars are one of the world’s great polluters).  Motorcar manufacturers are naturally interested in pushing the green car image hence Subaru boasting a zero landfill factory (their cars?  Not so much) and Honda’s short-lived environmentology campaign.  A Toyota Prius advertisement shows an automobile made of sticks and leaves that eventually disintegrates.   In case you haven’t heard, real cars do not do this.

Leaving aside the pollution involved in the manufacture and disposal of motorcars, and even the modest emissions from a Prius, automobiles, hybrids and all,  still greatly contribute to ecological degradation and the ruin of cities.  Donald Shoup established in The High Cost of Free Parking that there are 8 parking spaces for every car in the United States.  That means no matter what you drive some one out there right now is planning heat-reflecting surface parking spaces (likely built on greenfields) for you to park your car.  And Lincoln Navigators and Priuses get the same size parking space, with the rare exception of some garage compact car spots.  That’s a bad start.  But the automobile has a long tail that extends well outside the road and parking lot. 

Motorcars influence lifestyle.  For example, denser urban environments encourage frequent grocery shopping trips as part of a trip chain between home and work.  As a result urbanites are storing far fewer groceries than their suburban counterparts who make weekly shopping trips.  Grocery carts are a good indicator of this relationship.  If you look at the small carts found in urban grocery stores the basket will be about 4,700 cubic inches or smaller.  A medium-sized cart such as found in typical American grocery stores like Publix, Piggly Wiggly, or Kroger will be 8,700 cubic inches or larger.  I had just come back from Moscow the first time I saw a Sam’s Club cart and was stunned by its caricaturish girth.  These jumbo baskets measure in at a whopping 26,000 cubic inches!

It goes without saying that 10 or 20 thousand cubic inches of groceries are going to be carted home in a car.  Once they get there they will be stored in pantries, kitchens, and refrigerators far larger than needed in an urban home.  Or how about the extra refer/freezer kept in the garage, the hottest room in the home for much of the year, to hold extra meats and beer?   There is a siege mentality to suburbia:  once you get home from the jungle you are not going to want to venture out again.  Better stock up.

A few years ago Martin Wachs estimated that in most cities streets, highways, and parking lots cover from a third to half of the land area.  That is a bad atmosphere for pedestrians and transit and the mark of a huge carbon footprint.  Batteries ain’t gonna fix that.

The sticker price is a shocker, but on reading BART’s report you realize advertising dozens of meetings in the San Francisco market, hiring interpreters for those meetings and translators for all the relevent documents in Chinese, Khmer, Korean, Lao, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog, and Vietnamese can add up quickly.  And those weren’t senseless extras.  The point of this exercise was to reach users who were not necessarily affluent, native-born, white English speakers.

But let’s not allow the 800 large to distract us from the larger impact of the story.  That money was a drop in the bucket compared with what BART lost and could lose.  Because the agency had not officially considered the impact of a “major service change”  on Title VI populations (low-income, minorities, limited English proficiency) FTA had already killed $70 million toward a people mover line from Colisuem Station to the Oakland Airport and another $100 million for an airport line was in jeopardy.

 The language in question is descibed in Title VI Circular 4702.1A, May 13, 2007, Requirement to Evaluate Service and Fare Changes (page V-5): 

In order to comply with 49 CFR Section 21.5(b)(2), 49 CFR Section 21.5(b)(7) and Appendix C to 49 CFR part 21, recipients to which this chapter applies shall evaluate significant system-wide service and fare changes and proposed improvements at the planning and programming stages to determine whether those changes have a discriminatory impact.  For service changes, this requirement applies to “major service changes” only.  The recipient should have established guidelines or thresholds for what it considers a “major” change to be.  Often, this is defined as a numerical standard, such as a change that affects 25 percent of service hours of a route.  [emphasis added] 

 For my money, when FTA uses words like often it is like a teacher saying “You might want to remember this.”  That means its going to be on the test and it is not unreasonable to think FTA was dropping a broad hint that 25% might be a good standard.   That lesson was not lost on the good people at BART who did their homework and adopted 25% after reviewing other large agencies, to wit: 

To establish a threshold or “upper limit” for a service change, BART must first define these terms so they can be communicated to and discussed with the public. The term “major” relates to how BART proposes to measure its service.  In advance of soliciting community input, BART staff researched best practices from major transit agencies throughout the United States to inform its approach. The FTA Circular 4702.1A states that a numerical standard such as a change that affects 25% of service hours of a route can serve as a dividing line between minor and major service changes. Transit agencies in New York, Houston, San Jose, Portland, Chicago, Sacramento, and Atlanta have adopted this industry standard of 25% per line.  [from  BART Summary Report June 25 2010 Establishing a Major Service Change Threshold] 

 The number 25 cannot stand alone.   Transit agencies adopting a standard reading something like “Metro defines a major service change as 25%,” would be in real trouble.  BART says the 25% applies to new lines, line length, service levels (the amount of service operated on a line), service hours,  aggregate changes across all the Lines on the BART System: annual net increases or decreases to Line Length, service levels, or service hours which exceed 20 percent in aggregate when combined over all the lines on the BART system, or the cumulative changes within a three-year period.  BART is a large, well-run, and credible transit property but the language about major service changes was missing from their Title VI documentation.  It cost them big–and I don’t mean the $800,000–so take a moment to review your docs so you won’t repeat their mistake.

The raw data from the census in Excel.

Following up on Population Pyramids I which shows the story-telling power of population pyramids, this post explains how to create them.

Negotiating the labrynth of the U.S. Census Beureau can be a challenge so this link will take you right to the 2008 ACS 1-year Data.  Under the 2008 tab in the blue area chose Subject Tables from the list at right.  Select the desired geographic type from the drop down menu.  (A city is called a “place.”) [note:  the 1-year data is more selective and focused on larger communities.  If your place or county is not listed go back a page and choose the 3-year data].  At the top of the next page, ignoring the drop down menu, under Age and Sex chose Age and Sex next to SO101.

Select everything from “Total Population” down to “85 years and over,” including all columns to the right.  Paste this into an Excel spreadsheet.  The age breakdown is done by a percentage of the total by sex, so you will want to replace those percentages with numbers.  The easiest thing is to put the equation in the Margin of Error column since you won’t be using that.  Let’s assume you know how to do that. 

To build the population pyramid you will need just three columns: age ranges, males, and females.  The pyramid is built on a zero axis.  In order to get males and females on opposite sides of the zero, one of the sets of numbers must be negative.  These examples all use females on the left of zero, so let’s continue doing so here.  You could add a minus sign to each of the values but that is time consuming, especially if you will be doing several as part of a peer comparison.  The easiest thing to do is to move the female data one column to the right and in the now blank column use an equation to multiply the female numbers by negative one (i.e. =D3*-1 where D3 is the 85 and over women.  Drag down). 

Multiply one sex by negative 1

Select your three columns (ages, positive male numbers, negative female numbers) and go to the graphing function.  Choose a bar chart (the first one under 2D in 2007).  Accept  all the defaults and finish.  In the 2007 version, select the bars on either side of zero  (click one bar and all should select) right click and select Format Data Series.  Set Series Overlap to 100% and Gap Width to 10%.  Then click on the age ranges in the chart and right click to select Format Axis.   Under Axis Options chose the Specify Interval Unit button but leave the default (1).   There are three drop down menus that should read from top to bottom None, None, and Low.

In earlier versions click on a bar, Format Data Series, Options overlap = 100 gap wideth =10.  Click on a number, under patterns tab on the righthand side chose none, none low.  Under scale  all ones.

Adjust the colors as you see fit and add a title.

Lastly, you may want to change the negatives in the horizontal axis label to positive.  Right click on it and choose “Format Axis.”  Go to Number and chose custom at the bottom of the menu.  In the “Format code” box type #,##0;#,##0.  Close.  Repeat.  Have fun, but be careful; building these pyramids can be addictive.

Saleswoman Deanna Droira-Garcia. Photo FPTA.

I have long been in the “We got ‘em” camp that thinks transit agencies spend too much time and effort surveying our existing riders to see what they think of our services (or as Jarrett Walker at Human Transit put it:  “In fact, one common sign that a transit agency is conceptually stuck is when they think and talk only about their present riders, not new ones they intend to attract.)  It does not take a survey to know a 1-hour headway is too long or that the buses should be clean and on-time and drivers should be polite.  I have never been surveyed in a business (even if I have filled out my share of comment cards) because businesses know customers=good job.  I tend to think if people are riding either they must do so or they find some value in transit already and our resources would be better spent in finding out why other people are not riding.  It is a given that service must be high-quality for existing riders because if it is not new passengers will quickly become former passengers.

I had not seen anything to challenge this belief until recently when I attended a workshop co-hosted by Florida DOT, FPTA, and the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR).  A presenter showed a graph of ridership trends when there is 100% retention of existing riders, 90% of existing riders, and 70% of existing riders.  The 100% line is straight but with each lower percentage the line curves downward more quickly.  Basically, it is a lot easier to grow if people are staying.      

In Florida a driver’s license is suspended until the driver can demonstrate six months have passed without a seizure.  Droira-Garcia did so, had her license restored, and started driving again . . . until she had another seizure.  She is temporarily and intermittently transit dependent.  It is a curious choice for the top prize in this contest because she is not someone who has discovered the joys of using transit and wants to keep using it.  Rather she found it workable in the absence of a car but is eager to get back to driving. (She tells us “I am in the process of reinstating my license, and I am waiting for the decision from the Medical Board Review.  I am still taking public transportation until reinstatement of my license,” as she has already done once before.  How about a new slogan for Miami Dade Transit:  There for you in a Pinch!)

Droira-Garcia is not alone.  A county commissioner came to our transit agency to tour the facility.  All of the front office staff were gathered so the commissioner could tell us the inspiring story of how he had been a car-less college student in Chicago, waiting for buses and trains in the cold and swearing he would become a lawyer, buy an expensive car, and never use public transportation again.  That commissioner achieved his goal.  Yes, he came to our office to tell the transit staff that through perseverance and hard work anyone can avoid using the services we provide.  There was not a dry eye in the room.

There are signs at car lots in rougher neighborhoods around Atlanta reading, “Be Smarta, Get off MARTA,” and I have seen car cards on buses advertising car dealers with the likes of “Get off this bus for $700.”   There is a churning process in transit where new passengers come in to replace those who got ‘smarta and got off MARTA, CARTA, BARTA, DARTA, et al.  No rider is eternal; people get healthy, earn more money, or if all else fails, die.  But if getting away from transit is an aspirational goal of our passengers we have bigger problems than just finding new riders.  While we are doing surveys we might consider posing the question, “If you must use transit but tomorrow you suddenly had the option of not using transit, would you continue and if not, why?” If we had the answer to that then all those on-board surveys might seem brilliant after all.

Shelters on the Sprinter Line in Charlotte are unique identifiers but also part of the urban fabric. Photo courtesy of CATS.

Art has historically been public, civic – both a product of and contributor to collective identity.  From Egyptian glyphs to idealized Greek athletes, from Roman triumphal arches to intricate altar pieces, art condescends to tell us something about who we are, where we are, and how we relate to others both within and beyond our own society.  Since the Renaissance, however, the locus of art and its relationship to its audience has shifted to more private arenas.  Frescoes and grandiose statues in the public eye have been replaced in critical art creation by the painted canvas and bourgeois sculpture in private collections, galleries, and museums.  Art and all things cultural seem to have become matters of personal evaluation and interpretation. 

This is exactly the condition to which the minimalist art of the 1960s and performance pieces of the 70s responded, the latter especially aiming to restore art’s role in public life.  In the past decade or so, as Americans have begun to return to urban centers, cities across the country have begun to emphasize the arts and undertaken high profile public art projects as civic amenities and marketing tools. 

This bodes well for programs that incorporate public art into transit projects.  The seemingly incongruous spheres of transportation and art find harmony in transit that is unattainable on highways.  A person waiting for transit has the luxury of being able to take in and engage her surroundings; a person caught in traffic really ought to be watching the vehicle ahead. 

The allocation of transportation funds to art in transit programs is justified by the mutualistic art-transit relationship and the benefits it conveys to cities.  In a funding environment that focuses on cost-effectiveness and ridership, art-in-transit projects represent a small but significant departure into a realm less tangible.  It is a realm that emphasizes narrative, identity, and relationship. 

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides funding and guidance for including art in transit projects.  While artist selection and site treatments are left to the discretion of the local implementing agency, the FTA recommends that a defensible selection process be employed that ensures equal opportunity is granted to all applying artists or teams of artists.  Moreover, the selection of the artist must be made by a committee of qualified art and design professionals with the participation of the local community.  

For proposed artworks to be funded, the FTA emphasize the following criteria: quality of art or design; the impact on transit patrons; a substantive and/or formal relationship to the site and surrounding area; a fitting and safe scale suitable for the site; the use of durable materials; resistance to vandalism; and ease of maintenance.  

In addition to the FTA program, many cities and counties also have Percent-for-Art programs established by ordinance that call for one percent of the cost of public building projects to be allocated to the provision of public art.  Transit properties can coordinate with these entities to implement arts projects separate from or in conjunction with FTA.  

One of artist Pablo Tauler's 11 custom shelters in downtown Philadelphia.

Philadelphia adopted the first municipal Percent for Art ordinance in the country in 1959.  One of the over 200 art projects funded by the Percent for Art program since its inception is found in the heart of the city on Chestnut Street.  The broad, bustling sidewalks of this downtown thoroughfare are lined with custom bus shelters of stainless steel and tinted glass.  Each shelter has a unique design that echoes the City’s architecture and history, from colonial motifs to art deco patterns.  Artist Pablo Tauler sought to give the 11 shelters the same dynamic mix of styles as that seen throughout one of the nation’s oldest and most historically significant cities.  

The steel friezes, crowns, and frames and one-inch thick colored glass create a stimulating visual environment and are intended to ensure the longevity of the City’s investment.  The materials were selected to stand up to the elements and potential vandalism without creating a maintenance nightmare.  However, if any damage were sustained – a shattered pane of glass, for instance – the costs to restore the shelter would likely be significantly higher than a similar repair on a stock shelter.  The shelters were installed in 2000 as part of the City’s effort to revitalize Chestnut Street.  

Susan Harbage Page created these shelters for Charlotte. Clockwise from top left: Married Couple, Baby Twins, Morgan School, and Girl in Polka Dots. Photos by Architectural photographer JoAnn Sieburg-Baker.

In Charlotte’s Cherry neighborhood, Susan Harbage Page created custom bus shelters that act as an archive of community history.  Cherry is an historically African-American neighborhood adjacent to Uptown’s Second Ward.  Page collaborated with the Cherry Community Center and collected photographs from local residents to incorporate into the shelter design.  Five unique shelters were created with black and white photographs printed on the large panes that form the backs of the shelters.  The pictures portray scenes of community life, family ties, and educational achievement and reflect the sentiments of local residents about their neighborhood.  

The shelters were installed in 2008, about the same time that a prominent mixed-use redevelopment project called Metropolitan Midtown was completed.  The juxtaposition of the historic-feeling photos and the cold, pristine gleam of Metropolitan gives added weight to the shelters’ significance in the community.  They serve as a reminder to transit patrons and other passersby of the origins of this community, a sort of spiritual tie to the history and identity of the place that transcends the looming changes to be wrought by redevelopment.   The title of the series emblazoned on each shelter reinforces this theme: “Coming Home to Cherry.” 

Also in Charlotte, along the LYNX Blue Line light rail, the approach to Scaleybark Station feature conspicuous sculptural works that elicit an opinion from everyone who travels there.  A series of discs, 18 feet in diameter, stand upright on either side of the tracks that run in the median of South Boulevard.  Their situation seems precarious as the discs appear set to roll away, or be blown over by a gust of wind, or simply crumble since they look like they are made from the surrounding earth.  In fact they are made of steel and concrete (and Carolina clay) and weigh 11 tons each.  They are designed to withstand the elements, despite their fragile appearance. 

The artist, Thomas Sayre, intended the sculptures to resemble harrow discs, agricultural implements towed behind a plow to cultivate the soil.  The piece is called “Furrow” and was completed in 2007 as part of the light rail construction, paid for in part by Federal Transit Administration funds.  They allude not only to an agricultural past but to the rhythm and character of the natural environment.  Shadows shift on the ground and on the curves of the convex discs as the day wears on and it is hard not to feel the dirt in your hands as you study the texture of their surfaces. 

While “Furrow” is not universally popular, it is universally recognized in Charlotte.  One of its great successes is that it is instantly identifiable, giving the area a landmark and promoting a sense of place.  Equally admirable is the fact that the piece almost compels anyone who sees it to explore the significance of these strange discs and thereby puts them in touch with the roots of the area.  

The examples above demonstrate that art and transit share something deeply significant in common that makes them mutually supportive: they are both generally and most naturally public in their orientation.  This would seem axiomatic for transit, but if the concept is expanded to include transportation as a whole, greater exploration is required.  

For the motorist, gently nestled in her auto-cocoon, transport seems private, at least in the same way that an office or a living room is private, visible from the outside but only available to an accepted, intended few.  The vehicle, however, occupies an explicitly public space, and the movement of people and goods has always taken place in such collective venues.  Likewise, art is often considered to be private, with each individual brining a unique interpretation to a given piece. But as was noted at the outset of this article, art has a longer history in streets and squares than in contemplative museums and galleries.  

A discussion of the philosophies and theories that impact evolving artistic conditions and reactions would probably have little practical relevance to daily operations in the transit industry.  However, the notion that art and transportation share a common public character is pertinent, and the role that they play in public life is influenced by industry practices.  

As transit and public space become increasingly important in daily urban American life, transit properties will have a significant impact on both.  Beyond providing a service to move people from place to place, transit formally and culturally shapes those places.  The industry has the opportunity and the fiscal capacity through art in transit and other public art programs to do so in a way that is relevant and constructive to the community.

Alex Bell earned a bachelor’s degree in Art History and a master’s in Urban Planning.  He is a transportation planner for Renaissance Planning Group.