Vehicle miles and person trips are also purposes that consume measurable quantities of embodied energy from the fossil fuel burned to power the factories where automobiles, light rail vehicles, and motorbuses are made to the oils and fuels used to lubricate and operate them (in the form of power plants for LRT).  In the manufacturing process the energy required for all types of vehicles is about the same on a per-seat basis, but if we use the work commute as an example the difference between the embodied energy of a personal vehicle and a bus is quite different.   

With the exception of some express services, transit vehicles run for many hours on end according to a schedule.  The energy required to propel the vehicle is already invested according to that schedule.  Whether a bus runs full or with just a few people the energy used to move the bus will be consumed—thus that energy is already embodied.  This is not the case with SOV commuters who must make a conscious decision to consume fuels by driving to work instead of taking advantage of space on a transit vehicle that must be in operation.

For example a man I know professionally told me a few years ago that when the main road by his house was two lanes for its entire length he used to get “stuck” behind the route 4 bus “from his house all the way to the office, almost every day.”  It was frustrating for him and he was glad when the road was widened to four lanes so he could pass.  The energy needed to take Dave to work was fully embodied in the route 4 schedule, but he decided to use even more fuel by driving himself.

 I find the notion of embodied energy very helpful in the face of complaints and outrage at the low miles-per-gallon diesel buses get.  Yes, we should pursue alternative fuels, but just because our vehicles’ exhaust is dirty doesn’t mean transit isn’t green.

Should rural road segments not get service just because there are no sidewalks? ADA does not prevent it.

If there is one unrelenting question that comes up when a transit agency is discussing the Americans with Disabilities Act and transit stops it is “Can we put up a bus stop sign in the grass/dirt/sand where there is no sidewalk without violating ADA?”  TPM has dealt with this at length elsewhere, but here are a few quick references that point to a simple pole in the ground in a rural street segment as a legitimate exercise of transit service.

Bus stops are not specifically mentioned in in the October 1, 2007 revision of 49 CFR Part 37 (Section 37.9) until Appendix D where Section 37.9, Standards for Transportation Facilities offers some clarity.

“The final Access Board standard (found at section 10.2.1(1) of appendix A to part 37) has been rewritten slightly to clear up confusion about the perceived necessary construction of a bus stop pad. Section 10.2.1(1) does not require that anyone build a bus stop pad; it does specify what a bus stop pad must look like, if it is constructed.  The further clarifying language in § 37.9(c) explains that public entities must exert control over the construction of bus stop pads if they have the ability to do so. The Access Board, as well as DOT, recognizes that most physical improvements related to bus stops are out of the control of the transit provider.”  [emphasis added]

The Revised rule from the Department of Justice (September 15, 2010) does allow for exceptions due to “structural impracticability.”

(1) Full compliance with the requirements of this section is not required where an entity can demonstrate that it is structurally impracticable to meet the requirements. Full compliance will be considered structurally impracticable only in those rare circumstances when the unique characteristics of terrain prevent the incorporation of accessibility features.

For example if service is provided on an old street where the length of it looks like the image at right, the agency could not be expected to provide 5 x 8 feet boarding and alighting areas at stops.

Right-of-Way and retaining walls prevent the practical ADA accessibility of some places.

Lastly, Easter Seals’ Project Action (Accessible Community Transportation in our Nation) has positioned itself as a major advocacy group for transit accessibility for the disabled and they have this to say on their Frequently Asked Questions page: 

Question: The local public transit agency has designated a bus stop sign by placing a sign in the ground along a roadway that has no sidewalk.  Must a paved surface be provided in the course of the work?

Answer: No. While the new sign must meet accessibility standards for legibility (ADAAG 4.30) and may not constitute a protruding object (ADAAG 4.4) the placement of the stop sign does not require other site improvements as part of this project. However, an agency that establishes a new bus stop also has program access responsibilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which require the transit system, when viewed in its entirety, to provide system usability for customers with disabilities (subject to the limitations of undue burden and fundamental alteration (see Section 35.150 (a) (3) of the U.S. Department of Justice Regulations).

That last sentence really gets to the heart of ADA’s purpose of “reasonable accommodation.”  Perhaps not every single bus stop is accessible, but the system as a whole must be accessible.

The Mattapan M Line Trolley #3254 before pull out. Photo by Adam E. Moreira

The Mattapan High Speed line is one of the few transit lines in the country still operating with Presidents Conference Committee (PCC) streetcars, and it is part of one of the most unusual and diverse public transportation networks in the nation. Boston’s mass transit system includes practically every mode conceivable aside from gondolas and funiculars (inclined plain). The Mattapan service is an unusual connector extending further into the suburbs from the southern terminal of the heavy-rail Red Line. It operates on a tree-lined exclusive right of way through the suburbs of Ashmont, Milton and Mattapan, and uses streetcars that are over a half-century old. It is a part of a journey to downtown that for many starts with a bus, then leads to the Mattapan, and finishes with the heavy-rail red line into the center of town.

The PPC car arrives at the turn-around loop, and the picture is one of striking contrast.  Ashmont was currently being refurbished, and the antique streetcar appears distinctly out of place on an elevated structure made of brilliant white concrete, at a terminal whose redesign has included liberal use of glass curtain walls. I had previously only seen a PCC car in  a museum. For a transit geek, it was a bit surreal. For everyone else, it was just another commute. Perhaps the sprinklers on the rails did help, but to me the car still sounded ridiculously loud in the turn-around loop.

The car was well maintained, and had the aura of an era long past. The interior was much cozier (read: cramped) than a modern city bus, and it appeared that little had been changed from the original design. What was perhaps most amazing about the ride was the rapidity of the acceleration. While many locals do joke about the moniker “High-Speed” in the line’s name due to the comparatively high frequency of stops, the acceleration was quite impressive. I think even a Skoda might have trouble hitting the same speed as quickly as our PCC did that afternoon.

Though plans have been put forward in the past to convert the Mattapan into a dedicated busway, or else to extend the Red Line south along its right-of-way, there are no immediate plans to scrap this unusual service. Certainly, from a purely logical standpoint it might be advantageous to turn what is currently a three-seat commute for many into one with fewer transfers. However, no one seemed particularly unhappy with the service that day. The Mattapan line is a fascinating holdover which adds a great deal of character to the neighborhood it serves, and to the diversity of one of America’s most diverse transit networks.

As I disembarked from the car onto a little platform at Capen Street, I was struck by how the scene could have looked exactly the same in 1950 as they did that hot afternoon. The pleasant houses on tree-lined streets, the little platform, the green tunnel of trees through which we had arrived, the grade crossing with no gate or bell, all framing the PCC car. It is rare to see such a constant in a typical American community, and perhaps this alone is worthy of preservation beyond its more obvious and more mundane function of moving people to work.

Seth Morgan, MSP, is a transit planner at PACE

Streetcars are redolent things; they remind us of another time, even modern streetcars like Portland’s which functions like, while not resembling, the first mass transit systems.  Thompson is not alone in his nostalgia for them as evidenced in this publication and elsewhere by the growing number of systems completed, planned, or under construction.  In retrospect it is hard to imagine how we Americans could have collectively dismantled all but a small number of these once-common systems.

There are a few characteristics of auto infrastructure vs. rail infrastructure that explain the phenomenon.  As noted elsewhere on this site, a great advantage for cars was that the three parts of a transportation system (vehicle, right-of-way, terminal capacity) were shared by individual, the state, and private development (cars, roads, off-street parking) whereas the streetcar owners provided all three.  Auto infrastructure had another great advantage over rail in that it could be built incrementally.  Rail with one incomplete line is useless but having a single complete line is only a marginal improvement.  It takes multiple lines to make a true network.  With cars, each completed road improved the system and cars could—and did—still work on dirt roads. 

The deciding factor in the demise of the streetcar was not a conspiracy led by National City Lines or the above mentioned items, but rather the conduct of the Traction Trusts, the owners of the rail systems.  Equipment aged without being replaced, cities grew without the necessary expansion to serve new areas, and fares increased anyway.  They had alienated the riding public for too long before they threw the Hail Mary Pass of the President’s Conference Committee Streetcar, the PCC car.  This reminds me of something.

While reading a recent TIME Magazine story I realized there is a perfect analog to the Traction Trusts in Blockbuster Video.  Blockbuster, you may recall, once dominated the home video rental market with over 3,000 stores across the country.  I, for one, hated Blockbuster.   A friend who worked there told me they called Monday morning Black Monday because they did most of their “business” after the weekend when they started assessing those dreaded late fees.  As the TIME story tells it, Blockbuster had a policy of “managed dissatisfaction” whereby they under-ordered new releases which ran out quickly on Friday night.  That sent customers looking for slightly older recent movies and then finally to the middle of the store where the oldest pictures were kept.  Nearly 70% of Blockbuster’s sales came from less-popular rentals.  Remember those ads, “Go Home Happy”?  Right, sure.

In short, Blockbuster did not take very good care of customers and when something new came along—first Netflix by mail then Red Box rentals at Wal-Marts and grocery stores—the customer went elsewhere.  And they held a grudge.  Blockbuster tried to fix the problem with price by offering unlimited rentals for a flat fee, but they kept the late fees, certainly the most onerous part of their business model.  No dice.  Just like the PCC cars, it was too little too late.  Blockbuster tried movies by mail and box rentals at stores but the damage was already done to an unmoved public.  Blockbuster slid rapidly into bankruptcy. 

The familiar blue awning of a late Blockbuster store repurposed as a pet shop. As with the streetcars of old, new options sent customers elsewhere.

When Netflix came around I readily signed up and would never have considered going back to Blockbuster, no matter the price.  I can identify with the transit riding public of the 1920s.  The Trusts, like Blockbuster, got punished for their wicked ways.  Maybe someday we will look back fondly on the times we walked the aisles of the video store and then dug through the return box hoping to find just the right evening’s entertainment.  Blockbuster might enjoy a renaissance, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it took another 70 years.

FTA Section 5307 funds are non-discretionary funds, meaning they go out every year to eligible recipients and are distributed to regions on an urbanized area formula that depends on the size of the urban area.  90.68% of the 5307 funding goes to cities of 200,000 people or more; 33% of that is for fixed-guideway projects (trains, basically) and 66% goes to the bus tier which is broken down by non-incentive (90.8%) and incentive (9.2%) portions. 

Flow Chart of 5307 Funds

Non-incentive just means the formula is based on population and revenue miles (50% revenue miles, 25% population, 25% population multiplied by density).  26.61% of the non-incentive bus tier money goes to cities under one million people, the rest to larger bus-tier cities.  There remains the 9.2% of the 5307 funds that are incentive-based on a formula that multiplies passenger miles by itself, divided by operating cost.  It is a measure of performance and efficiency that provides a modest benefit to agencies that achieve higher levels of both.

In general, large urbanized-area-formula funds (the 90.68% chunk) can be used for transit capital purposes only, things like new rolling stock (bus or rail), vehicle rebuilding, laying track, and building facilities, but not for fuel or driver salaries (that is operating).  (Small urbanized area formula funds can be used for both transit capital and transit operations.)   Two percent of a recipient’s 5307 funding is obligated for use on safety and security (1%) and transit enhancements (1%); use them or lose them.  The available balance may be used at the discretion of the transit agency.  Section 5307 is the largest federal transit funding source; FY2010 appropriations and apportions total $4.1 billion.

In days gone by FTA Section 5309 funds were apportioned directly by FTA and getting money was a formality, a few papers to fill out, but today it is earmarked by Congress, competitive, and harder to get.  Earmarks are commonly known as pork and some famous projects like the bridge-to-nowhere in Alaska help to give earmarks a bad name; everyone hates them unless the earmark is for his or her own city.  Then they are good. 

5309 funds are for new and replacement buses and facilities, modernizing existing rail systems, and building new fixed-guideway (FG) systems and in 2010 the nationwide total funding for this program was more than $1.6 billion.  5309 FG funds, naturally, are for large urbanized areas only whereas the 5309 Bus Funds can go to any recipient.  Total 5309 funding for FY2010 is $2.6 billion.

The other 53s with 2010 funding amounts

Section 5303 Metropolitan Transportation Planning Program.  Funds are available for planning activities that support comprehensive planning for transportation investment decisions in metro areas.  Section 5304 (Statewide Transportation Planning Program) and Section 5305 (Planning Programs) are closely related to 5303.  $94 million.

Section 5308 Clean Fuels Program is a discretionary grant program for clean fuel buses in air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas, including supporting emerging clean fuel and advanced propulsion technologies for buses.  Up to 25 percent of the funds nationwide can be used for “Clean Diesel” buses.  $51 million.

Section 5310 Special Needs of Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Program.  5310 provides grants to non-profit agencies that provide transportation services to the elderly and disabled.  134 million.

Section 5311 Nonurbanized Area Formula Program funds are distributed to the regions on non-urbanized area formula. These funds are used for transit capital and operating purposes in non-urbanized areas.  $438 million.

Section 5311(b)(3) Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP) $8 million.

Section 5311(c) Public Transportation on Indian Reservations $15 million.

Section 5316 (formerly 3037) Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC) funds are directed to services that provide transportation to low-income individuals.  As cities have decentralized over the last 70 years or so jobs—particularly service jobs—have moved to suburban locations.  JARC is intended to get people from low-income neighborhoods to work on the periphery.  It can also be used to get those people back home again.  Service jobs are rarely 9 to 5, so JARC funds can be used for extending service later at night.  $175 million.

Section 5317 New Freedom is often mentioned in the same breath as JARC but instead of low-income people New Freedom focuses on the disabled.  It is a new formula grant program for capital and operating costs of services and facility improvements in excess of those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.  $99 million.

Section 5320 Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program is intended to address traffic congestion in our national parks and other federal properties.  It can be used for bus, rail, or other modes and may include sightseeing services.  5320 can also be used for pedestrian and bike trails and all these projects may incorporate communities and land surrounding federal properties.  $27 million.

Section 5339 Alternative Analysis Program is for studying “reasonable modal and multimodal alternatives and general alignment options for identified transportation needs in a particular, broadly defined travel corridor” (FTA).  $25 million.

Section 5340 Growing States and High Density States Formula is basically additionally 5307 funds available for urbanized areas in states with greater population densities than 370 people per square mile.  $464 million.

Section 5314 National Research Program.  It’s for research, development, demonstration, and deployment of technology that has a national significance for transit.  $66 million.