Transit's primary purpose

The purpose of aggregating motorized travel into public transit vehicles on fixed routes should be foremost to minimize disturbance to the rest of the physical environment, especially to the places where most people live or make use of space. It follows that the convenience of point-to-point on-demand motorized transportation must be foremost avoided rather than sought, and only used as a last resort in places of low population density. There is also an energy economy and social aggregation benefit to fixed route transit, but these should be considered secondary. Priority one is minimizing the dangers and nuissance of motorized vehicles to the human and natural environment.
Public transit struggles to insert itself in places already decimated by motorized vehicles, especially where it seeks to use a new right-of-way that annexes space. In terms of utility, however, transit should be able to replace a far higher quantity of motorized vehicle right-of-way than it itself requires. Unfortunately, motorized right-of-way is never easily relinquished, whether to pedestrians or transit. Thus we arrive at the paradox that public transit must overcome: Transit's primary purpose is to reduce the quantity of space ruined my motorized vehicles up to tenfold the amount of space that the transit needs. But since such quantities of space are rarely relinquished back to the people for nonmotorized use, the transit only threatens to infringe on more space without rewarding any.

In the instances where transit lanes take from motorized vehicle roadway, transit is often opposed by motorists but not by nonmotorists or reluctant drivers. Opposition usually forces a taking of additional right-of-way to accommodate transit without reducing vehicle lanes. Though managing to take roadway for transit is a pleasant achievement, transit should instead remove much more road space than it actually needs. This is true because line carries higher passenger densities than cars and enables carfree pedestrian access to a half mile radius around stops. Unfortunately, aside from pedestrianized European city centers, the status quo is to only take from motorized vehicles what is needed by transit and no more, and the lanes may only be taken when a boulevard or highway is so overbuilt that they will not be missed. Motorized routes are typically considered irreplaceable by a combination of transit and pedestrians, even when the converted space still permits freight and emergency vehicle access. We must demonstrate that transit not only warrants the space it annexes from motorized vehicles, but that far more de-motorization around the space can be rewarded for pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle use. Such space can allow limited motorized freight deliveries and can of course accommodate emergency vehicles and personal mobility devices. 


Until we can demonstrate the large rewards of useful space that can be achieved by transit, transit will always be jaded by its capital and operating costs and annexation of space. A fine example is the fanatical protest by a minority of the population on the Silicon Valley Peninsula to expanding two train tracks to four with full-grade separation to accommodate high speed rail. Taking this additional space and possibly elevating tracks is a significant taking of space out of context. But put into context, the opportunity of improved local train service--made faster, electrified, and more frequent--allows for the removal of large swaths of roadway currently dedicated to motor vehicles. The high speed rail could replace an enormous amount of trips between the major destinations at each end of the Peninsula. Opposing the visual obstruction of an elevated track is reasonable, but opposing four tracks is not if you are willing to give back the road space for which the new tracks obviate the need. The parallel motorized routes of El Camino Real, Highway 101, and Highway 280 are all major nuisances to the people living near them. They are visually and physically disruptive and 280 additionally infringes on otherwise pristine open space. Instead of just looking at what four tracks takes away in space, we need to look at what it can reclaim in space.


I know that many people do not see the value of carfree space--of being freed from the physical barrier and dangers of motorized vehicle, nor do they see the social and health rewards of walking on carfree streets instead of driving them. We must therefore help people visualize their community after a new transit line takes space, where it rewards much more space than it claims. We must show that the half mile perimeter around a transit stop can be made-car free, beautified, and excess road space given over to better uses. We also suffer the conundrum of what to do about private vehicles that need ample space for storage in the event that we need to go somewhere unserved by transit. There are reasonable solutions to these problems, namely a combination of car-sharing available at distant transit stations and more sophisticated movement of personal freight. But the inertia of point-to-point car use cannot be overcome until transit's primary purpose if adeptly demonstrated.

In my next post I will show an example of how transit can give back tenfold the amount of space that it takes, with a real world example.