False Walkability

A lot of places in the US have what I think of as false walkability. That is, they have what might appear superficially or in description to be walkable spaces or the potential for walking access, but in lives reality people will not (for legitimate reasons) and/or literally cannot actually use those spaces or that access in the way actually walkable spaces can be used.

Let me use the urban subdivision I am literally currently walking in as I type (not in the QC, but in Lincoln, Nebraska) as a good example of what I mean, to explain both how it might appear walkable, say in a brochure or zillow listing, but actually works to make walking much harder than it needs to be. I say this from the perspective of someone who does in fact walk in this neighborhood; it is not impossible, but it is also not a "walkable neighborhood" in a meaningful way beyond the nare minimum of "you might not die walking here."

1. Recreational paths that are only for recreation 

A big offender in false walkability is the existence of multiuse pathways that appear to offer pedestrians, cyclists, etc. privileged access. Ones like this:

 

It's true, you can't drive here, and so as a pedestrian I am both safe from cars and superficially able to go where they can't go.

But not in a useful way.

This path doesn't actually go anywhere. Oh, it touches a lot of the neighborhood (most houses can access a trail! Yay!) and it intersects parks and sidewalks periodically, so you can indeed use it to go places. But it meanders, and when you actually get close to a destination, it falls short. Here I am next to the local Hy-Vee grocery trying to get on the trail. How would you cross this, from the area I'm walking in to the actual recreational path on the other side?

Well, the answer is walking all the way down there to where the cars cross, and using the sidewalk, because the path doesn't have its own crossing of this tiny patch of water. Or hopping across it and getting your feet wet, like I did...

It's similar elsewhere. There is a path, sure, but it's main use is recreational-only: here is a space you can walk or bike without a car in your way, so you can exercise safely. It's not a path for use; it doesn't make it easier to actually get places. False walkability in practice, because it doesn't actually make walking anywhere in particular easier.

2. Sidewalks aren't good just because they exist

In a similar vein, the sidewalks here are also less useful than they should be. Yes, they exist, and that is indeed a step up from many such places. But they suck, and that matters too. 

How do they suck? First, they are narrower than they could and should be, leaving huge gaps I grew up calling the most car-centric possible name: parking strips.

The width of the sidewalk makes it clear only one person should be walking here, not, say, two abreast talking to each other or two or more passing in different directions. That makes it clear in turn that this is not really for walking access; it's for being able to walk to a car or to get the mail or to let a dog do its business. 

And when it's inconvenient for cars, or just randomly sometimes, the sidewalk disappears or lacks crucial connections, like across a giant field.

Or a crucial connection across to a mailbox.

These are technically better than no sidewalks at all, and I am glad they are here, but come on.

3. The street plan hates you 

In some cases, what I am about to describe could be a good thing. It could be a chance to make the recreational paths do exactly what they don't, and provide unique and pedestrian-friendly access where cars can't go.

This is not that case.

The streets curve and bend and do their best to cul-de-sac without actually being cul-de-sacs (or in some subdivisions but not this one, they actually are). So those sidewalks don't let you go straight to a destination. This might make sense for a street trying to slow down cars or make sure they don't use the subdivision as a passthrough. But for pedestrians, who don't exactly get up to high speeds, this is silly verging on aggressively unproductive.

Again, it gives the potential to cut through those curves to make it easier for pedestrians, and in a place or two we might actually see that:

This friendly path gives easier access to a shopping center, though it does end up dropping you directly in a parking lot anyway.

But by and large, the lost opportunity here of not doing those cuts is what confirms this as false walkability. There was a chance to make the sidewalks and recreational paths a network that actually assists pedestrians and potentially makes walking easier than driving, or at least uniquely beneficial even if cars are still centered. But that opportunity is ignored, and instead we have false walkability: signs and symbols of walkable neighborhoods without the real thing.

Why I (Almost) Always Prefer a Train

Merry Christmas! I just drove hours to get to my Christmas destination and it made me think about why, all things considered, I would pretty much always prefer a train over driving or flying, if all 3 are possible (so I'm not talking across the Atlantic).

1. The Need to Focus and the Ability to Relax

Both planes and trains win this over cars. As a driver, I have to actually pay attention to the road (yes, even on flatter-than-flat empty sections of I-80). As a passenger, I can relax; even compared to being a passenger in a car, both a train and a plane win, because the space associated with my relaxation is much more flexible. And of course plane loses to train here because of the tightness of seats and the existence of turbulence.

Oh yeah, and you can walk around in a train. No turbulence warnings and seatbelt indicators, no "don't stand up! You're driving the car!" screams from passengers, just the plain old ability to move. Sure, depending on the train there may not be much of a much in terms of places to go, but the simple ability to move, as a normal part of transportation, is good. 

Oh yeah, and there's a bathroom, on intercity trains anyway, and that's a win.

2. Weather

Look, trains get delayed by weather too. I acknowledge this. Amtrak is particularly bad at this. But I have friends who still haven't made it to New England by plane today, and I hate driving myself in bad conditions, so the train wins here too. Keep the tracks clear, and the train can go on, because there isn't traffic. 

God I hate plane travel in bad weather.

3. Sights 

Nothing against aerial views, but clouds eliminate or reduce a lot of them (plus there's this thing called "not having a window seat"). And cars on highways tend to be baffled away from some views for sound reasons, plus the driver really ought to keep an eye on the road.

But on a train? See whatever you want. There might even be an observation car! 

There are other considerations of course (cost is a big one; the actual absence of trains from much of the US is another). But wow, I wish I could have done this on a train.

Rail Service, Interrupted

So ever since I moved to the Quad Cities, and actually rather a long time before, there have been reports that Amtrak was in negotiations and planning to bring passenger rail service back to the Quad Cities: a direct line to Chicago (well, as direct as local Amtrak service gets).

It has not yet happened. It looks unlikely now to ever happen. Some of the blame here goes to Iowa Interstate, the company that owns the rails (but discussing rail nationalization is a different discussion). Some probably goes to local leaders and Amtrak and national leaders as well. But beyond apportioning blame, I want to talk here about why I think this kind of rail service should be doable, and is valuable, even if it's proving difficult in the moment.

1. We don't need more cars in Chicago

We also don't need more in the QC, but that is a much bigger ask. Chicago has real mass transit, as I've discussed in other posts, from the CTA trains and buses to Pace to, yes, even Metra. Not only that, but downtown Chicago and several of its neighborhoods are very walkable. 

But cars are like the proverbial hammer: if you have one, everything looks like a nail (or in this case, a drive). Once you drive into Chicago, each of the sub-trips you might make in Chicago is more likely to be taken by car, because, well, you have the car already. And parking longterm in Chicago is expensive, so you're also disincentivized to just leave the car in a garage (although you certainly can, as my family has proven). Instead, you'll drive within Chicago as well as to it. 

A train fixes this, because a train is city center to city center, and delivers you without a car to a place you don't need a car. It's a win-win.

2. It can be price competitive 

Now, this required actual consideration and communication, because the up-front cost of a train ticket (especially on Amtrak, which doesn't do the world's best pricing, or even international standard) is likely to be high. Also, a lot of people disregard car costs, including gas (especially if you can get to and from Chicago without filling up, even though you still spend the gas), insurance, chance of accident, etc. 

But parking in Chicago really is expensive, as noted above, in a way that can make a train ticket look a lot better. And getting a parking ticket in Chicago is worse. And you don't have to pay that if you don't have a car. Getting people to realize this can be difficult because, again, people discount car costs. But it actually can be cheaper, or at least competitive, to take even an Amtrak train.

3. Trains go two ways

The QC is on I-80, so we're no strangers to people coming in because the transportation is convenient. But it's worth remembering that trains go both ways, so a train to Chicago is also a train to here: and it's not just going to produce one-way flow. At ideal levels of service frequency and speed someone like my friend who does a weekly commute from Chicago (weekends in one, weeks in the other) could use the train to see their family more often. But even at minimal levels the existence of the train would promise additional tourism, shopping, and just general visitors, not just from and to Chicago but from and to the stops on the way (like Rockford). 

And tying the region together more would be good for social cohesion and mutual understanding, something Chicago and the rest of Illinois have often struggled with. 

Overall, I have more thoughts that will probably make it to another post, but this is a basic primer for why we should be pushing for that Quad Cities rail link actively, and not just letting it become another disappointment.

Traveling with Transit

One of my favorite activities in traveling is to visit cities with some level (ideally a high level) of transit and spend my time not just going to the traditional tourist destinations, but all over town on that transit.

For this post, I want to talk about a few best practices for making this a fun, joyful practice that you might adopt for yourself.

1. Choose a city with a transit pass, and buy it for the right length

Transit is usually actually cheaper than driving as a lifestyle, but it feels different: usually you pay for a car upfront (rentals, purchase price) or in the background (depreciation, gas, etc.) and you pay for transit ride by ride. But a transit pass flips this around, making marginal trips free. Obviously this only really applies if you've got the right timeline available for a pass: buying a monthly or annual pass for a 3 day visit isn't cost effective! 

But if you can get a daily, weekend, or weekly pass, or whatever is similar to your visit time, it can unlock the whole city for a (usually) reasonable fee.

I did this in Paris and Amsterdam last year, and it made things infinitely easier. I particularly appreciated how these cities have passes that cover multiple modes of transit, so I could take for example an Amsterdam tram and the metro on the same pass, or a Paris tram and RER. 

Two modes, one card.

Some systems work this differently: London does sell day travelcards, but for Oyster and contactless you can also just tap until you hit a daily cap without pre-purchasing a pass, and once you hit the cap marginal travel is free like with a pass.

Just tap, baby. 

Either way, finding a place you can not be concerned about how much each trip will add to your cost is a good start. I'm looking at you, San Francisco: BART doesn't offer passes.

2. Choose a well-connected city

I mentioned above that I like to use the transit to visit places that aren't just traditional tourist areas. But to do that, transit has to go to places that aren't just tourist areas in a useful way: no Detroit People Mover that's just downtown (though in Detroit that might not even be a tourist area) or Seattle Monorail that only has two, very touristy, stations. 

To do this, ideally, you want a city where the transit is used by actual residents, so tha you know it'll take you to a wide variety of places. Big cities aren't the only ones that do this, but it does help. Fortunately, a good system often means a good travel pass system, though not always, which is why I put these separately.

3. Choose a city with good transit timing 

See my last post on the Metra for what bad transit timing can do. You don't want to explore somewhere only to get stuck an extra hour or two because they don't have a train back--especially if you only have 24 or 48 hours in a city!

This doesn't always or at least only mean purely good frequency, though turn-up-and-go service levels are ideal for this. It means reliability, both in terms of on-time performance and not cancelling trains or buses. And it means timings that fit your schedule, whatever that is: frequent service that starts after you need to be somewhere or ends before you want to leave doesn't help all that much, but a less frequent but better-timed service might help more.

The actual implementation of this kind of tourism isn't too hard: get on a bus or a train or a tram and find a place to get off and explore--or find a place and then figure out the transit to it. But in order to do it enjoyably and without too much worry and expense, I recommend these three priorities for picking a place to do transit-based tourism.