The Untapped Biking Potential of Davenport

So I've made no secret that I don't think that bike commuting in Davenport is all that great, even though I do it. But today I want to put a positive spin on that: while bike commuting isn't great now, there's some real potential for it to be better with some specific upgrades. Davenport could be a bike commuter city, if a few things were a little different...

1. Three good bike lanes would do 90% of the work

Davenport already channels most crosstown (east-west) car traffic onto four arterials: River Dr, Locust St, Kimberly Rd, and 53rd St. Besides these 4, nothing really goes through for long distances in the city. And that means that to have bike commuting be similarly effective, you just need good bike lanes on those streets; they're the main E-W commercial drags, and they connect into much quieter neighborhood streets that are already easy enough to bike on (though some better pavement wouldn't hurt...).

On top of that, River Dr is mostly closely paralleled by the riverfront bike path, so that leaves only 3 that would need to be built.

2. Lack of through connections is actually an opportunity for biking

As Oh the Urbanity has discussed in Montreal, a street that doesn't go through can actually be an opportunity for non-car options, if you build a modal filter in. Adding a few short bike- and pedestrian-only connections between the curving streets in North Davenport would make bike commuting not just competitive with driving but actively better depending on where you start.

This would be even stronger if the city parks could have clearer bike-friendly paths through them: Garfield Park does this well, including letting the bikes make their way over Duck Creek. Bikes are both recreational and transport; letting them fulfill both goals in and around city parks could help unlock through travel in new ways.

3. Run more buses

Yes, this isn't a purely bike element, but the Citibus is actually pretty well-prepared to take bikes on the front of the bus. 

Two bikes per bus!

I'm not asking for Dutch-style intermodality between transit and bike, but running more buses would greatly increase the ability to use a bike as part of a commute or errand--thus making bike use that much easier. 

So there are some ideas, and I'm sure they're not the only ones, that could make Davenport that much easier to use a bike in. Let me know if you have others in the comments, if you like!

Sloterdijk, and the Value of Visiting Just Outside the City Center

When I visited Amsterdam last year, I had no real restrictions on where I stayed. I wasn't visiting anyone, or going to any scheduled events, and I was traveling alone. I ended up staying not in the historic city center, or the eastern end of the city, where the majority of tourist spots are. Instead, I stayed here near Sloterdijk station in the northwest of the city.

As you may be able to see from the photo, Sloterdijk has some advantages: a bike lane (front), bus and tram connections (below), mainline rail and metro connections (above), and, not coincidentally, a fairly cheap fairly nice hotel close by:

(proof you can see the station and metro line from my hotel)

Certainly this was not the only choice I could have made. But I want to spend this post talking a little about why I made it, and generally why I think it's a good model for visiting a city you want to explore in an urbanist manner.

1. Transit (and Human-Powered Transportation) Rules

I just mentioned all those transit connections. There are also a host of bikes, which I didn't use but most Amsterdammers do.

And while I didn't bike, I did walk a lot. Basically, it's easy to get places from Sloterdijk, even though Sloterdijk itself might not be considered a major destination or a central place. Choosing a place like this, from which you can access places you might want to get to, but which isn't itself so crowded with others because it is not itself a main destination, is in my opinion a cheat code to visiting busy cities like Amsterdam. Using transit, bikes, and feet to go places is fun, fairly easy, and (for me at least) fairly relaxing--and it frees you to stay somewhere just an inch or so off the beaten path (though not the bike path, which goes right there).

2. Experience More Normal Life

I didn't take a bunch of photos of Amsterdammers doing normal things because that would have felt weird and creepy. But staying in Sloterdijk meant that the places I was walking to near my hotel--the grocery store I went to, the businesses I strolled past, the little lanes the pedestrian paths wound their way between--were filled with pretty much normal Dutch life (at least for Amsterdam) and not just things geared to tourists. 

For some, this may not be a draw. But if you're hoping to see not just "Amsterdam(TM)" but what it might be like to be someone living in Amsterdam, to understand not just the tourist model of urbanism but how it might help people in the actual city, this is helpful--and fun.

3. Proximity to Other Places

I didn't just go to Amsterdam on that trip to the Netherlands. I went to Haarlem too!

And well, one plus of staying outside the city center proper is that you are, or at least can be, close to another city! Sloterdijk is one stop closer to Haarlem on most lines than Amsterdam Centraal, so by staying a bit outside of the Amsterdam center, I actually had an easier time getting to Haarlem.

Generalizing and drawing on other trips I've done: staying just a bit to one side can make it easy and fun to go see what's further to that side! 

Obviously Sloterdijk is not rural; it's still Amsterdam, and those very transit connections that I valued mean that it's tied into Amsterdam pretty well. The point here isn't to avoid the city entirely (how urbanist would that be?) but to try something a little outside the most obvious urban center and, by doing so, unlock some additional benefits. I enjoyed it, and I recommend a similar approach to any other visit to a major city.

Problems with Apps, Problems with Riding Transit

Today I want to flag an issue I found with Milwaukee's Umo app and wayfinding, not to call them out or anything but to use it as an example of how while a good app can help you find your way on public transit, an error in the app can create an equally large problem and discourage transit use.

The issue I found is this: directions to take a bus from a stop it does not serve.

Here we have what seem like pretty useful directions! We did in fact follow these and get home. However, we did not take the 30 bus from the Wisconsin & Jackson BRT Station, because the 30 bus does not actually serve that station. It turns at the corner immediately past the station and stops one block away.

I know this because I saw it turn and not come to our stop while we were waiting. To make things worse, the weather that day was, to say the least, not weather you want to wait extra time in. 

Now, it happened that the CN-1 did come to the BRT station 1 minute later, and we were able to catch that and get where we were going anyway. But if the CN-1 hadn't come (and it was off-schedule by a few minutes, so it shouldn't have) and if I hadn't known that the CN-1 was an acceptable alternative (which to be fair the app did have as an alternative option) then we could have stood there forever, because that 30 bus was not coming to that stop. And I know people who would, indeed, just wait for that bus, neither taking a different bus nor moving stops--even though I obviously know people who wouldn't, too, since we did take a different bus.

This is the kind of issue that can create a real problem for a transit system if it happens to the wrong people at the wrong time, or too often, because it undermines trust in the system to actually get you where you want or need to go. When we're planning transit, we need to make sure that we report schedules correctly, routes correctly, bus names correctly. Anytime we have an error or a mistake, we risk someone not getting where they need to--and maybe not using transit at all for their next journey.

This is compounded at places where (unlike Milwaukee but like the QC) you don't have well-marked stops or clear schedules. Unmarked diversions, unclear routes, bad app instructions: these all risk making transit ridership even harder, and drive people away.

Milwaukee's Connect BRT: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly

I recently had a chance to ride Milwaukee's bus rapid transit system (BRT), branded Connect (buses bearing CN and a numeral) for the first time, and I wanted to share a few thoughts on what I liked, what I didn't like, and one thing that I think they've done very, very wrong.

I do want to specify here that I didn't do a full system review or ride every line (or even all of one line). Rather, these are impressions based on using the line just to travel for ordinary purposes, in this case between downtown and the waterfront, which ought to be a fairly heavily trafficked area (and indeed, even on an absolutely freezing January day, there was a fair amount of ridership both on the CN-1 and on the other buses its route overlapped). Thus this is not conclusory about everything about the Milwaukee BRT, but merely observations that might help us think about how a similar BRT might be best implemented.

1. The Good

I always prefer to start out positive, and so I'll begin with this: the BRT stops are well-indicated, have off-bus ticket purchase and validation options, and a good visual presence on the street without blocking pedestrian access around them. 

Also, the ticketing is very straightforward: all of Milwaukee buses, BRT included, are a single fare for 90 minutes including transfers, and tickets (and the app you can also load money in) have a QR code that you simply scan (off--bus for BRT, on-bus for regular buses). 

These are good elements of a useable system even for visitors: clear, well-comnunicated, easy to use.

2. The Bad

There are some flaws, however. The shelters are unheated (unlike some of Chicago's El stops and bus shelters, where in winter months you can press a button to trigger heat lamps), and that's a bigger issue than you might think until you remember what winter can be like in Wisconsin. The BRT is frequent, almost turn up and go, but not quite -- and that means that sometimes, either in a dead zone on the schedule or when a bus is delayed (see below), you can be waiting in very chilly weather with a canopy but no other protection. That discourages use, especially for vulnerable users like the elderly and children.

Also, the BRT runs, at least in the section I rode, in a shared bus lane with other buses. That's not a deal breaker, but it does remove the speed benefits (or most of them) from the BRT skipping stops. We got caught behind a 30 bus, which meant the "rapid" of bus rapid transit wasn't actually happening.  Sure, it was no worse than the regular bus, but it meant the bus was more likely to get delayed (see above) and the line is less attractive in terms of speed than it could be. Also, that same bus lane is only partly bus-only (it's not separated from general traffic throughout) and so again the system is slower than it could be, reducing the advantages of a supposedly rapid system.

3. The Ugly

I did not get a picture of this because I was swinging a child over it, and needed both hands, but the BRT doesn't always end up level with the stations. As such, there was a good foot of gap that I jumped over and had to swing my kid over in order to exit. This is because Milwaukee hasn't cleared the parking spaces next to BRT stations/stops, so the bus doesn't necessarily have direct access to the zone it needs to be in to line up with the high-floor stop level evenly. Instead, because it had to go around a parked car, it ends up at an angle, creating this gap.

This is a massive issue for accessibility and for the feel of the system; nothing says "we don't really care about transit users" than a gap that gapes between the bus and the actual sidewalk, with a drop in between. It's ugly, it's dangerous, and it should not be that hard to eliminate.

Overall, I would take this system again, and I'm sure I will since I visit Milwaukee often (only 3-3.5 hours from the QC!). I'm eager to see how it performs in better weather, and maybe outside the downtown core. But for now, it is a decent idea let down by some bad implementation steps, and Milwaukee could definitely Connect better.