Open Letter to CATS Concerning their Proposal

http://www.brcats.com/news-resources/Public-Notice-of-CATS-Route-Adjustments

Was a professional transportation planner involved creating these routes, ensuring the numbers jive? This would include projected population usage/density, linking with job centers, university/schools, and entertainment areas? Where can that be found?

CATS Terminal and EKL Hub

• What's the reasoning behind keeping the Earl K. Long hub when the hospital is now closed. Shifting it to the Scotlandville Commercial Area would make it similar to using downtown and the malls as hubs.
• The CATS terminal still has a lot of routes terminating. It just seems like those routes should hub downtown. Especially since LA Swift no longer operates and many routes already pass by the Greyhound Station headed to the downtown hub.

Downtown Shuttle

The DDD could be approached concerning Route 16. Combining a little extra funding from both the DDD and CATS could expand its time period past lunch, and ultimately it's footprint. Most downtowns use their shuttles for special events and not just lunch, since the service is already being funded. Things such as neighborhood integration for Live After Five. Or service for football game days. Other university towns don't use a glamorous $20 shuttle to get people downtown to the university. Instead, they use their shuttles to provide free parking downtown, and circulate all day. It's a win/win for the downtown because they already pay for the shuttle, and it encourages people to tailgate on campus then watch the game downtown. Or visa/versa. Right now the "shuttle" is used as an "attraction" and not a viable transportation source. Lastly, the shuttle could be used for night service into adjacent neighborhoods for a new ridership base. The funding for the shuttle is already subsidized by the DDD. Adding some extra would boost ridership tremendously (ie more federal funding).

Foster Drive and Acadian Thruway

Route 20 seems to be obsolete, yet runs frequently. All riders on this route will have to make a transfer one way or another, as it terminates at the CATS terminal. Combining it with Route 17 would give a citywide connection up and down Acadian. Same thing with Route 23. Combining it with Route 18 would lessen transfers. Right now it terminates at CitiPlace, which doesn't seem like a major destination (as compared to LSU). Thus most people will be transferring. 

Neighborhood Routes

The Plank, Scenic, Government, Perkins, and Highland Routes are great spur routes that not only serve neighborhood populations during the day, but also at night. Government Street and Perkins should be added. These routes would work great for expanded night hours and add younger, new ridership. The Highland Route is somewhat a duplication of the LSU service (I already see a CATS bus following an LSU bus frequently). 

Industry Routes

Given the hospital route connects the medical districts, the hospitals should be approached to assure staff will utilize the shuttle. Many medical districts in the country provide transportation and it's widely successful, thus an opportunity to bring about another source of possible funding assistance. Also, were other commercial, employment centers, and SU/BRCC engaged for possible funding? Many cities and transit agencies gain much of their funding for specific routes through these entities. I realize CATS lost LSU, but there is no reason to engage other large areas. 

Routes Outside the City

Route 50 is mostly outside of the city, is one of the few routes that runs frequently, and only brings the small neighborhood to the hub at the missing EKL. This is also true of Route 59, which seems more centric for people outside the city.

Lastly, while overhauling the system CATS should also be looking at expanding their base (ie younger people needing transportation after 2:00). 

Baton Rouge "Bypass" (aka Loop)

I'm never an advocate for huge infrastructure projects that will only cut travel time by minor increments. Which is the main reason to oppose the currently proposed "Baton Rouge Loop" that kinda sorta just came out of thin air. The actual path wouldn't helps "traffic problems" in the metro area. Instead it would allow people in the suburbs to avoid Baton Rouge at all costs. Actual "travel time" probably won't be reduced... and the millions invested have yet to show any sort of cost/benefit analysis along with reduced travel times. The only rational is avoiding an occasional accident; while in inconvenient, that's A LOT of money. Especially when it is very rare the interstate actually closes. Is it really worth spending a billion dollars to save thirty minutes every so often?

So lets look at the problem purely from an automobile side (pretending other methods of transportation doesn't exist). Baton Rouge already has amazing infrastructure in place to assist in connectivity, and with some upgrades the City can fix a majority of the problems, while keeping the economic ramifications inside the Parish.

I'm still an advocate of upgrading Airline Highway to limited access (and possibly Florida Boulevard). A combination of access roads and interchanges would fix congestion problems. Obviously this process would be expensive, but it would actually help businesses WITHIN the Parish, and not adjacent Parishes. As for the western portion of the "bypass" the infrastructure is already there. Most the right of way is already in place for a connection of I-10 to the Sunshine Bridge; and there have been plans to upgrade Louisiana Highway 1 to limited access (most of the road is close to standards as is). Done. The interchanges at I-10 and the Huey Long Bridge have already been built.

So the recent articles coming out from Ascension and Livingston describing a new highway that links I-10 with I-12 is somewhat interesting. While I would still support the upgrade of Airline Highway, at least this plan utilizes current infrastructure and connects the Sunshine Bridge to I-12.

It just makes sense. People get up in arms when we spend a few million on a bus system... but there is rarely outcry when we want to build millions/billions of new road infrastructure that is duplicating systems already in place.

Unassuming Signs Ahead

As many of my previous posts have described, the LSU Lakes are a sad representation of our community... and there isn't a plan (to my knowledge, including FutureBR) to deal with the issues resolving access and overall quality. The assets of the lake span beyond the Parish boundaries, and the lakes are the first impression most people get entering LSU. Yet the paths barley resemble a reasonable resource to the people who utilize the lakes. This ranges from path conditions, path size, path marking etc.

Instead of dwelling on the overall picture, I wanted to just nachalatly point out the issues that arise when actually approaching one of these mysterious pedestrian/bike/vehicle crossings along the route.

First, lets review state law (which pretty much mimickes the Baton Rouge Code of Ordinances).

RS 32:212
§212. Pedestrians right-of-way in crosswalks
A. When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or the roadway onto which the vehicle is turning.

RS 32:212
§197. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths
A. Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, except under any of the following circumstances:

RS 32:232
(4) In the event an official traffic-control signal is erected and maintained at a place other than an intersection, the provisions of this Section shall be applicable except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application. Any stop required shall be made at a sign or marking on the pavement indicating where the stop shall be made, but in the absence of any such sign or marking, the stop shall be made at the signal.

Now, take these into consideration, and study the photo below.

To me, this is the biggest cluster. Ever. What is a person to do.

If one is driving, it's almost impossible to figure out what's going on here. First, this is a regular, signalized intersection. Nothing out of the ordinary... except for all the yield right hand turn lanes. Cars coming from the south, turning east yield to cars coming from the north turning east. In practice, this usually never happens. Southbound turning cars will usually yield to northbound turning cars, completely against any road signage. Making for a huge distraction taking place. Does the northbound turning car proceed, even when the southbound turning car is stopping? Should it wait? Should it break the yield sign and go? It's a predicament, and all their attention is now focused on this "cluster"...

Then notice notice what is within just feet of this cluster yield? A clearly marked crosswalk. Thus cars are to yield (per state law) to pedestrians in the crosswalk. But notice what is signed along the pedestrian walkway - a stop sign. Also per state law, the pedestrian is now suppose to wait for the car and disregard the yield in the crosswalk. Yet, there is no indication to the vehicle that the pedestrian does not have the right-away in this situation. On the contrary, the car is suppose to yield to the left hand turner, and then yield to the pedestrian.

But wait, there is even more a more complex situation taking place. The sign also has a bicycle. No where in state or local law does a biker have right-of-way over a vehicle, especially in a made up "bicycle crosswalk". Yet the sign for the vehicle would make it seem as if this were the case. 

Thus a cluster.

Actually, I would be interested to know the amount of accidents that occur in this area. There are so many conflicting events that so much cautious needs to take place. Thus creating a situation that may be safer at the end of the day. 

This happens all over the place. A favorite portion of the lakes is a very, very small portion when the paths are divided between southbound ped/bike and north bound ped/bike on both sides of the road. 

As you can see, one side of the road has a glorified shoulder, while the other side of the road is a small path. Mind you, this division only happens for a short half mile (maybe). Meaning pedestrian and bikes are suppose to cross in the meaningless "crosswalks", which (as you can see above) has amazing signage and is positioned perfectly... if you want to die. So of course, no one actually abides by the below markings, and they just continue to use the paths as normal.

Portion of the LSU Lake Paths that only allow northbound and southbound pedestrian and bikes on each side of the roadway.

Of course, they divided the pedestrian and bikes because the path widths suck. Bikes and pedestrians are suppose to use this (maybe) five foot walking trial. Which is near already impossible  Don't let this picture fool you... this is the most heavily traveled pedestrian/bike way in the Parish (and an amazing asset to the region). Not only does it provide for a six mile ring, it also provides a connection to LSU from densly populated neighborhoods and the downtown. 

Also notice in the above picture all the conflicting signage and road markings. Two clearly defined pedestrian crosswalks. A flashing caution light. EVERYONE has a stop sign (pedestrians and vehicles). In fact, the pedestrian/bike path has a stop sign for southbound travelers, even though the pavement clearly marks that pedestrian and bikers should not be traveling southbound. Not to mention the fact cars are coming up one of Baton Rouge's only hills, on a turn, in a 40 mph zone. They will only see the pedestrian crosswalk a  few seconds beforehand... but not to worry, the pedestrians are suppose to stop (per state law signage), but the vehicles don't know that because it is clearly marked as a crosswalk (where they suppose to yield to pedestrians and not bikes).

Thus a cluster.

A plan you say? Preposterous!

I'm incredibly syndical about the Baton Rouge "loop" project which emerged a few years ago. No American city builds loops anymore (bypasses, beltways, etc); and when they are discussed they get rejected by the community fast. Most are shot down because of NIMY’ism. Heck, one could say that Jane Jacobs was a NIMBY at the time.

But the difference between Jane Jacobs and NIMBY's are solution based. Just opposing something gets a city nowhere. Obviously Baton Rouge has a traffic problem. We lack citywide connectivity with little to no interstate alternatives through town. Solutions are needed (plural "solutions"). We need interstate improvements; we need surface street improvements; we need transit improvements. We need an overall plan.

(Caution: sarcasm ahead.)

Baton Rouge insist on paying more than less, and mostly because of an “us” vs. “them”. Transit users are either poor, can’t drive, or get some kind of high using “free services from the government”. Obviously these are the only reasons anyone would use transit. Thus "transportation planners" (um, engineers) argue for a one solution (a loop), instead of a comprehensive fix to the Baton Rouge traffic.

The funny thing is, transit is cheaper, fee based, and can transport more people. So I cringe when newspaper comment sections blow up when the transit system wants $18 million dollars, yet no one opposes an additional three mile lane on the interstate for the same amount (see the above articles). Because of course, one solution is the best. We continue to throw millions and millions of dollars at one solution without any results being produced. A city the size of Baton Rouge needs a plan with options. When I fly home I have several options (my parents live in the middle of nowhere, btw). I could take the commuter rail, Amtrak, MegaBus, or Greyhound… or my family could come pick me up and take interstates, toll roads, highways, etc. I’m not stuck. When I fly into New Orleans I have two options to get home. I park, or someone picks me up. Both options are not ideal. The sad thing is, New Orleans was once on a tier of Chicago or New York... and their infrastructure still reflects that tier to an extent.

So the Baton Rouge's transit system sucks. But our traffic infrastructure is almost worse. Heck, I-10 goes to one lane after exiting the Mississippi River Bridge. Then the interstate expands to three lanes, and finally five lanes in the suburbs. Since Baton Rouge already has a dysfunctional urban interstate, I don't even know why we are arguing a new bypass. We need to improve existing conditions. So when the state proposes an upgrade, we shouldn't just shoot down the idea. This is the time to fix and improve what's wrong. Millions of dollars will be thrown at an interstate project (because a highway will never be rejected by the 'fiscally responsible'), so take a bad situation and make it better for the surrounding communities. I find it funny when people say a wider interstate will “ruin” an area that initially gained its character because it’s under an interstate (Perkins Road underpass). 

Of course, other arguments need to be made. Many cities are tearing down urban highway. Baton Rouge's "plan" should have this scenario. Rerouting I-10 around Airline Highway might be feasible; or around Baton Rouge all together. Even if a complete reroute of I-10 wasn't feasible, upgrading Airline Highway and Florida Boulevard would be much smarter than building an entirely new loop. Airline Highway was "the loop". Why can't it still be the loop? I would assume the cost of upgrading the Airline Highway would be far less than a loop. (But I have to assume because not one study was done).

When someone wakes up one day and decides a loop will fix all the traffic problems, it doesn't make sense. I don't consider myself a genius, but I can come up with all sorts of scenarios that should be studied before dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into just one project. But I guess that's the "planner" coming out in me.

Coordinated Efforts

I’m not a huge sports fan, so I never really follow the process of the host city for the Super Bowl. So when Indianapolis was selected, it was my first opportunity to watch the events unfold. I haven’t lived in Indiana for over five years. But during my last year at home I worked in our university’s planning office in downtown Indianapolis, which is when we began working on things related to the stadium. Now that the Super Bowl has passed, I’m beginning to read articles about the public investment of a stadium; basically boiling down the pros and cons to spending a lot of money for little return. Typically I agree on these sort of things. But the way Indianapolis handled the event was completely different. While the city may have used the Super Bowl to sell the idea to the public, they were thinking long term when implementing all the projects.

When the City first announced the new Colts stadium it wasn’t all about “the stadium”. Sure they used the Super Bowl for the publicity side of getting the actual stadium approved. But several things were unfolding at the time. Most notably the site of the stadium would initially expand the urban area of downtown south of the railroad tracks (which made a physical barrier). The downtown Indianapolis plan breaks the city into the four quadrants originally planned back in the 1800’s. The new Colts stadium is located within the southwest quadrant, and has a focus for the tourist portion of downtown. This quadrant includes four sports stadiums, the convention center, the museum district, and the transportation hub; with a residential population being supported by the adjacent university. Thus the new stadium would only strengthen the areas intent, and the new design guidelines being implemented during this time would ensure everything else would fall into place.

In addition to building the stadium, the city created some robust infrastructure plans both citywide and downtown. This included a brand new terminal at the Indianapolis airport, expansion of interstate capacity, and the Indy Connect transit plan. Unfortunately, the Indy Connect was the only plan not pushed through. But, as a side note, it is still being worked and will probably succeed.

Downtown, the city expanded their bike and pedestrian lanes, and interconnected them with the vast system citywide system. Anchoring pedestrian activity downtown, and coinciding with the recent expansion to MegaBus, Greyhound, and Amtrak services to Chicago/Cincinnati/Louisville/Nashville.

So when the Super Bowl was announced, the city went into full swing to continue the urbanization of downtown. One has to remember that ten years ago downtown Indianapolis was considered a small mid-western town, with the notorious nickname of Naptown. Once the Super Bowl was announced, the city had three years to ensure the nickname would not reemergence.  And it did't. 

So the article that relates the stadium building to just one event is way off (in my very humble opinion), because so much more happened; and those investments will continue past the Super Bowl. I’m sure if Indianapolis “made money” from the Super Bowl. However, they made great strides as a city, and were able to showcase it to the world.

Then. I read this article. Oh New Orleans, why… I realize they have upgraded stadium, and have added Champion Square nearby, but otherwise there seems to never be a coordinated effort for major events. Are they planning on having the street cars installed prior to the event? What about projects from the Master Plan which can be expedited – infrastructure, art, programs?  Instead of taking the city’s status of a tourist city for granted, the city needs to start elevating themselves when they get the chance.

After watching the coordinated approach in Indianapolis, it’s disheartening to watch New Orleans keep taking things for granted.

Baton Rouge Loop Project stays alive http://bit.ly/uQGamZ

"Building a bypass is so 1970's". - Someone from Urban Land Institute

I totally pulled that quote from the Indianapolis Star back in 2005 when the Governor put plans to build an outer loop around Indianapolis. That idea was yanked almost immediately when an outcry from the community forced it off the table.

Then I moved here (Baton Rouge) and the bypass idea was proposed. There was no outcry. In fact, the only outcry came years later from adjacent Parish's (as noted from the article). It was odd. Planners supported the loop; transit advocates supported the loop; and even the Downtown Development District made a proclamation supporting the loop. My naive little planner mind couldn't take it.

Baton Rouge obviously needs regional traffic solutions. There are only four ways to get in/out of the Parish. One blockage on the Interstate and the entire city becomes clogged. But (like the quote says) bypasses are a thing of the past. They are relatively unhelpful with traffic congestion (billions dollars, only to be used when there's an accident?). Yet, they encourage development outside city limits, and discourage downtown inner city development. Which is why bypasses haven't been built around the county in the last decade.

So being the crazy liberal I am, I opt for the more fiscally conservative option. Fix what we have. First, do what they do in Texas. Upgrade Airline Highway and Florida Boulevard to limited access. The expense will be much less than building a new highway. Some right-of-way will need to be acquired; and some creative site design will be needed. But still cheaper, and it will help existing businesses along those routes.

In addition, upgrading those highways would actually benefit Baton Rouge. A loop, by nature, hurts the existing city's infrastructure. We already have infrastructure we can't maintain. Once built, development will flock to the 'new' infrastructure, draining even more resources from the City. Why not funnel that money into existing roads that need upgrading? Like, for instance, Airline Highway and Florida Boulevard.

Or we could continue to support people living outside the city. But that doesn't seem like good fiscal policy. 

Megabus to launch express bus service in Atlanta | ajc.com

Megabus to launch express bus service in Atlanta | ajc.com:

'via Blog this'

MegaBus is expanding. Awesome. I haven't ridden MegaBus (even in Europe), but friends on the East Coast and Chicago love the option.

One has to assume that there is a nationwide build-out plan. So either New Orleans itself will become a hub... or (like all other transportation carriers) they will base their hub in Houston (or Dallas). Which is sad.

The lack of a central hub creates a struggle for the whole state. New Orleans lost all of its flight hubs; New Orleans Amtrak trains aren't priority; and Louisiana has built so many interstates just to bypass New Orleans, that we can't keep maintenance.

Now the private sector is choosing Texas and Georgia over New Orleans. Airlines have left; MegaBus has put us on hold; and the Greyhound Express service will seemingly hub in Texas and Atlanta as well.

Our nations infrastructure has natural hubs, and New Orleans is one of those hubs. But unfortunately we live in a bubble and our own state policy doesn't support this hub. We have an internal fight between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Baton Rouge tries to 'steal' this from New Orleans every chance it gets. We argue about relocating the New Orleans airport closer to Baton Rouge; we built Interstate 12 to completely bypass New Orleans; and we support regional rail through Baton Rouge (even though it involves several new basin crossings and has no realistic connection past Baton Rouge). All of these things makes infrastructure investment more expensive. Thus, nothing gets done.

I'm a Baton Rouge citizen. I support Baton Rouge. Which is exactly why I support New Orleans. Ever since 1718, water, air, and land transportation have centered in New Orleans. Trying to change that will only hurt Southern Louisiana. If we strengthen New Orleans as our regional city, we all benefit. Transportation hubs are one of the main factors this state needs to reevaluate.

The best thing about confusion

On my way back from lunch I had to cross one the many Airline Highway intersections in Ascension Parish. These intersecting roads are only two lane. Meaning people turning right cannot do so on red because they have to wait for people going straight. People going straight have to wait for left hand turners to yield oncoming traffic. Thus a standstill.

I hail from the German-Midwest. I like rules. I was taught that society functions very efficiently when rule following takes place. This is why I hate traffic in Louisiana. No one likes the rules; they don’t follow the rules; and the rules are rarely enforced. This leaves traffic efficiency extremely poor. Well actually non-existent. Merging sucks. Passing lanes sucks. Left turns sucks. Heck, why does Louisiana even have the interstate highways. Rule following is a necessity. High speeds require trust in the other driver. Signalization, consistency, and awareness become a matter of death. Not a matter of rule following.

Honestly, the best traffic situation is the French Quarter. Every intersection functions in its own messed up confusion. Is a car running the stop sign? Are there pedestrians entering the crosswalk? Who has the right of way? Why can’t they replace the street name signs? Has anyone ever considered bending the stop sign back since the hurricane? All the sudden this mass of confusion makes sense. It forces you to pay attention. While you may have the right of way, you can never be too sure that everyone knows. It may take longer to go a mile or two, but everyone feels safer.

So this is also why I love the intersections at Airline Highway in Ascension Parish. If everyone followed the rules, no one would get across. But with strategic maneuvers, we can all transverse the intersection in the short signal duration.

These systems go in the face of my German roots.

But even Europe has begun to recognize why this pattern works. England began removing wayfinding and signage in their central cities, thinking that more confusion for the driver requires attention. A simple concept that no driver wants to face. Yet as a relocatee to Louisiana, I think this concept would function extremely well.  So my idea? Remove all interstate highway, signage, signalization, road lines, etc. I bet our insurance rates drop overnight. (Which, by the way, are coincidently three times higher than my Germany-Midwestern Indiana rates).