[sustran] Re: The future of "xTransit"

[Puchalsky, Chris]

Eric,

I am somewhat wary of a few of your points and implications below.

Fast Implementation Time - Yes, we should be worried about implementation time and we also need to act decisively to confront numerous problems that are aggravated or caused by our auto-dependant, petroleum based economy.  However, the sky is not falling and the world is not going to end tomorrow.  We shouldn't kid ourselves about the timeframe needed to transition to a much more sustainable transport system - 20 - 30 years at best.  Progressively minded transport professionals (engineers, planners, economists, etc.) are asking for some pretty big changes from society.  I think we have a professional duty to offer solutions that are thoroughly thought out and tested.  There is certainly room for brainstorming and brave new ideas, but those must be tempered by realism before being put forth as "the answer."  The problems that the transport and urban planning professions face in the next generation are big enough that they warrant taking the time to get them right.

It seems that your reference to "high cost old mobility technology" is an oblique dig at fixed route transit systems, particularly rail transit.  I find the epithet "old" to be unhelpful in the discussion of how to tackle mobility problems.  The original age of a technology has no bearing on its usefulness or relevance.  The alphabet is thousands of years old yet has never been more prolific as a technology.  It is continually augmented and improved by new technological advances, just as is rail transit.

In the 1970 both para-transit and light rail were new, promising technologies for solving transport problems.  The bold promises of the former were largely unmet, while the latter has had a 30+ year track record of providing sustainable mobility while also encouraging the types of land uses that reduce auto use and encourage non-motorized modes.  Both para-transit and rail transit will be enhanced in the coming decade by the application of advanced IT and other technologies.   But lets not throw out what we know to work reasonably well in our excitement for a possible "nirvana" solution.  A sustainable transport system in the future will likely be a combination of transit (rail and rubber-tired), para-transit, non-motorized modes, and even measured auto use.


Christopher M. Puchalsky, Ph.D.
Senior Transportation Engineer
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
190 N. Independence Mall West
Philadelphia, PA 19106-1520
P: 215.238.2949
F: 215.592.9125



Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:39:07 +0200
From: "Eric Britton" <eric.britton at ecoplan.org>
Subject: [sustran] Re: [NewMobilityCafe] The future of "xTransit"
To: <NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com>,
        <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
Cc: WorldTransport at yahoogroups.com, 'Michael Yeates'
        <michael at yeatesit.biz>
Message-ID: <008601c9085b$1243d010$36cb7030$@britton at ecoplan.org>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="US-ASCII"

Those are excellent cautionary remarks Michael. You ask why we say "Better, Faster, Cheaper." Let me see if I can respond usefully.



Well the starting point is that our present mainly car-based arrangements in cities are our target. SO what we are looking for is . .



1.     Better. We seem to have no problem with that one.



2.     Faster: Faster than getting stuck in traffic (bikes, buses and metros
are faster than cars in Paris today for many parts of the day, and we are not the only ones). And faster to plan and bring on line than all those high cost old technology approaches. (NB. It can be faster (trip time) and slowth (time speeds) at the same time, let's not forget.)



3.     Cheaper: Cheaper for the citizen to get around in the city. Cheaper
for the city than those very high cost old mobility technology ( invariably poorly adapted to the travel requirements of the 21st century) approaches



Again, just to recall the New Mobility strategy in its basic points:



1.     Reduce VM/KT radically.



2.     And do it fast:  (In months or a couple of years max. We cannot for
all the reasons you all know continue to wait. And wait)



3.     Improve and extend the 'bouquet" of new mobility services: We know
that a whole range of new service types are needed, that they need to be complements, and that they need to offer better, faster and cheaper (sorry!) transportation than the old car-intensive arrangements.



4.     Make use of the "infrastructure joker": The transportation
infrastructures of our cities have for the most part been vastly overbuilt.
That just great, since it means that we can take over substantial portions of the network for far more efficient modes.



5.     Paying for it: No problem. We simply take over 50% of the transport
related budgets and use it to address to projects and reforms that are going to make big differences with the next four to five (max.) years.



6.     Partnerships: This approach, because it is new and unfamiliar to most
people, is unlike to be understood the first times around. .Hence a major education, , consultation and outreach efforts is going to be needed in each place to make it work.  Old mobility was the terrain in which decisions were made by transportation experts. New mobility is based on outreach and harnessing the great strengths of the informed and educated populations of our cities. Public/private/citizen partnerships.



My point is that to move ahead with any of this in time to save the planet and the life quality of the majority of the people who live in cities (no, they are not happy car owner-drivers, get out there and count them) we need to have a unified, coherent, and memorable strategy. The entire work and purpose of the New Mobility Agenda is given over to trying to assist in just this important task.



Eric Britton