[sustran] Re: Traffic pyramid - a discussion for Colombian urban transport policy

[Todd Litman]

That is an interesting question.

Of course, active and public transit travel are complements: they help each
other. Almost all transit trips include active transport links, so improving
walking and cycling conditions is often one of the best ways to improve and
encourage public transit travel, and both are needed to create an urban
transport system which provides a high level of accessibility and allows
residents to reduce their vehicle ownership. 

I think it is best to promote "complete streets" policies which ensure that
urban streets serve all users.

See the following publications:

ADUPC (2009), Abu Dhabi Urban Street Design Manual, Abu Dhabi Urban Planning
Council (www.upc.gov.ae/en/Home.aspx); at
www.upc.gov.ae/guidelines/urban-street-design-manual.aspx?lang=en-US. 

ADUPC (2013), Abu Dhabi Public Realm Design Manual, Abu Dhabi Urban Planning
Council (www.upc.gov.ae/en/Home.aspx); at www.upc.gov.ae/prdm/index.asp. 

ABW (2014), Bicycling and Walking in the U.S.: Benchmarking Reports,
Alliance for Biking & Walking, (www.peoplepoweredmovement.org); at
www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/benchmarking.

Alta Planning + Design (2005), Caltrans Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Technical Reference Guide: A Technical Reference and Technology Transfer
Synthesis for Caltrans Planners and Engineers, California Department of
Transportation
(www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/survey/pedestrian/TR_MAY0405.pdf).

Todd Litman (2003), "Economic Value of Walkability," Transportation Research
Record 1828, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 3-11; at
www.vtpi.org/walkability.pdf. 

Todd Litman (2012), Evaluating Complete Streets: The Value of Designing
Roads For Diverse Modes, Users and Activities, Victoria Transport Policy
Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/compstr.pdf.

Todd Litman (2011), Evaluating Active Transport Benefits and Costs: Guide to
Valuing Walking and Cycling Improvements and Encouragement Programs,
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at
www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf; originally published as "Bicycling and
Transportation Demand Management," Transportation Research Record 1441,
1994, pp. 134-140. 

NACTO (2011), Urban Bikeway Design Guide, National Association of City
Transportation Officials (www.nacto.org); at
http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide.

John Pucher, Jennifer Dill and Susan Handy (2010), "Infrastructure, Programs
and Policies To Increase Bicycling: An International Review," Preventive
Medicine, Vol. 48, No. 2, February; prepared for the Active Living By Design
Program (www.activelivingbydesign.org); at
http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Pucher_Dill_Handy10.pdf.


Sincerely,
Todd Litman (litman at vtpi.org)
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
Office: 250-360-1560 | Mobile: 250-508-5150
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
     Efficiency - Equity - Clarity 


-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+litman=vtpi.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+litman=vtpi.org at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
Of Carlosfelipe Pardo
Sent: September 11, 2014 4:03 AM
To: Sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
Subject: [sustran] Traffic pyramid - a discussion for Colombian urban
transport policy

Hi,

We (various Colombian "transport people") are in the process of supporting
the Colombian Ministry of Transport in formulating a new national urban
transport policy. To date, the policy had only been formulated for public
transport (this is why we have 8 BRTs etc etc funded up to 70% by National
government) but the aim is to include Non motorized transport and travel
demand management measures as part of a broader policy. This is a pretty
good opportunity to improve things, especially since many Colombian cities
cannot get national funding for NMT improvements because there is no law to
support such funding (this is a big problem for small cities that have
short trips and no infrastructure for cycling nor money to build it, for
example).

However, we have come to a discussion where some of us propose that non
motorized transport should have priority over other modes, and others
strongly reject that idea because they say (and I quote) that "*public
transport is the ONLY mode that youth, old, men and women, abled and
disabled, rich and poor can use, and is therefore the mode that is
accessible to all*" (caps in original!). I for one find this a bit
troubling and do not think that it should be an assumption of a national
policy of urban transport that tries to include more modes... am I wrong,
did I understand the traffic pyramid differently from what I should?

I feel that I am pretty alone in this battle (Colombia is a very pro-public
transport country, but not-so when it comes to cycling as a national
policy). I would very much appreciate if anyone can *send along arguments
and hard data that can support that cycling is also very accessible and
should be a prioritary mode*, not just in traffic crossings but in policy.
Otherwise, we'll just have a transport policy that is the same as before.

Thanks for any support on this!!

-- 
Carlosfelipe Pardo | Director Ejecutivo | despacio
pardo at despacio.org
Tel: (+571) 2484420  / Cel (+573) 21 343 3727
despacio.org
-------------------------------------------------------- 
To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss

================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South').