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

Chris Bradshaw hearth at ties.ottawa.on.ca
Fri Sep 12 01:53:45 JST 2014


In addition to the many fine sources Todd has suggested, I would like to
tackle some arguments.

As a national government, Columbia probably starts off suffering from a
large-scale bias: walking and cycling are not useful -- except to first and
last kms -- for "national" trips.  Even metro transportation authorities
have a large-scale bias, wanting to *accommodate* city-wide trips, rather
than observe the cardinal rule of what I call "the Green Transportation
Hierarchy": short trips over long, slow trips over fast; and small
footprint-mode (per-person, to make well-utilized transit better than most
cars) over large.  I work with fellow seniors, whose typical trips are
short and less frequent than commuters.

The transit agencies also have a similar long-distance bias, to the extent
that their fares are not distance-sensitive, so that people taking short
trips pay as much as those who take long trips (the former *subsidize* the
latter, really -- see the Pamela Blais' book *Perverse Cities*).  This is
done because transit systems are attached to -- and subservient to -- city
transportation departments (with usually federal and/or state funding)
trying to attract commuters-who own cars and travel at peak ours vs. the
casual user, who travels, probably, 1/5 as far and less frequently
(important for calculating whether an unlimited-use monthly pass is a good
deal or not).  Commuters take much longer trips and get much more frequent
service than non-commuters who pay the same fare (As I put it to local
politicians: seniors, who avoid rush-hour 'bustle', walk twice as far[a],
wait twice as long, travel 1/5 as far, all for the same fare). [note a: Our
system has a 400-metre 'walkshed' policy for peak-hour service, but an
800-metre one for regular routes].

This produces high transit fares that make it expensive for the poor,
seniors, and students to use.  As a result walking and cycling become their
modes of choice.  And with no or shorter commutes, their trip distances are
well within the range of what these modes are best for.  Finally, these two
modes make a major contribution to street conviviality, making the city
inviting to visitors.

Chris Bradshaw, Ottawa


On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 7:21 AM, Todd Litman <litman at vtpi.org> wrote:

> 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').
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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').
>


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list