<html> <body> I agree with Zvi. The debate between Bus Rapid Transit and rail-based transit is partly a debate between "mobility" and "accessibility." Rail systems tend to provide a catalyst for more compact, accessible neighborhood development which shows up in reduced per capita vehicle ownership and mileage, and therefore reductions in per capita congestion delay, transportation costs, parking costs, accidents, energy consumption and pollution emissions (<a href="http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf" eudora="autourl"> http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf </a>). It also results in higher local property values and improved mobility for non-drivers (see the newly revised literature review at <a href="http://www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf" eudora="autourl"> http://www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf</a> ). BRT appears t have some of these impacts, particularly if implemented in conjunction with supportive land use policies, but rail impacts are greater and more likely to attract higher-income riders, and gain voter support. Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 08:03 AM 3/17/2006, Zvi Leve wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">In my opinion, the major issue in any region, particularly those which are rapidly growing, is 'accessibility' to opportunities - and not necessarily mobility. Why are so many people acquiring cars? Of course as the economy grows and financing become more flexible more people can afford private vehicles. But also note that these rapidly expanding regions are often not structured in such a way that there is sufficient accessibility to things (employment opportunities, schools, etc.) - hence the /need/ to acquire the means of independent mobility. And unfortunately rapid uncontrolled urban growth cannot be well served by mass transit - hence the rapid rush to motorization! There is always the chicken and the egg issue. What comes first: concentrated land uses, or the transportation infrastructure to serve them? In places such as Hong Kong and Singapore there was a concerted effort by the government to integrate land use developments together with mass transit. In many other places local governments do not necessarily have as much control over local land use so it is not so simple to serve the population's needs via 'mass-transit'. I think that one of the legitimate arguments for rail-options is that they are perceived as being more permanent - hence there is a better chance of being able to formalize land use development around rail rather than small-scale transit options. Still, is it realistic to expect that just becauses an authority chooses a rail option, they will miraculously now be able to control the way a given location develops? As for 'utilization charges' - no government ever earned much support from the population by adding more taxes! Just some thoughts. Unfortunately I have no solutions. Zvi</blockquote> <x-sigsep></x-sigsep> Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (<a href="http://www.vtpi.org" eudora="autourl">www.vtpi.org</a>) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA “Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”   </body> </html>