[sustran] Transit Oriented Policies

[Todd Litman]

I agree that it is important to provide transit priority in traffic to
attract discretionary (what transit planners call "choice") riders, but
there are other factors that can be equally important including parking
availability and pricing, pedestrian accessibility, road pricing, transit
oriented development patterns, and commute trip reduction programs.
Something as simple as parking cash out (allowing commuters who use transit
to have the cash equivalent of what would be spent on free parking if they
drove) can double the portion of transit commute trips.

Although automobile ownership tends to increase with income, up to a point,
there are plenty of examples of cities in wealthy, democratic countries
where alternative modes maintain a major mode share, and where per capita
automobile use is half of what it is in typical North American cities.
Several European cities are success in restraining and even reducing peak
period automobile trips, and current work on road pricing and traffic
restraints sponsored by the European Community may significantly increase
this trend. It is important to avoid creating a self fulfilling prophesy of
increased automobile dependency due to determinist planning (creating
automobile dependent cities to accommodate projected increases in
automobile use based on extrapolations of current trends).

Traffic engineers tend to focus on traffic flow and tend to be unfamiliar
with the full range of economic and land use incentives that need to be in
place, or they mistakenly assume that such incentives are harmful to
consumers or the economy. I believe that it is important that
transportation professionals become more familiar with transportation
demand management, and give them equal consideration with physical design
features.

For more information on various demand management strategies that can
support public transit and other alternative modes see the Online TDM
Encyclopedia: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm. We are just finishing a major update
and have added several new chapters. As always, we appreciate feedback.


Sincerely,

Todd Litman, Director
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
1250 Rudlin Street
Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
E-mail:  litman at vtpi.org
Website: http://www.vtpi.org


At 10:10 AM 11/11/01 -0600, you wrote:
>Fortunately, the fuel cell vehicle is available. Point, though is very
>simple. If we take your point and mine... Your point that metros may be the
>only way in some places (agreed, I have overstated your point) and my point
>that you need a close knit parallel system of high frequency buses to
>provide comprehensive mobility and add to it the limitations you suggest
>below we have the following...
>
>Metros that cannot do the job
>A busway system that cannot be implemented
>
>If that is the case, then similar to what Anthony Downs said, better get
>ready for the auto, because the people who are getting more affluent will
>not be content with a transport system that does not take them where they
>want when they want in a competitive time. I know these things are difficult
>politically, but there is no difficulty at all from the perspective of
>someone who can afford a car --- they exit the public transport system
>except where it does the job. Too bad, but true. That means, for all the
>anti-car pro-transit talk among developing world cities, they had better be
>prepared to do what is necessary, and that is a comprehensive system.
>
>But alas, as I have grown older, I have regretfully learned that politics
>and transport is often more about positioning and posturing than attempting
>to solve real problems (not pointing the finger at you, me or anyone else on
>this list).
>
>Best regards,
>Wendell Cox
>
>
>DEMOGRAPHIA & THE PUBLIC PURPOSE (Wendell Cox Consultancy)
>http://www.demographia.com (Demographics & Land Use)
>http://www.publicpurpose.com (Public Policy & Transport))
>Telephone: +1.618.632.8507 - Facsimile: +1.810.821.8134
>PO Box 841 - Belleville, IL 62222 USA
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <BruunB at aol.com>
>To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
>Sent: Saturday, 10 November, 2001 19:21
>Subject: [sustran] Re: More on Portland and metros
>
>
>> Wendell,
>>
>> I don't disagree that several parallel bus lanes (or LRT lines, for that
>> matter) are better than one metro line, but how many cities will allow
>this
>> much space? I support building many busways, but how many cities will? My
>> point was that one might have to wait a long time.
>>
>> One point that was not discussed. Once busways start moving large numbers
>of
>> people, they can be very noisy and unpleasant, as the number of diesel
>> vehicles gets very large. I understand that some businesses are failing
>along
>> one of the Sao Paolo busways. Thus, one must also limit the number of
>buses
>> or jitneys in any one road.
>>
>> Eric
>
>
>
>