Is it fair to have to pay more if your trip requires a transfer or connection? I’ve argued that it isn’t, but I also have an appreciation of the difficulty of eliminating these penalties. So when complaining about a fare penalty, try to understand the situation from the transit agency’s point of view. Not because they’re right and you’re wrong, but because you many need to help them solve the problem that it presents for them. Continue Reading →
Advocacy
Connection Penalties as “de facto Redlining”?
Sometimes a comment is so representative of a common point of view that I want to share it even though I neither agree or disagree exactly. Sometimes too, a comment raises a language point that’s worth noticing. From David Vartanoff: Continue Reading →
Bulletin: Young Adults Don’t All Want Cars
A study by GWL Realty Advisors suggests that the next generation may not values cars nearly as much as the current decision-making generation does. From Treehugger’s coverage: Continue Reading →
Should I Call Myself a “Transit Rider”?
Is there anything wrong with calling a group of people “transit users” or “riders”? Is there anything wrong with calling yourself such a thing? Continue Reading →
Canberra: “They Only Refer to Buses”
Transit debates often get stuck because the word we need doesn’t exist. As longtime readers of this blog will know, I’d really like there to be a word that means “transit vehicle, maybe on rails and maybe on tires” or “clearly a bus right now, but with the possibility of growing rails in the future.”
But there isn’t such a word. So when I’m working in a city where the short-term reality is an all-bus system, and I talk about that system and our short-term plans for it, well, it’s really hard not to use the word bus. When I want to help people visualize it, it’s hard not to draw a picture of a bus.
When I do, rail advocates assume that means I’m expressing an opposition to rail, or perhaps just pandering to such feelings in my clients. Here, for example, the latest blast from the head of the main light rail lobby group in Australia’s capital city, Canberra, in a comment on the Canberra news blog RiotACT:
Although Mr Walker proclaims transport mode agnosticism, he is being paid by a pro-bus department … . What do you think would happen to future work for his firm if he came out and said, replace buses with light rail on the rapid route where the demand warrants this modal change.
I have heard the [local government] policy people report on their long term plans based on the ‘Canberra Transport Plan’. They only refer to buses.
Actually, I’m being paid (and modestly) by a department that’s trying to plot a rational course into a sustainable transport future, for a city of 345,000 people who live mostly at low densities with an abundant road network. The transit system is not yet at a scale or intensity where it needs the capacity that light rail would offer, nor is there much near-term prospect of funding for it. Light rail could happen, and I certainly don’t oppose it, but as I said over and over in Canberra’s Strategic Plan process, if you wait for light rail, you will miss a lot of other opportunities to improve transit mobility, and to encourage more transit-friendly urban form.
So to improve public transit in Canberra, the government is moving forward with a plan to improve the buses. Not because they love buses, but because (a) they have buses and (b) they need to move forward.
And so, to talk about that, they need to say the word “bus” a lot, and even draw pictures of buses. Yes, if your conception of transit begins with an absolute division between a bus world and a rail world, then officials who do that are going to sound to you like bus advocates.
But if you call them that, you’re projecting your scheme onto them. Not everyone lives in a bus-vs-rail world. The experts and officials who say bus a lot may well be true bus enthusiasts, but they may also be people like me who just want to get on with the work of developing good transit, and who therefore reach for whatever tool will best do the job at hand.
A Field Guide to Transit Quarrels
UDPATE: New, easier links!
My presentation “A Field Guide to Transit Quarrels,” which I did last month in San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver, is here as a PowerPoint with notes on each slide describing its essence.
If you want a taste of what I sounded like talking about this stuff, the backlit but audible video of the Seattle presentation is here. UPDATE: The Portland video, which is much clear, is here!
As always with free stuff on the web, there has to be some advertising. So: If you’d like me to do a presentation to your group or organisation. The recent North American tour was the last time I’ll do this for free, but costs can often be figured out.
Look forward to comments, as always. Thanks to Scott for the PDF links!
Congestion Pricing: The View From Canada
Canada’s Frontier Centre for Public Policy just published a paper by my colleague Stuart Donovan on the case for road pricing. The gist:
Accurate transport pricing not only reduces congestion, it also generates additional revenue to fund investment in additional capacity when and where it is justified by demand. Most importantly, accurate transport pricing is mode-neutral in that it neither discriminates against nor favours any transport mode, although it does favour high-value vehicles, such as buses and emergency vehicles. Accurate transport pricing also allows people the freedom to manage their travel needs in the way that best suits them. Some workplaces, for example, may allow their employees to work flexible hours in order to reduce their transport costs.
PDF here.
Can Public Transit Fix Traffic Congestion?
Now and then, someone mentions that a particular public transit project did not reduce traffic congestion, as though that were evidence of failure. In fact, the relationship between transit and congestion is indirect. It is not always wise to claim congestion reduction as a likely result of your proposed transit project. Continue Reading →
What Does Transit Do About Traffic Congestion?
This is an old version of this post, which I’ve retained to save its comments. See the updated version here.
Now and then, someone mentions that a particular transit project did not reduce traffic congestion, as though that was evidence of failure. Years ago, politicians and transit agencies would sometimes say that a transit project would reduce congestion, though most are now smart enough not to make that claim. Continue Reading →