John Petro
Transportation Catch-22
Craig F. Walker, The Denver Post
The Denver Rocky Mountain News ran an editorial the other day arguing that if the voters in the region approve a new tax for building out Denver's rapid transit system, a portion of the revenue should also go towards increasing road capacity in order to “preserve today's [road] travel speeds over the next 20 years.”
First, the editorial persists with the obsolete thinking that travel speed should be prioritized over mobility. Rapid transit is not just a way of reducing traffic congestion, but is a way of changing land use patterns so that residents have more choice about how to get from point A to point B. Smart development along rapid transit lines will not only reduce the number of commuters on the road during peak hours, but will also reduce the number of secondary trips – to the grocery store, library, shoe store – because residents will have the opportunity to walk or bike.
The News then takes this familiar tack: “A completed FasTracks [the expanded rapid transit system] will carry less than 5 percent of all peak-hour trips, according to official projections at the time of its approval. Even in major corridors, trains will usually carry only a fifth to a fourth of trips during peak travel times.”
Now, why is it that so many people drive to work? I’m used to seeing pro-transit writers explain that it is a lack of choice, that it is years of suburban planning that has led to the dominance of the automobile in our communities. But, even the Financial Times understands:
No one is seriously predicting the death of the car, least of all in America. Its large spaces, driver-friendly urban geography and relative lack of public transport will support demand for automobiles in decades to come.
It's a Catch-22. More people drive because we build more roads and don't build transit. And we build more roads and don't build transit because most people drive. We reconfigured our cities to accommodate automobile use. We ripped out our streetcar systems and underfunded heavy rail systems in New York and elsewhere. And for most people, this was just fine. But the Financial Times is also detecting a culture shift:
Living and working downtown, he signed up instead with Zipcar, North America’s biggest car-sharing service. “I love cars – it was hard to give it up,” he says. “But once I did, I almost felt that I was free of it.” Testimonials such as these are bad news for an industry whose business rests in large part on the mystique of their brands and consumers’ aspirations to “trade up”. “You have ‘eco-boomers’ coming in who have a whole different attitude towards the automobile,” says Paul McCarthy of PwC. “We’ve seen that in Japan, where it’s no longer a rite of passage to own a car.”
And cities are responding. A new report from the New York City Department of Transportation describes its recent efforts to make the city’s streets more livable. New York City is increasing mobility at the expense of speed.
Traditionally, the streets [of New York City] have been designed primarily for motor vehicle traffic. This policy attracted an increasing number of vehicles, with negative effects on congestion and the overall quality of the public realm… Many cities today are using their public spaces in ways they haven’t in decades. During the twentieth century, many cities redesigned their central areas to better accommodate vehicular traffic and commuters who had moved to the suburbs. Today, however, many cities have rediscovered the advantages of their dense public forms.
New York City has taken a new approach, and it is paying off. The city is proof that if you provide alternatives to driving, people will gladly embrace them. During the boom years of 2003-2007, when the population and employment in the city increased, traffic volume remained flat. The growth was accommodated by the public transit system, walking, and a dramatic increase in biking.
John Petro: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 6:37 AM, Feb 04, 2009 in
Transporation | Urban Affairs
Permalink | Email to Friend
