A brief thread here about some of the main points in "Transport for Suburbia" by Paul Mees
-
-
Mees concentrates his research on the Anglosphere (USA, UK, Canada, Australia, NZ) and on Switzerland--no mention of Japan.
-
First point--against "congestion pricing"--is that travel time has a greater influence on transport demand than price does.
-
Ergo, a congestion pricing scheme makes driving *more* attractive, especially for the wealthy, to the extent that it reduces congestion.
-
Bearing in mind that time is more valuable than money, the goal of a city's transportation policy ought to be to *reduce travel times*...
-
...instead of the much more common goal of *increasing travel speeds.* Between 1993 and 2006, in Canada, only one city saw reduced trip time
-
This was Vancouver--travel times to work had *decreased* even though population had grown dramatically.
-
During the same time frame, Vancouver had made improvements to its transit network, reducing trip times, while leaving congestion alone.
-
Contrast with Montreal, which left its transit network alone and tried to fight traffic congestion during the same time frame...
-
...average commute times increased from 62 minutes to 76 minutes--and there was no comparable population growth to explain it.
-
In sum: Vancouver REDUCED travel times by allowing congestion, Montreal INCREASED travel times by trying to eliminate it.
-
Next topic--land use and population density. Mees quotes "Building the 21st Century Home," a widely-used guidebook...
-
"We may lament the decline in public transport...it must be recognized that reduction of housing densities has played its part..."
-
"...densities of 100 persons per hectare are required to support a viable bus service and around 240 persons per hectare for a tram service"
-
Sounds reasonable--except that by this metric no city in Europe should have trams, except Paris (with its 250 residents per hectare).
-
To counter the density argument, Mees considers the efforts of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) between the 1960s and 1980s
-
Toronto has a small subway system; abt 15-20% of its residents live in walking distance of a station. But the remainder also use it...
-
...because Toronto's bus network is *functionally* an extension of the subway. Feeder buses and trams timed to connect with subway trains.
-
Melbourne, despite having a far more extensive rail system than Toronto, has lower per-capita use because it ignores network principles.
-
Only 10% of Melbourne's train passengers get to the station by bus, vs 76% in Toronto. 69% walk to the station in Melbourne, 20% in Toronto.
-
If Toronto only bothered w passengers who could walk to the station, it wouldn't have enough ridership to justify running trains every 5 min
-
...seven days a week, as late as 1:45 AM. By synchronizing buses with trains, it dramatically increases catchment areas for each station.
-
This is a two-way synergy--the buses made themselves *more useful* too by syncing w subway. This allowed for frequent bus service all year.
-
Running every 10 minutes or better all day, with cross-city and radial routes, Toronto stands out for *bus to bus* transfers too!
-
Last major point--on transit ridership and urban form in Switzerland.
-
Mees mentions Switzerland throughout his book, but begins by looking at Sternenberg, a rural municipality near Zurich, population 349.
-
Most people in Sternenberg live in farms, or tiny hamlets of 3-4 dwellings. The village center is a few houses around an old church.
-
In the USA, Sternenberg would have no public transport at all. But instead, it has 7 buses every weekday, 5 on weekends (7 in the summer).
-
19% of workers in Sternenberg use transit; 10% walk or bike, the rest drive. That's better mode share than ANY American city except NYC!!
-
What gives? Density can't explain it, and even frequency is too low. Something else is going on here...
-
Every bus serving Sternenberg goes to Bauma (pop 1000), the nearest town w a train station, just in time for riders to connect to the train.
- 14 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.