3
Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada

A number of factors have contributed to high demand for public transit in Western Europe and to the many public policies aimed at preserving and strengthening this demand. Historic, geographic, and demographic circumstances, as discussed in the preceding chapter, explain in part why transit enjoys greater popularity in Western Europe than in the United States. However, government policy making has also been important. For many decades, Western European governments have emphasized the provision of high-quality transit services, discouraged automobile driving by raising the cost of owning and operating private cars, and promoted more compact and centralized forms of urban development that are conducive to transit operations. Thus, many of the trends discussed previously have not been merely accidental.

This chapter begins with a review of various actions taken by Western European and Canadian transit agencies to increase transit usage, mainly by enhancing the quality, coverage, and reliability of the service. The discussion then broadens to consider government tax and regulatory policies affecting use of the private automobile, which both competes with rail and bus service and contributes to the dispersed and decentralized forms of urban development that are difficult to serve efficiently with transit. The chapter concludes with a comparison of the institutions and processes for coordinating transit, highway, and land use decisions in Western European, Canadian, and American cities.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 3 Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada A number of factors have contributed to high demand for public transit in Western Europe and to the many public policies aimed at preserving and strengthening this demand. Historic, geographic, and demographic circumstances, as discussed in the preceding chapter, explain in part why transit enjoys greater popularity in Western Europe than in the United States. However, government policy making has also been important. For many decades, Western European governments have emphasized the provision of high-quality transit services, discouraged automobile driving by raising the cost of owning and operating private cars, and promoted more compact and centralized forms of urban development that are conducive to transit operations. Thus, many of the trends discussed previously have not been merely accidental. This chapter begins with a review of various actions taken by Western European and Canadian transit agencies to increase transit usage, mainly by enhancing the quality, coverage, and reliability of the service. The discussion then broadens to consider government tax and regulatory policies affecting use of the private automobile, which both competes with rail and bus service and contributes to the dispersed and decentralized forms of urban development that are difficult to serve efficiently with transit. The chapter concludes with a comparison of the institutions and processes for coordinating transit, highway, and land use decisions in Western European, Canadian, and American cities.

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 DEPENDABLE, HIGH-QUALITY TRANSIT SERVICE American travelers often remark on how Western European and Canadian transit systems are easy to use, reliable, and generally more inviting than American systems. This section offers some examples of ways in which customer-minded Western European and Canadian transit systems have sought to ensure service dependability, convenience, comfort, and safety and to expand transit’s public appeal. Reliability and Frequency An important attribute for transit users is timely and fast service. Large gaps in network coverage, low schedule frequency, chronic delays, and excessive transfer waits are troublesome, especially for time-sensitive commuters (Syed and Kahn 2000; Lyons and McLay 2000). Service speed and reliability have long been important to transit agencies in Western Europe, most notably in Germany. German cities are renowned for their extensive and frequent urban rail service, even in small and medium-sized cities. Traditional streetcars operating in mixed traffic, modern light rail lines that operate on both streets and dedicated rights-of-way, and commuter railways are found throughout Germany, and rapid transit is provided in the largest cities. Perhaps the most innovative urban rail system in Germany is that of Karlsruhe, whose light rail vehicles also operate on mainline track. This system of shared track usage has attracted international attention because it allows the expansion of light rail services without the need to acquire additional rights-of-way (Orski 1995). From the standpoint of users, this versatility has the important advantage of reducing time-consuming interline transfers between commuter and distributor rail and bus lines.1 Among bus transit systems, the comprehensive busway of Ottawa, Canada, has been widely acclaimed. Like the Karlsruhe rail system, Ottawa’s system of dedicated busways offers versatility and travel speed by combining mainline express, feeder, and distributor services, thus reducing the need for time-consuming interline transfers (TCRP 1997b, 22–23; Syed and Kahn 2000, 3). It is important to keep in mind, however, that the main form of public transport in Western Europe and Canada is the same as in the United States—conventional buses operating in mixed traffic. Therefore, a major concern for most transit operators is to keep buses moving on schedule

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 Light rail cars in Karlsruhe, Germany, can be used on existing mainline and streetcar lines for commuter and local service without transfers. (© UITP. Reprinted with permission from Public Transport International,No. 4, 1999, J. Vivier, The Consumer Is the Centreof Interest, p. 31.)

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 Buses on the rapid transitway in Ottawa, Canada, are used for commuter and local passenger service. (© UITP. Reprinted with permission from Public Transport International, No. 2, 1999, O. Sawka, Ottawa’s Transitway: 750 Million Riders and Counting!, p. 27.)

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 through traffic, often accomplished through a combination of routing and scheduling modifications and technological aids, and sometimes with priority treatments (Reilly 1997). Among the simplest practices, prevalent in Germany, Austria, and Scandinavia, is widening the spacing of bus stops to reduce the number of times a bus must decelerate, accelerate, and reenter traffic flows. Transit operators in these countries typically space bus stops every 300 to 500 m, or about two to three stops per kilometer. U.S. transit bus operators, by comparison, place stops about every 200 m, creating five stops per kilometer. Another way to increase bus travel speed is to reduce dwell times during passenger boarding and alighting. With this objective in mind, transit agencies in Western Europe have built special bus loading platforms on median islands that reduce the frequency of buses exiting and reentering travel lanes. In Great Britain, extensions from the sidewalk into the curb lane, known as “bus-boarders,” have been constructed at many bus stops to prevent obstructions from parked cars, create more space for queuing riders, and reduce the need for buses to maneuver into and out of the traffic stream.2 Western Europe has also seen a proliferation of low-floor buses, which have extra-wide doors, often three doors, and no cumbersome steps to climb at the entrances. These vehicles—still rare in the United States but common in Western Europe for more than a decade—have the side benefit of speeding boarding and alighting in addition to improving bus accessibility by the elderly and disabled (King 1994, 12–14). Prepaid transit tickets and passes also accelerate boarding. For this and other reasons, most Western European transit systems have long offered self-service ticketing and advance-purchase fare cards. To further minimize on-board fare collection, most Western European transit agencies charge a premium for single-ride tickets purchased on the vehicle. Even with such measures, Western European bus and streetcar schedules are prone to disruptions caused by traffic congestion. Western European and Canadian transit agencies, in concert with local highway departments, have therefore taken many innovative steps to give transit vehicles priority in traffic (Brilon and Laubert 1994). To a greater extent than in the United States, Western European and Canadian traffic management practices are designed to discourage car use, both to facilitate transit operations and to deter city driving in general. Among the first large cities in the world to formally espouse a decidedly transit-first approach to

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 Modern fare payment machines like this one in Paris make transit ticketing easier and boarding faster. (© UITP. Reprinted with permission from Public Transport International,No. 3, 2000, A. Ampelas, The RATP and the Transition to the Single Currency, p. 6.) traffic management were Zurich, Switzerland; Gothenburg, Sweden; and Bremen, Germany (Cervero 1998). Zurich has given traffic priority to transit for more than 30 years. Transit priority programs include traffic rules that give buses priority when reentering traffic, staggered stop lines and special bus lanes and traffic signals that give transit vehicles a head start in traffic queues at intersections, and technologies that allow buses to activate green lights on traffic signals (TCRP 1997a). More than 90 percent of the intersections in Zurich and Vienna are equipped with sensors that detect approaching transit vehicles. Bus-activated signals are also common in Toronto and Quebec City. In greater London, a demand-responsive traffic control system known as BUSCOOT gives intersection priority to traffic lanes with heavy bus flows. Lower-technology solutions include longer green light settings on routes served by transit and special bus turning provisions, such as allowing buses to

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 make unimpeded left turns from center or curb lanes (e.g., in Ottawa). Though traffic control measures, such as bus lanes, have also been adopted in some American cities to give transit vehicles priority, they are seldom as well coordinated or routinely enforced as in Western European and Canadian cities. Comfort, Safety, and Convenience Whereas creative marketing and promotion can attract more riders, transit agencies in Western Europe and Canada recognize that comfort, personal safety, and convenience are essential to retaining customers (Syed and Kahn 2000; Lyons and McLay 2000). Accordingly, they appear to spare no expense in equipping vehicles with amenities such as ergonomic seats and state-of-the-art suspension systems. Even simple amenities such as wall clocks on board vehicles and pay telephones, shelters, mailboxes, and bicycle storage stalls at bus stops are common, as are clean vehicles with good ventilation and pleasant and knowledgeable drivers (Reilly 1997; TCRP 1997b, 6). In Ottawa, stations along the busway system are integrated with shopping facilities. Transit stations in many Western European cities serve as connecting points for a variety of activities; many contain restaurants, news kiosks, bakeries, flower shops, and other retail services that are complementary to their transit function. Many transit stations are attractive places to visit in their own right. Transit operators in Western Europe and Canada usually provide convenient means for riders to purchase tickets. Many offer tickets for sale in post offices, student unions, and shopping malls, often supplemented by hundreds of automated vending machines at rail and bus stations. Sidewalks leading to transit stops, intersection controls that allow safe street crossings, and well-lit and secure waiting areas are also the norm throughout much of Western Europe and Canada. Ensuring the safety of public transit riders and maintaining the perception that riding on transit is safe are of particular importance to transit operators in Western Europe and Canada. In German cities, transit services are often supplied by more than one public or private operator. However, regional transit associations, known as verkehrsverbunds, play a central coordinating function, establishing complementary routes, setting uniform fare structures, and allocating government subsidies among individual operators (Pucher and Kurth 1995). These regional transportation entities provide uniformity and consistency in levels and quality of service, helping to make transit riding convenient and uncom-

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 plicated. In general, Western European transit services are treated as vital components of the regional transportation system. They are well connected to airports, commuter railroads, and intercity rail and motor bus stations. Considered individually, such customer amenities and conveniences may not appear to be important. Their combined effects on service quality are significant, however. Many of these practices can be found in the United States, but not as routinely or in combination with one another. Innovative Marketing Western European and Canadian transit authorities believe that public transit is, or can be made, suitable for everyone—not just an option for downtown-bound commuters or inner-city residents without cars. This attitude manifests itself in the many innovative marketing approaches aimed at broadening transit’s appeal and promoting its use by travelers outside the traditional customer base. Western European transit agencies have turned to innovative marketing practices in part because they have large amounts of spare capacity to fill during off-peak hours. Hence many transit agencies, especially in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, work closely with promoters of museums, theaters, and sports events to incorporate a heavily discounted transit fare into the price of admission, thus entitling patrons to transit rides to and from large public events without additional charge (Pucher and Kurth 1995, 124–125; TCRP 1997a). Many hotels include 2- or 3-day transit passes in their room rates. Although these “kombi-tickets” are often promoted as a means of curbing automobile congestion, they also provide an opportunity for transit to attract infrequent or new riders, some of whom may decide to use transit more often. Users of such niche services increase use of public transit in their own right; however, if these strategies are truly effective, they will also cause some new riders to use transit more often (Cronin et al. 2000). With such longer-term goals in mind, many Western European transit systems sell heavily discounted passes to university students. The idea is to instill a habit of transit use—one that remains long after entering the workforce, even when the automobile becomes a more affordable option. This practice also exemplifies how Western European transit agencies have personalized marketing by providing information and ticketing packages tailored to the needs of individuals and households.

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 Winnipeg’s Graham Avenue shopping mall includes priority transit service and many customer amenities. (© UITP. Reprinted with permission from Public Transport International,No. 2, 1999, B. Hemily, Canadian Transit in Transition, p. 10.) Many Western European and Canadian transit operators recognize the benefits that can flow from eliminating a well-known deterrent to transit use by the unaccustomed rider—the lack of information on transit fares and routings, especially for bus operations (Cronin et al. 2000). Some operators publish bus schedules in newspapers, on the Internet, and in brochures mailed to the general public. Others color their buses to match color-designated routes depicted on easy-to-read maps placed in bus shelters and on board vehicles (TCRP 1997b, 10). The idea is to create a clear identity for bus lines in the same manner as for rail transit lines. To further simplify schedules, many buses (especially in Switzerland and Germany) are timed to arrive and depart at regular intervals, for instance, every 15 or 20 minutes before or after the hour (Cervero 1998, 300–318). Many also provide travelers with real-time information on vehi-

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 cle status. Advanced vehicle locator systems that relay bus status and position information to central dispatching stations also provide arrival updates to waiting travelers through special phone booths or computer displays in kiosks (TCRP 1997a; TCRP 1998). Even medium-sized transit operators in Western Europe and Canada (e.g., in Hull and Halifax) use vehicle locator systems in this manner. All of these approaches and technologies are intended to make transit services more transparent and simple for users, including new and infrequent riders. Nevertheless, most transit agencies abroad recognize that they cannot accommodate all travel needs. Some have found ways to incorporate the automobile and other transport modes into their promotional activities. For instance, some agencies (e.g, in Bremen, Vienna, and Zurich) give regular users discounts on weekend car rentals; others (e.g., in Berlin) help sponsor “public car” cooperatives that allow participants to share cars for periodic use (Orski 1995; TCRP 1997a); still others allow holders of monthly passes to travel by transit with family members and friends free of charge during weekends and other off-peak times (Pucher 1998, 300–302; Pucher and Kurth 1995). In Sweden and Germany, many transit operators will call ahead for taxis to carry passengers to points beyond the regular network, and others will arrange for night taxi service after regular transit service hours (Orski 1995; TCRP 1997b). By and large, these practices are aimed at giving urban households one less reason to purchase a second, or even first, car, thereby retaining transit as the primary option for more kinds of travel. Enhancing Service Through Procurement Innovations A number of the service enhancements discussed above are expensive to provide. Concerned about rising costs and seeking to retain high levels of service with greater efficiency, most Western European governments have introduced or have been exploring alternative means of organizing and delivering their transit services. Many have turned to the private sector, taking advantage of the efficiencies and innovations that result from competition among service providers.3 Traditionally, nearly all transit systems in Western Europe have been publicly owned and operated, administered in much the same way as other government agencies. The approach has been changing, however. In the early 1980s, the French began hiring private companies to manage

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 Innovative night buses like this one in Münster, Germany, are popular transit services. (© UITP. Reprinted with permission from Public Transport International, No. 2, 1998, E. Christ, The Stuff of Dreams: Catch the Bus Until Five in the Morning, p. 35.)

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 In Canada, the provinces have absolute authority over local government entities and a strong influence on local decision making and institutional arrangements. The provinces have exercised this power by creating and funding metropolitanwide forms of government with wide-ranging powers, including regional land use planning (Rothblatt 1994). In some cases—such as Edmonton and Calgary—a single government entity covers all or most of the metropolitan region, whereas in others—such as Toronto and Ottawa—multifunctional metropolitanwide governments have been superimposed over a tier of local or municipal governments. Though many metropolitan areas consist of several municipalities that are authorized to provide certain local services, such as fire protection and libraries, the regionwide metropolitan governments formed by the provinces have multiple responsibilities that transcend the region, such as public transit, water supply, waste disposal, and policing. They also serve a regional revenue-sharing function and review local land use plans for consistency with regional land use and infrastructure plans. As an example, the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton (RMOC), which encompasses 11 cities, townships, and villages, directs local land use through its regional master plan. RMOC was established by the province of Ontario, which requires the creation of a regional plan that integrates areawide land use, transportation, and other infrastructure decision making (RMOC 1999, 2). In carrying out this planning, a stated goal of the regional municipality is to “maintain and enhance the central area as the region’s focus for economic, cultural, and political activities” (RMOC 1999, 5). Local municipalities may adopt their own land use plans, but these must conform with the regional plan. Regional plans in Canadian cities not only are strategic in nature, but also offer guidance about land use and transportation policies at a specific and practical level. As an example, the RMOC master plan calls for local communities to adopt specific zoning ordinances that locate new employment-related development near public transit stations. When planning land use and infrastructure facilities and reviewing applications for development, local officials must ensure the following (RMOC 1999, 28): Collector roads link several adjacent developments with direct transit routes.

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 Local road systems minimize the use of cul-de-sacs. All potential building sites are located within 400 m of a public transit station or stop. Locations for high-density development are close to existing or proposed public transit stations. Direct and safe pedestrian and cycling ways are provided between residences and transit stops. The Ontario plan—which emphasizes compact corridor development and suburban “centers”—calls for the location of future public transit stations in those locations targeted by the regional plan to be employment centers and areas of mixed-use and compact development (RMOC 1999, 26). By having such coordinated control over regional land use and transportation planning, Canadian urban planners are better positioned to anticipate future transit needs and purchase rights-of-way in corridors before this option is lost or becomes too expensive (Cervero 1986). Conversely, coordination of urban land use and transportation decision making is possible in much of Western Europe not because these two responsibilities are controlled by a single government, but because governments at several levels share aspects of each—from their funding and implementation to their administration. With no single government unit in charge, all must work together. In Germany, for instance, the federal government has shifted more responsibility for urban highways to the state and municipal governments, which also share responsibility for land use planning and regulation. To assist with funding, the federal government provides states and localities with block grants (derived in large part from motor fuel taxes) that can be used for any transportation purpose. These grants are often accompanied by spending stipulations that give federal agencies influence over land use and transportation decisions. In some Western European countries, coordination of land use and transportation is possible because one level of government, usually the national government, has almost complete responsibility for major decisions. In Great Britain, for instance, the national government has primary control over both land use and highway decision making (though transit provision is largely a private-sector responsibility outside greater London). Before 1986, when privatization laws were passed by Parliament, regional passenger transport authorities (PTAs) had been responsible for providing all public transit in metropolitan areas. Although PTAs still

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 exist, their main role is in planning and funding subsidized supplemental bus services (essential services not provided by the private market) and distributing national subsidies for some commuter and light rail services. In general, urban areas (outside of greater London) lack strong regional transit planning organizations, whereas highway and land use planning remain largely national responsibilities. Other means by which land use, transit, and other transportation policies and programs are coordinated in Western Europe and Canada were summarized earlier in Tables 3-2 and 3-3. The variability noted above makes it difficult to generalize about organizational and jurisdictional approaches. If there is a common denominator, it is that responsibilities for transportation and land use decision making are held by one government or shared among several governments, not divided categorically among several levels of government as in the United States. Whereas coordination of land use and transportation planning does take place in the United States, the usual emphasis is on minimizing the adverse effects that a new development will have on local roadway traffic. In established areas, “in-fill” development proposals are often hindered by zoning ordinances forbidding new development that will increase local traffic volumes. The cumulative effects of these many local actions—usually eschewing higher-density development—on regional and metropolitanwide land use and transportation patterns are seldom considered in formulating these plans. The local news article in Box 3-1 illustrates the difficulties that arise from these conflicting demands. The existence of a more broadly oriented national or state role in land use decision making is perhaps the single most important factor distinguishing the transit-related policies and practices of Western Europe and Canada from those of the United States. Possible factors underlying this difference are considered in the next chapter.

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 Box 3-1 News Article Illustrating the Difficulties of Regional Land Use and Transportation Coordination in U.S. Urban Areas Fairfax Weighs Buildup Around Metro Stations When Metro riders get off at the Wiehle Avenue Station—one of four stops envisioned along a future train line down the Dulles Toll Road—they will be greeted by towering office and apartment buildings, urban-style restaurants and shops, and a design that all but eliminates the need for a car. That’s the vision of a small group of Fairfax County business leaders, activists and politicians who have been meeting for six months to determine what the area around the stations should look like once they arrive—scheduled for 2006. Picture a smaller version of Ballston, the mini-city that rises around the Orange Line in Arlington. Or maybe a larger version of the Reston Town Center, with its upscale feel, pedestrian-friendly avenues and piazza dominated by a burbling fountain. Imagine high rises atop the Metro stations, with shops, museums, health clubs, dry cleaners and banks built on bridges arching across the Dulles airport and toll roads. Members of the Dulles Rail Land Use Task Force are to report in March to the Board of Supervisors on changes that may be needed in the county’s long-range plan. Not everyone is on the same page. Residents living near the future Metro sites worry they will wake up one day to find that traffic has worsened, thanks to those huge buildings shadowing the swing sets in their yards. Likewise, county planners advising the Dulles Rail Land Use Task Force warn that if development is too intense, it will overwhelm nearby roads because most people who live or work in the new buildings will drive. Planners are suggesting that less development be considered. “We have been looking at what the planned transportation network capacity is for that area,” said Heidi Merkel, the county planner in

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 charge of supporting the task force. “Our fundamental assumption is that a considerable majority would continue to arrive in a car.” In addition, county planners oppose putting development on top of the Metro stations or across the toll road—which would require the complicated acquisition of air rights from several agencies, including Metro and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. John Palatiello, who sits on both the county Planning Commission and the Dulles task force, said many task force members believe the staff is being too cautious. He said the Metro station development needs to be big enough to inject an urban feel into the heart of suburbia. Building close to, or on top of, the Metro stations may be essential to that atmosphere, he said. “There’s a philosophical difference, and there’s going to continue to be some different view of the world,” he said. “Our job is not to make political assessments as to what is politically doable. Our job is to create a vision, create a situation where once someone is there, they can walk to a place to have lunch, walk to a dry cleaner, walk to a bank.” Fairfax County has been criticized in the past for not achieving that kind of development around its Metro stations. Construction around the Vienna stop, for example, consists largely of two-story town houses. Just this week, another multitier parking garage opened at the station to accommodate the army of commuters who arrive by car each day. Stuart Schwartz, director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, praised the task force for seeking a better way, but faulted Fairfax officials for not addressing the county’s overall land policies as they discuss the Dulles corridor. Concentrating people in high rises around Metro stations will ease congestion on nearby roads only if accompanied by large-scale reductions of development in other parts of the county, Schwartz said. “Yes, development around the Metro stations is very important. But ideally, this corridor shouldn’t be looked at in isolation,” he said. “Ideally, you’d look at the county as a whole and eastern Loudoun together. If we shifted office development and residential development out of other areas and put it in this corridor, our traffic problems would be reduced.” County officials note that would be difficult given centuries-

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 old laws and legal precedents in the state that often favor the rights of landowners over local government. Supervisor Gerald E. Connolly (D-Providence) said board members might be willing to reduce the amount of development in one part of the county in exchange for increasing it elsewhere—if such a trade-off were legal. “People do have land rights in Virginia, and it’s not an easy task to be more directive about development,” he said. “We are trying to do it with carrots. We don’t have many sticks.” Still, some people, like Joe Caravella, say they want the task force, and later the supervisors, to think hard before approving a plan that would permit large new developments so close to existing neighborhoods. Caravella lives in Hunters Green Cluster, a community of 118 homes just south of the proposed Wiehle Avenue station. He and his neighbors would be concerned if the six- and eight-story buildings near their neighborhood suddenly were doubled in size, he said. And all are holding their breath over what that might do to their roads. “The traffic is an absolute disaster now,” Caravella argued. “You’ve got gridlock at 5:15.” While Hudgins expressed confidence that the task force and supervisors will listen carefully to concerns, she said the new communities must include homes, businesses and shops. “Some folks have shared the view that they have moved out here because it is ‘out here,’” she said. “They recognize that as we have grown, we have to accommodate the growth. To what level? All of these issues need to be explored to know what the impact is in the community.” © The Washington Post, Jan. 19, 2001, p. B1. Reprinted with permission. NOTES 1.   Karlsruhe officials estimate that the elimination of interline transfers has reduced travel times by more than 35 percent for affected travelers (TCRP 1997a, 6). 2.   Similar devices have been installed on a limited basis in some American cities, such as San Francisco. 3.   For a more detailed review of organizational and institutional changes in Western European public transit, see UITP (1997).

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 4.   Outside greater London, transit bus services are completely privatized, subject mainly to safety regulations. Private companies are free to set fares and schedules and enter and exit routes as they see fit. Within greater London, London Transport contracts with private companies for the provision of bus services and therefore continues to control or have significant influence over bus fares, routes, schedules, and many aspects of service quality. 5.   A small portion (around 10 percent) of the gap is attributable to differences in production, transportation, and distribution efficiencies (Metschies 1999, 90). 6.   Diesel fuel, not shown in this table, is not taxed as heavily as gasoline in many Western European countries. The relatively low tax on diesel, combined with its greater fuel efficiency, has resulted in a large share of diesel-powered automobiles in France, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, and several other Western European countries. In these countries, diesel prices are 20 to 40 percent lower per liter than gasoline prices. In effect, this differing tax treatment, coupled with the large share of diesel passenger cars, makes motor fuel prices marginally closer to those in the United States overall, but still much higher on average. 7.   In a few instances in the United States—most notably on the San Diego carpool lanes and the New Jersey Turnpike—tolls are added or varied by time of day to influence levels of traffic. The public’s response to these programs, promoted as “value pricing,” is being followed closely to determine the potential for further application. 8.   For instance, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which sets tolls on the Hudson River (west-side) crossings between New Jersey and Manhattan, is also responsible for the PATH railway, the main transit connection over the river. The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority administers the tolls on the east-side crossings into Manhattan (and in the other boroughs of New York City) and runs New York City’s subway, bus, and northern and eastern commuter rail lines. 9.   For instance, the cities of Dallas, Columbus, and Albuquerque have increased their land area by 25 percent since 1970 (Ladd 1999, 329–331). 10.   According to Downs (1994, 132), fewer than a dozen of the nation’s more than 300 metropolitan areas have metropolitan regional governance. 11.   Parr (1999) identifies the exceptions of the Berlin, Bremen, and Hamburg Länder, which are closely matched with each metropolitan area. REFERENCES ABBREVIATIONS CBSSE Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education FHWA Federal Highway Administration RMOC Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TRB Transportation Research Board UITP Union Internationale des Transports Publics

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 Baldassare, M., J. Hassol, W. Hoffman, and A. Kanarek. 1996. Possible Planning Roles for Regional Government: A Survey of City Planning Directors in California. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 17–29. Banister, D., and S. Marshall. 2000. Encouraging Transport Alternatives: Good Practice in Reducing Travel. The Stationery Office, London. Bollens, S. A. 1992. State Growth Management: Intergovernmental Frameworks and Policy Objectives. APA Journal, Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 454–466. Brilon, W., and W. Laubert. 1994. Priority for Public Transit in Germany. Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 313–340. CBSSE. 1983. Rethinking Urban Policy: Urban Development in an Advanced Economy. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. CBSSE. 1999. Governance and Opportunity in Metropolitan America. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Cervero, R. 1986. Urban Transit in Canada: Integration and Innovation at Its Best. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 3, July, pp. 293–316. Cervero, R. 1998. The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Cronin, J. J., R. Hightower, Jr., and M. K. Brady. 2000. Niche Marketing Strategies: The Role of Special Purpose Transportation Efforts in Attracting and Retaining Transit Users. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 53–86. Denmark Ministry of Transport. 1993. An Improved Traffic Environment: A Catalogue of Ideas. Road Data Library, Road Standards Division, Herlev, Denmark. Downs, A. 1994. New Visions for Metropolitan America. The Brookings Institution and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Washington, D.C., and Cambridge, Mass. Downs, A. 1999. Contrasting Strategies for the Economic Development of Metropolitan Areas in the United States and Western Europe. In Urban Change in the United States and Western Europe: Comparative Analysis and Policy (A. A. Summers, P. C. Cheshire, and L. Senn, eds.), The Urban Institute Press, Washington, D.C. Dueker, K. J., J. G. Strathman, and M. J. Bianco. 1998. TCRP Report 40: Strategies to Attract Auto Users to Public Transportation. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Eplan, L. 1999. Atlanta Airs Its Options. Planning, November, pp. 14–16. FHWA. 1998. Highway Statistics. Report FHWA-PL-99-017. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Gómez-Ibáñez, J. A., and K. A. Small. 1994. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 210: Road Pricing for Congestion Management: A Survey of International Practice. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Hamerslag, R., J. D. Fricker, and P. Van Beek. 1995. Parking Restrictions in Employment Centers: Implications for Public Transport and Land Use. In Transportation Research Record 1499, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 76–82. Hass-Klau, C. 1993. Impact of Pedestrianization and Traffic Calming on Retailing: A Review of the Evidence in Germany and the United Kingdom. Transport Policy, No. 1, pp. 21–31. Heidenheimer, A. J., H. Heclo, and C. T. Adams. 1983. Comparative Public Policy: The Politics of Social Choice in Western Europe and North America, 2nd ed. St. Martin’s Press, New York.

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 Hemmens, G. C. 1999. Planning and Development Decision Making in the Chicago Region. In Metropolitan Governance Revisited: American/Canadian Intergovernmental Perspectives (D. N. Rothblatt and A. Sancton, eds.), Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley. Howitt, A. M., and A. A. Altshuler. 1993. Regional Governance: Challenges of CAAA and ISTEA. TR News, No. 167, July–Aug., pp. 17–20. Husock, H. 1998. Let’s Break Up the Big Cities. City Journal, Winter, Vol. 8, No. 1. International Roads Federation. 1995. Road Statistics 1990–1994. Lausanne, Switzerland. Johansson, B., and L. G. Mattsson. 1994. Road Pricing: Theory, Empirical Assessment, and Policy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Katz, B., and J. Bradley. 1999. Divided We Sprawl. The Atlantic Monthly, Dec. Kessler, J., and W. Schroeer. 1995. Meeting Mobility and Air Quality Goals: Strategies that Work. Transportation, Vol. 22, Aug., pp. 241–272. King, R. D. 1994. Synthesis of Transit Practice 2: Low-Floor Transit Buses. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Konukiewitz, M., and H. Wollman. 1982. Physical Planning in a Federal System: The Case of West Germany. In Planning and Politics in Western Europe (D. H. McKay, ed.), St. Martin’s Press, New York. Ladd, H. E. 1999. Fiscal Consequences for U.S. Central Cities of the Changing Urban Form. In Urban Change in the United States and Western Europe: Comparative Analysis and Policy (A. A. Summers, P. C. Cheshire, and L. Senn, eds.), The Urban Institute Press, Washington, D.C. Levinson, H. S., and R. A. Weant. 1998. Parking and Traffic Congestion: Changing Perspectives. Journal of Parking, Vol. 1, No. 1, July, pp. 17–25. Lyons, G., and G. McLay. 2000. The Role of Information in the U.K. Passenger Rail Industry. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 19–41. Mackensen, R. 1999. Urban Decentralization Processes in Western Europe. In Urban Change in the United States and Western Europe: Comparative Analysis and Policy (A. A. Summers, P. C. Cheshire, and L. Senn, eds.), The Urban Institute Press, Washington, D.C. Meltzer, J. 1984. Metropolis to Metroplex: The Social and Spatial Planning of Cities. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md. Metschies, G. P. 1999. Fuel Prices and Taxation with Comparative Tables for 160 Countries. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Eschborn, Germany. Mieszkowski, P., and G. Zodrow. 1989. Taxation and the Tiebout Model: The Differential Effects of Head Taxes, Taxes on Land Rents, and Property Taxes. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 27, pp. 1098–1146. Nivola, P. S., and R. W. Crandall. 1995. The Extra Mile: Rethinking Energy Policy for Automotive Transportation. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. Orski, K. 1995. Livable Communities: Lessons from Abroad. Innovation Briefs, Vol. 6, No. 4, Aug. Parr, J. B. 1999. The Metropolitan Area in its Wider Setting. In Urban Change in the United States and Western Europe: Comparative Analysis and Policy (A. A. Summers, P. C. Cheshire, and L. Senn, eds.), The Urban Institute Press, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 Porter, D. R. 1991. Regional Governance of Metropolitan Form: The Missing Link in Relating Land Use and Transportation. In Special Report 231: Transportation, Urban Form, and the Environment, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 63–80. Pucher, J. 1998. Urban Transport in Germany: Providing Feasible Alternatives to the Car. Transport Reviews, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 285–310. Pucher, J., and S. Kurth. 1995. Making Transit Irresistible: Lessons from Western Europe. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 111–128. Pucher, J. R., and C. Lefevre. 1996. The Urban Transport Crisis in Western Europe and North America. MacMillan Press, Ltd., London. Reilly, J. M. 1997. Transit Service Design and Operation Practices in Western European Countries. In Transportation Research Record 1604, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 3–8. RMOC. 1999. Official Plan: Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. April. Rose, M. H. 1979. Interstate: Express Highway Politics, 1941–1956. The Regents Press of Kansas, Lawrence. Rothblatt, D. N. 1994. North American Metropolitan Planning: Canadian and U.S. Perspectives. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 501–520. Schipper, L. 1995. Determinants of Automobile Use and Energy Consumption in OECD Countries. Annual Review of Energy and Environment, Vol. 20, pp. 325–386. Schipper, L., and G. Eriksson. 1995. Taxation Policies Affecting Automobile Characteristics and Use in Western Europe, Japan, and the United States. In Transportation and Energy: Strategies for a Sustainable Transportation System (D. Sperling and S. A. Shaheen, eds.), American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, D.C., and Berkeley, California; Institute for Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. Shoup, D. 1994. Cashing Out Employer-Paid Parking: A Precedent for Congestion Pricing? In Special Report 242: Curbing Gridlock: Peak-Period Fees to Relieve Traffic Congestion, Volume 2, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 152–199. Shoup, D. 1999. Instead of Free Parking. Access, No. 15, Fall 1999, pp. 8–13. Syed, S. J., and A. M. Kahn. 2000. Factor Analysis for the Study of Determinants of Public Transit Ridership. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 1–17. TCRP. 1997a. International Transit Studies Program: Report on the First Three Missions. TCRP Research Results Digest, No. 20, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. TCRP. 1997b. International Transit Studies Program: Report on 1996 Missions. TCRP Research Results Digest, No. 22, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. TCRP. 1998. International Transit Studies Program: Report on the Fall 1997 Mission: Applications of Intelligent Transportation Systems to Public Transit in Europe. TCRP Research Results Digest, No. 31, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Tiebout, C. 1956. A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 64, pp. 416–424.

OCR for page 65
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States - Special Report 257 Topp, H. H. 1991. Parking Policies in Large Cities in Germany. Transportation, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 3–21. TRB. 1997. Special Report 251: Toward a Sustainable Future: Addressing the Long-Term Effects of Motor Vehicle Transportation on Climate and Ecology. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. UITP. 1997. Major Western European Players in Public Transport: New Developments in the Western European Union. Brussels, Belgium. Wachs, M., and J. Dill. 1999. Regionalism in Transportation and Air Quality: History, Interpretation, and Insights for Regional Governance. In Governance and Opportunity in Metropolitan America, CBSSE, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Weinstein, A., and E. Deakin. 1998. A Survey of Traffic Calming Practices in the United States. University of California Institute of Urban and Regional Development. Working Paper 703. Presented at the Institute of Transportation Engineers Conference, Monterey, Calif., March. Williams, O. 1971. Metropolitan Political Analysis: A Social Access Approach. Free Press, New York.