Andy's suggestion is in fact one way some western cities have dealt with the issue.
Bethany Andy Goodell wrote: > How about we just take some of the main 2+ lane roads downtown and give > one lane dedicated for buses only. Then you can either face more > traffic, high car ownership costs, and longer trip times, or take the > bus for a much cheaper, much faster ride through town. > > There is far too much convenience in owning a personal car, except for > the overall price which few people seem to calculate. Several > transportation places estimate a car to cost between $8,100 to $8,700 > per YEAR on average. Someday when people realize they are spending > beyond their means and loans are no longer easily available to drain 8 > grand on the car convenience, we will see people begging for less > personal car infrastructure and more public transit / carsharing / bike > or ped ways, etc. > > -Andy > > Evan Wray wrote: > >> A friend wrote this article which gives a quite different view. >> >> >> Time for TCAT to wield its claws >> >> In light of all the recent discussion about TCAT, I would like to offer the >> following, which was originally written in response to Maria Coles article >> in the Journal that kind of started this whole debate about the towns >> supporting TCAT financially. Equitable funding is definitely an issue, and >> would provide a smidgen of additional resources to maintain service levels >> to the outlying towns, but the elephant in the room is town land-use policy. >> >> Zoning outside the city spreads buildings and destinations so widely, there >> aren't enough potential riders along any one route, nor at any one stop to >> make transit efficient or convenient. Though TCAT tries valiantly to serve >> outlying areas, it is forced to chase far-flung development, resulting in >> meandering routes, confusing schedules and infrequent service. Hence, only >> 7% of commuters ride busses to work. maybe a bit more since the fare cut. >> Mass-transit is only effective when there are masses of people near the >> route, especially when busses are oversized for the demand (smaller but more >> frequent vehicles would serve the outlying towns better, however ridership >> would have to increase to pay additional drivers). By perpetuating sprawl, >> towns have insured that public transit will never be capable of efficiently >> serving their populations, never have enough ridership, and always need >> subsidy: increasing what we ALL pay for TCAT. >> >> The immediate solution is equitably sharing the cost burden, but in the long >> term we must solve the core problem of potential riders being too spread out >> to be adequately served. This "spreading out" is a direct result of poor >> land use policy. Towns need to focus new development at transit stops along >> major roads, forming compact village nodes, as suggested by the County >> Comprehensive Plan. This would put more people and business within a short >> walk to transit, boost ridership, lead to more frequent service, and give >> town residents a choice equal to the auto for most trips. This choice will >> be increasingly important as fuel costs rise. However most of the towns seem >> reluctant to take the steps necessary to deal with the economic, energy and >> climate challenges of the 21st century, which include designing a settlement >> pattern that will nurture effective public transit. They have chosen instead >> to timidly revise their 20th century car-oriented zoning, continue to allow >> for sprawl, and have effectively outlawed the higher density that would make >> public transit really work. So what can be done? >> >> Luckily, zoning does not exclusively determine how our cities and towns are >> shaped. Transportation is actually more critical. No amount of land use >> policy could have created Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo: they were made >> possible by the Erie Canal, and the canal had to come first. The settlements >> followed the design for transportation. The same later happened with the >> railroads. Similarly, in Curitiba, Brazil, planners designed fixed bus >> routes through the countryside and mandated the densest future development, >> hence the most riders, be within a 5 minute walk of public transit. Thirty >> years later, Curitiba enjoys a convenient, well-used bus system serving a >> city filled with green-space. The fixed routes have been so successful that >> busses may soon be replaced by trains, to handle growing ridership. >> >> What built the ridership base was frequency of service. people could rely on >> bus connection to the core city without worrying about a schedule, such that >> the bus became a more convenient alternative to the car. Limiting stops by >> clustering development along the routes sped up travel times and made bus >> transit even more attractive to commuters, again boosting ridership. However >> these incentives to ridership came by way of intelligent land use policy in >> outlying areas. something we could clearly learn from the Brazilians. >> >> The inherent potential for transit routes to guide development gives TCAT >> the power to make the towns rapidly adopt more sustainable land use policy. >> TCAT should refuse to serve every random house farm, condo barracks and >> strip center that pops up in the towns at the whim of developers. It must >> designate which main roads and village centers will get service, and refuse >> to extend service beyond. Therefore if the towns want public transit to be >> an option for their citizens, they will have to revise their zoning >> accordingly, placing new development along those routes and in those >> centers, with no new significant development in between. Existing sprawl >> could be served as needed by mini-busses or taxis to shuttle outlying >> suburban dwellers to village transit stops. An improved network of bikeways >> and trails could also serve to get sub-urban folks to the nearest village >> bus stops. >> >> To some this may sound like a harsh strategy, but it is also harsh to >> perpetuate car dependence, destroy countryside, over-tax citizens, and >> knowingly create inefficient settlement patterns that will make our >> children's lives more difficult, and squander our region's natural and >> economic wealth. >> >> The upside of nodal zoning for the towns would be reduced scale of road >> infrastructure, lower maintenance costs, more vibrant village social and >> economic life, less commuter car traffic passing through their now car >> dominated village-scapes, and town residents having a viable mobility >> alternative to the car for 90% of their trips. TCAT might even garner >> ridership sufficient to lower the subsidies it needs from its funding >> partners. >> >> As in Curitiba, once transit aligned most of the development along fixed >> routes, the possibility of replacing fossil-fuelled busses with other forms >> of transit like trains or trolleys, which can run on solar and wind power, >> has become a step towards its energy independence and continued economic >> competitiveness. Having TCAT serve the towns on fixed routes that guide >> responsible land-use is the first step on a similar evolutionary path toward >> sustainable public transit in Ithaca. TCAT must wield its claws and lead the >> paradigm shift with regard to land use. >> >> Rob Morache Time for TCAT to wield its claws >> >> In light of all the recent discussion about TCAT, I would like to offer the >> following, which was originally written in response to Maria Coles article >> in the Journal that kind of started this whole debate about the towns >> supporting TCAT financially. Equitable funding is definitely an issue, and >> would provide a smidgen of additional resources to maintain service levels >> to the outlying towns, but the elephant in the room is town land-use policy. >> >> Zoning outside the city spreads buildings and destinations so widely, there >> aren't enough potential riders along any one route, nor at any one stop to >> make transit efficient or convenient. Though TCAT tries valiantly to serve >> outlying areas, it is forced to chase far-flung development, resulting in >> meandering routes, confusing schedules and infrequent service. Hence, only >> 7% of commuters ride busses to work. maybe a bit more since the fare cut. >> Mass-transit is only effective when there are masses of people near the >> route, especially when busses are oversized for the demand (smaller but more >> frequent vehicles would serve the outlying towns better, however ridership >> would have to increase to pay additional drivers). By perpetuating sprawl, >> towns have insured that public transit will never be capable of efficiently >> serving their populations, never have enough ridership, and always need >> subsidy: increasing what we ALL pay for TCAT. >> >> The immediate solution is equitably sharing the cost burden, but in the long >> term we must solve the core problem of potential riders being too spread out >> to be adequately served. This "spreading out" is a direct result of poor >> land use policy. Towns need to focus new development at transit stops along >> major roads, forming compact village nodes, as suggested by the County >> Comprehensive Plan. This would put more people and business within a short >> walk to transit, boost ridership, lead to more frequent service, and give >> town residents a choice equal to the auto for most trips. This choice will >> be increasingly important as fuel costs rise. However most of the towns seem >> reluctant to take the steps necessary to deal with the economic, energy and >> climate challenges of the 21st century, which include designing a settlement >> pattern that will nurture effective public transit. They have chosen instead >> to timidly revise their 20th century car-oriented zoning, continue to allow >> for sprawl, and have effectively outlawed the higher density that would make >> public transit really work. So what can be done? >> >> Luckily, zoning does not exclusively determine how our cities and towns are >> shaped. Transportation is actually more critical. No amount of land use >> policy could have created Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo: they were made >> possible by the Erie Canal, and the canal had to come first. The settlements >> followed the design for transportation. The same later happened with the >> railroads. Similarly, in Curitiba, Brazil, planners designed fixed bus >> routes through the countryside and mandated the densest future development, >> hence the most riders, be within a 5 minute walk of public transit. Thirty >> years later, Curitiba enjoys a convenient, well-used bus system serving a >> city filled with green-space. The fixed routes have been so successful that >> busses may soon be replaced by trains, to handle growing ridership. >> >> What built the ridership base was frequency of service. people could rely on >> bus connection to the core city without worrying about a schedule, such that >> the bus became a more convenient alternative to the car. Limiting stops by >> clustering development along the routes sped up travel times and made bus >> transit even more attractive to commuters, again boosting ridership. However >> these incentives to ridership came by way of intelligent land use policy in >> outlying areas. something we could clearly learn from the Brazilians. >> >> The inherent potential for transit routes to guide development gives TCAT >> the power to make the towns rapidly adopt more sustainable land use policy. >> TCAT should refuse to serve every random house farm, condo barracks and >> strip center that pops up in the towns at the whim of developers. It must >> designate which main roads and village centers will get service, and refuse >> to extend service beyond. Therefore if the towns want public transit to be >> an option for their citizens, they will have to revise their zoning >> accordingly, placing new development along those routes and in those >> centers, with no new significant development in between. Existing sprawl >> could be served as needed by mini-busses or taxis to shuttle outlying >> suburban dwellers to village transit stops. An improved network of bikeways >> and trails could also serve to get sub-urban folks to the nearest village >> bus stops. >> >> To some this may sound like a harsh strategy, but it is also harsh to >> perpetuate car dependence, destroy countryside, over-tax citizens, and >> knowingly create inefficient settlement patterns that will make our >> children's lives more difficult, and squander our region's natural and >> economic wealth. >> >> The upside of nodal zoning for the towns would be reduced scale of road >> infrastructure, lower maintenance costs, more vibrant village social and >> economic life, less commuter car traffic passing through their now car >> dominated village-scapes, and town residents having a viable mobility >> alternative to the car for 90% of their trips. TCAT might even garner >> ridership sufficient to lower the subsidies it needs from its funding >> partners. >> >> As in Curitiba, once transit aligned most of the development along fixed >> routes, the possibility of replacing fossil-fuelled busses with other forms >> of transit like trains or trolleys, which can run on solar and wind power, >> has become a step towards its energy independence and continued economic >> competitiveness. Having TCAT serve the towns on fixed routes that guide >> responsible land-use is the first step on a similar evolutionary path toward >> sustainable public transit in Ithaca. TCAT must wield its claws and lead the >> paradigm shift with regard to land use. >> >> Rob Morache >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> Valorie Rockney >> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 9:26 AM >> To: Sustainable Tompkins County listserv >> Subject: Re: [SustainableTompkins] TCAT discussion >> >> Thanks, Ben, for posting this - it's very useful information. >> >> Is there any discussion currently about using smaller, more fuel- >> efficient buses, at least during non-peak times? . A few years ago, I >> heard that such buses weren't eligible for certain kinds of funding - >> is that the case now? >> >> Thanks, everyone, >> Valorie >> >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 21, 2008, at 9:18 AM, Ben Heavner wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Sustainable Tompkins Folks! >>> >>> There's been some interesting discussion lately about mass transit >>> choices being made right now in the City of Ithaca that I thought I'd >>> pass along in hopes of finding some creative solutions to the >>> possibility of reduced TCAT service in Ithaca and surrounding areas. >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, >> please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ >> >> RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: >> [email protected] >> http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins >> free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, >> please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ >> >> RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: >> [email protected] >> http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins >> free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
