It was clear to the City of Toronto that engaging less confident cyclists that make up 60% of the population, yet seldom come to community meetings, might be the key to dramatic mode shifts in the city. Here's how it happened.
Conventional evaluation often exaggerates congestion costs by using baseline travel speeds which exceed speed limits. This assumes that traffic speed compliance is a congestion cost that justifies major infrastructure investments to alleviate.
My recent column, "Evaluating Public Transit Funding Options," described various ways to finance public transit improvements. Such funding is sometimes criticized. This column examines and responds to common criticisms.
The “Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance, Report To Congress” is intended to provide a comprehensive and objective evaluation of our transportation system. Let’s evaluate this evaluation.
A new paradigm is expanding transport safety strategies to include demand management and smart growth, but the old paradigm is alive and deadly as illustrated by two new traffic safety guidance documents.
Cities are, by definition, places where many people and activities locate close together. Their economic success and livability benefits from policies that favor space-efficient modes (walking, cycling, ridesharing and public transit).
Many people assume incorrectly that road tolls and parking fees harm poor people. In fact, they are usually less regressive than other funding options, and benefit poor people overall, particularly if some revenues are invested in alternative modes.