Tools for an Effective Transportation Network

It is now clear that we need to reverse the increasing use of cars for mobility. It is also clear that the only reason for this is not only increasing oil prices. It is sprawl, congestion, lower productivity, higher mortality rates, and a lower quality of life. In order to reverse and virtually eliminate the use of cars in large cities, other modes of accessible, affordable, and efficient mobility must be supported. Before I describe some of the tools, it must be made clear that funding these alternatives is cheaper now and in the long-term than continuing on building highways and wasting resources due to the car culture. With a fraction of how much we spend on roads, highways, cars, fuels, and precious time every year, we can transform the world’s mobility systems to more sustainable, efficient, and community-engaging networks of mobility.

The most supported tool, in Europe, is to fund public transportation as much as possible (trams, light rails, trolleys, high-speed trains, PRTs, buses, bicycles, etc.). As described in the book, Europe has a developed system of public transportation that went along with the design of cities. In many cities, people have access to trains, light rails, buses, and in some cases bicycles. In many cases, the government funds a substantial part of the cost of public transportation using another tool: car restrictions. One restriction tool is to eliminate free parking, slowly increase the price of parking, and reduce parking spaces. This forces people to reduce car use and increase use of public transportation. The revenues can then be used to fund public transportation, a good that is accessible to all (not just those who can buy a car). Another restriction tool is to make streets narrow and more accessible to pedestrians, either by designating them as multi-use or by placing speed bumps and other speed measures. Finally, a very effective way to reduce congestion is to price it.

In some European cities, such as London, congestion pricing dramatically reduces the number of cars on the road and creates large revenues that can be used for public transportation. In addition, Europe taxes gasoline more heavily than the United States, reducing car use and creating revenues for different services. Car-sharing programs provide another way of reducing car use in cities.

A tool to promote access to public transportation is the multi-use ticket, which can be used for any form of public transportation within a city. This allows users to not worry too much about purchasing the right to use public transportation, making the use of this service more attractive. Another way of promoting public transportation use is by incentivizing its construction as places of high activity develop. This promotes the immediate use of this service in that area of high activity. Connecting the several forms of public transportation is another great way of increasing access to the service. Finally, one of the best investments to make in promoting public transportation is to create a culture for that kind of service. De-emphasizing the personal car and promoting community and accessible mobility can go a long way in reducing car use.

These tools can be incorporated into a 10-year plan to make any city as car independent as possible. First, car restrictions must be put in place to generate revenues and increase pedestrian-friendliness. This may include reduced parking spaces, increasing fees for parking, and congestion-pricing (as well as fuel taxing). This is also a great way of generating revenues from those who can pay for personal transportation in order to fund alternatives that are accessible to all. A city should then plan a network of different transportation modes including trains (to go out), PRT (inside), light rail (around the perimeter of the city), bikes (for central use), and buses (electric and with dedicated lanes). Such a network would reduce the time of transportation (saving money), reduce overall transportation costs, and increase access and community while taking back sprawl. In addition, such a system would cost less than continuing to fund sprawl and the automobile city.