National Academies Press: OpenBook

Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257 (2001)

Chapter: Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada

« Previous: Transit Use, Automobility, and Urban Form: Comparative Trends and Patterns
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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.

Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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

Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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.)

Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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.)

Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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

Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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

Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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-

Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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.

Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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-

Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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

Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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.)

Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

transit services on a regional basis. Other countries have since adopted or have been exploring various means of procuring transit services from the private sector, prompted in part by the European Union’s plan to open more domestic markets to private suppliers of transport services.

Most procurement reforms to date have allowed private companies to bid for the provision of services prescribed and subsidized by the government, a practice often termed “competitive tendering” in Western Europe and “contracting out” in the United States (where it is practiced more sparingly, except in smaller communities). In such arrangements, the public transit authority usually retains responsibility for planning the routes, setting fare levels, and specifying the equipment to be used by the successful bidder. During the past decade, Denmark and Sweden have been most active in contracting with private companies for both bus and rail services. Recently, however, transit authorities in Germany, the Netherlands, and elsewhere in Western Europe have been turning to the private sector for more transit services (as discussed later).

Far more dramatic changes have been instituted in Great Britain. In 1986, bus services throughout Great Britain, except in greater London, were deregulated, and the national bus company was privatized. Though a few “socially necessary” routes continue to be subsidized, the British Parliament enacted legislation that ended the national government’s role as main provider of public transit services; private companies now have these responsibilities for the most part. Results of British bus deregulation and privatization have been mixed, as some communities gained services and service quality and others lost. In greater London, a more limited form of service tendering was instituted with considerable success in reducing public subsidies. Stockholm, Sweden, and Copenhagen, Denmark, have since followed suit.4

Though most of these reforms were instituted to control costs, many were also adopted with the goal of improving service quality. Indeed, in establishing standards of performance for private suppliers, public transit authorities have been compelled to explicitly identify, define, and prioritize their service goals and expectations. Not only have they been forced to isolate the cost of specific services, but they have also had to reach out to their customers to determine the aspects of service quality deemed most important. Customer surveys are now being used increasingly to develop performance standards for private suppliers.

Table 3-1 shows some of the areas in which quality-of-service benchmarks are being developed. The goal of most transit authorities is to retain

Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

Table 3-1 Transit Quality Measures

Quality Area

Quality Component

Service availability

Network scope

Schedule frequency

Accessibility

Intermodal interchange

Intramodal interchange

Ticket purchasing points

Customer information

General service information

Travel information—normal conditions

Travel information—abnormal conditions

Time

Journey time

Punctuality and reliability

Customer care

Service commitment

Customer contact

Staff qualification

Physical assistance

Ticketing options

Comfort

Ambient conditions

Facility comfort

Vehicle ergonomics

Ride comfort

Safety/security

Safety performance record

Security performance record

Perceived safety/security

 

Source: UITP.

the high quality of service expected by customers while benefiting from the increased efficiency and innovation promised by competition.

POLICIES AFFECTING USE OF THE AUTOMOBILE

Conventional logic holds that transit is popular in Western Europe because of the high cost of owning and operating cars. Gasoline prices are

Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

indeed much higher in Western Europe than in the United States, mainly because of much higher taxes. Moreover, motor vehicle sales and excise taxes, registration charges, license fees, and other government levies are higher, as are vehicle insurance, maintenance, and financing costs in general. Given the many other practical burdens of operating a car in Western Europe—where narrow streets, tightly restricted parking, and recurrent traffic congestion can impede driving—it makes sense that the average Western European would choose public transit, walking, or biking for a larger share of travel than the average American. Taken together, taxes and other policies toward the automobile in Western Europe are far less conducive to driving than is the case in the United States.

High Automobile Taxes

Cars, new and used, are generally more expensive to purchase in Western Europe and Canada than in the United States, not only because of steep excise taxes and registration fees, but also because of a variety of other factors having to do with the vehicles’ regulation, production, distribution, and financing (Schipper 1995). Even in the absence of excise taxes and other government fees and surcharges, a Western European car buyer can expect to pay more than an American consumer for a comparable vehicle, mainly because of higher market transaction costs. Nevertheless, a main source of higher vehicle acquisition and ownership costs is government taxation.

Nearly all states and some local governments in the United States impose one-time sales taxes and yearly registration fees on motor vehicles. Some states also levy personal property taxes that apply to motor vehicles. These impositions typically amount to about 1 to 10 percent of the vehicle’s sales price or market value (Pucher and Lefevre 1996). In Western Europe, vehicle taxes and registration fees tend to be much higher. Denmark, for instance, levies value-added taxes equivalent to as much as 180 percent of the purchase price of a new vehicle (Schipper and Eriksson 1995, 218). Excise and ad valorem taxes in Norway, Austria, and Germany range from 15 to 50 percent of the purchase price (Pucher and Lefevre 1996; International Roads Federation 1995; Schipper and Eriksson 1995, 218). Similarly, vehicle registration fees are typically several hundred dollars per year, compared with $25 to $200 in the United States.

Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

In comparing vehicle sales taxes and registration fees in Western Europe, Schipper and Eriksson (1995) conclude that their main effect—especially in the highest-tax countries, such as Denmark—is to reduce the size of the motor vehicle fleet rather than the intensity of vehicle use (which is influenced more by fuel taxation, discussed below). Denmark, Switzerland, and Norway, which impose large vehicle sale and registration fees, have the lowest rates of car ownership in Western Europe.

Yet the effect of income must also be considered when comparing automobile ownership rates across countries. Passenger car ownership rates (cars per capita) in several major Western European countries are about 60 percent as high as in the United States, where there are 685 passenger cars per 1,000 people, including pickups, sport utility vehicles, minivans, and other vehicles classified as light trucks but used for personal travel (see Figure 3-1). Germany, for example, has 488 passenger cars per 1,000 people, which is about 70 percent as high as in the United States. This gap closes, however, when differences in income are factored into the comparison, as is also shown in Figure 3-1.

Car ownership levels in Western Europe today are similar to those in the United States during the 1960s, when transit’s modal share was in sharp decline. That a similar exodus from public transit has not occurred in Western Europe suggests that other factors have influenced the modal split, including not only the public sector’s commitment to transit, but also policies that raise the price of motor fuel and impose other costs and inconveniences on motor vehicle travel.

High Taxes on Motor Fuel

Taxes that increase the price of motor fuel discourage driving and increase consumer demand for motor vehicles with higher fuel economy. The initial response by motorists to rising pump prices is to reduce fuel use by curtailing discretionary driving. If the higher prices persist, people begin purchasing vehicles with higher fuel efficiency. Longer-term responses to sustained higher prices may encompass more fundamental travel behavior, for instance, moving closer to workplaces and using alternative modes of travel such as biking, walking, and public transit (TRB 1997).

All of these patterns are evident in Western Europe to varying degrees. Passenger cars and other motor vehicles there are smaller and more fuel-

Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

FIGURE 3-1 Passenger car ownership rates in Canada and Western Europe for 1997, indexed against the United States and in relation to income (GDP). [European vehicle, population, and GDP data obtained from EU Transport in Figures: Statistical Handbook (www.europa.eu.int).]

Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

efficient. Moreover, Western Europeans drive less partly because they live in more compact urban areas where homes, workplaces, and shopping centers are more closely spaced. They are thus able to walk, bike, and ride public transit for a larger portion of their travel needs.

Figure 3-2 shows a comparison of November 1998 gasoline prices in the United States, Canada, and several peer countries of Western Europe. Prices are three to four times higher in the latter. Canadian prices are one-quarter to one-third higher than U.S. prices. Most of the price gap can be explained by differences in taxation.5 Together the federal, state, and local taxes on gasoline in the United States account for about one-quarter to one-third of the retail price, ranging from about $0.08/L to $0.12/L (the weighted average in 1998 was $0.10/L, or $0.38/gal) (FHWA 1998, Table MF-121T). In Canada, taxes account for about one-half of the pump price. By comparison, motor fuel excise taxes (along with 10 to 20 percent ad valorem taxes) account for between 60 and 80 percent of the retail price of gasoline in most Western European countries, with taxes alone totaling more than $0.80/L ($3/gal).6 In Great Britain and Norway, where levies on both gasoline and diesel fuel are among Western Europe’s highest, tax impositions approach $1.00/L.

Precisely how fuel prices have affected observed differences in automobile use across Western Europe, Canada, and the United States is unclear. It is important to keep in mind that a significant part of the response to higher fuel prices is increased demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles, including vehicles powered by diesel fuel. This response is evident in Western Europe, where the automobile fleet averages about 20 percent more kilometers per liter than in the United States. Diesel vehicles are popular in Western Europe (accounting for more than 40 percent of the fleet in France) not only because diesel is taxed less than gasoline, but also because it provides more energy per liter and therefore saves on fuel costs (Schipper 1995, 335–336).

High vehicle fuel efficiencies allow Western European motorists to off-set elevated fuel prices to some extent, yet they still drive about 50 percent less than Americans (see Figure 3-3). Cross-national comparisons show that Americans not only take more trips by car, but also drive farther per trip (Schipper 1995), reflecting the fact that motor vehicle travel is affected by many factors in addition to vehicle operating costs, including household size, wealth, and income (see Chapter 4).

Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

FIGURE 3-2 Average consumer (after-tax) prices for motor fuel, November 1998 (Metschies 1999, 30, 42).

Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

FIGURE 3-3 Passenger car travel per capita, United States and Western Europe, 1996. [European data obtained from EU Transport in Figures: Statistical Handbook (www.europa.eu.int).]

Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

Restrictive Parking Policies

Another important, and sometimes overlooked, factor influencing mode choice is the price and supply of parking; indeed, some analysts believe this may be the single most important factor affecting transit ridership (Dueker et al. 1998). To be sure, the difficulty and expense of obtaining parking affects mode choice in busy downtown U.S. locations—most notably in Manhattan, but also in the core activity areas of many other cities, such as San Francisco, Chicago, and Boston. Land scarcity and local restrictions on curbside parking long ago drove up parking costs in the central business districts of these cities. Typically, parking in central business districts costs upwards of $50 per month—and often much more depending on city size and land value. In a few cases, steep local taxes on commercial parking facilities have raised the cost of parking still further, and in a few instances—such as Manhattan and Portland, Oregon—such taxes are aimed explicitly at reducing downtown driving.

For the most part, however, American motorists do not pay directly for parking on the vast majority of their trips. More than 90 percent of U.S. urban commuters who drive to work are not charged for parking, and the proportion exceeds 98 percent for most other trips (Shoup 1994; Shoup 1999). In most cases, businesses provide parking for their customers and employees, usually for free, but sometimes with nominal charges. Although many Western European businesses also provide free parking for their customers and employees, a higher proportion of businesses are located in commercial districts where parking is limited by available space and government regulations. These regulations are frequently aimed at limiting the supply of workplace parking by establishing a maximum number of parking spaces.

As in the central business districts of many large U.S. cities, metered on-street parking is often limited to short-term use (1/2 to 2 hours) in Western European cities. Longer-term parking is prohibited not only to make space for business and retail parking, but also to discourage driving by commuters and to foster use of public transit. Munich has eliminated metered on-street parking entirely in its central business district (TCRP 1997a, 9). There are also areas in a number of Western European cities where the supply of residential on-street parking is constrained by meters and a fixed supply of permits. In some cases, residential developments prohibit car parking altogether.

Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

Local governments in the United States are also apt to provide convenient public parking facilities to satisfy motorists’ demand. Even in land-scarce downtown areas, merchants have often lobbied successfully for such public facilities to attract customers who might otherwise patronize suburban businesses with ample parking (Hamerslag et al. 1995; Levinson and Weant 1998). Whereas Western European and Canadian municipalities have a similar interest in promoting their established central business districts, they employ other means of doing so. For instance, regional land use plans discourage large shopping centers in suburban areas and enforce areawide parking controls (Downs 1999, 18). As an example, the regional plan for the Ottawa metropolitan area permits the development of large-scale shopping centers only when they are located on rapid bus transit routes. By comparison, regulations concerning both parking and land use are nearly always local responsibilities in the United States and are seldom coordinated across jurisdictions in a metropolitan area.

A comparison of the way parking is treated in local zoning is illuminating. Toronto’s zoning ordinances, for instance, set a maximum number of parking spots per unit of floor space. In a similar manner, London has a policy limiting the amount of parking that can be provided in new buildings accessible by transit, whereas Munich does not allow the construction of new office buildings with parking garages in its central business district (TCRP 1997a; TCRP 1998, 12–13). These policies represent an attempt to reduce the number of parking spaces available to workers, thereby encouraging more transit use and carpooling (Cervero 1986). In several other German cities (e.g., Hamburg, Stuttgart, Nuremberg), office building owners in congested areas served by public transit are prohibited from constructing new parking spaces; instead, they are assessed a fee to help pay for park-and-ride facilities. The assessment is typically equivalent to 60 to 80 percent of what it would cost to build parking facilities (Topp 1991, 13–15). In the Netherlands, the national government has established targets for maximum numbers of parking spaces per 100 employees. They range from a low of 10 in certain congested areas, such as the Randstad, to 40 elsewhere (Hamerslag et al. 1995, 76–77). In addition, Canadian and Western European cities often encourage developers to reduce demand for parking spaces by offering workers discounted transit passes and encouraging ridesharing (Cervero 1986).

A few U.S. cities limit downtown parking supply; for instance, San Francisco discourages the construction of freestanding garages in its downtown,

Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

and Seattle, Boston, and Portland, Oregon, have prohibited parking or set ceilings on the number of parking spaces in downtown office buildings. In general, however, building codes in most U.S. cities specify a minimum number of parking spaces to reduce overflow onto public streets or adjacent private property, although more often it is mortgage lenders and underwriters who require minimum parking ratios out of concern that an office building with few parking spaces will be unmarketable (Dueker et al.1998).

In the United States, moreover, most workers are exempt from paying federal and state income taxes on parking privileges provided by their employers. This exemption is viewed by some analysts as yet another inducement to drive (Shoup 1994; Shoup 1999; Kessler and Schroeer 1995). These analysts maintain that if employer-provided parking were treated as a taxable form of income, more employees would demand higher cash wages in lieu of this fringe benefit. Presumably, some would then ride transit instead of driving to work, provided such transit service were readily available.

Road User Fees and Driving Constraints

Charging motorists directly for the use of roads through tolls and other pricing methods that vary with congestion levels has long been advocated by economists as a means of managing traffic demand, particularly during peak hours. Road pricing for this purpose, however, remains rare in the United States, as well as in Canada and Western Europe.7 More common, especially in the latter regions, are various physical and regulatory approaches for reducing automobile demand.

Tolls account for about 5 percent of highway revenues in the United States (FHWA 1998, Table HF-1). With few exceptions, tolls are used mainly to generate revenue for financing highway infrastructure; they are seldom used to regulate motor vehicle demand or spur the use of transit and alternative transport modes. Among the exceptions are the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District in San Francisco and the many toll bridges and tunnels leading into Manhattan and other parts of New York City. In the former case, bridge toll revenues are used to subsidize bus and ferry service. In the latter instance, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which administer the tolled highway facilities, also operate rail, bus, and ferry transit systems in the New York area, and the tolls are used to help finance this service. These joint responsibilities allow for some co-

Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

ordination of tolls and transit fares to influence demand for both transit and highway travel.8 With few such exceptions, however, the coordination of transit and highway pricing is rare in the United States.

In Canada and Western Europe, tolls are likewise used mainly for raising revenue or financing highways, as opposed to reducing automobile travel and encouraging the use of alternative modes. Several cities in Norway—Bergen, Oslo, and Trondheim—have cordoned off central business districts with a ring of toll stations that have marginally reduced downtown traffic levels, but these tolls were introduced as a means of raising revenues for new road infrastructure (Johansson and Mattsson 1994, 2; Banister and Marshall 2000, 40). And though many road-pricing schemes have been proposed, no Western European cities have adopted such measures specifically to reduce urban congestion, boost public transit use, or otherwise improve the efficiency of urban transportation systems (Gómez-Ibáñez and Small 1994). This situation may change, however, as a number of cities are considering road pricing. For instance, the mayor of London has set a target of late 2002 for the introduction of such charges to generate revenue for improvements to the city’s transport infrastructure.

More common in Western Europe, especially in the Netherlands, Germany, and Scandinavia, are efforts to reduce automobile travel through roadway design and traffic regulations, in some cases by slowing and redirecting automobile traffic and in other cases by prohibiting it in certain locations. This is accomplished through a variety of means: by installing paving blocks or speed bumps to make road surfaces unpleasant to drive over; by lowering speed limits; by removing or narrowing traffic lanes to slow vehicles; and by placing hindrances, such as plantings or islands, along the road (Denmark Ministry of Transport 1993; Hass-Klau 1993; Banister and Marshall 2000, 30–32). Encompassed within the broader concept of traffic “calming,” such measures were first introduced in northern Western Europe in the 1960s and 1970s when the rapid influx of motor vehicles was beginning to overwhelm many urban street networks. Another measure, long common in towns and cities of the Netherlands, is “woonerven” areas, where cars share the roadway with pedestrians and bicyclists.

Also common in Western Europe are banning through-traffic in busy downtowns, closing streets altogether to automobile traffic at certain times of the day, and permanently converting streets to pedestrian ways. The latter practice is especially popular in Germany and has spread in recent years

Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

Road tolls are used sparingly to manage demand for automobile travel in both North America and Western Europe. (© UITP. Reprinted with permission from Public Transport International, No. 5, 1999, J. Groenendijk, Fare Payment for Infrastructure Use, p. 23.)

to Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, and other parts of Western Europe (Hass-Klau 1993; Banister and Marshall 2000, 29–32). In contrast with the United States, where pedestrian malls have been tried only on some street segments, one can find whole commercial districts that have been converted to pedestrian zones in northern and central Western Europe, even in small cities such as Enschede, Netherlands, and Ravensburg, Germany (TCRP 1997b, 8; Banister and Marshall 2000, 31–32). Though transit vehicles are often allowed in these zones, private cars and trucks can enter only at certain times of the day, if at all.

Traffic controls and roadway design methods are seldom if ever used in the United States to deter automobile use; instead, they are typically targeted to reducing through traffic and travel speeds in residential areas (Weinstein and Deakin 1998). The ubiquitous suburban cul-de-sac, cou-

Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

pled with curves, speed bumps, and four-way stop signs, is perhaps the most common physical constraint imposed by U.S. traffic planners on motorists. Its usual purpose, however, is to slow motorists down and encourage them to use main roads for through travel. In fact, the meandering streets and dead-end courts that typify so many newer suburbs in the United States have proven especially problematic for transit services, since these street configurations slow down buses and increase walking distances to bus stops on main routes.

Still, there have been occasional exceptions to the overall reluctance of U.S. traffic engineers to discourage automobile use. One notable example is the decision by Washington, D.C., to turn some of its major arterials into lower-volume collector roads following the start of Metro rail service in the late 1970s. Some main commuter routes (e.g., 13th and 16th Streets connecting suburban Maryland) were converted to two-way streets, while peak-hour restrictions on curb parking were lifted. Portland (Oregon), Baltimore, and several other cities that have introduced light rail lines in recent years have reduced roadway capacity, since these transit lines operate over some city thoroughfares once used exclusively by motor vehicles. In most cases, however, these were lightly used streets.

Overall, a transit-first approach to city transportation is rare in the United States. However, a number of states and localities encourage transit use and other ridesharing options as part of their overall strategies to manage transportation demand, seeking to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution by curbing travel in single-occupant vehicles. Many cities have implemented bus-only lanes, and the number of cities with rail transit lines has grown during the past 25 years. The use of combination express bus/carpool lanes [referred to as high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities] has increased as well. Dozens of HOV facilities consisting of several hundred kilometers of freeway and main arterials have been introduced during the past two decades. The Houston, Washington, and Los Angeles metropolitan areas have extensive HOV facilities. U.S. cities are often described as world leaders in this integrated means of facilitating automobile, vanpool, and bus movements, although bus use is minimal on most such facilities. In some cases (e.g., Washington, D.C.), extensive HOV facilities may be reducing demand for parallel rapid and commuter rail systems. Most HOV facilities serve commuters traveling between suburbs and city centers and therefore do not aid intraurban transit movements.

Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

Extensive pedestrian malls like this one in Orleans, France, discourage travel by automobile and encourage walking, biking, and transit use. (© UITP. Reprinted with permission from Public Transport International, No. 5, 1998, W. J. Tyson, Non-User Benefits of Public Transport, p. 40.)

Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

COORDINATION OF URBAN LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION DECISIONS

In large American urban areas, there is often a mismatch between changing demands for public services and the traditional boundaries of local governments charged with providing these services. Many urban populations that once fit neatly into cities of a few dozen or hundred square kilometers are today much larger and more dispersed, often covering several thousand square kilometers and encompassing scores or even hundreds of largely autonomous local governments.

Concerned about inefficiencies and inequities in the provision of government services that can accompany such political dispersion and decentralization, urban planners have long urged the creation of metropolitanwide governments and other regional institutions with multiple functions (Meltzer 1984, 102–130). To some urban planners, such arrangements offer a way to control the spread of urban development; protect the green spaces around cities; and preserve the economic, social, and cultural importance of central cities. Except in a handful of cases (e.g., Miami, Nashville, Indianapolis), however, these recommendations have been largely unheeded in the politically fragmented landscape of urban America.

Major reasons for the lack of interest in metropolitan governance among urban Americans include the prospect of losing influence over land use regulation and property values; autonomy in taxation; and control over schools, policing, and other public services (Husock 1998). In most instances, these responsibilities and authorities were long ago ceded by state legislatures to local governments. In the case of land use regulation, state and federal governments have little direct influence. Conversely, local governments have traditionally had secondary roles in the planning and provision of major urban transport systems. Because highway and transit facilities are costly and complex to build and run—and are by their very nature designed to transcend the urban region—state and regional bodies plan and administer them in most urban areas. Meanwhile, the federal government provides financial and technical aid.

Except in some Canadian provinces, regional urban governments with unified control over land use and infrastructure are also rare outside the United States. In many Western European countries, local, regional, and

Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

national governments share these responsibilities more or less equally. In some countries, urban land use and transportation decision-making authorities are held by a single government body—usually the national government. In either case, such arrangements create more opportunities for coordinating land use and infrastructure planning.

Tables 3-2 and 3-3 summarize the various government roles in coordinating urban land use, transit, and other transportation decisions in the United States, Canada, and several Western European countries. These summary points are elaborated in the following subsections.

Land Use, Transit, and Highway Planning in the United States

The number of local governments and the extent of their autonomy vary widely among American cities. Some older urbanized areas, such as greater St. Louis, Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia, encompass hundreds of governments, and even fan out across several states. In other (often newer) urban areas, such as Indianapolis, Omaha, Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, and Albuquerque, the central city’s boundaries have been expanded outward through annexation of once-rural areas to cover most of the metropolitan population.9 In a few cases, large counties, such as Dade County encompassing Miami, have jurisdiction over much of the metropolitan area.

Though regional government bodies exist in many metropolitan areas, their role is usually limited to providing specific services, such as sanitation, water, parks, toll roads, airports, and public transit. On rare occasions—most notably in Portland, Oregon, and to a lesser extent in Minneapolis–St. Paul and Atlanta—metropolitanwide governments have been granted authority to make certain decisions about land use, transportation, and taxation that affect the entire region (Downs 1999; Eplan 1999; Katz and Bradley 1999). The majority of special-authority districts are established to supply a single commodity-like service most efficiently and have boundaries that encompass only parts of the metropolitan area. The Chicago region, for instance, has more than 500 such special districts that provide dozens of different services (Hemmens 1999, 125).

Most Americans, however, are reluctant to relinquish local control over land use, schools, and certain other public services and responsibilities that directly affect their quality of life (Williams 1971; Baldassare

Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

et al. 1996). Some economists postulate that while such behavior may be parochial, it may also lead to the more efficient provision of public services. Although controversial (partly because it can be used to endorse exclusionary zoning), this theory holds that smaller, decentralized jurisdictions can best provide the type and quality of services (e.g., schools, parks, libraries) preferred by local residents. Competition among local governments for residents and tax-paying businesses, it is argued, can compel greater efficiency in the provision of services and more rational choices about the kinds of public services supplied, as well as the ways local governments exercise certain authorities, such as zoning and land use regulation (Tiebout 1956; Mieszkowski and Zodrow 1989).

By and large, local governments in the United States plan land uses as they wish with little oversight by state governments or coordination with other nearby jurisdictions (Porter 1991). Even when federal, state, and regional bodies (such as environmental agencies) do claim some oversight responsibility, their involvement is often reactive (Bollens 1992). For instance, whereas some states may review, and even preempt, local zoning and land use plans for conformity with statewide guidelines, they seldom participate directly in local planning processes or try to coordinate plans among localities (CBSSE 1999; Porter 1991; Bollens 1992). Because local governments are so dependent on real property taxes for revenue, state governments are reluctant to preempt local authority over land use. Likewise, local communities are often reluctant to accept state or regional intervention in land use, concerned that they will lose their ability both to deter undesirable forms of development and to entice other kinds of development that could raise property values and revenues.

In contrast, major urban transportation planning and programming are almost always handled at the state and regional levels, often with significant federal aid. Most public transit systems, for instance, are governed by a regional authority designated for a specific metropolitan area. Sometimes there is more than one public agency providing transit services in large urban areas, each with responsibility for a particular service (e.g., commuter rail or express bus operations) or for services within subregions.

Most transit authorities are overseen by boards of directors that include representatives from those jurisdictions receiving the service and contributing funding. Directors are often local elected officials; they are responsible for major transit policy and planning decisions; and the tran-

Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

Table 3-2 Public- and Private-Sector Roles in Providing Public Transit Service in the United States, Canada, and Selected Countries of Western Europe

Country

National Role

State and Regional Role

Local Role

Private-Sector Role

United States

The federal government provides state and local governments with aid for the provision of transit infrastructure and equipment, contributing about half of transit capital funds. A small share of operating revenues is provided by the federal government (the share is largest for small transit systems).

Many states provide revenue for transit capital and operations. A few have state transit agencies with operating authority. Most have established regional transit districts for each metropolitan area. State-approved regional taxes (such as sales taxes) are sometimes used to generate the revenue for major capital improvements or operating subsidies.

County and city governments often provide operating subsidies for regional transit agencies. The revenue is derived from local property taxes, sales taxes, and other local sources. Transit is sometimes organized at the county or city level, rather than the regional level.

Private transit contracting is common in some states and most prevalent in California. Private businesses compete to provide specific transit services (or management functions) that are paid for and prescribed by state and local governments or by public transit authorities. The practice is most common among small transit systems and for specialized transit services such as paratransit and aspects of service such as maintenance. A small number of larger systems (e.g., in Denver and in San Diego and Orange Counties in California) have adopted this approach widely.

Canada

The national government has no role in transit funding, organization, or planning, except for some research and development programs.

The 10 Canadian provinces have traditionally provided significant capital and operating subsidies for urban transit (about half the total), although this responsibility has increasingly been shifted to metropolitan and municipal governments.

Regional metropolitan governments and their constituent municipalities provide most transit services with funding support from the province. Revenues are also derived from property taxes levied in special “transit assessment” districts. Some individual cities and mu

The private sector has a small role in the provision of transit, except for some contracting with private business to supply services prescribed by the public-sector transit agencies.

Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

 

 

 

nicipalities also provide transit services, for instance through public utility commissions.

 

Germany

The national government provides states (Länder) with block funds that can be used to subsidize commuter rail services or otherwise employed by local governments to fund mass transit. The federal government also contributes aid to specific capital projects, with state and local government sharing in the cost using revenues derived from motor fuel taxes.

States subsidize commuter rail and provide local government with funds for transit. States cover about half the cost of providing and maintaining railway infrastructure. They also set minimum transit service level requirements that must be met by local governments.

Many local governments allocate state and federal transit funds to regional cooperatives of transit operators known as “verkehrsverbunds” (VVBs). The VVBs coordinate the provision of transit services over the entire region and reallocate funds among individual operators.

The private sector is increasingly being called upon to compete for contract work. The Swedish model of private contracting or “tendering” on a route-by-route basis is becoming more common.

France

The national government finances transit directly in Paris and surrounding suburbs. National subsidies are minimal in the provinces, however, with the exception of funding for large rail transit additions or improvements.

Transit is organized at the regional level by the province or by groups of municipalities.

Local governments have the main responsibility for subsidizing bus and rail service (capital and operations) using revenues from employer payroll taxes approved by the national government. Taxes may be as high as 40 percent of an employer’s payroll.

A small number of large private bus companies operate service franchises in municipalities. The companies compete to provide service over entire networks (as opposed to routes), and they are subsidized by local governments. These companies usually own their own equipment and have long-term contracts.

Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

Country

National Role

State and Regional Role

Local Role

Private-Sector Role

Sweden

The national government’s contribution is limited mainly to the funding of major rail infrastructure projects.

County governments have primary responsibility for transit operating and capital subsidies and for the planning of services. Subsidies are allocated to local government for the procurement of transit services.

Local governments are responsible for procuring the services of private contractors. They contribute about half of the operating subsidy required (except in the Stockholm area, where the county contributes all of the subsidy and has sole responsibility for planning and procuring transit services).

Private companies bid for service on specific routes, according to fare, service, and schedule parameters prescribed by the local authority. Rail and bus operations are contracted out. The public sector prescribes the route and fare schedules to be adhered to and often owns the equipment and other necessary infrastructure.

Great Britain

The national government has primary responsibility for funding rail and bus transit in greater London. It also subsidizes commuter rail outside London by providing funds to local passenger transport authorities. In other areas, local authorities support some transit services with grant aid from the national government.

 

Local governments (e.g., counties) subsidize a small number of bus routes designated by passenger transport authorities as “socially necessary.” Local authorities also fund concessionary fares for students, the disabled, and the elderly.

Bus services outside London are largely private, unregulated, and unsubsidized except for subsidies provided to private operators for “socially necessary” services. Private bus companies provide lightly subsidized contract services in greater London.

Netherlands

The national government provides most transit subsidies, contributing to both operations and capital. It also sets fare and service policies.

 

Local governments have minimal funding responsibility but are responsible for tendering private-sector services and ensuring performance.

Private companies are increasingly being called upon to compete for contract services.

Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

Table 3-3 Urban Governance, Land Use, and Transportation Coordination in the United States, Canada, and Selected Countries of Western Europe

Country

Urban Governance

Land Use Planning

Transportation Planning

Land Use and Transportation Coordination

United States

Most urban areas contain dozens of autonomous governments, though large counties can form “regional” governments, and some cities have annexed suburban areas. Taxes are seldom levied at the metropolitan level except for specific services, such as transit.

Zoning and other land use powers have been ceded by most states to local governments. Some states review local land use plans, but local autonomy is seldom abridged. Intergovernmental competition for revenue hinders regional land use planning.

Highway and transit planning is usually conducted at the state or regional level. MPOs coordinate federal funding for transit, highways, and other transportation infrastructure in most urban areas.

MPOs are sometimes part of regional councils of governments that prepare long-range land use plans. Seldom, however, have jurisdictions established more formal means of coordinating transportation and land use at the regional level.

Canada

Many provinces (e.g., Ontario) have created regional governments or “municipal regions” that have multiple authorities and responsibilities for the urbanized area as a whole. They often have taxing authority; carry out regional land use and infrastructure planning; and provide many public services, such as policing and transit.

Land use plans developed by metropolitan governments (municipal regions) must comply with land use guidelines developed by provincial boards.The specific zoning regulations of local governments must conform to the land use plans developed by the metropolitan governments and approved by the province.

Provinces have traditionally funded and planned most urban transportation infrastructure, although in recent years, much of the funding and planning responsibility has been shifted to metropolitan governments.

Municipal regions have significant responsibility for both urban land use and transportation planning. Responsibilities for both often reside in the same government office, facilitating the coordination of planning and decision making.

Germany

Urban areas can contain dozens of local governments. State and local governments have taxing authority. There are few metropolitanwide governments. Local governments

The German constitution calls for the federal government to establish a national land use plan to serve as a guide for state and local governments. Local regulations must con

The federal role in urban transportation planning and funding is diminishing, although the federal government has a national transportation plan. State and local governments

Formal links exist between state and local transportation and land use planners. All of these plans must comport with national land use and transportation guidelines.

Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

Country

Urban Governance

Land Use Planning

Transportation Planning

Land Use and Transportation Coordination

 

receive much of their revenue from state and federal grants.

form to these federal and state guidelines.

are responsible for most urban transportation planning.

 

Great Britain

The national government has considerable influence on local governance. Local councils have limited authority, and there are no metropolitanwide governments. Most taxes are collected at the national level and distributed to local governments.

Land use planning is the responsibility of local officials but is subject to national guidance. Most regions have land use planning conferences that produce advisory land use strategies for their areas. Local authorities determine zoning in their urban development plans, which are subject to approval and revision by the national government.

The national government establishes overall transportation policy and funding. Local authorities produce local transport policies and programs designed to implement nationally developed and funded policies. Highway and transit rail infrastructure is funded by the national government. Bus services are generally private and uncoordinated by government.

The coordination of urban transportation and land use policies occurs at the national level; however, local coordination is managed through local transport plans that are part of broader urban development plans linking transportation programs with education, health, welfare, and other public services.

Netherlands

Local governments function mainly as service providers, rather than policy makers. They are funded largely by the national government through grants and revenue-sharing programs that have many stipulations.

The national government establishes land use directives for regions and has the authority to review all local land use plans and regulations for compliance. Local governments develop zoning ordinances in accordance with these national directives.

Most transportation financing and planning are managed by the national government’s ministry of transportation. Local governments have a largely advisory role, as well as responsibility for implementation.

Because the national government has the main responsibility for land use and transportation planning, the two can be closely coordinated.

Note: MPO = metropolitan planning organization.

Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

sit agency’s professional staff report to them. RTA in Chicago, MARTA in Atlanta, WMATA in Washington, and SEPTA in Philadelphia are examples of large, regional transit authorities overseen by elected officials from throughout the metropolitan area. Frequently, these regional authorities span two or more states. In a few cases, such as Maryland, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, a single statewide transit agency—usually housed in the state department of transportation—administers transit services in several urban and rural areas.

By comparison, urban highway programs are typically administered by state transportation departments or toll authorities (and sometimes by multistate authorities, such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey). Since the 1930s, most states have enacted laws requiring that revenues from gasoline and diesel taxes be used largely or almost exclusively for highway construction, maintenance, and operations, an approach emulated by the federal government (Rose 1979, 34–36). Given their ability to impose such taxes over wide areas, state governments have been in a better position than local governments to raise the large sums of money needed to fund highway infrastructure and match federal grants (Wachs and Dill 1999; Rose 1979, 96).

The prominent state role in highway planning, funding, and operations has often been criticized for resulting in neglect of local needs and concerns. Beginning in the late 1960s, the federal government required states to establish metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to coordinate state and local transportation planning. MPOs were specifically charged with integrating and unifying federal-aid programming for both highway and transit projects. Most local governments in urbanized areas now participate in an MPO. Although organizational approaches vary by area, MPOs in most major urban areas are overseen by boards of directors consisting of local officials drawn from several counties and dozens of municipalities.

In recent years, the role of MPOs in allocating federal and state funds for urban highway and transit projects has been enhanced by federal legislation such as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. The MPO’s traditionally small role in developing and implementing land use plans has changed very little, however. For the most part, transportation plans developed by MPOs are reactive to many local and private-sector land use plans and decisions. Whereas regional transportation investments may subsequently affect land use (e.g., by prompting highway-

Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

oriented development), such effects are examined mainly at the local level. As the only regional institution in many urban areas, MPOs offer a rare opportunity for local jurisdictions to discuss and possibly coordinate their local land use plans (Porter 1991). However, MPOs seldom have any direct jurisdiction over local land use, and most have few operational or implementation capabilities (Wachs and Dill 1999, 307).

Because the majority of local governments depend on land and real property taxes for much of their revenue, they are generally unwilling to relinquish to regional institutions any authority over land use planning and decision making. Competition among local communities for tax-producing development can render land use decision making even more complicated and unwieldy to coordinate regionally (Howitt and Altshuler 1993).

Only a few governments in the United States have shared or sole control over highway, transit, and land use decisions.10 The most notable example is the multiple powers vested by the state of Oregon and local voters in the Portland area’s metropolitan service district, known as Metro. In addition to being an MPO responsible for allocating funds for transportation facilities in the metropolitan region, Metro has been charged with developing a regional land use plan that sets limits on development outside a state-designated “urban growth boundary.” Governed by an elected council, Metro has the authority to compel local governments to adopt land use plans that are in conformity with its regional plan—a power that few if any other MPOs enjoy. For instance, Metro can require local communities to allow high-density, transit-oriented development in the vicinity of transit stations. Although the long-term results of this approach are not yet evident, Portland’s regional planning efforts and urban growth boundary are often cited as models for other American cities and states to follow.

Environmental concerns in major metropolitan areas—particularly with regard to air pollution and the need to meet federal air quality standards—have prompted some other states to gradually place limits on local land use control, particularly on major land use decisions. Compelled to meet federal air quality standards in greater Atlanta, for example, the state of Georgia has created the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA), which encompasses 80 local jurisdictions. Although regarded primarily as a transportation planning agency, GRTA has been authorized by the state to develop a regional growth strategy. It has also been given power to review and approve all land use decisions in the Atlanta metropolitan area

Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

that have a “regional impact” and require federal or state aid for road improvements (including those as simple as a curb cut) (Eplan 1999). It is noteworthy, however, that GRTA—unlike most regional planning bodies in Western Europe and Canada—cannot overrule efforts by local jurisdictions to exclude growth, such as prohibitions on high-density development near transit lines and stations.

Such regionally coordinated approaches to urban land use and transportation decision making are extraordinary and even interventionist by U.S. standards. Yet they are modest compared with practices in Western Europe and Canada.

Urban Land Use, Transit, and Highway Planning in Western Europe and Canada

As in the United States, the organization and responsibilities of local governments in the large urbanized areas of Western Europe and Canada vary by country, region, and city. This variability is in large part a reflection of different historical circumstances, political institutions, and constitutional frameworks. Germany, for instance, has a long tradition of provincial governance, dating back to its formation from many city-states and principalities. Sweden and Great Britain, in contrast, have a long history of local governance (i.e., municipalities and counties), but a near absence of any intermediate or larger regional forms of government. Still, the national governments in all three of these countries, as in most other Western European countries, have a strong role in many local affairs, including land use planning and regulation. Indeed, the best-known cases of metropolitan planning in Western Europe—the planned creation of suburbs and greenbelts outside the national capitals of Stockholm, London, and Paris—have generally been stimulated and even directed by the national governments seeking to provide amenities for city dwellers (Heidenheimer et al. 1983, 260). The desire of many Western European national governments to preserve agricultural areas around cities has likewise had a significant effect on metropolitan form (Downs 1999).

As in the United States, metropolitanwide governance is not the norm in Western Europe, where dozens of local jurisdictions can coexist within a single urbanized area (Parr 1999, 237).11 Throughout Western Europe, however, urban land use planning is a national and regional prerogative as much as a local responsibility. This approach differs greatly from that in the

Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

United States, where such shared responsibility is unusual. More than in the United States, national governments of Western Europe have shown a willingness to intervene in local land use planning and regulation. It is probably an accurate observation that Western European local officials are no less interested in controlling commercial and residential development within their jurisdictions, but they simply do not have the autonomy to exert the singular influence of local officials in the United States (Heidenheimer et al. 1983).

National governments in Western Europe exercise influence on land use planning and decision making through various means. The German federal government, for instance, has enacted legislation that discourages localities from competing with one another for development through local property tax concessions, a practice that has become commonplace in the United States. In implementing a constitutionally mandated policy of regional “equalization,” the German government transfers local revenues among states (Länder). The states, in turn, must distribute the revenues evenly among local governments—a policy considered essential for local self-determination (CBSSE 1983, 149; Nivola and Crandall 1995, 81; Konukiewitz and Wollman 1982). The federal government has also established national guidelines for state and local authorities to follow when devising land use plans (Heidenheimer et al. 1983). As a practical matter, though, what binds local governments to these national plans is the practice of local revenue redistribution—grant programs with conformity requirements and spending stipulations (Mackensen 1999, 298–301).

Local governments in France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands have even less direct control over land use, including very limited zoning authority. Indeed, the Netherlands has a national Ministry of Land Use. In contrast with the United States, local governments in these countries do not depend heavily on taxes for a significant share of their revenue; they receive grants from the national government. This practice presumably reduces the incentive to use land use controls to influence property values and the local tax base. In Great Britain, Parliament abolished metropolitanwide councils in the mid-1980s; hence most important land use decisions are now likewise made by the national government. While local authorities prepare land use plans, these plans must conform with national guidelines and be approved by the national government, which is also the arbiter in any disputes.

Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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.

Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
  • 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

Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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.

Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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

Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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-

Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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).

Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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

Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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.

Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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.

Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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.

Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×

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.

Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 88
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 89
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 90
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 94
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 96
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Policies and Practices Favorable to Transit in Western Europe and Canada." Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10110.
×
Page 113
Next: External Policies and Factors Affecting Transit Use »
Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States -- Special Report 257 Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!

TRB Special Report 257 - Making Transit Work: Insight from Western Europe, Canada, and the United States describes the differences in public transit use among U.S., Canadian, and Western European cities; identifies those factors, from urban form to automobile usage, that have contributed to these differences; and offers hypotheses about the reasons for these differences--from historical, demographic, and economic conditions to specific public policies, such as automobile taxation and urban land use regulation.

Travelers often return from major European cities marveling at the ubiquity and efficiency of urban transit services and wondering why U.S. cities fare so poorly by comparison in this regard. With few exceptions, such as its central role in serving New York City, public transit has a far more prominent role in Canada and Western Europe than in the United States. This is true not only in major cities, but also in smaller communities and throughout entire metropolitan areas. Transit is used for about 10 percent of passenger trips in urban areas of Western Europe, compared with 2 percent in the United States.

A number of factors have contributed to this differential, including higher taxes on motor vehicles, steep fuel taxes, and concerted efforts to control urban development and preserve the form and function of historic cities in both Canada and Western Europe. Moreover, both regions have devoted considerably more attention and resources to ensuring that transit services are convenient, comfortable, and reliable.

At the outset of the 20th century, American cities were leaders in introducing and using transit. Today, however, much of metropolitan America is largely suburban in character. The preponderance of suburban development is due to an abundance of inexpensive land available outside of cities, burgeoning metropolitan populations and economies, and perceptions of inner-city economic and social strife, combined with the ubiquity of the automobile. Transit works best in areas with high concentrations of workers, businesses, and households, whereas suburbs are characterized by low-density development.

The committee that studied the issue of making transit work better in the United States concluded that dramatic changes in transportation investments, land use controls, and public attitudes—including much denser settlement patterns, together with Western European–style fuel taxes and other disincentives to driving—would be required to reshape the American urban landscape in ways that would fundamentally favor transit use. Nonetheless, there is ample opportunity for transit to play a more prominent role in meeting passenger transportation demand in many U.S. cities. Although it is not reasonable to expect the modal share of transit in most U.S. metropolitan areas to equal that of European cities, there are many areas in which transit is appropriate and its use can be increased. American cities that have retained high levels of central-city employment and dense residential development and have a history of transit service can learn from and apply the policies and practices used abroad.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!