DOCSLIB.ORG

TCRP Report 27

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

T RANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM SPONSORED BY The Federal Transit Administration TCRP Report 27 Building Transit Ridership An Exploration of Transit’s Market Share and the Public Policies That Influence It Transportation Research Board National Research Council TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 1997 SELECTION COMMITTEE CHAIR MICHAEL S. TOWNES OFFICERS Peninsula Transportation Dist. Comm. Chair: David N. Wormley, Dean of Engineering, Pennsylvania State University Vice Chair: Sharon D. Banks, General Manager, AC Transit MEMBERS Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board GORDON AOYAGI Montgomery County Government SHARON D. BANKS AC Transit MEMBERS LEE BARNES Barwood, Inc. BRIAN J. L. BERRY, Lloyd Viel Berkner Regental Professor, Bruton Center for Development Studies, GERALD L. BLAIR University of Texas at Dallas Indiana County Community Transit Authority LILLIAN C. BORRONE, Director, Port Commerce, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Past SHIRLEY A. DeLIBERO Chair, 1995) New Jersey Transit Corporation DAVID G. BURWELL, President, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Washington, DC ROD J. DIRIDON E. DEAN CARLSON, Secretary, Kansas Department of Transportation IISTPS JAMES N. DENN, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Transportation SANDRA DRAGGOO JOHN W. FISHER, Director, ATLSS Engineering Research Center, Lehigh University CATA DENNIS J. FITZGERALD, Executive Director, Capital District Transportation Authority, Albany, NY CONSTANCE GARBER DAVID R. GOODE, Chair, President and CEO, Norfolk Southern Corporation York County Community Action Corp. DELON HAMPTON, Chair and CEO, Delon Hampton & Associates ALAN J. GIBBS LESTER A. HOEL, Hamilton Professor, Civil Engineering, University of Virginia Rutgers, The State Univ. of New Jersey JAMES L. LAMMIE, Director, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc., New York, NY DELON HAMPTON BRADLEY L. MALLORY, Secretary of Transportation, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Delon Hampton & Associates ROBERT E. MARTINEZ, Secretary of Transportation, Commonwealth of Virginia KATHARINE HUNTER-ZAWORSKI JEFFREY J. MCCAIG, President and CEO, Trimac Corporation, Calgary, Alberta, Canada Oregon State University MARSHALL W. MOORE, Director, North Dakota Department of Transportation ALAN F. KIEPPER CRAIG E. PHILIP, President, Ingram Barge Co., Nashville, TN Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas ANDREA RINIKER, Executive Director, Port of Tacoma PAUL LARROUSSE JOHN M. SAMUELS, Vice President—Operating Assets, Consolidated Rail Corporation Madison Metro Transit System WAYNE SHACKELFORD, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Transportation ROBERT G. LINGWOOD LESLIE STERMAN, Executive Director, East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, St. Louis, MO BC Transit JOSEPH M. SUSSMAN, JR East Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, MIT GORDON J. LINTON JAMES W. VAN LOBEN SELS, Director, California Department of Transportation (Past Chair, 1996) Federal Transit Administration MARTIN WACHS, Director, University of California Transportation Center, Berkeley DON S. MONROE DAVID L. WINSTEAD, Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation Pierce Transit PATRICIA S. NETTLESHIP The Nettleship Group, Inc. ROBERT E. PAASWELL EX OFFICIO MEMBERS The City College of New York JAMES P. REICHERT MIKE ACOTT, President, National Asphalt Pavement Association Reichert Management Services ROY A. ALLEN, Vice President, Research and Test Department, Association of American Railroads RICHARD J. SIMONETTA JOE N. BALLARD, Chief of Engineers and Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers MARTA ANDREW H. CARD, JR., President and CEO, American Automobile Manufacturers Association PAUL P. SKOUTELAS KELLEY S. COYNER, Research and Special Programs Acting Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation Port Authority of Allegheny County MORTIMER L. DOWNEY, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation PAUL TOLIVER THOMAS M. DOWNS, Chair and President, National Railroad Passenger Corporation King County DOT/Metro FRANCIS B. FRANCOIS, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation LINDA S. WATSON Officials Corpus Christi RTA DAVID GARDINER, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EDWARD WYTKIND JANE F. GARVEY, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration AFL-CIO JOHN E. GRAYKOWSKI, Acting Maritime Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation T. R. LAKSHMANAN, Director, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation GORDON J. LINTON, Federal Transit Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation EX OFFICIO MEMBERS RICARDO MARTINEZ, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation WILLIAM W. MILLAR WALTER B. McCORMICK, President and CEO, American Trucking Associations, Inc. APTA WILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transit Association KENNETH R. WYKLE JOLENE M. MOLITORIS, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation FHWA KENNETH R. WYKLE, Federal Highway Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation FRANCIS B. FRANCOIS AASHTO ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR. TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TRB Transportation Research Board Executive Committee Subcommittee for TCRP TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DAVID N. WORMLEY, Pennsylvania State University (Chair) LOUIS F. SANDERS SHARON D. BANKS, AC Transit APTA DENNIS J. FITZGERALD, Capital Dist. Transportation Authority, Albany, NY LESTER A. HOEL, University of Virginia SECRETARY GORDON J. LINTON, U.S. Department of Transportation ROBERT J. REILLY ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research Board TRB JAMES W. VAN LOBEN SELS, California Department of Transportation T RANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Report 27 Building Transit Ridership An Exploration of Transit’s Market Share and the Public Policies That Influence It CHARLES RIVER ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED Boston, MA Subject Areas Planning and Administration Public Transit Research Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in Cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation T RANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1997 TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP REPORT 27 The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, Project H-4A FY’93 environmental, and energy objectives place demands on public ISSN 1073-4872 transit systems. Current systems, some of which are old and in need ISBN 0-309-06252-7 of upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency, Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 97-62202 and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating problems, to adapt appropriate new © 1997 Transportation Research Board technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into Price $41.00 the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it. The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report 213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration—now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A report by the American Public Transit NOTICE Association (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recognized the need The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative for local, problem-solving research. TCRP, modeled after the Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the longstanding and successful National Cooperative Highway approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such Research Program, undertakes research and other technical activities approval reflects the Governing Board’s judgment that the project concerned is in response to the needs of transit service providers. The scope of appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National TCRP includes a variety of transit research fields including plan- Research Council. ning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, operations, human The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this project and resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices. to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The Proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency authorized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation that performed the research, and while they have been accepted as appropriate Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum by the technical panel, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation agreement outlining TCRP operating procedures was executed by Research Board, the National Research Council, the Transit Development the three cooperating organizations: FTA;FTA, the National Academy of Corporation, or the Federal Transit Administration of the U.S. Department of Sciences, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB);(TRB), Transportation. and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical panel educational and research organization established by APTA. TDC is according to procedures established and monitored
Recommended publications
  • The Deloitte City Mobility Index Gauging Global Readiness for the Future of Mobility

    The Deloitte City Mobility Index Gauging Global Readiness for the Future of Mobility

    The Deloitte City Mobility Index Gauging global readiness for the future of mobility By: Simon Dixon, Haris Irshad, Derek M. Pankratz, and Justine Bornstein the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, and Where should cities other digital technologies to develop and inform go tomorrow? intelligent decisions about people, places, and prod- ucts. A smart city is a data-driven city, one in which Unfortunately, when it comes to designing and municipal leaders have an increasingly sophisti- implementing a long-term vision for future mobil- cated understanding of conditions in the areas they ity, it is all too easy to ignore, misinterpret, or skew oversee, including the urban transportation system. this data to fit a preexisting narrative.1 We have seen In the past, regulators used questionnaires and sur- this play out in dozens of conversations with trans- veys to map user needs. Today, platform operators portation leaders all over the world. To build that can rely on databases to provide a more accurate vision, leaders need to gather the right data, ask the picture in a much shorter time frame at a lower cost. right questions, and focus on where cities should Now, leaders can leverage a vast array of data from go tomorrow. The Deloitte City Mobility Index Given the essential enabling role transportation theme analyses how deliberate and forward- plays in a city’s sustained economic prosperity,2 we thinking a city’s leaders are regarding its future set out to create a new and better way for city of- mobility needs. ficials to gauge the health of their mobility network 3.
  • Public Hearing Will Pertaintoapplicablefares Asmodified

    Public Hearing Will Pertaintoapplicablefares Asmodified

    Proposed Changes in Fares, Crossing Charges, and Service Hearings will be held on proposed changes in fares at the locations, dates, and times noted below. The public is invited to comment on the proposed changes which are summarized below and pertain, as applicable, to MTA Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), MTA Metro-North Railroad (Metro-North), MTA New York City Transit (NYCT), the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MaBSTOA), and MTA Bus and to crossing charges on MTA Bridges &Tunnels (Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority). The fare and toll proposals allow for a range of options to be considered; increases to fares or crossing charges may be less than the maximum amounts specified. Following the hearings, after considering public comment, the Boards of the MTA and its affiliated agencies will decide which potential fare adjustments to adopt. Space limitations prevent newspaper publication of each proposed new fare or crossing charge. For more complete descriptions of these potential changes, please consult information posted at MTA stations and on the MTA website, www.mta.info, or call (646) 252-6777. Following hearings, one or more of the proposed changes listed below could be adopted: NYCT, MaBSTOA, MTA Bus, SIR: LIRR & Metro North: Fares for Subway (NYCT), Local Bus (NYCT, MaBSTOA, and MTA Bus), and SIR: • Increase monthly tickets up to 4% and not more than $15. Increase weekly Base Single Ride Fare (currently $3.00 for Single Ride Ticket, and $2.75 for tickets up to 4% and not more than $5.75. Increase fares in an amount from 0 cash payment and Pay-Per-Ride (zero) to 10% on all other ticket types, with any increase greater than 6% held MetroCard®): to a maximum increase of $0.50 per trip.
  • Caltrain Fare Study Draft Research and Peer Comparison Report

    Caltrain Fare Study Draft Research and Peer Comparison Report

    Caltrain Fare Study Draft Research and Peer Comparison Report Public Review Draft October 2017 Caltrain Fare Study Draft Research and Peer Comparison October 2017 Research and Peer Review Research and Peer Review .................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2 A Note on TCRP Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Elasticity of Demand for Commuter Rail ............................................................................... 3 Definition ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Commuter Rail Elasticity ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Comparison with Peer Systems ............................................................................................ 4 Fares ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Employer Programs ..................................................................................................................................................
  • Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail Operations

    Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail Operations

    Phase 1 Interim Report Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail Operations City of Toronto Prepared for the City of Toronto by IBI Group and Stantec August 30, 2017 IBI GROUP PHASE 1 INTERIM REPORT LAND USE STUDY: DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO RAIL OPERATIONS Prepared for City of Toronto Document Control Page CLIENT: City of Toronto City-Wide Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail PROJECT NAME: Operations Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail Operations REPORT TITLE: Phase 1 Interim Report - DRAFT IBI REFERENCE: 105734 VERSION: V2 - Issued August 30, 2017 J:\105734_RailProximit\10.0 Reports\Phase 1 - Data DIGITAL MASTER: Collection\Task 3 - Interim Report for Phase 1\TTR_CityWideLandUse_Phase1InterimReport_2017-08-30.docx ORIGINATOR: Patrick Garel REVIEWER: Margaret Parkhill, Steve Donald AUTHORIZATION: Lee Sims CIRCULATION LIST: HISTORY: Accessibility This document, as of the date of issuance, is provided in a format compatible with the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), 2005. August 30, 2017 IBI GROUP PHASE 1 INTERIM REPORT LAND USE STUDY: DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO RAIL OPERATIONS Prepared for City of Toronto Table of Contents 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Study ..................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Background .............................................................................................................
  • New Station Initial Business Case Milton-Trafalgar Final October 2020

    New Station Initial Business Case Milton-Trafalgar Final October 2020

    New Station Initial Business Case Milton-Trafalgar Final October 2020 New Station Initial Business Case Milton-Trafalgar Final October 2020 Contents Introduction 1 The Case for Change 4 Investment Option 12 Strategic Case 18 Economic Case 31 Financial Case 37 Deliverability and Operations Case 41 Business Case Summary 45 iv Executive Summary Introduction The Town of Milton in association with a landowner’s group (the Proponent) approached Metrolinx to assess the opportunity to develop a new GO rail station on the south side of the Milton Corridor, west of Trafalgar Road. This market-driven initiative assumes the proposed station would be planned and paid for by the private sector. Once built, the station would be transferred to Metrolinx who would own and operate it. The proposed station location is on undeveloped land, at the heart of both the Trafalgar Corridor and Agerton Employment Secondary Plan Areas studied by the Town of Milton in 2017. As such, the project offers the Town of Milton the opportunity to realize an attractive and vibrant transit-oriented community that has the potential to benefit the entire region. Option for Analysis This Initial Business Case (IBC) assesses a single option for the proposed station. The opening-day concept plan includes one new side platform to the north of the corridor, with protection for a future second platform to the south. The site includes 1,000 parking spots, a passenger pick-up/drop-off area (40 wait spaces, 10 load spaces), bicycle parking (128 covered spaces, 64 secured spaces) and a bus loop including 11 sawtooth bus bays.
  • L'accesso Alle Aree Metropolitane

    L'accesso Alle Aree Metropolitane

    Bocconi Luigi Università Commerciale L’accesso alle aree metropolitane Aree di intervento e prospettive di soluzione A cura di Angela Airoldi e Tatiana Cini Milano, dicembre 2014 INDICE Introduzione ............................................................................................................................... 3 1 Accessibilità e mobilità urbana ............................................................................................ 5 1.1 I trend dello sviluppo urbano ................................................................................................... 5 1.2 La domanda di mobilità verso le aree metropolitane ................................................................ 6 1.3 Una risposta alla congestione: la congestion charge ................................................................. 7 L’Electronic Road Pricing di Singapore ............................................................................................................... 8 La Central London Congestion Charging Zone ................................................................................................... 9 La Congestion Tax di Stoccolma ....................................................................................................................... 10 La Congestion tax di Göteborg ......................................................................................................................... 10 Il Bergen Toll Ring ...........................................................................................................................................
  • A Meeting of the New York City Transit Riders Council

    A Meeting of the New York City Transit Riders Council

    A meeting of the New York City Transit Riders Council (NYCTRC) was convened at 12:00 pm on Thursday, January 29, 2020 in the 20th floor Board Room at 2 Broadway, New York, NY 10004. Member Attendance Andrew Albert (Chair) Present Burton M. Strauss Jr. (Vice Chair) Present Stuart Goldstein Present Christopher Greif Present William K. Guild Absent Marisol Halpern Present Sharon King Hoge Absent Trudy L. Mason Present Scott R. Nicholls Present Edith Prentiss Present Staff Attendance Lisa Daglian (Executive Director) Present Ellyn Shannon (Associate Director) Present Bradley Brashears (Planning Manager) Present Sheila Binesh (Transportation Planner) Present Deborah Morrison (Administrative Assistant) Present Non-member Attendance Name Affiliation Andy Byford NYCT Alex Elegudin NYCT Deborah Hall-Moore NYCT Rachel Cohen NYCT Debra Greif BFSSAC Ann Mannino BFSSAC Andrew Kurzweil RUN Jasmine Melzer Good Neighbors of Park Slope Joyce Jed Good Neighbors of Park Slope William Stanford, Jr. Concerned citizen Yvonne Morrow Concerned citizen Approval of Agenda for February 27, 2020 meeting. Approval of Minutes for January 29, 2020 meeting. Chair’s Report attached. Board Report Discussion Points: (To view full discussion visit PCAC Youtube Channel) • Andy Byford and Pete Tomlin resign from MTA-NYC Transit effective February 21st. • CBTC is moving along on Queens Boulevard, eventually on 8th Ave., etc… • Group Station Manger program – under Andy has improved station conditions. • Accessibility – next group of stations you will hear about from our presenter today. • Livonia – Junius stations will become connected and made accessible. • Subway ridership and OTP (84%) increases resulting from the Save Safe Seconds program. • Penn Station Master Plan - eight additional tracks – no decision has been made on repairs of the Hudson River tunnels.
  • Go Rer Initial Business Case Summary | 2015 Go Rer Initial Business Case Summary | 2015 2 Table of Contents

    Go Rer Initial Business Case Summary | 2015 Go Rer Initial Business Case Summary | 2015 2 Table of Contents

    GO RER INITIAL BUSINESS CASE SUMMARY | 2015 GO RER INITIAL BUSINESS CASE SUMMARY | 2015 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Ready, Set, GO 1.1 Building on success 1 1.2 Fixing the GTHA’s transportation problem 2 1.3 RER in the GTHA: What is being recommended? 4 1.4 Future improvements 10 1.5 How a recommendation was reached 11 2. The Strategic Case: Who Benefits and How 2.1 Making the regional GO system work for more GTHA residents 12 2.2 Electrification: Faster service, lower operating costs, greener environment 17 2.3 SmartTrack coordination 17 3. The Financial Case: How Much Will it Cost? 3.1 A comprehensive cost analysis 18 3.2 Forecasting ridership 18 3.3 Estimating fare revenues 20 3.4 Service levels: Technology and timing 20 3.5 Estimating capital costs 21 3.6 Estimated operating costs 21 3.7 Overall cost and revenue comparison 21 4. The Economic Case: How Much Would it Benefit the GTHA? 4.1 The benefits of mobility for over 7 million people 22 4.2 Benefits 22 4.3 Calculating net benefits 23 4.4 Benefit:cost ratio 24 5. Developing RER 5.1 Immediate tasks ahead 26 5.2 Cooperation with municipalities 26 5.3 Engaging stakeholders 27 6. Conclusion Putting the Regional System in Place 28 GO RER INITIAL BUSINESS CASE SUMMARY 1. Ready. Set. GO. 1.1 Building on success Metrolinx is bringing faster, more frequent and more convenient service to one of the most respected regional transit systems on the continent—GO Transit.
  • Smart Location Database Technical Documentation and User Guide

    Smart Location Database Technical Documentation and User Guide

    SMART LOCATION DATABASE TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION AND USER GUIDE Version 3.0 Updated: June 2021 Authors: Jim Chapman, MSCE, Managing Principal, Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. (UD4H) Eric H. Fox, MScP, Senior Planner, UD4H William Bachman, Ph.D., Senior Analyst, UD4H Lawrence D. Frank, Ph.D., President, UD4H John Thomas, Ph.D., U.S. EPA Office of Community Revitalization Alexis Rourk Reyes, MSCRP, U.S. EPA Office of Community Revitalization About This Report The Smart Location Database is a publicly available data product and service provided by the U.S. EPA Smart Growth Program. This version 3.0 documentation builds on, and updates where needed, the version 2.0 document.1 Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. updated this guide for the project called Updating the EPA GSA Smart Location Database. Acknowledgements Urban Design 4 Health was contracted by the U.S. EPA with support from the General Services Administration’s Center for Urban Development to update the Smart Location Database and this User Guide. As the Project Manager for this study, Jim Chapman supervised the data development and authored this updated user guide. Mr. Eric Fox and Dr. William Bachman led all data acquisition, geoprocessing, and spatial analyses undertaken in the development of version 3.0 of the Smart Location Database and co- authored the user guide through substantive contributions to the methods and information provided. Dr. Larry Frank provided data development input and reviewed the report providing critical input and feedback. The authors would like to acknowledge the guidance, review, and support provided by: • Ruth Kroeger, U.S. General Services Administration • Frank Giblin, U.S.
  • GO Transit's Deliverable: the 2020 Service Plan

    GO Transit's Deliverable: the 2020 Service Plan

    GO Transit’s deliverable: the 2020 Service Plan GO Transit’s 2020 Service Plan describes GO’s commitment to customers, existing and new, Success… and challenge: Union Station. to provide a dramatically expanded interregional transit option that integrates fully with the About 95% of GO Train customers travel RTP rapid transit network, and addresses the future travel needs in the Greater Golden to or from Union Station. During the peak Horseshoe. Further analysis during the planning and design of individual services will detail the hour, 45,000 customers use GO Transit’s service outline presented here, and define the appropriate technology, rail corridor improve - seven tracks and six platforms – the most ments, bus priority measures, passenger facilities, fleet growth, operational growth, and other intensive use of a train station in North activities needed to build the service. America. GO Transit has invested in more stairways, passenger waiting areas, This 2020 Service Plan summarizes the frequency and extent of service to be offered on and communications systems to handle major corridors, and is consistent with the infrastructure improvements and technologies the growing traffic through this “mobility included in the Metrolinx RTP and GO Transit’s vision and objectives described above. hub.” The adjacent Union Station GO Bus The plan reflects a significantly more proactive approach to service development than the Terminal provides convenient access to incremental, business-case driven approach that has guided GO’s growth for the past 15 express “train-bus” service between Union years. GO Transit will provide an attractive travel option that will compete successfully with Station and GO stations when trains are not automobile use for peak and off-peak trips between Urban Growth Centres identified in scheduled to run.
  • Transport Policy National Goals and Tools to Fulfil Them

    Transport Policy National Goals and Tools to Fulfil Them

    Transport Policy 81 (2019) 35–44 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Transport Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol National goals and tools to fulfil them: A study of opportunities and pitfalls T in Norwegian metagovernance of urban mobility ∗ Anders Tønnesena, , Julie Runde Krogstada, Petter Christiansena, Karolina Isakssonb a Institute of Transport Economics, Norway b Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Sweden 1. Introduction and agreements, assessing how they promote climate-friendly trans- port. Empirically, the paper builds on an exploration of three current Cities are important in the governance of environmental politics in agreements being the empirical cases—the Oslo, Trondheim and general, as well as for the accomplishment of goals of low-emission Stavanger UGAs,2 Theoretically, the study applies a metagovernance mobility (Betsill and Bulkeley, 2007; Banister, 2008; European Union, framework and discusses the ways the national level seeks to influence 2016). However, despite the increased attention to the issue of sus- local land-use and transport policy, but also how the UGAs open for tainable urban mobility, transport policy research is criticised for its municipal and county authorities influencing decision-making at the lack of attention to power, context, resources and legitimacy (Marsden national level. Especially, we consider how national authorities design a and Reardon, 2017). This paper addresses these issues, by examining a policy goal (here, the ZGG) and the supporting governance structures current example of governance for sustainable transport, namely the (UGAs). We analyse the policy design and implementation in the dis- Norwegian goals and strategies for zero growth of car traffic, im- course on metagovernance and ask the following main research ques- plemented through multilevel urban contracts.
  • Metrolinx Accessibility Status Report 2016

    Metrolinx Accessibility Status Report 2016

    Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the efforts of former Metrolinx Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) members Mr. Sean Henry and Mr. Brian Moore, both of whom stepped down from the AAC in 2016. They provided valuable input into our accessibility planning efforts. We would like to welcome Mr. Gordon Ryall and Ms. Heather Willis, who both joined the Metrolinx AAC in 2015. Lastly, we would like to thank all of the Metrolinx AAC members for the important work they do as volunteers to improve the accessibility of our services. Metrolinx Accessibility Status Report: 2016 1. Introduction The 2016 Metrolinx Accessibility Status Report provides an annual update of the Metrolinx Multi-Year Accessibility Plan published in December 2012, as well as the 2015 Metrolinx Accessibility Status Report. Metrolinx, a Crown agency of the Province of Ontario under the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation, has three operating divisions: GO Transit, PRESTO and Union Pearson Express. This Status Report, in conjunction with the December 2012 Metrolinx Multi-Year Accessibility Plan, fulfills Metrolinx’s legal obligations for 2016 under the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (ODA), to publish an annual accessibility plan; and also under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), to publish an annual status report on its multi-year plan. The December 2012 Metrolinx Multi-Year Accessibility Plan and other accessibility planning documents can be referenced on the Metrolinx website at the following link: www.metrolinx.com/en/aboutus/accessibility/default.aspx. In accordance with the AODA, it must be updated every five years. Metrolinx, including its operating divisions, remains committed to proceeding with plans to ensure AODA compliance.