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