Linking transit and land use is maybe the "greenest" you can be

Neal Peirce's column in the Denver Post, "Green public transit key to metros' future" discusses the new report "Sustainability and the MTA," about how transit in the New York City region is key to sustainability, smart transportation, and reduced energy use.

From the article:

MTA's buses, subways and commuter trains already remove more than 3 million drivers from the roads each day.

And they do it at twice the energy efficiency of the most advanced hybrid cars, registering a massive "carbon avoidance" benefit.

The high-density, high-transit model translates into per capita energy consumption at just one-quarter the national average.

But the secret is not just having more transit lines — though the commission recommends the MTA do just that. It's about shifting zoning and other policies to make sure the lion's share of new residential and business development is located in transit-accessible city and neighborhood cores.

And then insisting the "last mile" of transit accessibility be covered by flexible feeder buses as well as pedestrian and bike improvements.
---------------------------
Late this week, I will release my version of the 2009 DC Transportation and Mobility Vision Plan. It will be even more structured than the first edition of last year's version, but pretty similar to the final version from last year, based on six organizing principles and five implementing principles.

Organizing Principles

1. Complete Places (this is an extension of the "Complete Streets" concept to include livability in a broader sense)
2. Transit First/Mode Shift away from SOV trips (TF is in the municipal charter of San Francisco, primary focus on shifting away from SOV trips is in the Arlington County VA transportation plan)
3. Transit City, no one should be disadvantaged by not owning a car (this principle of equity in transportation is being implemented by the City of Toronto)
4. Linked transportation and land use planning paradigm
5. Green infrastructure going forward
6. Life cycle costing/100 year investments/do it right the first time.)

Implementing principles

1. Urban design
2. Accessibility planning (i.e., Utrecht, where uses are rated for transport demand, and places are rated for their transport capacity, and uses are directed to the locations where demand can be met, with a focus on shifting away from automobility)
3. Metropolitan transit networks (this is regionally focused, Metropolitan transit networks connect and are subsidiary to regional [multi-state] and national transit networks)
4. Mobility shed planning (optimal mode utilization within neighborhoods, districts, transit station areas)
5. Transit shed planning (mobility planning within the catchment area of local and metropolitan tarnsit networks)

It won't list everything, but it can be considered an extension of the structure and ideas laid out in the Arlington County Master Transportation Plan. (I am told that the Seattle Strategic Transportation Plan is similarly pathbreaking, so I need to read that this week too.)

But it adds the broader organizing principle of "Complete Places", extends the transit network concept laid out in the ArCo plan, and lays out other implementing principles which wasn't done in the ArCo plan.

The great thing in the ArCo plan is how the action plan "cascades" from the organizing principles. For example, because the plan sets as a foremost policy reducing the number of single occupancy vehicle trips, the action steps in various sections (such as Parking and Curbside Management) are designed to implement the policy.

The various elements in last year's plan naturally "cascade" from the Organizing and Implementing Principles.

This article in the current issue of Wired, "Science We Can Believe In: How President Obama Can Recharge US Research," supports the point that many of us make (but then goes on to focus on technological solutions), that transportation and land use policy needs to be integrated at all levels. From the article:

The Obama administration's promised economic stimulus package offers another opportunity to align policy goals with research priorities. Truly inventive transportation research has never received more than crumbs. We need more R&D on information networks and intelligent highways that direct drivers to the fastest routes, better-planned communities that reduce the need to drive in the first place, and more flexible and appealing mass transit systems. But none of the resulting innovation will make it to the real world without additional policy steps, like limiting federal funding to transportation projects that use the latest proven technologies.

To repeat the point: better-planned communities that reduce the need to drive in the first place.