One of the MOST IMPORTANT THINGS your city could do to become more healthy, sustainable, livable, affordable, equitable, resilient, etc — stop pretending to “balance” transportation modes, & commit to PRIORITIZING walking/rolling, biking, public transit. HT @dublincyclingcampaign for graphic
@BrentToderian @dublincyclingcampaign In NSW we have (theoretically!) this same hierarchy. But I question why they both place cyclists above public transport. I think it's reflecting something about vulnerability, but it doesn't really make sense to me as an overall 'more desirable', from an external perspective, in all situations. On heavy demand routes and in dense areas, public transport is more space efficient than cycling, both in motion and in parking space required.
@BrentToderian @dublincyclingcampaign On the other hand cycling uses less energy and creates less pollution, perhaps that is part of the considerations.
This isn't something I'm super set on, just been mulling over it lately.
Nor does it really matter in practice as there is plenty of space to be taken from cars, and when our city does take positive action, it usually improves things for both groups at once.
@ajsadauskas @BrentToderian @dublincyclingcampaign I think what you're describing is the convenience of access by different modes for the individual. I get that, it's why I cycle a lot myself. But I understand the NSW hierarchy, at least, to be about road/travel corridor space allocation where space is at a premium, which is slightly different.
@jroper @BrentToderian @dublincyclingcampaign I'm happy to stand corrected, but as I understand it, in NSW road space allocation falls under a policy called Movement and Place.
At a very high level, one of the main aims of the Berejiklian/Perrottet government's transport and planning policies was to create: "15-minute local neighbourhoods that allow communities to be strong, vibrant and active by prioritising walking, bike riding and place making to local destinations and transport networks."
(That last bit's a direct quote from Rob Stokes.)
The M&P Framework, as I understand it, aims to apply that high-level 15-minute cities concept to allocating street space.
I'm oversimplifying a bit, but how the framework does it is to first evaluate the level of through traffic on a street (movement) and the degree to which the street's a destination where people spent time (a place).
(1/2)
@jroper @BrentToderian @dublincyclingcampaign From there, the prioritisation is different depending on whether it's a local street (low through traffic movement, low place value); a civic space (low movement, high place value); a main street (high movement, high place value); or a main road (high movement, low place value).
But most of the time, especially where there's low traffic movement or high place value, M&P says to prioritise allocating space the modes that are most compatible with place and the broader 15-minute cities policy.
That means walking and cycling.
On main roads, it's a little different, but space should still be allocated to walking and cycling.
But getting back to my main point, most of the time the M&P framework prioritises walking and cycling in road space allocation, because it's in line with the NSW government's broader planning/placemaking/15-minute neighbourhoods/six cities policies.
@jroper @BrentToderian @dublincyclingcampaign I probably should go back a step.
Transport planning and road space allocation shouldn't be looked at in a vacuum from land-use planning and zoning.
Walking and cycling go hand-in-hand with mixed-use neighbourhoods and mixed-use zoning.
In theory at least, making sure most trips are shorter and more local through mixed-use zoning uses less road space than long (car or public transport) trips across large single-use zones.
More short local trips in mixed-use neighbourhoods means fewer long heavy demand routes where public transport makes sense.
So in most cases, if you're looking to maximise scarce road space, the priority should be on supporting, prioritising, and encouraging as many of these shorter local walking and cycling trips as you can.
I guess time and space is not the only metrics here. Resources are too. While biking, you lean mostly on your private resources (roads are public, but vehicle and driver is not). Thus bikes are putting much less burden on society.
I wonder if small private electric vehicles would be in the same level as bicycles?
@ajsadauskas @BrentToderian @dublincyclingcampaign @RM_Transit
Also I strongly disagree with ever characterising a public transport network by distance/time to get to a stop. Only door-to-door travel time is what matters.
(Sorry, I'm feeling a bit argumentative today, but I do appreciate the discussion.)
@jroper @BrentToderian @dublincyclingcampaign @RM_Transit I completely agree that door-to-door travel time is the metric that matters.
But.
To be of any real value, it needs to be accessible within a comfortable walk from your house, and it needs to get you within a comfortable walking distance of your destination. That's the point I'm getting at there.
@jroper @BrentToderian @dublincyclingcampaign As I understand it, it ties back to the idea of the 15-minute walkable neighbourhood.
Most things you need in daily life (work, school, food, medical care, civic services, open public space) should ideally be available within a 15-minute walk (or bike ride) of your home.
You shouldn't need to catch a bus or a train to buy a loaf of bread or a bottle of milk.
That isn't always practical, so the next best thing is to make sure everyone's within 15-minutes of the public transport network, and those other destinations are within a comfortable walk of a train, tram, or bus stop.
i like @RM_Transit 's description of higher order public transport as being a "range extender" for your walks.
But I totally agree that great planning takes care of both.