prioritizing public transit for speed, reliability, and rider satisfaction

7/28/2019 Prioritizing Public Transit for Speed, Reliability, and Rider Satisfaction

1/23

URBAN PAPER SERIES 2013

PRIORITIZING PUBLIC TRANSIT FOR SPEED,

RELIABILITY, AND RIDER SATISFACTION

TONY MAZZELLA


2/23

2013 Te German Marshall Fund o the United States. All rights reserved.

No part o this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any orm or by any means without permission in writing

rom the German Marshall Fund o the United States (GMF). Please direct inquiries to:

Te German Marshall Fund o the United States

1744 R Street, NW

Washington, DC 20009

1 202 683 2650

F 1 202 265 1662

E [email protected]

Tis publication can be downloaded or ree at www.gmus.org/publications.

GMF Paper Series

Te GMF Paper Series presents research on a variety o transatlantic topics by sta, ellows, and partners o the German

Marshall Fund o the United States. Te views expressed here are those o the author and do not necessarily represent the

views o GMF. Comments rom readers are welcome; reply to the mailing address above or by e-mail to [email protected].

About GMF

Te German Marshall Fund o the United States (GMF) strengthens transatlantic cooperation on regional, national, andglobal challenges and opportunities in the spirit o the Marshall Plan. GMF does this by supporting individuals and institu-

tions working in the transatlantic sphere, by convening leaders and members o the policy and business communities,

by contributing research and analysis on transatlantic topics, and by providing exchange opportunities to oster renewed

commitment to the transatlantic relationship. In addition, GMF supports a number o initiatives to strengthen democra-

cies. Founded in 1972 as a non-partisan, non-prot organization through a gi rom Germany as a permanent memorial to

Marshall Plan assistance, GMF maintains a strong presence on both sides o the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in

Washington, DC, GMF has ofces in Berlin, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, Bucharest, Warsaw, and unis. GMF also has

smaller representations in Bratislava, urin, and Stockholm.

On the cover: A tram packed with commuters at peak time in Zurich.
http://www.gmfus.org/publicationshttp://www.gmfus.org/http://www.gmfus.org/http://www.gmfus.org/publications


3/23

Prioritizing Public Transit for Speed,Reliability, and Rider Satisfaction

Urban Policy Paper Series

April 2013

T M

T M v h S Dm T. H m h h U R P w .

Exv Smm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mh Zh: A Wh L O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

K P, Th, Oh, Oh F h Mh

Zh T Sm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Imm P S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9


4/23

Prioritizing Public Transit for Speed, Reliability, and Rider Satisfaction 1

Th h h h-

mvm h v

v v h

Mh, Gm, Zh, Sw,

h hv v mv -

m S, Wh. S h

h h hv w-

m h v , h

m w h w

, h v, m

, h m ,

h k w hh . I , S w mk

vm m

h h wk,

v v m

h h .

Mh Zh x

h h wh h h m

hh v m, h

m h, h h

m h

m m h v m,

h v m h S. A h m

m, wh S h mh m Mh

Zh m h

, h h mm

x .

I h h vw I

h wh

, ,

, vm v

v. I , I h

m xv.

B 96, h S M S Rw 4 6 , h w m k. Street Railways in Seattle, HLk.

A x h h h w h h vw h C S h Gm Mh F h U S.

Executive Summary

Im m h S , x , v h

, h, :

Policy Actions

Nw, ,

S m

m

O -w k m

m v

I k

h

L q k mj

k

Technical Actions

Av m

h m v

v m k

Exv xv

mv

R-m m, - m,

v v

Public Education Action

S m

h k m, ,

vm

Other Actions that Support Transit

Hh v q m, -

/v- mh

A v, ,

hh h m


5/23

The German Marshall Fund of the United States2

D wk m

Hh-

A h mm hh-q

-

h , vm, v-

, ,

m h: , m h mv m

v . B Gm Mh

F Fw, I w h I w E

U.S. mm mm

m j h

mm h k -

mk h v .


6/23


Without high capac

and better perform

transit services,

Seattles future

economic growth a

social livability will

severely compromi

Background

1

Th C S h mk v m v hh-q

m ,

h m 5. m wk

h- m.

B 5 wh h S T P

m wh h T M P,

S h 6

wh h hh x

w v h x , -

h ww mm h-

h mm j (v kw

C C).T, C C h , j 5,

, x w 6, j

8, . E

k h, mv h

m wh h x -

w h, , v-

m h.4 Wh hh-

m v, S

m wh v w

v mm.

Th C C m h ST M P (TMP) A . O h

6 h TMP,

w w (.. )

(BRT). Th m

w wh

m

mv , , m

v.

T m, h

h, h h-

, w h

mvm h :

C S, Dm T, T MP, How Transit Benefits Seattle (), ..

4 I, ..

A m vh

h

Exv m-xv

mv

Hh v q h

h

E wk, k,

m

R-m m vh v mh

P

h vh

Lv

h mv

m

Hh v m

T k m v

Hh-q

M , h TMP m-

h v

h v

w v m.

A h j m h T M P

m w- j

xm h h w h C C, I w q

h v

j mm. I w m h

S w mk m v-

m m h h

wk v h h ,


7/23


Seattle will need to

employ an aggressive

suite of transit priority

measures along with

the policy and political

backing necessary

to help win publicacceptance.

its decision to funda county-wide bus

system in 1972, and

voter approval to

join a four-county

consortium to build

a regional light rail

system in 1996.

However, for Seattle

to develop a truly

world-class transit

system it must

combine new initia-tives and strategies

with greater inten-

sity in pursuing

ongoing transporta-

tion improvements.

Recent events

have affirmed

this belief. In the

2013-15 city budget

passed shortly after

I returned from

my travel fellow-

ship, the Seattle City Council included $9 million

for capital investments in the bus network and

extensive planning and design work for all four

high capacity transit corridors identified in the

TMP. Since it is very costly to build streetcar and

BRT lines and recent federal reforms to its transit

funding programs are more supportive of in-city

investments, Seattle will be competing in the future

for federal funds to help plan and build these

streetcar and BRT lines.

To achieve these investments and to make theseinvestments result in transit service that is fast and

reliable, Seattle will need to employ an aggressive

suite of transit priority measures along with the

policy and political backing necessary to help win

public acceptance.

Therefore, it was a highly opportune time to inves-tigate how two European cities similar to Seattle

in their commitment to public transit Munich,

Germany, and Zurich, Switzerland have devel-

oped public transit systems that have become the

envy of much of the world. The excellence of these

transit systems is regularly mentioned in the profes-

sional literature, and few cities have done more

to connect public transit with sustainable urban

growth.5

My research objectives were to learn how Munich

and Zurich implemented comprehensive transitpriority on the policy, community, and technical

5 For example, in 2010, a study carried out by the Universityof Stuttgart concluded that Munich had the best public transitsystem of the 23 European cities ranked for travel times, oppor-tunities to make connections, customer information, and ticketprices.

Seattle Center City neighborhood


8/23


v wh h k

S h j S m-

v .

The momentum for greater transit investment

has continued to build in recent years, and what

Seattle has already accomplished in making

transit more productive, efcient, and effective

has been impressive. In 2006, Seattle voters ap-

proved a transportation levy that included several

million dollars for roadway projects to improve

bus performance. In 2007, Seattle opened its

rst modern streetcar line in the fast-growing

Center City neighborhood of South Lake Union,

and in 2011, the city began construction of a

second streetcar line to connect several Center

City neighborhoods. The total construction cost

for these streetcar lines is almost $200 million.


9/23


The integration of all

odes and all providers

helps make the rider

experience a seamless

transition from ticket

purchase, to mode of

choice, to provider, totransfer, and to final

destination.

M h mh hh. F, I xv h

Eh-

h wh h . F, m h

Mh

Zh hv h xv h

w . S,

I m wh m h v

m m h , k m

mh h Eh, xm

v, h v k

v .6 Th, I h

Mh Zh m m x -h

h k h.

Th w h h-

h h h mk hm x

m h. I h

h m h .

I m

Mh Zh h S.

Munich

Mh .4 m h

h Bv h Gm.

I -w ( h 85, w

) mm.

Hv m W W II, h w

h h wh

h x h A m.

Wh Mh h j xv

( m) m h 9h (

O , 846, h h-w m

m v7), xv w

x, vm, wh

6 Aw Nh (V, A, (h.m) JWk (P, O, USA h://www.hm.), , D W, w wh AC (S F, C, USA), v h m h Mh Zh.7 Right in the heart, h Mh Vkh-h (MVG), . 8.

h -w . I h 97, h h

k h

m h w -

, vm h, k.

S, w m h w h v

v wh m

h v m m .

Mh v wh h

h w, U-Bh, 97

mm/- , S-Bh, 97

m h mm Om Gm. Th w

m v h wh -v m: , w, ,

.8 B, m, h w

h m , Mh Vkh-

h (MVG); h S-Bh

h Gm w. Bh

h Mh T

T A, MVV, whh -

h

v m ,

h k , v

mm mk , q

m v 5 v

wh h (Ein ticket fur alles

k vh). Th wk,

m, k.9 Th

m v h mk h x-

m m k h,

m h, v, ,

.

R h m, h m h

m . MVG, m,

h C Mh P Wk, wk h

v m m v. A h hh q, v m, -m

8 A h Mh (MVG) ,Right at the heart, , h m m, , 75 km, 6 w 9 km 457 km .9Munich, International, Sustainable, United in Solidarity, C Mh , , . 6.

Munich and Zurich:

A Wealth of Learning Opportunities2
https://email.seattle.gov/owa/redir.aspx?C=0UminWXFU069Yq_lBUNb7ozgYQ9J9s9IyuzXXVrs0VWMGLnvJLt9rrQ6JH30NtCJEsBZgbruq8g.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fandynash.comhttps://email.seattle.gov/owa/redir.aspx?C=0UminWXFU069Yq_lBUNb7ozgYQ9J9s9IyuzXXVrs0VWMGLnvJLt9rrQ6JH30NtCJEsBZgbruq8g.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fandynash.com


10/23


m vh, x-

v wk k , m k k

wk h h mk

h h - v. Mh

m-h m

h w m v v h

.

Zurich

Zh h Sw h

mm m h .

Bw 99 , h 4,w h , h. H

Sw 7.5 m h v

h Zh . I 9,

j hh q .

Ph h W W II, -w

vm w vh m Mh

wh w , w

, k. Sm

Mh hh m

, m h h

h .

I 97, wh , Zh v w wh

Zurich Sustainability in Urban Planning, P N, V D, O Um, Zh, 8.A, Ivw wh M. N, O , .

M Q Lv Sv ( ) M LLC.

Munich: percent all trips:1

2005 2011

Wkg 4.9 5.5

Bkg . 4.7

T 6.5 8.8

Pv A 7.6 .

Sustainable Mobility for Munich: Sustainability Report 2010of MVG, . . Ivw wh F P, Bk & RF M M, MVG, Sm 6, .I , 5 M w k , m .

m , 96 w h m m,

w w m. Bh

w w w -

v x h-

m h m m (977), ,

v (98), v -

wk (S-Bh). Bh wh

mj.

O h m h v

h vm

w h m m Zh h

w v m v m h v- , whh

w vm

. I , h

Zh hv wh h m m,

h wh v

hv h m h m

.

Smwh j-

m, S-Bh

h x -

, h m w mh v wh h

h mm h m wk

h .

A Mh, Zh h hh q

m m hv vh

h mh h , m

m m, m , k,

mk. I h C Zh,4 h

h Zh T A (Zh

P mm A Nh. Who Needs Cars, Jh D, R D, . . A,vw wh R O, m Ch, T P, C Zh, O 4, .

4 B m, m m h U S.

The people of Zuric

have a deep affinity

their tram system.


11/23


Vkh) ZVV.5

Th w , Vkh Zh (VBZ) wh

w h ZVV. A,

Mh, h m-h m

v h m

.6

5 Lk Mh MVV, h ZVV h - , h, km, v .

6 O w h w h m h. Mh j mh hh h v : m km , h, -

.

Zurich: percent all trips1

2005 2011

Wkg 4.5 6.

Bkg .5 4.

T . 4.

Pv A 4. 6.

Ten Years of Zurich Mobility Strategy Lessons Learnedand Outlook (), M Bk SNZ E &C, Zh, Sw Yv M-Bkw-k, M & P, Dm I T, Zh, Sw, , . .


12/23


The transportation

policies of both Zur

and Munich were f

honed through yea

public discussion a

vetting and represe

consensus among ranging interest gro

Policy Actions: Unambiguous policy direction

that has established public transit as integral

to and essential for managing growth in a

sustainable manner

I w m v-

m , v, h

jv, m ,

h vm q

mm. P h

mwk h -

v h

vm . Bh Mh Zh

hv m h v

v h v x -

j. Th w h

hh v

m w-

.

Mh vm ,

96 h 998 PERSPECTIVE

MUNICH m, hv h m

m h

. PERSPECTIVE MUNICH w 5 , h m , h T-

Dvm P. Bh m

m w

mm wh m hh x

-m -

, v , mm

h w m h ,

mvm w vm

m .7 Th w

m v -m mwk v-

m h .

7 Shaping the future of Munich, PERSPECTIVE MUNICH,Strategies, Principles, Projects (2005), . 58-6, C Mh,Dm U P B R.

I , h m w h w m, , .8 Wh h,

h h w v Mh

mmm mx-

vm, v k

, v hh h m v-

m v m ,

, wk, k.9

I m, Mh

h

q

h m m

Mh Gm - vm vm

wh mm. Sh h h

m m h

w .

Zh, , h h

h wh

w . Th h

97 vm v w

m mmm h

m wk hh 977 v

hmh v vh .

Th mh

w v . Th 988 Zh C

P T A, xm, q h

8 I, P 5, T - m hh q vm m .

9 Ivw wh G-Fh K, , C Mh Dm U P, Dv TP Gh G, Dv L P B R, O , .

Ivw wh G H, D S P I R, MVG, O , . S ,G. H, Sustainable Planning for and with Munichs PublicTransportation, Pw P , v h://www..m/m//v/9/Dm/S-P---wh-Mh-P-T-.. Aw Nh, Implementing Zurichs Transit Priority Sym,TRB A M, . 4.

Key Policy, Technical, Outreach,and Other Features of the Munich andZurich Transit Systems

3
http://www.apta.com/mc/sustainability/previous/2009/Documents/Sustainable-Planning-for-and-with-Munichs-Public-Transportation.pdfhttp://www.apta.com/mc/sustainability/previous/2009/Documents/Sustainable-Planning-for-and-with-Munichs-Public-Transportation.pdfhttp://www.apta.com/mc/sustainability/previous/2009/Documents/Sustainable-Planning-for-and-with-Munichs-Public-Transportation.pdfhttp://www.apta.com/mc/sustainability/previous/2009/Documents/Sustainable-Planning-for-and-with-Munichs-Public-Transportation.pdfhttp://www.apta.com/mc/sustainability/previous/2009/Documents/Sustainable-Planning-for-and-with-Munichs-Public-Transportation.pdfhttp://www.apta.com/mc/sustainability/previous/2009/Documents/Sustainable-Planning-for-and-with-Munichs-Public-Transportation.pdfhttp://www.apta.com/mc/sustainability/previous/2009/Documents/Sustainable-Planning-for-and-with-Munichs-Public-Transportation.pdfhttp://www.apta.com/mc/sustainability/previous/2009/Documents/Sustainable-Planning-for-and-with-Munichs-Public-Transportation.pdf


13/23


v v - wh h-

, j, /. G

m wh 4 m

wh 75 m, wh v

h v h h,

v mh. Th

h Zh C, v m .

I h Zh, m q v

7.5 m h wk

h m. Sv 4

h .

M , h vm Zh M S h

h Zh C C,

wh h mwk -

, h m m h

h h v h

m (, m, vm).

F m m m w

h vm m

wh h v .4

Thh h h , Zh

h vm , m 8

Zh v v vwhm (76 )

v h

h mm h hv CO

m v 5. Th m-

w q v

.

A Rider-First Policy

T mk mv wh

v q mmm v

h wh v, m, x v

R O, () H T P, C Zh,Strategies for a successful urban transport delivery system: ZurichsTransport Policy(), . .

I, . .

4 Bk M-Bkwk, .5.

h m . Th hvwh h v vw h m m

h v h wh w

m h v

hm w . I

h m - -.

A mj m h m q,

, m, , m, . h

m h m m .

Bh Mh Zh m

vh ,

h, k , mk wh

h v m . Th MhT C, MVG, j

h wh , Mh

Vkh Tv (MVV). Oh -

h MVV h m

(S-Bh) m v m wh

v v h m . I h

Zh C, h Zh , VBZ,

h 4 h

, Zh Vkhv (ZVV).

Th h m-

v h v -k- ( k ) h. I

, h w h k

m (, m, w, mm

, , Zh, ). A Mh G-F-

h K, D H T P

x:

Thk h Mh T T U

m Mh

. MVV wk. Th

m; k w w

v h wk,

h m m m wh

, hw m

h .5

5 G-Fh K, Regional Cooperation to solvemobility problems in the Munich Region, presentation, , .

To make public transit

truly competitive

with private auto use

equires a commitment

to provide the transit

ider with a convenient,

comfortable, and safeexperience to elevate

transit as a better

choice for most trips.


14/23


In 2008, transporta

accounted for abou

percent of househo

expenditures [in

Germany] compare

19 percent in the U

States.

Munich Verkehrs und Trarifverbund (MVV) ticket

machine

Oh - m :

hh v q xm, Zh

m v 7.5 m v

mh; Mh, m m v

m k h w

m h m w;

-m v m m

m h m,

v m ,

v m, -m

m ;

m k m

h k wk wh h m;

q m

h, w- vh

wh m mk h

m-m;

wk h , whh m v

v;

h h

, , -

m h h v

.6

A Thm W h MVG x, W

k h mh

m m k w k

mv h .7

Fiscal Policy

N h k

wh v h

wh h wh

m. Th v w

m 5 hh h

Gm h h U S. Mh hh

x m h .

Hh x, hh -

, h hh v

Gm

k , , m wk k.8 F xm,

, v

US$7, m h h v h

U S. Hwv, h

x h hh h-

h x . I 8,

4

hh x m 9

h U S.9

6 P N, V D Zh O Um,

Planning and Public Transportation in Zurich, NTNU C, Thm Bmm, .

7 Ivw wh Thm W, Pj M, I- B S P, MVG, O , .8 Rh Bh Uw K,Making TransportationSustainable: Insights from Germany, M PPm Bk I, A 9, . .

9 I, . 8.


15/23


Hh x v hm . O

v, Am 5 w

h v Gm 98.

Th w Gm U.S. x h

v m.

Th hh Gm v

h hhw . Th

Gm vm v

mh , , -

j, Gm

m m h

v.

A h v, v

v . Th

Sw h

h , , v.

F xm, , h v x-

v j w

w h m

, j h w m w

5. I , v

h P-Bh (F R) h m h

h 97 98 v

vm

( )

.

A mm h

hw v hh-q v wh

m

m hh h

, vh, . Bh MVV

ZVV m

I, . 5.

I, . . Fm Rw Th w , Zurich Tramway Devel-opments, Switzerland, h kw, ..

Ivw wh M B, P Sh ChP, P-Bh, O , .

m h (h MVG

VBZ) hh h h

x v h

m x

m. T v ,

v m m h

m m m (h,

, -v), MVV ZVV

h hm h .

MVG VBZ hmv x

. F xm, MVG v h m

v 75 x4 (m

h U.S. wh -

v m h 5

x). Tm m h

MVG wk hv h,

mv , h v m,

w m vh h .

Nw Mh m 6

h h

v h 97.5

4 MVG , Sustainable Mobility for Munich, , .4.5 MVG , Right at the heart, , . -.

Munich tram running in exclusive transit lane

To receive funding

assistance, individual

transit agencies must

demonstrate their

capacity to meet

performance metrics

(ridership, reliability,cost-effectiveness) and

MVV and ZVV hold them

to those standards.


16/23


Researchers have

claimed that Zurich

has zero waiting tim

for public transport

about 90 percent o

signalized intersec

Technical Actions: Transit priority measures that

take space and time from the private auto

I h Mh Zh m

(kw M-B) xv

( v vh )

x v wh mx

w

. Fh, m hh h

h v x m m

h h -

, h h vh

m . Ev wh m

h vh h , vh m

h m .

S h 98, Zh h hh h-

vv m

v x

m m h

. A vh q h

m

h h ( m

wh w m h

x vh ), mm m m h

m h m w

h vh v h x wh

. G m w

w mv hh h .

Rw j h

(hk-) h x wh

m .

Oh m h

Zh Mh h Q

Jm, whh w vh

h x m h w

h m. D m

j h m

m h wh -

wk. M (h mm

vm hh )

k -. Rh hv m h Zh h

w m 9

.6

I Mh, vh

hv m h-

. Tv m v 4

m

h h . I , m

Mh v

km/h v 8.

km/h. B , h

x mk mhm v .7 P

hv h w 7 6

.8

Creating a Constituency for Transit Priority:

Creative public outreach campaigns

S m

h .

Wh h Mh Zh hv h

q , h

wk h m h

mm vm.

Zh x mwh q h h

h h 97 j h

vm U-Bh m

h x h m m.

Hwv, h

w m mk m

h v v. F

xm, Zh m

m hw m

w mv , , v m.9

Th w w h6 P G. Fh, Public Transport Priority for Brussels: Lessons

from Zurich, Eindhoven, and Dublin, R, J 9, 5, ..7 Sustainable Mobility for Munich, S R Mh Vkhh mH, .7.

8 I, . 7.9 Nh, Implementing Zurichs Transit Priority Program, . 4.


17/23


wh h h w. Th w h

h - (..

k mv) mk .

Zh h hv v

m ( , xv )

h v hh v

v hh h v h-

. F xm, h-

mm m

h w h w

; h m

w m . I v h m h -

. G

m m v v h

vh hv .

I , Zh m

h k h

m hh

-h vv m

m h m hm .

I Mh, m-

h m m wm

k v w hh. Kw Meine

Neue Stadt(M Nw C), h hm-

, 7- k v

Mh wh

h m hw

-

. I k-h

-h, q k q,

m h . I , v

5, hh v h k.4

Mh k v -m vw

m. MVG

m v hh h k

h w. Kw

4 Ivw wh S N, MVG, Sm 6, .

M-R, h m h

vv m ,

h vm, , m. O

h , h h x h m

, m, w

-h w q q

m k. S 5, m 5, 4h 5h

hv k h m.4

Other Policy Actions in Support of Transit: Wide

range of complementary programs that support

public transit and reduce auto tripsParking Management

A w m E , v

h v , Zh Mh

vw h m -m

k m h q .

Th hv k

m

, , .

Mh h mv - k whv

w m m

mvm. T m k m hwh v wh k , h

h v v k

h M R R. U

4Munich, International Sustainable United in Solidarity, C Mh (), . 6.

It is not guaranteed

that public support

will be maintained

unless agencies make

smart decisions about

the delivery of transit

services.

Zurich transit promotion


18/23


Density of land use

the single best pred

of transit ridership.

h m h h h , h h

k. F xm, h h

h .5 ; h h w j-

mm w . O

v wk 6, 6, vh w

k h Pk R .4

A m mx h w

, v, mm

k. I 995, h C Mh BMW

j kw h I Iv

h h . A , Mh

hh hv k h hh

- v m

h v h h .4

Th hv mv v v

h (.. k) hv

w v k wk h

.

Th vwhm mj k

Zh v w (,

7,).44 I h k

m h x Mh, Zh H-h Pk Kmm, H Pk

Cmm 996, h -

k . Ev v k

m - h mv -

. O h , w vm

k, wh

hv w k mmm

m m wh k

mxmm.45

4 Mh Kk G Hm, E ParkingU-Turn: From Accommodation to Regulatio, I T Dvm P, S, , .5.

4 I, .5.

44 I, .68.

45 I, .69.

Non-Motorized Travel Modes

I Mh, hh

h -

, v () h,

xv wk (, km),

m k k (, ww)

k (5, Bk & R

h m ). Mh h

mv - k

k k

m.46

I O , h Zh C C m k

m-h

m k

h k. C,

k k x h m

h w

w. Th k h

x w vm h

h h . I

, 6, k w Zh,

h k

h w .47

Bh xv hh

k-h m, whh

w w mmh

v h m .

Land Use

D h

h. Bh Zh Mh

wh m S. Zh

h 4, h/km;

Mh 4,574/km. Cmv, S

,664/ km. M h h h E v v

hh.

46 Ivw wh F P, MVG, Sm 6, .

47 Ivw wh Dv D, P-V, O 9, .


19/23


Hwv, Mh Zh m h m

x wh mm

. Th w hv

w m- hh- v

. I Zh, h

m h Zh W. I

Mh,

mm m -

.

I , Mh Dm U P-

wk hh hh

- w- mm hh

h w k, h h m.48

I w v , h

w m h h

wh. Rh j x

wh wk. I

h , Zh W m m

v

mm , w v

h m v. Mh w m #

xm v v hk h hw w -

m m w m

qm.49

Traffic Calming and Placemaking

T h , ,

h m v ,

Mh Zh hv m v

48 Ivw wh Gh G, Mh Dm UDvm P, O , .

49 H vw.

m mh, w m, mm m h

w h w, v

.5 Th Tm m h

mm hh E k

m v. Th Mh

Zh, m hh h

hv m km (9 m) h

h hh m

vm mk,

h hh h .

Th hv h vm

wk,, .5

U wh h-

h mm m h m

h vm m. A

h m m, h h m

w v

. Th Zh

Sh xm

h j. Zh m

w hq m h

v; mv hh

h ; w wk; wk,

h, wk;

h .5

5 Aw Nh, Sw I Th, Traffic Calmingin Three European Cities: Recent Experience, , . .

5 I, . 5.

5 P v, O 5, .


20/23


Th m m wh w m Mh Zh hw

h h , mv

, h h -

h S.

Wh w w m m

wh x h, mm,

h

. B mm h

h m, hh I

h h h v-

m w k mv h

h q m- m .

Public Education

Undertake a creative, comprehensive, and ongoing

public education campaign to communicate the

critical importance of public transit in promoting

sustainable growth.

C h v

m

vm. Wh ,

v h

h v. A h w w,

S- , mj v

h, h

h x

.5

Th S m

mm, j wh

, h k ,

, v

m h h h

h m m mk m , , v m

5 S M, K C Exv Sk 8- G TxHk, Seattle Times (Mk Lm), Dm , .

Immediate and Practible Steps

4

wh h--w.54

T h h m v

m h w S. L

h h h m w w-

, - ,

-mk, v vw,

hh m. Ev w , h

h h -

, ,

h m-

hm h.

P h k .

Smh h Mh M w h w

w k wh

h whm Eh h v .

Policy

Work with partner transit agencies to develop a

suite of rider-focused features and tools that

enhance ease and use of public transit.

Wh h S T -ORCA w

v h S - P S

m, k

m m v.55

I , - m, -m m-

h, - m

hh h wk m k

.

C

h ZVV MVV hh k v h

h h , h

v , h

m h q.

Hwv, h -

54 I, h m h hwh h v h h h- mm- .

55 S T h P S v h, mm , x v. Th ORCA h: h://www..m/ERG-S/_.

City officials should

be tireless advocat

for increased and

permanently dedica

funds for transit an

transit investments
http://www.orcacard.com/ERG-Seattle/p3_001.dohttp://www.orcacard.com/ERG-Seattle/p3_001.dohttp://www.orcacard.com/ERG-Seattle/p3_001.dohttp://www.orcacard.com/ERG-Seattle/p3_001.do


21/23


22/23


T m m, hh, m

wh. Mh Zh j w-

m h h

h v. Th

m v wh x m,

, m, v w

m h.

Wh h, ,

, h w S

m m h:

, m ,

m v m wh.Hwv, m h w

whh Mh/Zh S m

h h. S h

m whh ,

m Nh Am . Hwv, h

h v w q h k h

h , :

Conclusion

5

P w h x

.

T mv

.

P m ,

, - m.

Sv kg

h .

Wh h h S T MP h v

hh , h h

m S h

h mv w h . Eh

, , .


23/23

Off i c e s

Washington Berlin Paris Brussels BelgradeAnkara Bucharest Warsaw Tunis

www.gmu.org
http://www.gmfus.org/http://www.gmfus.org/