 |
  
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
The 5 R's of Traffic Reduction David Engwicht In this article (click to jump ahead) Just as a bread wrapper is a waste we produce in getting access to
bread, our car trips are a waste we produce in getting access to 'products'
- like coffee with a friend, our work, a hair-cut or the groceries.
Traffic reduction is a collection of clever management techniques that
reduces your car use while keeping (or in most cases increasing) the
products your car use currently delivers. For cities, managing traffic the same way they manage trash radically changes transport policy and planning. It is feasible for cities to set the same kind of reduction targets for traffic as they first set for trash — about a 50% reduction over 15 to 20 years. 1: Replace some trips with walking, cycling or transit
and enjoy: 2: Remove unnecessary trips by: 3: Reduce trip lengths by finding a closer destination. 4: Reuse saved space. Cars are space-hungry. They require up to 70 times more space to move a person than walking or cycling. Reducing car use saves valuable space. This 'movement' space can be reused, or recycled, into 'exchange' spaces; public meeting places; play spaces; new shops or even homes. By doing so, we create a more compact and convenient city in which everything is 'just around the corner' - helping reduce car use even further. 5: Reciprocate for mutual benefit. Traffic
is a collection of cars not just one car. Traffic is therefore a collective
or community problem (not a problem that can be tackled just through
individual action). The most promising traffic 'solutions' are collective
or community-based strategies. Examples of collective strategies are: Here are some things residents can do to reduce their car use. — Fridge organizer: Put a pad on your fridge and write down your non-urgent trips and shopping needs so you can combine them into a smaller number of trips. You can create a simple fridge organizer using a small spiral bound pad that is held on the fridge with a couple of strong fridge magnets. — Closest destination: Make a conscious effort to find and use the closest destination to home. — Local trades people and home deliveries: Use local trades people or find the trades person that lives closest. Get goods home delivered. — Informal Walking Bus: If you have school-age children, walk them to school and offer to walk other children. Alternatively, find someone who already walks and ask if they mind walking your kids. Put an advertisement on the school notice board. If you live too far away to let your kids walk, park your car and walk the last few blocks. This reduces traffic congestion around the school and makes it safer for the other kids walking. — Informal Car Share: If there are no Car Share Clubs in your neighborhood, start an informal one with one or more friends. If you really only need a car occasionally, you may be able to do without it altogether by saving up your car trips, then borrowing a friends car for a day and doing all your car trips together. Alternatively, if you already own a car, offer to share it with someone else as a means of justifying continued ownership. — Do the sums: How much a week is your car costing, taking into account all the costs (parking, washing, traffic fines, etc.)? How much a week is your second car costing you? How much per mile does this work out at? Would it be cheaper for you to mix and match (walk, bike, public transport, share a car, taxi and car hire?) — Enrich the public domain: By enriching the public domain you enable other people to reduce their car use by helping to create more interesting spaces in which to walk, cycle and drive slower. You also increase the chances for people to have some of their needs met without needing to make additional trips. (For ways to enrich the public domain see: Street Reclaiming) — Be informed: Read what your city could be doing. Lobby for your
city to adopt a resource management approach to traffic planning. Refer
your city officials to this site. [top^] Adopting a 'resource management' approach to traffic Most cities now take a 'resource management approach' to waste, water and electricity. But it wasn't always this way. There was a time when cities accepted that all the waste in the waste stream had to be there and that the city had to simply build bigger and bigger landfill sites. Or that water demand and electricity demand were a given and that the increasing demand had to be met by building bigger and bigger dams or generating stations. But in each of these cases it is now conventional wisdom that there are existing inefficiencies in the system and that it is often cheaper and less damaging to the environment to invest in reducing existing inefficiencies than to invest in new infrastructure. It is now time for this approach to be applied to traffic. This will require a conceptual leap — acceptance that there are existing inefficiencies in the transport system. These inefficiencies are both at the individual and system level. On a daily basis people make inefficient choices (making two trips rather than one, not using the closest destination, driving alone, etc.) Systemic inefficiencies are ones that have grown up over time. For example, parents drive their kids to school because there is too much traffic on the roads which creates more traffic which forces other parents to drive. This recognition that the current transport system is not an expression of optimum efficiency firstly requires adoption of a very different policy direction. New policy direction If a city, region, state or nation wants to take a resource management approach to traffic, they may adopt a policy statement that says something like: Recognizing that there are gross inefficiencies in the traffic stream and that these inefficiencies result from individual choices and systemic inefficiencies: 1. Our city will not plan road and parking infrastructure on the basis of projected demand. Because current demand contains high levels of inefficient use of the resource, to plan the future on the basis of current use patterns is to reward and encourage even higher levels of inefficient choice by individuals and to entrench and expand the levels of systemic inefficiency. 2. We will use the principle of least cost accounting and 'buy back' existing levels of inefficiency where this is cheaper (taking into account all costs) than building new infrastructure. 3. We will give priority to traffic reduction programs that give maximum returns for minimum investment. Further, we recognize that just as the role of the electricity system is not primarily to deliver electricity but rather to deliver 'products' such as lighting and heating, the core goal of a transport system is not to move people and goods but rather to facilitate social cultural and economic exchanges as efficiently as possible. Our city will therefore: 1. Assist residents in reducing their car use while at the same time increasing the number of exchanges they currently gain access to through their car use. 2. Increase the number of 'spontaneous exchanges' (social, cultural and economic) that residents have access to while making trips for planned exchanges - recognizing that if the number of potential spontaneous exchanges per trip are increased, the efficiency of the entire transport system (maximizing exchanges and minimizing costs) is increased. 3. View an increase in trips or overall car use (miles per person) as a potential indicator of an overall reduction in the efficiency of the transport system and a potential indicator of a loss of life-style rather than an improvement. The practical implications In practical terms this policy direction means at least the following: 1. Downgrade the importance of computer modeling in making decisions about road capacity. Currently most modeling considers three scenarios: trend, no change and some shift to alternate modes. However, these three scenarios all overlook the importance of existing levels of inefficiency in the transport system. The 'trend scenario' assumes that people will not only be permitted to keep their current inefficient choices but will also be encouraged to expand them further (through an initial oversupply of the resource) and that existing systemic inefficiencies will be supported and expanded. The 'no change' scenario generally ignores how congestion actually helps reduce overall inefficiency in the system by forcing people to make more efficient choices. The computer modeling therefore overestimates the potential problems caused by not increasing the road capacity. And the 'some modal shift scenario' simply moves some trips from car to other modes without considering the possibility of some trips disappearing altogether or becoming much shorter. Given that most people can instantly reduce their car use by 20%-50% and that even greater reductions are possible if systemic inefficiencies are tackled, the actual reduction target is a political decision, not something that can be decided by a computer. (The success of a traffic reduction program is dependent entirely on the creativity of those inventing and implementing the programs. Theoretically, a 100% reduction in private car use is possible.) Therefore the only role left for the computer model is to test scenarios such as: 'If we achieved a reduction target of 30% over the next 5 years how much extra road space would we need or how much road space could we remove?' The actual reduction target is not something that the computer model is capable of predicting. 2. Apply 'least cost accounting' to all infrastructure projects (including walk, cycle and public transit projects). Once the project has been costed the question must always be asked, 'How else could this money be spent in order to achieve the overall goal of the transport system — that is assist in maximizing exchanges while minimizing costs'. It may be cheaper to pay people to ride a bike than increase road and carparking capacity. 3. Increase spontaneous exchanges. When designing any transport infrastructure (walking, cycling, public transit or private car use) the question must always be asked at the conceptual stages of the project: 'In what ways can this project be modified in order to increase the potential number of spontaneous exchanges available to those using the system?' Putting a community notice board at bus stops increases opportunity for spontaneous exchanges. Seating, drinking fountains and sculptures along a bike track increase opportunities for people to pause and engage in conversation. Increasing these spontaneous exchanges reduces the need for planned trips over time. (For example, if the elderly can sit in the street and share their wisdom with others, there is less need for them to make special trips to a senior citizens center.) 4. Establish programs that help people organize their car use more efficiently. A basic principle of resource management is that you invest in removing the inefficiencies that are easiest to remove. Current research and experience suggest three areas that are easily targeted; reducing school based traffic, getting people to combine non-urgent trips into a single trip and getting people to replace some car journeys with walking and cycling for fitness purposes. It is possible to achieve about a 20%-34% reduction through these three strategies. Longer term, there is great potential in Travel Cost Reduction Brokers — consultants who help people, businesses and government departments reduce their transport costs for a percentage of what is saved. The city could work with these brokers in developing 'mobility packages' that contain options like Walking Buses, Car Share Clubs, etc. 5. Map how systemic inefficiencies have arisen and 'go up-stream' to
find the most efficient and eloquent intervention. An example of a systemic
inefficiency is school-based traffic. If asked why parents are driving
their children, the response is that the streets are too dangerous.
They are too dangerous because so many parents are driving their children.
The Walking School Bus is an example of 'going up-stream' to break this
vicious cycle. [top^] |
|
 |
|
|
