Public officials could powerfully improve urban lives by emphasizing **access** (easily reachable destinations) instead of **speed** (fast roads + rail).
A 🧵 about this new-ish book (2019), which explains why -- and how.
The concept seems intuitive, but its implications are profound.
For instance, we shouldn't gripe about traffic congestion in a city like NYC without also acknowledging the proximity of destinations.
Slower speeds matter less if you’re only going a miles or two instead of 20 or 30.
That said, prioritizing access is more nuanced than focusing solely on neighborhood-based proximity (i.e., '15-minute cities').
Good explanation here.
On access and transit:
“Urban revitalization, enhanced economic productivity, & highway congestion relief may be desirable by-products of [transit] investment, but none are as fundamental as accessibility enhancement.”
The access framework also reveals damage done by highway expansions.
Beyond failing to shorten peak-hour commutes (bc of induced demand), they also encourage sprawled development that makes destinations more distant. bloomberg.com/news/features/…
A wonky but compelling read. The urban issues discussed are absolutely critical -- especially for MPOs, DOTs, zoning commissions, and transit authorities.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Economist Anthony Downs gets credit for the idea of induced demand, but its roots go back *much* further than his 1962 article.
In 1927, engineer Arthur S. Tuttle warned that new urban roads “would be filled immediately by traffic which is now repressed because of congestion.”
In the 1920s and 1930s city officials worried about wooing suburbanites to shop and work, so they shrunk their sidewalks and ripped up public space to accommodate more cars.
Why worry about infotainment systems? They’re harmless and fun, right?
Well, not necessarily. A study by the AAA Foundation found that rerouting a destination can distract a driver for up to 40 seconds—enough time to cover half a mile at 50 mph. newsroom.aaa.com/2017/10/new-ve…
Even if a driver uses voice commands, systems often require looking at a car's touchscreen (and not the road) to verify accuracy. That’s inherently risky.
A provocative question in this book by @STS_News: Why doesn't the USA regulate car safety like emissions?
"How would automakers transform their products if we mandated that they reduce the number of automotive fatalities in new cars by, say, 40% within 10 years?"
A thread 🧵:
For a century, automobile safety has largely focused on 1) driver education and 2) voluntary agreements by automakers to build safer cars.
Both those approaches are flawed.
Here's future Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan critiquing safety education in 1959:
It "shifts public attention from factors like auto design, which we can reasonably hope to control, to factors such as the temperament and behavior of 80M drivers, who [will ignore] a bunch of slogans."
Just finished @shigashide's book about how to improve bus service—it’s good!
Loads of useful info about operations as well as advocacy. And a surprisingly easy read.
Short 🧵:
2/ Here's an excellent rebuttal to those (like Gov Cuomo) who claim fancy stuff like USB ports and wifi will attract loads of new riders:
3/ @humantransit is a clear influence, so I wasn't surprised to find this stinging critique of microtransit:
“When existing bus routes are unreliable and slow, focusing attention on microtransit is like trying to perfect dessert at a restaurant that routinely burns the entrees.”