Suchergebnisse

Testimony issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Over a year has passed since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, realigned national priorities. Although most of the early attention following the attacks focused on airport security, emphasis on the other modes of transportation has since grown. Addressing transit safety and security concerns is complicated by the nature and scope of transit in the United States. About 6,000 agencies provide transit services, and each workday, 14 million Americans ride on some form of transit. Transit agencies face significant challenges in making their systems secure. Certain characteristics make them both vulnerable and difficult to secure. The high ridership of some transit agencies makes them attractive targets for terrorists but also makes certain security measures, like metal detectors, impractical. Another challenge is funding identified security enhancements. Despite the formidable challenges in securing transit systems, transit agencies have taken a number of steps to improve the security of their systems. Transit agencies visited by GAO were implementing strategies to improve both safety and security prior to September 11; however, the events of September 11 elevated the importance of security-related activity. Many agencies assessed vulnerabilities, provided additional training on emergency preparedness, revised emergency plans, and conducted multiple emergency drills. The federal government's role in transit security is evolving. Although the Federal Transit Administration has limited authority to oversee and regulate transit security, it launched a multipart security initiative and increased funding for its safety and security activities since September 11. In addition, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) within the Department of Transportation and gave it responsibility for transit security; however, TSA has yet to assume full responsibility for the security of any transportation mode other than aviation."

En 1979, Jean-François Lyotard a articulé la condition postmoderne, annonçant la fin de la modernité. Mais la modernité nous tient encore et se réinvente dans des nouvelles périodisations. Il nous incombe de reprendre la réflexion sur ce paradigme à la fois historique, culturel et social, et ceci, à partir de notre condition de " puînés " de la modernité. Tel est le programme de réflexion de cet ouvrage collectif qui privilégie une approche interdisciplinaire et internationale

Transit network analysis is an emerging field in transportation planning. This practicum addresses the issue of declining transit ridership in many North American regions and the trend towards rethinking transit networks to improve ridership and transit modal share. While there is existing research reporting on large cities such as Houston and Seattle, the focus of this practicum is on transit agencies in mid-sized regions having a population serving area between 100,000 and 1,000,000 residents, with two case studies in Columbus and Kansas City. Redesigning a transit network requires transit planners to carefully consider current land use patterns, ridership/coverage ratio, and most importantly the political environment. The process typically will take years to accomplish. Columbus took four years to successfully roll out their redesigned network to positive results, while Kansas City is in its first full year of planning for a network redesign strategy and are encountering numerous obstacles unique to the region. In addition to examining how to redesign transit networks for better efficiency, this practicum identifies other innovative strategies transit planners are considering in improving ridership and modal share, such as microtransit, universal transit passes, and low-income transit passes. While most of the research focuses on transit agencies in Columbus and Kansas City, several elements can be applied to other transit agencies that are considering a redesign of their transit network. A questionnaire was developed that was sent to all North American transit agencies in mid-sized regions, and five planners were interviewed in Columbus and Kansas City to learn more about the process of transit network restructuring. Findings and recommendations include determining the optimal balance between providing ridership and coverage service in the transit network, realizing that transit network restructuring is a long-term process, and remembering there are other tools that can be used to attract riders such as ...

A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "To make buses a more reliable and effective high-speed transit alternative, a new concept-- Bus Rapid Transit--proposes (1) running buses on highways exclusively for them or on HOV lanes or (2) improving service on busier routes on city streets. Federal support for Bus Rapid Transit projects may come from several different sources, including the Federal Transit Administration's New Starts, Bus Capital, and Urbanized Area Formula Grants programs, but its use is constrained. Two Bus Rapid Transit projects have received about $831 million in funding commitments from the current New Starts Program. Few additional Bus Rapid Transit projects will likely receive funding commitments under the current New Starts Program, which expires in 2003, because few Bus Rapid Transit projects are ready to compete for funding; many projects are eligible to compete for the $462 million that is projected to remain available for fiscal year 2003; and some types of Bus Rapid Transit projects are ineligible for New Starts funding because projects are required to operate on separate right-of-ways for the exclusive use of mass transit and high-occupancy vehicles. The Bus Rapid Transit systems generally had lower capital costs per mile than did the Light Rail systems in the cities GAO reviewed, although neither system had a clear advantage in operating costs. Precise operating cost comparisons for Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail systems within and between cities are difficult because of differences among transit agencies, transit systems, and how they account for costs. The performance characteristics also varied widely, with the largest Bus Rapid Transit system ridership about equal to the largest Light Rail ridership. Each program offers various advantages and disadvantages. Bus Rapid Transit provides a more flexible approach than light rail because buses can be routed to eliminate transfers; buses can operate on busways, HOV lanes, and city arterial streets; and the Bus Rapid Transit concept can be implemented in stages. However, transit officials repeatedly said that buses have a poor public image."

Testimony issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Buses form the backbone of the nation's mass transit systems. About 58 percent of all mass transit users take the bus, and even in many cities with extensive rail systems, more people ride the bus than take the train. In recent years, innovative Bus Rapid Transit systems have gained attention as an option for transit agencies to meet their mass transit needs. These systems are designed to provide major improvements in the speed, reliability, and quality of bus service through barrier-separated bus-ways, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, or reserved lanes or other enhancements on arterial streets. The characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit systems vary considerably, but may include (1) improved physical facilities or specialized structures such as dedicated rights-of-way; (2) operating differences such as fewer stops and higher speeds; (3) new equipment such as more advanced, quieter, and cleaner buses; and (4) new technologies such as more efficient traffic signalization and real-time information systems. This testimony, which updates a report GAO issued in September 2001, provides (1) information on federal support for Bus Rapid Transit systems and (2) an overview of factors affecting the selection of Bus Rapid Transit as a mass transit option."

A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reported on the: (1) status of the development and use of alternative fuel technologies in transit buses, particularly the use of compressed natural gas (CNG) as a fuel; (2) air quality benefits of such technologies; (3) costs incurred by transit operators to use CNG buses, as well as other alternative fuels, compared with the costs to use diesel buses; and (4) primary incentives and disincentives for using these technologies."

Globally, urban development near transit stations has long been understood to be critical to transit's success primarily because it can contribute to ridership and improve the efficiency of transit investments. In the United States in particular, fixed-guideway transit's land use-shaping capability has been an important justification and goal for transit investment. In fact, today's U.S. federal funding policies increasingly focus on achieving transit-oriented real estate development near new transit infrastructure. However, the widespread implementation of transit and land use coordination practices has been considered an uphill battle. The academic literature suggests the most effective practice may be for U.S. transit planners to locate transit stations where pre-existing conditions are advantageous for real estate development or transit investments can generate the political will to dramatically alter local conditions to make them amenable to real estate development. However, prior to this study, no research had investigated the influence of real estate development considerations on U.S. transit project planning, particularly whether transit planners purposefully located alignments and stations as described in the literature.Based on interviews with more than 60 transit planners and case studies of three transit projects, I found that transit planners have modified transit planning processes and project designs in numerous ways for multiple real estate development-related reasons on billions of dollars of transit investments. Integrated transit and land use planning is not necessarily the exception it was once considered. I found abundant examples across 18 U.S. regions of route realignments, station relocations, and station designs that were carried out in order to influence real estate development. Interviewees explained that some real estate development-related project elements escalated capital costs, increased operating costs, and reduced ridership forecasts relative to the alternative designs that were under consideration. The costs were thought to be worthwhile because of real estate development-related benefits that transit planners expected to accrue, such as more compact regional growth and increased ridership from station area real estate development. Yet, numerous interviewees also explained that their efforts had often resulted in less real estate development than they had anticipated.I found that transit planning professionals' theories regarding real estate development around transit helped explain why their expectations may not have been met. Through interpretive analysis of interviews with nearly 100 transit professionals--including transit planners, federal policymakers, and federal policy implementers--and a review of federal policy documents, I developed a taxonomy of transit professionals' theories-of-practice regarding station area real estate development. I found that many were oversimplified and decontextualized versions of academic theories. Such theories helped explain interviewee's commonly-held view that transit-oriented development was likely around many, if not all, newly constructed transit stations.Indeed, when transit planners rely on oversimplified and decontextualized theories about transit-oriented development, it can contribute to unrealistic development expectations that inspire real estate development-related elements of transit planning processes and project designs. Ultimately, the costs incurred to promote the anticipated development may not be justified by the transit-oriented development benefits that accrue. Ineffective theories and practices may contribute to an inefficient allocation of scarce transit funding resources and significant opportunity costs incurred directly by governments, transit agencies, private investors, and citizens.This qualitative investigation establishes the existence of these theories and practices and can serve as the foundation for future research that more thoroughly quantifies the actual costs and benefits of real estate development-inspired transit planning practices across a representative sample of transit projects. If the overall scale of transit planning inefficiencies are found to be significant and worth addressing, policymakers can rely on findings from this research to adapt public policies. Also, researchers can rely on the findings to launch studies that will help us better understand how transit planners' theories-of-practice emerge, disseminate, and persist. Further, scholars can engage with transit planners in reflective research to help them improve their efficacy, and ultimately, the efficiency of transit systems in the United States.