Chapter in "Transit Lessons from four peer regions"
Alan Hoback 2013/01
This document reports the results from Phase 1. To select other cities that have faced and overcome challenges similar to Detroit, the team examined seventeen regions, comparing specific regional characteristics and discussing them with transit advisors, and chose four regions to study in depth: Atlanta, Cleveland, Denver and St. Louis. The team has visited and reviewed extensive documentation from all of these cities. From this effort, individuals or subgroups of the team have identified “lessons learned” in each of seven areas, and have written a chapter for this report focused on one such area as it relates to the development and operation of effective regional transit systems.The tone and structure of this report emphasizes stories and examples, rather than a more formal research paper format. This was done in order to convey these insights to a broader array of transit stakeholders in the region. Each focal area received input and review by all team members and by a panel of advisors from the Michigan Department of Transportation, SMART, Transportation Riders United, M1 Rail and the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments. However, each resulting chapter provided in this report reflects the views and judgments of the author(s) listed above.
1. Abrams, 2012. Personal interview by research team. 22 Oct. 2012.
2. ACS, 2011. 2011 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau.
3. DRCOG, 2011. 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation Plan. Denver Regional Council of Governments, Feb. 16, 2011.
4. EPA, 2012. http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/, Accessed 11/2012.
5. Federal Register, 1994. Executive Order 12898, Feb. 11, 1994.
6. Hoback, A., 2008. Sensitivity Analysis of Light Rail Transit Unit Capital Costs, Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 87th Annual Meeting, National Academy of Sciences, Paper 08-0024, 2008.
7. Hoback, A., 2009. Transit As Part of the Equation, Revisited , Transportation Research Record—Journal of the Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, No. 2110, Transit 2009 Vol. 1, 2009, pp. 55-59.
8. Hoback, A., et. al., 2012, Health Effects of Walking to Transit, Proceedings of the 53rd Transportation Research Forum, Tampa, FL, March 14-17, 2012.
9. Howerter, T., 2012. Personal interview by research team. Nov. 2012.
10. Litman, T., Brenman, M., 2012. A New Social Equity Agenda for Sustainable Transportation, Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, March 8, 2012.
11. Litman, T., 2011. Evaluating Accessibility for Transportation Planning, Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, April 15, 2011.
12. LSC, 2001. Montana Rural Passenger Needs Study, Montana Department of Transportation (www.mdt.state.mt.us).
13. Surgue, T., 2005. The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit, Princeton Studies in American Politics.
14. RTD, 2010. FasTracks Quality of Life Detailed Report, Regional Transportation District.
15. RTD, 2012. Regional Transportation District. http://www.rtd-denver.com/LightRail_Map.shtml Accessed Nov. 2012.
16. Salci, Larry. Personal interview. 8 Oct. 2012.
17. Sanchez, 1998. The Connection between Public Transit and Employment, Association of Collegiate School of Planning, Annual Conference, Pasadena, CA, Nov. 4-7, 1998.
18. The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, 2011. Urban Transportation, http://ech.case.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=UT1, Accessed Aug. 16, 2012.
19. UMTA, 1988. Circular 4702.1. Urban Mass Transit Agency.
20. Wingfield., K., 2012. The L-O-S-T in SPLOST refers to public trust. Blogs.agc.com/kyle-wingfield August 1, 2012.
21. Zhang, Y., Gawade, M., 2012. Influence of Network Structure and Urban Form on Multimodal, Proceedings of the 53rd Transportation Research Forum, Tampa, FL, March 14-17, 2012.