Not only are these modes of transportation cost effective but also reduces carbon pollution to a great extent thereby creating a positive impact on the environment. Many office goers are advised to take public transport which will not only save fuel, but also reduce stress which often occurs due to long driving hours.

Even car pooling has been recognized as an alternative transportation method. In this case, 4 or 5 colleagues working in the same company or nearby companies can use each ones car per week in rotation wise. This way, one person will have to use his/her car only for one week in a month while the remaining 3 weeks, they will share with their other colleague’s vehicle thereby saving a lot of money and the environment as a whole.

Resources

Resources

Read More:
Combined Mobility Thinking From Uitp

Resources

A similar battle is occurring outside of Seattle, only this time, a new trail will likely be the winner. A three way land purchase and swap between King County, the Port of Seattle and BNSF Railway will transfer ownership of a 42 mile rail corridor to King County, which will then tear out the tracks and place a paved trail in their place. Ironically, in this case, rail advocates seem to have a far more convincing case for maintaining the rail corridor than in Eureka. Seattle’s Eastside is crippled with congestion, including the suburb-to-suburb kind that is usually immune to fixed rail solutions. The coalition to save the tracks, which include local businesses, claims that private commuter rail service could be running in 60 days with an investment of only $30 million. Whether these claims are realistic and whether enough car-addicted Eastsiders would avail themselves of the service to ease congestion is unclear. For the time being, the corridor seems destined to become another link in Seattle’s growing trail network.

As a regular cyclist, I can attest to the benefits of a freshly paved trail insulated from car traffic. In Portland, we have the Springwater Corridor, a 21 mile trail connecting downtown with the far eastern edge of the metropolitan area. Covering that same distance on surface streets would be a frustrating and potentially hazardous experience. So anytime someone mentions the possibility of putting in another trail, I’m onboard. But we mustn’t forget the real reason why rail and trail advocates are forced onto opposing sides: we’re fighting for the scraps. We shouldn’t have to choose. Both sides should be rewarded for their energy and commitment to a more sustainable future. As an Eastside rail advocate points out, a slightly bigger piece of the massive transportation (translation: roads) budget would easily fund improvements in both our train and bicycle networks. We need to stop falling prey to the divide and conquer strategy employed by the pro-car establishment. The next time we’re asked to choose, the correct answer is: “sorry, but we want both.”

Resources

The more cataclysmic shift occurred in the Puget Sound region, where voters in the three county Seattle – Tacoma metro area rejected a massive sales tax increase to fund new road construction and a light rail extension. This campaign was noteworthy for the break from form by the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club, which joined with tax and transit foes to oppose the referendum. The Sierra Club’s stance, derived from the realization that light rail did little to negate the environmental impact of the planned new roads, may signal the long overdue end of the counter-productive practice of linking money for transit with new road construction. The pro-transit opponents of the referendum, including the Sierra Club and King County President Ron Sims, have vowed to work toward a more environmentally-friendly approach to solving the region’s transportation woes.

The real victor in Tuesday’s election in Seattle may ultimately be congestion pricing. Faced with choking congestion on the roads, deteriorating bridges, a decades long wait for a light rail network of any scale, and a scarcity of funds, state and local officials have to throw out the old playbook and try something new. Congestion pricing offers the opportunity to simultaneously reduce the number of cars on the road and raise badly needed funds for bridge repair and transit projects. The region should take some inspiration from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who visited Seattle recently to attend a U.S. Conference of Mayors climate summit and took the opportunity to propose a national carbon tax on businesses. In April, Bloomberg unveiled a congestion pricing plan for New York City that, despite a detour caused by the State Assembly, still has a shot at being implemented. For the Seattle area, there may never be a more opportune time for congestion pricing. Surely a city known for its conspicuous need to stay on the cutting edge in technology, business and culture can figure out how to take the lead for once in managing its traffic.

Resources

Density, the means by which we measure sprawl, matters a great deal in our relationship with nature. High density living does more than just curb our car use; it makes us more efficient in how we use all our resources. The San Francisco League of Conservation Voters has produced an ingenious website to illustrate this point. The examples are various San Francisco neighborhoods, all of which would be characterized as dense by the average American. The comparison with the typical suburban neighborhood (which happens to be in Portland), however, demonstrates the dramatic difference in land and water use between dense, urban neighborhoods and dispersed suburban ones, as well as the obvious suppression of our driving habits in dense neighborhoods. These calculations demonstrate conclusively that, if your goal is to reduce transportation related emissions, where you live matters much more than what you drive.

In Oregon, we are acutely aware of both the benefits and challenges of battling sprawl. The state’s restrictive land use laws have contributed to denser communities with lower car use than the rest of the nation. In 2004, those restrictions were overturned in one fell swoop with the passage of Measure 37, which gave property owners the right to ignore existing state and local zoning laws if those laws diminished the supposed value of a person’s property. Governments that had fought sprawl so successfully for decades were now powerless. The passage of Measure 37 caught many in the state by surprise and continues to befuddle policymakers trying to make sense of the blunt tool that now governs land use in Oregon. In November, voters in the state will get a chance to make amends for their mistake three years ago. Measure 49 on this fall’s ballot corrects many of the flaws of Measure 37 and, most importantly, will prevent the largest, most egregious developments from occurring. If passed, the measure will restore Oregon’s rightful place as the nation’s leader in progressive land use planning. You can learn more about supporting Measure 49 by clicking on the link in the left hand column of this site.

Resources

Read More:
Mob Combines Mobility is Happening

Resources

Read More:
From Carsharing to Mobility Brokers

Resources