America’s transportation needs are nearly as diverse as Americans themselves. A teacher living in New York’s Manhattan and a farmer living outside Manhattan, Kansas, clearly have different transportation needs that our system must be able to accommodate. An efficient transportation system must provide users with choices, but the fact remains that travel by automobile meets the transportation needs of most Americans, even in areas where public transit is widely available.

“Is the public rational about its travel?” The short answer would have to be “yes.” Commuters choose to carpool or participate in rideshares when it fits their needs. They choose public transportation when it is “rational.” Those lucky enough to live within walking distance of their jobs must relish the simple nature of their commute. Those travelers that choose the route of the single-occupant vehicle do so because it fits their personal lifestyle needs for that trip.

“Can the public policy follow their lead?” Public policies should encourage choice and options and recognize the interdependence of all modes of transportation in achieving mobility goals. Regulating people out of cars is not sound or reasonable transportation policy at this time. But we can work to achieve future transportation policy that works toward more incentives for carpool and vanpool programs, flexible work schedules, and other supplemental transportation programs.

The reality is that we are a very mobile society. Providing and encouraging the voluntary use of alternatives to driving, without mandating change that does not meet individual needs, will be one of the most important challenges for the 21st century.

However attributed–convenience, sustainability, expense, or simply social relevance–I think the era of the personal motor vehicle as we have come to know it over the past century has indeed reached something of a peak, or perhaps, a plateau. Over the past century, the mass produced automobile introduced both social and technological change - whether replacing electric streetcars in urban areas or the horse and buggy in rural areas or bringing about today’s highway system - to herald a new era of personal mobility with deep impacts and far greater ease and convenience than ever before/

Today the concept of personal mobility is still just as important, but transport in the coming century will rely as much on digital ICT newtorksas it did on physical infrastructure of roads, rails and runways in the previous. Whether through the continued use of personal modes of transport, new mobility mixes that allow a traveler to choose between a blend of vehicles rather than picking the biggest vehicle they need for occasional use, or enhanced public transit systems, the ability to seamlessly and safely blend the physical with the digital through will be a key part of Smarter Transportation going forward. It will be an interesting time as both transportation officials and automotive companies must consider how to offer a markedly different experience behind the wheel, on roadways and on mass transit, where connectivity is as important as concrete.

By and large people drive because they feel it is more convenient, faster and sometimes even more affordable than other ways of travel. Public policy can help “nudge” people to choose more sustainable forms of transportation and reduce driving. We have seen this work in many places. A forthcoming report, due out later this month, based on research conducted by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy’s Europe office, documents how eight new developments in Europe have used a combination of public policy and urban design to dramatically reduce both car ownership and vehicle miles driven.
The eight developments include Greenwich Millenium Village in London, which has a driving mode share of just 18% compared to the neighboring Greenwich District which has a driving mode share of 44%; and Västra Hammen in Malmö, Sweden which as a driving mode share of 23%, compared to the citywide average of 41%.
How do these developments do it? They ensure their residents have access to high quality transit, they have mixed use zoning and small blocks to make it easy to walk to shop, schools and work, and they create safe, direct cycling networks, making walking and cycling more time competitive with driving. At the same time, many use street designs that prevent through-traffic to discourage driving; and parking policies that make parking expensive, scare and far from the front door to discourage car ownership.
These basic concepts can be applied in a variety of cities, big and small with similar results. If you make transit, walking and cycling most time competitive with driving and at the same time, make these modes more safe and comfortable, you’ll see more drivers making a more rational, and sustainable, choice of how to travel.

The traveling public is rational in the sense that trips are generally made only when their benefits to travelers exceed their costs to travelers. When people travel less, it is probably either because trip benefits drop or because trip costs (in terms of time or money) rise.

But is the Curtin article rational? It claims that travel “per capita” declined 10.2 per cent from 1995 to 2005 in Atlanta, and 15.2 per cent in Houston. I doubt this and wonder what the authors were comparing.

Fawn referred to the well-known finding that travelers seem to limit the time they spend on urban travel. But the implication of such a limit is that travelers try to use the fastest travel mode they can afford which, for most urban trips, is usually the private car. So it is not rational to suggest that travelers constrained by time would choose to switch to slower modes, like walking or transit.

No! These alleged findings do not support the conclusion “that public officials should actually fund” non-car transport activity.

Nor should they fund irrational articles.