Design Template by Bikingtoronto

« Sunday Video - Let's go to the Movies | Main | Police on the trail »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Looks like Arlington changed the links to the report and presentation. The correct links are now:

Going back to using CMAQ money, what I don't see from this data is improvements in air quality.

10% of car trips being displaced -- which, if I remember, is about what European cities also found.

Increases in health, mobility, etc, are great but are not part of the CMAQ program.

Is may just tourists use or is that when the bikes starting coming into R-B?


I don't know anything about CMAQ but this brochure about the program suggests to me a slightly different interpretation of the program (emphasis is mine).

Transportation conformity is...

A process required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 176(c) which establishes the framework for improving air quality to protect public health and the environment.

The goal of transportation conformity is to ensure that Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding and approvals are given to highway and transit activities that are consistent with air quality goals.

The CAA requires that metropolitan transportation plans, metropolitan transportation improvement programs (TIPs) and Federal projects conform to
the purpose of the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

Conformity to a SIP means that such activities will
not cause or contribute to any new violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); increase the frequency or severity of NAAQS violations; or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or any required interim milestone.

So it seems to me that CMAQ funding is to be used for developing transportation alternatives that don't further contribute to poor air quality. They don't have to necessarily improve the existing quality (though that would be nice :) ).

@jeffb; I think you are mistaking the process for the goals.

In terms of CMAQ, the best arguments are:

1) transit extender

2) given how short trips are, a car subsitute would be disproporatilly polluting; you cat converter didn't have time to heat up. Unfortantly, stuff like that gets lost in the funding spreadsheets.

3) timing; partly as a transit extender but it makes using transit easier outside of peak service hours.

Perhaps making yoru bike-share key your SmartTrip key (for the future) would be a good plan. Or Alpert's intelligent billboard -- but run them at bikeshare stations instead of at bus stops.

Well the second paragraph above covers the goal. Funding for highway and transit that is consistent with air quality goals. CaBi is transit is it not?

@charlie --
If 13% of the roughly 1.5 million rides taken so far replaced a car trip, that does equal about 200K fewer rides taken in 18 months, or 10K fewer per month.

Broken out, that's:
--135,000 fewer personal vehicle trips
--60,000 fewer cab trips

I'm not sure what the typical return on CMAQ dollars is, but it seems there's at least some impact for that investment.

I'd be curious if there is any statistically-significant increase in transit ridership on various routes/lines and whether it correlates with the # of CaBi trips wihch originated or ended nearby.

These are great numbers. The only comment I would make is that taking transit is actually a fairly active mode, given that on average people will walk about 20 minutes per day to and from the stations or stops they use. So switching from transit to cabi has value, just probably not as much as switching from car to cabi.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader