Advertisement

Three Cities of the Americas: Policies and Instruments in Seattle, Montreal, and Curitiba

  • Jean MercierEmail author
  • Fanny Tremblay-Racicot
  • Mario Carrier
  • Fábio Duarte
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter traces the urban transport history of Seattle, Montreal, and Curitiba based on the respondents’ recount of the policies and instruments used by successive governments. If the three cities have historically been successful in setting the conditions for high transit ridership and active modes of transport, they are now at different stages of political and policy development. In Seattle, a strong local economy, combined with a progressive political environment, is supporting a virtuous cycle of policies and investments, creating the perfect conditions for people to choose transit and active modes. In the meantime, Montreal is experiencing a true paradigm change with a new governance structure, policy framework, cycle of investment and political makeup, which are setting the ground for an urban renaissance. As for Curitiba, policymakers facing an unfavorable political and economic environment have not been able to maintain the level of innovations and investments necessary for the BRT system to grow, contributing to its depreciation.

Keywords

Urban transport Urban planning Regional governance Public policy 

References

  1. Ardila-Gómez, A. (2004). Transit Planning in Curitiba and Bogotá. Roles in Interaction, Risk and Change (PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).Google Scholar
  2. City of Seattle. Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections. (2012). Transportation Mitigation Payments. South Lake Union and Northgate. http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Publications/CAM/CAM243.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2018.
  3. City of Seattle. (2018). Ordinance Relating to Land Use and Zoning. https://drive.google.com/file/d/12gNKO0ji51BC6ORra1r_w5KjXyGcOOfN/view. Accessed 20 June 2018.
  4. Commute Seattle. Seattle Department of Transportation. (2017). 2017 Center City Commuter Mode Split Survey Survey Results. https://commuteseattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2017-Commuter-Mode-Split-Survey-Report.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2018.
  5. Crowley, W. (1993). Routes: An Interpretive History of Public Transportation in Metropolitan Seattle. Seattle: Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle.Google Scholar
  6. Duarte, F., Firmino, R., & Prestes, O. (2011). Learning from Failures: Avoiding Asymmetrical Views of Public Transportation Initiatives in Curitiba. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(3), 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feldman, S., Lewis, P., & Schiff, R. (2010). Transit-Oriented Development in the Montreal Metropolitan Region: Developer’s Perceptions of Supply Barriers. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 21(2), 25–44.Google Scholar
  8. Follador, D., Duarte, F., & Carrier, M. (2018). Informal Institutions and Path Dependence in Urban Planning: The Case of Curitiba, Brazil. Journal of Urban Affairs. (Forthcoming—approved for publication).Google Scholar
  9. Frey, K. (2007). Governança urbana e participação pública. RAC-eletrônica: Revista de Administração Pública, 1(1), 136–150.Google Scholar
  10. Grimsrud, M., & El-Geneidy, A. (2013). Driving Transit Retention to Renaissance: Trends in Montreal Commute Public Transport Mode Share and Factors by Age Group and Birth Cohort. Public Transport, 5(3), 219–241.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-013-0075-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holden, M. (2008). Social Learning in Planning: Seattle’s Sustainable Development Codebooks. Progress in Planning, 69(1), 1–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2007.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jarvis, H. (2001). Urban Sustainability as a Function of Compromises Households Make Deciding Where and How to Live: Portland and Seattle Compared. Local Environment, 6(3), 239–256.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830120073257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klink, J., & Denaldi, R. (2012). Metropolitan Fragmentation and Neo-Localism in the Periphery. Revisiting the Case of Curitiba. Urban Studies, 49(3), 549–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leitão, S. R. (2010). Inclusão do excluído? Política de mobilidade e dinâmica do mercado de terras na expansão da Curitiba metrópole (PhD thesis, Universidade de São Paulo).Google Scholar
  15. Levinson, H., Zimmerman, S., Clinger, J., & Rutherford, S. (2002). Bus Rapid Transit: An Overview. Journal of Public Transportation, 5(2), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. MTMDET Ministère des Transports, de la Mobilité durable et de l’électrification. Gouvernement du Québec. (2018). Politique de mobilité durable 2030 - transporter le Québec vers la Modernité. https://www.transports.gouv.qc.ca/fr/ministere/role_ministere/DocumentsPMD/politique-mobilite-durable.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2018.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean Mercier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fanny Tremblay-Racicot
    • 2
  • Mario Carrier
    • 3
  • Fábio Duarte
    • 4
  1. 1.Université LavalQuébecCanada
  2. 2.École nationale d’administration publiqueQuébecCanada
  3. 3.Université LavalQuébecCanada
  4. 4.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations