 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Green transport hierarchy" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(April 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Green transport hierarchy | |
|---|---|
 | Pedestrians |
 | Bicycles |
 | Public transit |
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg) | Trucks and commercial vehicles |
 | Taxis |
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg) | High occupancy vehicles |
| Cars and single occupancy vehicles |
Thegreen transport hierarchy (Canada), also calledmobility pyramid,reverse traffic pyramid,street user hierarchy (US),sustainable transport hierarchy (Wales),[1]urban transport hierarchy orroad user hierarchy (Australia, UK)[2] is ahierarchy of modes of passenger transport prioritisinggreen transport.[3] It is a concept used in transport reform groups worldwide[4][5] and in policy design.[6] The UKHighway Code has aroad user hierarchy prioritising pedestrians.[7] It is a key characteristic of Australian transport planning.[8]
The Green Transportation Hierarchy: A Guide for Personal & Public Decision-Making byChris Bradshaw was first published September 1994[9] and revised June 2004.[citation needed] As part of a pedestrian advocacy group in the United States, he proposed the hierarchy ranking passenger transport based on environmental emissions. The reviewed ranking listed, in order: walking, cycling, public transport, car sharing, and finally private car.[3]
It was first prepared forOttawalk and theTransportation Working Committee of theOttawa-Carleton Round-table on the Environment in January 1992, only stating 'Walk, Cycle, Bus, Truck, Car'.[10]
Chris Bradshaw directed the hierarchy at both individual lifestyle choices and public authorities who should officially direct their resources – funds,moral suasion, and formal sanctions – based on the factors.
Bradshaw described the hierarchy to be logical, but the effect of applying it to seem radical.[11]
The model rejects the concept of the balanced transportation system, where users are assumed to be free to choose from amongst many different yet ‘equally valid’ modes. This is because choices incorporating factors that are ranked low (walking, cycling, public transport) are seen as generally having a high impact on other choices.[citation needed]
{{cite book}}:|first7= has generic name (help)