The transit metropolis of Chinese characteristics? Literature review, interviews, surveys and case studies

In 2011, the Ministry of Transport (MoT) of China announced to competitively select and fund at least 30 cities in their respective efforts of building a transit metropolis. Incentivized by MoT, many Chinese cities have started planning for a transit metropolis and even implementing related measures. This signifies some larger-than-ever government-led efforts towards the transit metropolis that we have heard of. Why did China/MoT initiate the transit metropolis program? Is the transit metropolis idea of MoT similar to what Robert Cervero defines in his book, which introduces the concept of transit metropolis and illustrates it using 12 exemplars? If not, why? Have Chinese cities followed the same principles or taken comparable measures proposed or identified by Cervero? Or, have they produced brand new principles or measures? If so, what is the implication? This article answers the above questions through literature review, interviews, surveys and case studies. It shows that MoT's idea of the transit metropolis differs notably from that of Cervero. Even though MoT proposes more universal and quantitative performance measures for a transit metropolis than Cervero, its perspectives and policies are still parochial. Local governments, nevertheless, have comparable principles or measures like Cervero. But compared to a transit metropolis exemplar such as Curitiba, they overlook issues such as the match between regional commuter sheds and the services/administrative boundaries of local transit-related entities, coordinated, regionalized transit services and fares, pedestrian-friendly streets and parking pricing strategies. The above indicate that more work is needed to better define, plan and implement a transit metropolis in China.