A Review and Proposed Actions
(Download
Document In Adobe PDF Format)
A study prepared for the American Public Transportation Association
by
Brendon Hemily, Ph.D.
November 2004
Disclaimer
This study attempts to distill and synthesize a broad range
of trends affecting public transit in the metropolitan community setting,
and proposes various actions to address future challenges. The study was underwritten
by the American Public Transportation Association, but all views expressed
are those of the author.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge and thank my colleagues, Rollie
King, Bill Lyons, and Anthony Palmere, for their invaluable assistance and advice
during this project.
About the Author
Dr. Brendon Hemily (brendon.hemily@sympatico.ca)
is an independent consultant with over 20 years of experience working with
the public transportation industry to understand the complex challenges facing
transit systems, to identify best practices, and to articulate practical actions
and research needs to help address these challenges. He has focused in particular
on encouraging innovation in transit management and planning, through
the implementation of innovative management and service concepts, as well
as the application of advanced technology to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of transit systems.
Prior to 2000, Dr. Hemily worked for 15 years at the Canadian
Urban Transit Association (CUTA), serving as CUTA’s Manager of Research and
Technical Services, where he was responsible for the Canadian national statistical
programs and all technical and research activities provided by CUTA to the
Canadian transit industry, including the national cooperative Strategic Transit
Research Program (STRP). Prior to that, Dr. Hemily was Program Director at
the Institute for Urban Transportation at Indiana University, working with
Dr. George Smerk, where he conducted research on the use of strategic planning
in the transit industry and managed IUT’s training activities. Dr. Hemily
has made over 80 professional presentations at APTA, TRB, CUTA, and UITP meetings,
and has prepared 20 reports and published papers. Dr. Hemily has received
a Ph.D. in Transportation and a MS.C.E. from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, and a B.A. in Economics from Columbia College.
Foreword
For many of us, transit represents the lifeblood of cities,
fulfilling an essential and multi-functional role to ensure the livability
and sustainability of urban communities. However, transit is facing numerous
complex challenges in the medium to longer term, stemming from myriad demographic
and socio-economic trends, changes in land-use and mobility patterns, societal
changes and concerns, emerging professional practices, etc. There are many
experts that focus on exploring and explaining trends and their implications
from a general urban planning or transportation perspective, but few look
at them from the specific point of view of the transit manager, staff, or
board member.
A very innovative General Manager I interviewed early in
my career said: "the only time he could devote to ‘strategic planning’
of the transit system was when he was taking his shower." This paper
is an attempt to take a strategic view of a wide range of trends, distill
the challenges they create for transit systems and the industry as a whole,
and identify some questions and potential actions for consideration. The Appendices
include a summary of concepts and listing of a wide range of accessible resources
on various specific topics for those who want more information.
Although the paper covers terrain that will be familiar to
some, the result will hopefully clarify the challenges, and encourage renewed
thinking on the development and pursuit of a new vision of public transportation
in the community setting. At the very least, I hope it will stimulate new
thoughts and directions for those transit managers who only have the time
to do their strategic planning in the shower.
Abstract*
Executive Summary*
1.Transit and Communities on the Move*
1.1.Achievements of Transit*
1.1.1.Impressive Recent Ridership Gains*
1.1.2.Mobility Option for All*
1.1.3.Access to Jobs*
1.2.Renaissance of Cities*
1.2.1.Public and private investment*
1.2.2.Increased attractiveness as choice of
residence and activity*
1.3.New Approaches to "Community"*
1.4.Linking Transit and Community*
1.4.1.Joint development*
1.4.2.Transit-Oriented Development and location-efficient
initiatives*
1.4.3.Transportation for Livable Communities
Initiatives*
1.4.4.Transportation and Community and System
Preservation (TCSP) Pilot Program*
2.Despite Achievements, Long-Term Trends Pose Challenges*
2.1.Trend: Growing Sprawl*
2.1.1.Suburbs are capturing most population
growth and job growth*
2.1.2.Edge Cities*
2.1.3.Box Stores vs. Older Malls*
2.2.Trend: Growing Auto Use*
2.2.1.Growth in auto fleet and use: more cars
than licensed drivers*
2.2.2.Auto market share of travel continues
to increase*
2.2.3.Growth of commuting distance, and in
particular in long distance commuting*
2.3.Trend: Growing Congestion but little sign
of policy paradigm shift*
2.4.Trend: Changing Travel Patterns*
2.4.1.Decrease in traditional work trips as
a proportion of total travel*
2.4.2.Trip Chaining: Work+Shopping+Daycare+School*
2.5.Concern: Environmental, Energy, Economic,
Safety Implications of Increasing Auto Dependence*
2.6.Concern: Health*
2.6.1.Respiratory problems*
2.6.2.Obesity caused by lifestyle leading
to increasing cardio-vascular problems*
2.7.Concern: Mobility of Aging Population*
2.7.1.Increasing Senior Population*
2.7.2.Ratio of working population to non-
working population will continue to fall dramatically*
2.7.3.Personal crisis caused by loss of license*
2.7.4."Aging in place"*
2.7.5.Dramatic increase needed in mobility services
to be provided*
2.8.Concern: Social Integration*
2.8.1.Physically Disadvantaged*
2.8.2.Economically Disadvantaged*
2.8.3.Immigrants*
3.THE Status-Quo Is Not Acceptable: Action is Needed*
3.1.A Growing Burden on Future Generations, Economically,
Environmentally, and Socially*
3.2.A New Vision for Metropolitan Transportation,
based on Sustainability is Required*
4.Action needed: EnhancE the capacity of transit
to meet the congestion challenge*
4.1.Policy Goals Concerning the Role of Transit
in a Balanced Transportation System*
4.2.Recommendations to Enhance Transit’s Role
in Reducing Congestion*
5.Action Needed: A New Approach to Service Provision*
5.1.Transit Systems Need to Understand Current
and New Market Needs*
5.1.1.Commuters*
5.1.2.Immigrants (in particular in older inner
suburbs)*
5.1.3.Serving the mobility needs of an aging
population*
5.1.4.Access for customers with special needs
(persons with disabilities and economically disadvantaged)*
5.2.Family of Services*
5.3.Mobility Management and Public Transportation
Coordination*
6.action needed: enhance the transit-community
link*
6.1.Actions at Federal Level to Enhance the Transportation-Community
Link*
6.1.1.Promote concepts of smart growth and
sustainability in transportation*
6.1.2.Information sharing and dissemination:
preparation of an inventory of successful initiatives*
6.1.3.Conduct research on mobility implications
of important new markets*
6.1.4.Encourage Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPO) to incorporate smart growth and sustainability concepts in regional
transportation planning*
6.1.5.Review existing regulations to increase
the flexible use of federal funds to support smart growth or sustainable
transportation initiatives*
6.1.6.Increase financial support for smart
growth initiatives*
6.2.Transit Systems Need to Provide Leadership
in Developing Sustainable Communities*
6.2.1.Create a Vision of transit in a sustainable
community*
6.2.2.Support smart growth and sustainable
development initiatives*
6.2.3.Transit leadership should promote transit-oriented
and transit-supportive development*
6.2.4.Support all sustainable modes (e.g.
pedestrian, cycling, car sharing)*
6.3.Practical Initiatives to Pursue at the Local
Level*
7.questions for transit systems to ask*
7.1.Knowledge of Transit Markets?*
7.2.Impact of Aging Population; Knowledge and
Options?*
7.3.Immigrant Market; Knowledge and Options?*
7.4.Other Market Segments that Merit Special
Attention?*
7.5.Development of a Vision?*
7.6.Transit’s Involvement in Regional/Urban Planning,
and Land-Use Decisions and Support for Transit-Supportive Development?*
8.Conclusions*
Appendix A.Resources on urban Travel patterns and
the implications of Demographic and Social Trends*
Appendix B.Resources on market segmentation and
profiling transit ridership*
Appendix C.Resources on Smart Growth, New urbanism,
Traditional neighborhood development (TND), new community design (NCD)*
Appendix D.Resources on transit and livable communities,
and on Sustainable Transportation*
Appendix E.A New Vision For Urban Transportation*
bibliography*
Trends Affecting Public
Transit’s Effectiveness
A Review and Proposed Actions
Abstract
This paper reviews a wide range of information, including
demographic and socio-economic trends, changes in land use and mobility patterns,
societal changes and concerns, emerging professional practices in urban planning,
etc. The objectives of the study are to distill from these medium-to-longer
trends, the challenges they create for transit system effectiveness and for
the industry as a whole, and to identify some questions, opportunities, and
potential actions for consideration in the formulation of future strategic
directions for transit in the community. The study also provides in the Appendices,
a discussion of concepts, and a listing of many accessible resources on various
specific topics.
Executive Summary
This study has conducted a comprehensive review of a wide
range of demographic, social, transportation, and land-use trends through
a diverse body of literature and web resources in these fields, as well as
consulted many documents in areas related to new planning concepts, sustainable
communities, and sustainable transportation. A number of trends have emerged
from this comprehensive review that will affect transit system effectiveness
(i.e. what role transit serves in the community and its ability to serve that
role) in the future.
First, it is clear that U.S. cities are "On the Move":
-
Transit has made some impressive achievements in the
last few years, though somewhat moderated by the current economic slowdown.
-
Many cities are enjoying a renaissance, as a result
of public and private investments, as well as enhanced attractiveness
as a place of residence and employment.
-
There have been over the last decade, a significant
number of new approaches being discussed by planning and land development
practitioners and officials, all focusing on the concept of "sustainable
community" and "smart growth", and implementation of these
concepts is gaining ground.
-
Various initiatives are strengthening the link between
transit and the community. These include: joint development, Transit-Oriented
Development (TOD) and location-efficient initiatives, Transportation for
Livable Communities, and the Transportation and Community and System Preservation
(TCSP) Program.
At the same time, the analysis of long-term trends identifies
a number of significant challenges; these are expressed as four trends, and
four areas of concern. Significant trends identified from the review that
will affect transit’s effectiveness in the medium-to-longer term, include:
-
Growing sprawl, in terms of both population and employment,
and also related to the growth in edge cities and big box store retail,
-
Growing auto fleet, use, and distances traveled,
-
Growing congestion but little sign of any related policy
paradigm shift, and
-
Changing travel patterns, which are decreasing traditional
work trips and increasing trip chaining.
Four areas of societal concern have been identified through
the review of these trends as being particularly pertinent in terms of affecting
transit’s future role in the community and its effectiveness. They include:
-
Environmental, energy, economic, and safety implications
of increasing auto dependence,
-
Health issues resulting from poor air quality and patterns
of the built environment, respiratory and obesity-related ailments in
particular,
-
Mobility requirements of an aging population, and
-
Mobility-related social integration issues for the physically
disadvantaged, economically disadvantaged, and increasing immigrant population.
Based on the assessment of these trends, there is need for
concerted action along a number of dimensions as transit formulates its future
strategic directions.
First, any strategy should be guided by a new vision of transit’s
role within the community. One possible starting point for building such a
vision was expressed as follows:
A transportation system that meets the needs for mobility and accessibility
while balancing the current and long-term goals of economic growth, environmental
quality, and social equity.
A number of actions are recommended by the study.
These include:
-
a better understanding of current and new markets
through market segmentation;
-
a Family of Services strategy, designed
to meet the needs of market segments; and
-
a Mobility Management approach and coordination
of all public transportation.
-
at the federal level, through increased support for
the concept of smart growth, the highlighting of transit’s potential
role, support for MPO involvement, etc.
-
at the local level, through increased leadership by
the transit system to create a vision of urban transportation
in a sustainable community, and to support or lead initiatives
that support transit or sustainable modes, and
-
through practical initiatives that enhance transit’s
role in the community.
The research also provides an initial set of questions that
transit systems could use to initiate strategic reflection on the following
issues in their own communities:
Knowledge of Transit Markets?
-
What market research information (including demographic
and market segmentation information) exists about current customers
of the transit system?
-
What information exists about the likely future evolution
of transit customer markets in the community?
-
Has existing travel market information been co-related
to the use of the various transit (and other public transportation)
services in the community?
Impact of Aging Population; Knowledge and Options?
-
What are the characteristics of current seniors market
(size, geographic distribution, expectations, etc.)?
-
How is the seniors travel market likely to evolve?
-
What will be the implications over time in terms of
expectations, service design, etc.
-
Given the importance of this market, has any effort,
specific to the seniors’ travel market, been conducted to assess needs
or to develop a service plan (such as those in Denver, Orange County,
Portland, available from the APTA Information Center Briefing)?
-
Have local organizations that assist seniors (social
agencies, non-profit organizations, special purpose media) been identified,
and contacted, in order to assist with needs assessment and dissemination?
Immigrant Market; Knowledge and Options?
-
Does any information exist about the local immigrant
travel market, in terms of residential concentrations, travel patterns,
and mode choice?
-
Has any market research or planning effort, specific
to the immigrant travel market, been conducted to assess implications
for service design, customer information, etc.?
-
Have local organizations that assist immigrants (social
agencies, non-profit organizations, special purpose media) been identified,
and contacted, in order to assist with needs assessment and dissemination?
Other Market Segments that Merit Special Attention?
-
Are there any other specific market segments in the
community that warrant special attention (e.g. reverse commute access
to jobs, physically disadvantaged, university students, long distance
commuters, tourist visitors, etc.)?
-
Have there been any recent assessments of these segments
(e.g. market size, evolution, current services, expectations, etc.)?
-
Who should be consulted and what should be the assessment
process?
Development of a Vision?
-
Are smart growth, sustainable community and sustainable
transportation guiding principles for these organizations?
-
Does there exist a shared "vision" of public
transportation in the community, consistent with sustainable community
principles?
-
Has it been clearly articulated?
-
Have the public, community organizations, and other
stakeholders participated in the development of the vision?
-
How will this vision be translated into strategic
goals and directions for the transit system?
-
How will effectiveness in attaining these strategic
goals and fulfilling the vision be measured?
Transit’s Involvement in Regional/Urban Planning, and Land-Use Decisions
and Support for Transit-Supportive Development?
-
Is transit a partner with local agencies/departments
responsible for planning and land-use development concerning major land-use
and development decisions?
-
Does transit have the opportunity to review site plans
from a transit perspective?
-
Has transit developed a set of "transit-supportive"
land development and site design guidelines?
-
Have these been adequately communicated to politicians,
planning officials, and developers?
The five Appendices provide some practical guidance in terms
of concepts and identify many resources for transit systems that would like
to pursue these topics.
It is hoped that this research will help to stimulate action
within the transit industry, so that it can build on the considerable achievements
to date, address the identified challenges, and fulfill its potential role
in ensuring a more sustainable community for tomorrow.
Trends Affecting Public Transit
A Review and Proposed Actions
- Transit and
Communities on the Move
Transit systems and the cities they serve in the U.S. are on the move! One
senses a remarkable turn-around since the mid-1990’s in the transit industry
that parallels the health, vitality, and pride found increasingly in U.S.
cities. This renewal of both transit and cities results from a number of factors.
1.1. Achievements
of Transit
1.1.1. Impressive
Recent Ridership Gains
Transit has posted some significant gains in ridership in recent times. Transit
ridership in the U.S. was over 9.65 billion in 2001, the highest level in 40
years. Ridership grew 24% between 1995 and 2002, and had gained two billion
passengers since 1970 [APTA, 2004; Pucher, 2002].
Substantial ridership increases have occurred in heavy-rail-based cities
such as New York City and Washington D.C., but growth in ridership in many
cities can also be directly attributable to major new investments made in
transit as a result of TEA-21 legislation. New light rail, commuter rail or
bus rapid transit services have achieved remarkable success in communities
across the country, often posting ridership levels above projected ridership.
1.1.2. Mobility
Option for All
Transit provides a mobility option for all, and the availability of that
alternative mobility option finds strong public support. In their book, Policy
and Planning as Public Choice: Mass Transit in the United States [Lewis
and Williams, 1999], David Lewis and Fred Williams, highlight the widespread
political and public support that the transit industry enjoys, which far exceeds
the percent of the population that directly uses and benefits from transit.
"Affordable transportation is valued in every urbanized area in the United
States. Private vehicle operation is the norm. But every community contains
children, elderly people, and others who cannot safely drive and many who
cannot afford cars. Local budgets extend transit services for these needs.
Additionally, in a significant number of severely congested urban commuting
corridors, rapid transit measurably improves the work trip for passengers
and motorists alike" [Lewis and Williams, 1999, p. 253]. They estimate
the actual monetary value of these benefits as two to three times the budgetary
outlays for transit service.
Transit also serves many more people in the community than the daily ridership
totals suggest, resulting from occasional usage of the system. "On average,
the ratio of people using transit in the community during a month compared
to the number of people using transit on one day is 3.04. The ratio of people
served in the community to the daily person appears to increase as the size
of the system increases" [McCollom, 1999, p. 8].
1.1.3. Access
to Jobs
In addition, transit has played a significant role in the
national effort to assist people to move off of welfare. The ability to access
jobs is often a substantial barrier to those seeking employment, especially
as a growing percentage of employment becomes located in increasingly remote
suburbs. The Federal Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Program has served
to highlight the potential role that public transportation can serve in assisting
persons making the transition from welfare to work. By providing late night
service to night shift jobs, or reverse commute service to retail centers
or industrial parks, transit can make the difference for persons without automobiles
to obtain and keep employment.
In cities like Baltimore and Hartford, the JARC Program has
served not only to supply needed transit services, it has also resulted in
greater coordination between transit providers and human service agencies,
which in turn allows a more in-depth and timely understanding of the specific
needs.
1.2. Renaissance
of Cities
Parallel to the renewed strength of transit is the renaissance
found in cities across the Nation.
1.2.1. Public
and private investment
Cities are increasingly recognized as a critical element
of the Nation’s economy. Over the last two decades, one sees the considerable
re-investment in the nation’s core cities that has taken place, with new cultural,
sports, civic, and transportation facilities and amenities. Examples are numerous:
This public investment has often been followed by significant
private investment, resulting in the revitalizing of the downtown cores.
Much of this public re-investment has been accompanied by,
or sometimes initiated by, investment in transit facilities such as LRT or
transit malls, Dallas being a fine example. In many cases, this reinvestment
in cities has resulted in the renewal of older Rust Belt cities (e.g. Pittsburgh,
Cleveland), where employment declines in traditional manufacturing have been
stemmed and increasingly replaced by new specialized manufacturing, high-tech,
and service employment.
1.2.2 Increased
attractiveness as choice of residence and activity
The above efforts have increased the attractiveness of cities,
not only as places to invest and do business, but also as places to live.
After decades of out-migration, the last decade has shown the first signs
of inward migration and growth of the city cores and inner suburbs.
Visible signs of the increased attractiveness of cities,
include:
-
"Empty Nester" baby-boom parents are seeing
their children move onto college and pursue their own lives. This drastically
reduces the need for the residential space that made the suburbs attractive
to parents of young children, and is enabling these "empty nesters"
to move back into cities, in an effort to be closer to cultural facilities,
amenities, and services that they desire.
-
One also observes, prompted by the renewed health of
cities and the increased sense of personal security, the revitalization
of older neighborhoods by young Generation X professionals, who do not
have, or plan to have, children. They are attracted to residing in cities
because of the restaurants, night life, cultural and sport facilities,
etc.
-
In fact, household composition is changing, with the
greatest growth occurring in households of childless couples, non-family
households, and single person households. Generation X, and aging boomers
choosing different lifestyles, is creating a greater demand for "urban"
living, and urban housing (e.g. townhomes, condominiums, and senior living
facilities) [Logan, 2002].
-
Some experts predict that as a result of technology
advances, and with the competitive labor market that will be created by
the reduced pool of skilled workers following the retirement of the baby
boom generation, workers will be increasingly able to choose their location
of residence and employment. Competition for jobs will be increasingly
based on quality of life factors, and cities that have developed attractive
amenities will have a stronger hand in this competitive labor market.
[Pisarski, 2002a; Pisarski, 2000b; Logan, 2002].
-
The strong levels of immigration into the U.S over the
last decade have often proved a boon to U.S. cities. The 8-14 million
immigrants that have arrived in the U.S. are increasingly diverse (not
only arriving from Central America, but also from diverse locations like
Korea and Ethiopia). In the 1995-2000 period, these immigrants settled
in large numbers in five immigrant magnets (New York, Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Chicago, Washington D.C.), before in some cases moving on to
growing metropolises in the Southeast and the non-California West (e.g.
Phoenix, Atlanta, and Las Vegas). "Within metropolitan areas, immigrants
have invigorated city and neighborhood population in core urban counties"
[Frey, 2003, p. 15]. In addition, many cities in the Midwest and Rustbelt
believe immigrants can help to rekindle economic and residential life
and are marketing their cities nationally and internationally in order
to attract immigrants.
As a result of these factors, one observes the stabilizing
in some city core populations and density. These trends are likely to continue.
1.3. New Approaches
to "Community"
Along with the above renaissance of cities, one observes
a growing discussion of concepts and remarkable convergence of efforts, emerging
from a variety of perspectives that look to develop and implement new approaches
to the concept of "community". These movements or approaches
include:
Appendix C provides a more detailed discussion of some of
these concepts, and identifies related web resources.
Among these, the concept of Smart Growth has perhaps
achieved the most widespread visibility, in no small measure due to leaders
such as former Governor Parris Glendening of Maryland. In a recent report,
prepared by the Smart Growth Network, Getting to Smart Growth: 100 Policies
for Implementation [Smart Growth Network and ICMA, 2002], Smart Growth
is defined in the following way
"Smart Growth is development that serves the economy, community, and
the environment. It provides a framework for communities to make informed
decisions about how and where they grow. Smart growth makes it possible
for communities to grow in ways that support economic development and jobs;
create strong neighborhoods with a range of housing, commercial, and transportation
options; and achieve healthy communities that provide families with a clean
environment."
"Smart Growth" is increasingly being offered as
an alternative to sprawl-type development, in particular as an increasing
body of research measures the many impacts and costs of sprawl [Burchell et
al., 1998; Litman, 2000; Burchell et al., 2002; Ewing et al., 2002; Muro and
Puentes, 2004]. The concept of Smart Growth is increasingly being endorsed
by national organizations, such as the National Governors Association or the
American Planning Association, and individual initiatives are increasing at
the local and state levels, such as the extensive "Envision Utah"
effort. Recent studies outline policies and programs to encourage smart growth
[Smart Growth Network and ICMA, 2002 and 2003], provide extensive catalogues
of smart growth projects [Benfield et al., 2001], develop new visions of "the
regional city" based on these principles [Calthorpe and Fulton, 2001],
or explore more specifically the transportation / land use linkage to smart
growth [Cervero, 2000]. The result of these approaches and efforts has been
a remarkable convergence of thinking, increasingly apparent among officials
responsible for planning and managing land development, that focuses on the
concept of ‘community", and how to ensure the sustainability of the community.
The outcome is that conventional sprawl-inducing patterns of development are
less and less acceptable in states and communities across the Nation.
This growing movement and interest in "sustainable communities"
is particularly significant for the transit industry. As discussed in Appendix
C, transit is a key component in all of these approaches. This provides a
unique opportunity to highlight the important role that is played by public
transportation in developing these sustainable communities.
1.4.Linking
Transit and Community
In addition, our understanding of the relationship between
transit and community has been expanding and strengthening over the years.
The following sections outline some of the concepts that have linked transit
and community.
1.4.1. Joint development
The path breakers in linking transit and development occurred
with the construction of the first post-WWII subways, Toronto, Montreal, and
BART, and were studied in such studies as Land Use Impacts of Rapid Transit
[Knight and Trygg, 1977]. Zoning in these communities, was recast to encourage
office or apartment building development adjacent to the new subway stations.
More aggressive policies involved the leasing of air-rights over the subway
right-of-way, or the development of land adjacent to stations as Transit Joint
Development. Transit Joint Development provides a quid pro. The developer
capitalizes the accessibility advantages into higher rents or greater occupancy.
For the transit system, negotiations of Joint Development not only
ensure the concentration of activity, which in turn creates major ridership
generators for transit service, but also creates either a sharing of capital
costs or possibly even a long-term revenue stream for the transit system [Cervero
et al., 1991].
Joint Development has become increasingly common since those
early precursors, and is today systematically built into heavy rail developments,
and occasionally into new Light Rail systems. Recent examples include:
-
In the Washington region, WMATA has approved more than
40 projects since establishing its Joint Development Program
-
The Hollywood & Highland development, located over
the Los Angeles MTA’s Hollywood/Highland station involves a $615 million
retail and entertainment complex.
- BellSouth’s relocation and consolidation of 9,800 employees into three
new energy-efficient business centers on top or near MARTA stations in Atlanta
[Abbott, 2002].
1.4.2. Transit-Oriented
Development and location-efficient initiatives
Joint Development involves the negotiation of a commercial
relationship between the transit system and a developer. Unfortunately, this
can only occur where the size of the commercial investment can justify such
an arrangement, and these are typically limited to heavy rail stations, multi-modal
terminals such as downtown rail stations, or Light Rail Stations at exceptional
geographic locations.
However, it has been increasingly recognized that transit
can play a significant role in shaping development, and conversely, that certain
forms of development are more supportive of transit, and a better choice for
the land surrounding higher capacity transit stations (LRT in particular).
Transit-Supportive Development is development that creates uses consistent
with the markets served by transit, while Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
focuses on development in which the transit system is directly involved, and
the development builds well integrated pedestrian access to the transit system.
The concept of TOD was introduced by New Urbanism leaders such as Peter Calthorpe
in his 1993 book The Next American Metropolis [Calthorpe, 1993], and
by various researchers [Moore and Johnson 1994; Holtzclaw, 1994; Parsons Princkerhoff
Quade & Douglas, 1996]. Robert Cervero in particular, has been examining
these forms of development for many years through studies and books: Transit-Supportive
Development in the United States: Experience and Prospects [Cervero, 1993],
Transit Villages in the 21st Century [Bernick and Cervero,
1997], and a current Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Project H-27
on Transit-Oriented Development: State of the Practice, and Future Benefits
[Cervero et al., 2004 and 2002].
Cervero has surveyed the many definitions of TOD that exist
and concludes that "most TOD definitions share several common elements:
mixed-use development, development that is close to and well-served by transit,
and development that is conducive to transit riding" [Cervero et al.,
2002, p. 6]. Other aspects in some TOD definitions include: compactness, pedestrian-
and cycle-friendly environs, public and civic spaces near stations, and stations
as community hubs. TOD may encompass the development of mixed income housing
units on a site adjacent to a transit station, or even the redevelopment of
former transit parking lots, as is being done at BART.
The concept of TOD is increasingly becoming accepted within
the mainstream of planners and developers, and illustrates an evolution that
firmly grounds transit in the community it serves. TOD is also slowly gaining
acceptance within the development community, as seen by the growing number of
actual developments, and is illustrated by the recent publication by the Urban
Land Institute of a report entitled Ten Principles for Successful Development
Around Transit [Dunphy et al., 2003], and by the increased attention being
given by the National Association of Realtors [NAR, 2004; Still, 2002]. There
remain however many challenges to the expanded implementation of TOD. Several
efforts are underway to examine these challenges so that TOD can be encouraged
and that future initiatives maximize the potential benefit for both the community
and the transit system. Examples include: the recent Brookings Institution Discussion
Paper entitled, Transit Oriented Development: Moving from Rhetoric to Reality
[Belzer and Autler, 2002], research by Dick Nelson and John Niles [Nelson and
Niles, 1999 and 2000; Niles and Nelson, 1999] by Hank Dittmar and Gloria Ohland
[Dittmar and Ohland, 2003; and Reconnecting America, 2004], and Robert Cervero
et al’s’s comprehensive TCRP report, entitled Transit-Oriented Development
in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects [Cervero et
al., 2004].
Beyond Transit-Oriented Development, a number of new initiatives
are also building on the economic efficiency provided by persons residing
near quality transit. These include:
-
Fannie Mae, the nation’s largest source of financing for
home mortgages, launched in 1999 the Location-Efficient Mortgage Program
(or Smart Commute Initiative). This program takes into consideration in
its household budget calculation, the reduced transportation costs resulting
from close access to transit, termed location-efficiency. This may increase
home-buying power by $10,000 or more. The Smart Commute Initiative is available
in Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh,
Salt Lake City, Philadelphia, Burlington, Louisville, El Paso, and Delaware.
A particularly ambitious Smart Commute Initiative was launched in 2003 in
Washington D.C., and uses both rail or bus accessibility as a basis for
the mortgage calculation, and also provides discounts for transit passes
and for the use of Flexcar car-sharing vehicles. Since then, Nashville,
Charlotte, and Columbus Ohio have also become part of the Smart Commute
Initiative, in many cases adding free transit passes for 2 to 12 months
as an additional incentive.
-
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the San
Francisco Bay Area has implemented the Housing Incentive Program, which
provides grants to foster compact housing with easy access to transit.
1.4.3.
Transportation for Livable Communities Initiatives
The concept of ‘Livable Communities" emerged in the
mid 1990’s. Initially launched through a Federal Transit Administration Initiative
[FTA, 1997], made possible as a result of ISTEA. The objectives of the Livable
Communities concept are to improve mobility and the quality of services available
to residents at the neighborhood level by:
-
strengthening the link between transit planning and
community planning, including land- use policies and urban design supporting
the use of transit and ultimately providing physical assets that better
meet community needs
-
encouraging mixed-use neighborhoods that complement
residential areas with commercial, recreational, educational, health and
other social services
-
providing transit services and facilities which provide
safety, security and accessibility for all passengers, including disabled
persons and elderly members of the community
-
ensuring sound environmental practices including careful
parking and traffic management techniques to reduce auto trips, conserve
space, encourage green areas, avoid gridlock and improve air quality
-
stimulating increased participation by community organizations
and residents, minority and low-income residents, small and minority businesses,
persons with disabilities and the elderly in the planning and design process
-
increasing access to employment, education facilities
and other community destinations through high quality, community-oriented,
technologically innovative transit services and facilities
-
leveraging resources available through other Federal,
State and local programs.
Examples of Livable Community Projects include the following:
-
The Whittier Street Neighborhood Health Center opened
the MBTA’s Health Station at Roxbury Crossing in the Boston area, involving
locating a health center at a public transit terminal.
-
The Reisterstown Metro Station project in Baltimore
incorporates both a child-care center and a police substation at a transit
station.
-
Louisville NIA Travel and Jobs Center is the central
element of an economic development "campus" of buildings which
include job training programs, child care facilities, etc.
Appendix D identifies some resources on transit and livable
communities. The concept of Livable Communities has subsequently been pursued
as well at the local level. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
in the San Francisco Bay Area used the flexibility of TEA-21 funding to create
in 1997 an innovative "Transportation for Livable Communities" program.
The program provides grants for neighborhood planning or for capital improvement.
The program is aimed at implementing low-cost projects that can improve livability,
safety, access for the disabled, and local economic development, including:
main street revitalizations, neighborhood bus shelters, pedestrian or bicycle
links, etc. The program has been extremely popular and tripled in size since
its inception. Similar TLC programs are now being considered in Los Angeles
and Sacramento.
Another local example concerns the Program entitled Building
Livable Communities through Transportation, conducted by New Jersey
Transit and Project for Public Spaces Inc, starting in 2000. This involved
workshops and training to assist communities to identify how train stations
can serve as catalysts for community development, to develop planning and
designs centered on train stations, and to develop partnerships to implement
a community’s vision. Other reports on the connection between transit and
livable communities include a TCRP report that explored The Role of Transit
in Creating Livable Metropolitan Communities [Project for Public Spaces,
1997], and a report on transportation and community partnership [Project for
Public Spaces, 1999].
1.4.4. Transportation
and Community and System Preservation (TCSP) Pilot Program
Another manifestation of this increased focus on the role
transportation can play in community development is the Transportation and
Community and System Preservation (TCSP) Pilot Program. The TCSP Program is
a FHWA program jointly developed with the Federal Transit Administration,
the Federal Rail Administration, the Office of the Secretary, and the Research
and Special Programs Administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation,
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This program is a comprehensive
initiative of research and grants to investigate the relationships between
transportation and community, and system preservation.
Among the projects funded, a number have been designed to
specifically link public transportation and community. Examples include:
-
San Francisco: Integrate land use and housing alternatives
to support the development of the Mission Street transit corridor.
-
San Joaquin Valley (2001): Develop model zoning ordinances
and design standards to create efficient land use and livable communities
emphasizing pedestrian and transit-oriented design.
-
Athens to Atlanta: Develop a model planning process
that will address sustainable development and livability in rapidly growing
communities, resulting in a master plan for communities along proposed
commuter rail lines.
-
Lexington: Develop a handbook, CD-ROM, and workshops
for planners, developers, decision-makers and citizens on land use and
transportation strategies.
-
Saginaw: (Retrofitting Anytown, USA) Redesign a suburban
shopping mall to be more pedestrian- and transit-friendly.
-
Lansing: Develop a shared regional vision of future
land use and development patterns in the Lansing area through visual preference
surveys, modeling, and public outreach.
-
Philadelphia: Develop metropolitan area-wide strategies
to promote transportation efficiency including transit-oriented development,
location efficient mortgages, and station area plans.
-
Seattle: Promote transportation efficiency and transit-oriented
development around existing and proposed transit stations in the region.
Although the TCSP has been suspended pending reauthorization
of ISTEA, the web site provides documents that further reinforce the transportation
and community relationship.
2. Despite
Achievements, Long-Term Trends Pose Challenges
Despite the remarkable turn-around of US transit and cities,
observed in recent years, an assessment of long-term demographic, socioeconomic,
land-use, and transportation trends helps to identify some very significant
challenges to urbanized areas and to transit system providers.
There is voluminous information available from such sources
as: the U.S. Decennial Census Journey to Work survey, the related Census Transportation
Planning Package (CTTP 2000), the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS)
[formerly the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS)], the new annual
American Community Survey, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, etc. Appendix
A lists some important web resources providing information on travel patterns
and demographic and social trends.
There are also many experts that have devoted significant
effort over the years deciphering and distilling the information from these
surveys. In particular, one should note Alan Pisarski, the author of the comprehensive
in-depth analysis of Commuting in America [Pisarski, 1996; Pisarksi,
2002a], based on each of the 1980, 1990, and forthcoming 2000 Census surveys,
and John Pucher, who has written four articles over the years analyzing the
socioeconomics of urban travel based on various NHTS and NPTS surveys [Pucher
et al., 1998; Pucher and Renne, 2003]. Sandra Rosenbloom [Rosenbloom, 1998;
Rosenbloom, 2003] and Stevin Polzin [Polzin et al., 1998; Polzin, 2001; Polzin
et al., 2003] have also produced much research on travel and demographic trends
and their impacts on transit and on specific markets such as seniors or women.
There has been however, relatively little visible effort to draw out some
of the implications of these trends in ways that help transit systems define
what should be the medium to longer term strategic directions for transit
in the community; two exceptions are earlier studies based on 1990 data
[Crowley and Watson, 1991; Rosenbloom, 1998].
The following section is an attempt to distill from the above,
and from many other sources of information, a small number of trends and issues
that are believed to be particularly significant for transit systems and their
future, from a strategic point of view.
These include the following trends:
These trends raise some significant areas of societal concern:
-
Environmental, Energy, Economic, and Safety Implications
of Increasing Auto Dependence
-
Health Issues Related to Auto Use and Patterns of Built
Environment
-
Mobility of Aging Population
-
Social Integration
Although many of these challenges are well known, it is worth
re-iterating them. The review of trends has also revealed a few issues that
are less well known but merit special attention.
In addition, it should be noted, that although there is a
growing societal concern with respect to homeland security , its implications
for metropolitan travel and land use patterns, for community planning and
sustainability, and for transit’s role in sustainable communities, remain
unknown.
2.1 Trend: Growing
Sprawl
According to the latest National Resources Inventory of the US Department
of Agriculture, the pace of development has increased dramatically in the
U.S. between 1992 and 1997, with 2.2 million acres of land being converted
annually from agricultural and other non-developed uses into developed land,
and this rate of development was 150% higher than the annual rate of conversion
in the previous 10 years. This land development is characterized by growing
sprawl, with the percentage of land developed far exceeding the percentage
growth in population. This continual consumption of "greenfields"
[Benfield, Raimi, and Chen 1999] has lead to a wide range of concerns, including:
loss of natural watershed lands; loss of forests, community greenspace and
critical environmental areas (e.g. wetlands); loss of wildlife habitat; and
of particular concern, the loss of prime agricultural land; for example, from
1992 to 1997, more than 3.2 million acres of prime farmland were converted
to developed land, prompting great concern from groups such as the American
Farmland Trust, that monitor this issue through their "farming on the
Edge" initiative. The unabated growth in sprawl development has raised
numerous environmental, economic, and social concerns. However, of the many
impacts of growing sprawl development, the following three are particularly
significant for transit systems.
2.1.1. Suburbs
are capturing most population growth and job growth
Between 1990 and 2000, national population increased 13%. Central city population
increased by 9% (mostly due to immigration), but suburban population increased
by 22%, and now represents 62% of metropolitan population. The suburbs are
capturing 75% of job growth and now represent 57% of total metropolitan employment.
In addition, job sprawl is increasing with only 22% of jobs located within
three miles of the city center [Glaeser et al., 2001].
The Seattle situation, as recently reported [Sims, 2002], illustrates the
continued growth of suburban sprawl, and this despite the revitalizing of
the older urban areas in King County. From 1970-1990, the population in the
Seattle metropolitan area grew by 38% while the development of land increased
by 87%. This represents a doubling of land needed for each person over the
previous period. At the same time, there has been a 30% drop in residential
densities since 1970. The result was that vehicle miles traveled increased
three times faster than population and employment growth between 1980-1990.
In the last decade, this rate of growth in VMT is slowing, and is more parallel
to the rates of growth in population and employment.
The implication of this trend is significant to transit systems since the
journey to work by commuters is one of the core markets served by transit.
The growth of both population and job concentration in the suburbs will lead
to an increase in the demand for suburb-to-suburb travel by commuters, a market
that is difficult for transit to serve.
2.1.2. Edge
Cities
The concept of the Edge City was extensivelydocumented
by Joel Garreau in his book entitled Edge City; Life on the Frontier
[Garreau, 1991]. This concept describes the concentrations of employment and
retail that are occurring in outer suburbs across the U.S., but far from the
city center. Garreau defines an Edge City as follows [Garreau, 1991, pp. 6-7]:
-
Has five million square feet or more of leasable office
space-the workplace of the Information Age (the equivalent of downtown
Memphis),
-
Has 600,000 square feet of leasable retail space,
-
Has more jobs than bedrooms,
-
Is perceived by the population as one place, and
-
Was nothing like "city" as recently as thirty
years ago.
The formation of Edge Cities has been dramatic, and locations
like Tysons Corner in Virginia, or The Galleria in Houston, are now permanent
significant features in most U.S. urbanized areas. A recent study of 13 metropolitan
areas found that 20% of office space was located, on average, in "Edge
Cities", but this percentage was much more significant in cities such
as Washington, Denver, and reached 40% in Detroit and Dallas. The study also
found that on average, 44% of office space was located in The CBD or secondary
downtowns, but 36% was located in "Edgeless cities" involving small
clusters of office space [Lang, 2000, pp. 5-6]. The relative percentages vary
significantly between different metropolitan areas.
Edge City land-use forms, although a threat to the long-term
health of city core economic areas, do provide a relative opportunity to transit
systems. They do represent a concentration of office and retail that creates
a generator for transit ridership, more so than dispersed office parks in
"Edgeless Cities" or strip shopping malls. However, to take advantage
of this opportunity, it is critical that efforts be incorporated in the land-use
and site planning to rationally organize pedestrian movement, accessibility
for persons with reduced mobility, and transit locations and movement. This
is more likely to occur if transit is incorporated into the review process
for these major developments.
2.1.3. Box
Stores vs. Older Malls
Big Box retail, with the significant economies of scale that
it offers retailers and consumers, is rapidly replacing traditional shopping
malls and their anchor department stores as the focus of growth in the retail
sector. "For more than 30 years, the mall industry has depended on department
stores. They have been the most valued partners in developing new centers
and are the tenants with the biggest stores that pay the most rent and traditionally,
have drawn the most traffic. But the department store business continues to
struggle, having lost half its share of the retail industry to discounters
and specialty stores over the past two decades. In the first five months of
2002, while discount store sales nationwide shot up 20.1%, department stores
recorded a 2.6% decline" [Johnson, 2002, p.1]. This is encouraging consolidation
among department store corporations. "Given the consolidation forecast,
more mall anchors can expect to go dark, which puts the onus on mall owners
to create flexible alternatives. "We have too much obsolete retail space
in this country", says Geoffrey Booth, Director of retail development
at the Urban Land Institute" [Johnson, 2002, p. 4].
Traditional shopping malls offer a concentration of activity
that becomes a generator of transit ridership. Although it has taken many
years, sometimes decades, most transit systems have managed to develop cooperative
relationships with mall operators and owners, allowing them in many cases
to implement off-street terminals adjacent to the shopping mall, or even in
some cases, comprehensive joint development projects. Many transit systems
have in fact designed their entire network around these off-street terminals
located at shopping malls, which provide the basis for a hub and spoke network.
Expansion in Big Box retail gradually undermines the viability of these shopping
malls, and one is already observing the closure of older shopping malls in
older suburbs.
This trend creates two significant challenges for transit
systems. First, the weakening of traditional malls will tend to reduce transit
ridership to these locations, and puts in question the typical strategy of
placing major hubs at these sites. Second, Big Box stores are very difficult
environments for transit to serve, primarily because of the nature of their
site design with huge expanses of parking separating them from the arterials.
How can transit systems respond to the growth of Big Box stores as desired
destinations of potential transit clients and the resulting stress on traditional
malls? Innovative redevelopment of traditional malls into new formats are
starting to appear, involving outdoor markets, attractive pedestrian restaurant
facilities, artist and cultural communities, and even housing, such as the
successful "Crossings Project" in Mountain View, California, that
also is integrated with commuter rail [Cervero, 2000, p.11]. As for big boxes,
efforts to encourage a more pedestrian and transit-oriented site design may
offer some hope, such as in the case of Ikea stores in Pittsburgh and Toronto,
where most parking is located behind the store allowing relatively good pedestrian
access from the arterial.
2.2. Trend:
Growing Auto Use
2.2.1. Growth
in auto fleet and use: more cars than licensed drivers
In 2000, there is an average
of 1.69 vehicles per household, and 55.4% of households now have 2 or more vehicles.
The number of vehicles now exceeds licensed drivers. Some experts believe that
at some point there will be a saturation of car ownership rates, but this will
still mean a continuous increase of the auto fleet, though at perhaps lower
rates of growth, more in line with the growth in the population [Pisarski, 2000a].
The number of vehicles will likely rise by another 48-62 million (24-28%)
by 2020.
Between 1977 and 2001, using NPTS/NHTS data as a basis, population
grew 30%, but household vehicle trips increased 116% and household VMT increased
151%. Household VMT increased by 35% between 1990 and 2001 alone [Polzin et
al., 2003]. The reasons for this growth in automobile use are multiple, but
patterns of land use are a significant contributing factor. Some experts believe
that the rate of growth in VMT will be more moderate in the future [Polzin
et al., 2003].
The proportion of households without access to a vehicle has
been in continuous decline, dropping from 21.53% in 1960 to 10.29% in 2000.
Only one half of vehicle-less households have workers (who commute).
2.2.2
Auto market share of travel continues to increase
The forces that impel personal vehicle use for commuting
continue, and include: growing access to automobiles, continued dispersion
of jobs and population to the suburbs and beyond, continued pressures of time
on multi-worker households, and continued low levels of vehicle operating
and ownership costs.
The mode choice of single occupant vehicle for the journey
to work continues to increase, representing 64.4% in 1980, 73.2% in 1990,
and 75.7% in 2000. Single occupant commuters grew 15% over the last decade,
greater than the increase in total workers.
2.2.3. Growth
of commuting distance, and in particular in long distance commuting
Average commuting distance rose from 8.5 miles in 1990 to
10.6 miles in 1995. This is caused in particular by the expansion of commuter
capture areas. An increasingly significant segment of commuting is represented
by persons commuting longer distances, either between two different metropolitan
areas, and in particular between their respective suburban areas, or from
non-metropolitan areas into metropolitan areas. To illustrate this, nine million
commuters in the U.S. are now commuting over 60 minutes, while commuters in
the state of West Virginia experienced the highest increase in commuting travel
time (+4.5 minutes) in the country between 1990 and 2000.
2.3 Trend: Growing
Congestion but little sign of policy paradigm shift
The Texas Transportation Institute has been monitoring the
status of urban mobility in 75 urban areas across the Nation for the last 20
years. The latest annual Urban Mobility Report [Schrank and Lomax, 2004]
highlights the continuous growth of congestion and its cost to society:
-
The average annual delay per peak period (rush hour traveler)
in the 85 urban areas studies climbed from 16 hours in 1982 to 46 hours
in 2002.
-
The number of hours of the day when congestion might be
encountered has grown from 4.5 hours in 1982 to 7.1 hours in 2002.
-
58% of the major road system is congested compared to
34% in 1982
-
The 3.5 billion hours of traveler delay in the 85 areas
monitored required an excess 5.7 billion gallons of fuel.
-
The economic cost of this congestion for the 85 areas
in 2002 is $63.2 billion, compared to $61.0 billion in 2001.
The Census Journey to Work indicates that commuting travel
time increased on average 3.1 minutes over the last decade, but only 2.1 minutes
are considered a real increase (with the remaining minute due to definitional
changes) [McGuckin and Srinivasan, 2003, p.6]. This is more than double the
increase in the 1980-1990 decade. 40.5% of commutes are over 30 minutes one-way,
up from 36.4% in 1990.
The impact of congestion varies. The ever-expanding limits
of urbanized areas, and the growth in both employment and residences in the
suburbs have allowed many commuters to reduce their personal exposure to the
impacts from congestion. This creates a dichotomy between those commuters
living and working in the outer suburbs, who can avoid or reduce the impacts
of congestion, and those who cannot avoid it, and see the amount and impacts
of the congestion they experience continue to grow.
Growing congestion, as an outcome of increased auto ownership
and use is certainly a public concern, but its impact is not uniform within
and across regions, and these impacts have not reached levels that would lead
to public acceptance of major policy paradigm shifts (e.g. congestion pricing,
massive increases in fuel taxes, severe auto-constraining regulations, new
regional institutions, etc.), as advocated by various economists, environmentalists
and/or sustainable transportation professionals. As a result, the debate over
the impacts of congestion and how to address it, is likely to continue in
the current mode for some time to come, and balanced modest increases in both
road and transit capacity may be the acceptable policy response. This will
unfortunately do little for those commuters who cannot avoid the worsening
effects of their congestion.
2.4 Trend: Changing
Travel Patterns
2.4.1.
Decrease in traditional work trips as a proportion of total travel
According to the 2001 NHTS, work travel constitutes just
under 15% of all person trips and is decreasing. Furthermore, the proportion
of work travel in the peak hours is declining, and work travel is spreading
into other time periods. This is a significant challenge for transit since
it is historically designed to serve the peak commuting market.
A number of other factors are also causing profound changes
to travel patterns that affect transit’s customer base and their travel behavior,
including:
-
Over 70% of civilian employees are in the services sector
-
Service sector job growth is dispersed, not concentrated
-
Service businesses tend to be smaller in size
-
Schedules vary over the short-term
-
Employment sites are increasingly dispersed
- Increase in work at home and part-time
2.4.2.Trip
Chaining: Work+Shopping+Daycare+School
Over 60% of all women have paid employment, including two-thirds
of women with children under six, a percentage that has risen dramatically
since the early 1960’s. Since 70% of commuting households now have two or
more workers, this suggests that living near work is no longer a simple option
to achieve. This has created greater pressure on time, increasing what is
referred to as "chained" tripmaking; linking the work trip to daycare,
to food shopping, errands, etc. in an effort to reduce total travel time on
multiple trip purposes has become a central feature. 60% of employed women
(and 46% of men) make one or more stops on a typical drive home from work
2.5
Concern: Environmental, Energy, Economic, Safety Implications of Increasing
Auto Dependence
One of the conclusions from the above assessment of transportation
and land-use trends is that the auto dependence of U.S communities will continue
to increase overall. Many studies have explored the many environmental, energy,
economic (including land consumption), safety implications and costs caused
by increasing sprawl patterns of development and auto use [Benfield, Raimi,
and Chen 1999; Burchell et al., 1998; Burchell et al., 2002; Ewing et al.,
2002; Gillham, 2002; Hagler Bailly Services and Criterion Planners/Engineers,
1999; Litman, 2000]. EPA has also recently published a report focusing on
some of the environmental aspects of the land use/transportation relationship,
entitled Our Built and Natural Environments; A Technical Review of the
Interactions between Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality [U.S.
EPA, 2001].
One of the most comprehensive assessments of the broad implications
of auto dependence on the sustainability of cities comes from the research
by Peter Newman, Jeff Kenworthy, and Felix Laube. Following years of painstaking
data gathering of comparable data from cities around the world, they have
conducted broad world-wide cross-sectional assessments of environmental, energy,
economic, and safety implications of auto dependence. These have appeared
in a number of documents and articles including: Sustainability and Cities;
Overcoming Auto Dependence [Newman and Kenworthy, 1999], and A Global
Review of Energy Use in Urban Transport Systems and Its Implications for Urban
Transport and Land-Use Policy [Kenworthy and Laube, 1999b]. The actual
comparative data has been published in the massive document, An International
Sourcebook of Automobile Dependence in Cities, 1960-1990 [Kenworthy and
Laube, 1999a].
This body of research is a basic reference for persons concerned
about the sustainability of our communities and the role of the urban transportation
system. The following Tables, derived from the Kenworthy and Laube database
illustrate through international comparisons, some of the most significant
impacts of auto dependence. Over and over, along many dimensions, one observes
how excessive auto dependence, as represented by the U.S. averages, systematically
leads to more negative, or unsustainable, results, when compared to less auto
dependent cities in Australia, Canada, and especially Europe.
Table 1 Comparative Travel Statistics (1990)
| |
Annual Travel in Passenger Cars (passenger km per capita)
|
Annual Travel in Transit
(passenger km per capita)
|
|
U.S. Average
|
16,045
|
474
|
|
Australian Average
|
10,797
|
882
|
|
Canadian Average
|
9,290
|
998
|
|
European Average
|
6,602
|
1,895
|
[Kenworthy and Laube, 1999a, pp. 529, 537]
