ArticlePDF Available


The need for innovative regional transportation planning has grown as metropolitan areas consider the impact of congestion reduction efforts on induced demand, public health, and fossil fuel use and climate change. Although conventional practice among metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) is to simply expand roadway capacity to relieve congestion, many MPOs have also developed new solutions. This study qualitatively analyzes a national sample of 38 regional transportation plans to identify best practices among MPOs for increasing the capacity of regional transportation networks without inducing additional traffic or unnecessary emissions. It focuses on real-world examples of innova- tive practices such as the use of high-occupancy toll lanes on major free- ways, regulations and ordinances designed to improve the connectivity of minor streets, management of transit corridors, and the best locations for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
Ewing, Proffitt 1
Reid Ewing; University of Utah Department of City + Metropolitan Planning; 375 South 1530 11
East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0370; telephone: 801-581-8255; 12
David Proffitt; University of Utah Department of City + Metropolitan Planning; 375 South 1530 14
East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0370; telephone: 801-581-8255; 15
Submitted Nov. 13, 2015 18
Word count: 7,165 20
Tables and figures: 1 21
Ewing, Proffitt 2
The need for innovative regional transportation planning has grown as metropolitan areas 25
consider the impact of congestion-reduction efforts on induced demand, public health, and fossil-26
fuel use and climate change. Though conventional practice among metropolitan planning 27
organizations (MPOs) is to simply expand roadway capacity to relieve congestion, many MPOs 28
have developed new solutions. This study qualitatively analyzes a national sample of 38 regional 29
transportation plans (RTPs) to identify best practices among MPOs for increasing the capacity of 30
regional transportation networks without inducing additional traffic or unnecessary emissions. It 31
focuses on real-world examples of innovative practices such as the use of high-occupancy toll 32
lanes on major freeways, regulations and ordinances designed to improve the connectivity of 33
minor streets, management of transit corridors, and the best locations for bicycle and pedestrian 34
infrastructure. 35
Ewing, Proffitt 3
Many states and regions address growing traffic congestion by increasing highway lane miles, to
little avail. Since 1982, the first year of data collection, each of the ninety metropolitan areas
assessed by the annual TTI Mobility Report show higher levels of congestion, despite trillions of
dollars in highway expansion. Even Houston, which temporarily reduced congestion for years
through a continuous program of highway construction, eventually succumbed to increasing
traffic (1).
Substantial evidence shows that roadway expansion, in all likelihood, encourages
vehicular traffic as travelers tend to converge on open road in a phenomenon known as “induced
demand” (2, 3). One study found that 50 percent of added capacity fills in five years, and up to
80 percent of added capacity fills over longer time periods (4).
As roads expand, so do vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Motorists tend to drive farther as
they are able to drive faster (5–8). They also drive more frequently, as discretionary trip making
increases (9–11). In addition to VMT, expanded roadways tend to attract additional auto-oriented
development, sometimes called induced development (12–14). Maintaining high level-of-service
standards thus leads to a spiraling cycle of auto-dependence, drastically reducing mobility for the
young, old, poor, and handicapped (15). While motorists may benefit from more travel, society
as a whole does not because the costs of auto travel are only partially borne by the traveler.
When other variables are considered, including traffic delays, highway maintenance, air
pollution, and parking costs, auto use is extraordinarily expensive. On average, each dollar
drivers spend on operating vehicles imposes about $2.55 in external social costs (16).
Nonetheless, most regions will continue to expand roadway capacity in one way or
another. The question we explore is, what are the best practices that will help agencies make
better decisions about capacity expansion projects in metropolitan areas? To answer this
question, we focus mainly on metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), the regional-level
transportation policy and decision-making organizations made up of representatives of local
governments and transportation agencies that make decisions about metro-scale transportation
infrastructure. While state departments of transportation determine the location and need for state
highways, MPOs prioritize funding for most regional-scale projects. MPOs also can influence
state transportation plans. Focusing on MPOs also allows us to make meaningful comparisons
among long-range transportation plans (also referred to as regional transportation plans or
RTPs), planning documents with time horizons of at least 20 years that MPOs are required to
develop according to federal guidelines. These plans prioritize transportation projects that
cumulatively cannot exceed identified revenues.
For this study, we reviewed 38 RTPs for qualitative information about capacity-
expansion projects. We review the literature and report on MPOs’ conventional and best
practices for four different types of projects: major highways, minor streets, transit systems, and
bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure. We find that best practice for capacity expansion is not to
abandon the idea of expanding roadways entirely; rather it is to prioritize new transit projects and
bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure over additions to regional roadway networks. Where new
roadway capacity is deemed necessary, the most innovative MPOs seek to provide it using a
combination of high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes on freeways and connectivity improvements on
minor streets.
Ewing, Proffitt 4
Sample Selection
RTPs are usually hundreds of pages – and occasionally thousands of pages – in length, often in
multiple volumes with multiple appendices. For this reason, we sampled from the universe of
RTPs rather than reviewing all of them.
We chose plans to include in this analysis using a deliberative selection method that
maximized both geographic and built-environment diversity. We shaped this convenience
sample by seeking representation from all parts of the country, both for political and
methodological reasons. Mainly, we wanted to be sure our results could not be dismissed as
atypical or biased toward one set of conditions or solutions over others. For the same reason, our
sampling strategy sought representation from older, more compact regions as well as newer,
more sprawling regions.
While we sampled a wide range of urbanized areas, our sampling strategy favored large
MPOs over small ones because an initial review suggested that bigger metros face bigger
challenges, have more resources, and often arrive at more innovative solutions.
Analytical approach
To identify best practices, we employed a straightforward qualitative content-analysis approach
that built on a review of the literature and a separate analysis of more than 100 RTPs. This wide
familiarity of planning practices allowed us to identify plans that exhibited innovative best
practices. These best practices were recorded, and many are used as examples in this study.
Major Highway Expansion
When it comes to addressing traffic congestion, many RTPs focus only on the conventional
solution: expanding highways and major arterials. To some degree MPOs are following
precedent or habit, and to some extent they are conforming to federal transportation-planning
guidelines. Current federal guidelines in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
(MAP-21) set goals for the national highway system – including congestion reduction and
system reliability – that all projects using federal funding must achieve (17). Larger MPOs also
must adopt a Congestion Management Process with which they monitor mobility within the
region, obtain timely information about transportation system performance, and make
recommendations to correct deficiencies. While the emphasis on congestion management may
tilt the planning process toward capacity expansion, emerging guidelines that emphasize social
and environmental factors may have just the opposite effect, pushing MPOs instead to minimize
highway-induced traffic and contain VMT. The Kansas City RTP, for example, has appendices
on environmental justice, air quality conformity, and metropolitan planning factors (18). The
fact that RTPs lavish time and attention on these regulatory topics indicates that federal
regulations can shift the emphasis of RTPs toward emerging goals of state or federal policy.
Future performance measures that continue to emphasize congestion reduction may reinforce
conventional practice.
Ewing, Proffitt 5
One way to potentially blunt the VMT-inducing effect of additional highway capacity
and roadway expansion is to combine highway expansion with user pricing and HOV treatments.
Travel-time savings and reliability improvements underlie the attractiveness of HOV facilities
for users. However, HOV facilities do not appear able to counter long-term growth in travel
demand. A more realistic expectation is that HOV lanes may help reduce growth in VMT and
increase potential carrying capacity by inducing higher vehicle occupancies (19). Urban areas
that successfully reduce VMT growth typically have a population of over 1.5 million, HOV
service to major employment centers with more than 100,000 jobs (such as a CBD), and
geographic barriers that concentrate development and constrict travel. Furthermore, there should
be realistic potential for transit using the facility with 25 or more buses in the peak hour (19).
The presence of traffic congestion also is an essential factor.
Conventional Practice
The conventional practice is to expand highway capacity through general-purpose lane additions.
However, such expansion induces additional traffic and urban sprawl. If pricing is applied, it
comes in the form of general tolls that do not vary by time of day or congestion level. If lanes
are reserved for high-occupancy vehicles, they are not tolled and do not generate revenues.
Best Practice
The emerging best practice is to favor managed facilities over general-purpose highway
expansion. Although commonly employed by airlines, utility companies and others, using price
to avoid peak-period overload is the exception in surface transportation policy. But high-
occupancy toll (HOT) lanes — which allow non-carpool drivers to pay a toll to access
underutilized carpool lanes — can provide travel options for carpools, express buses and toll
payers. They also allow for more efficient use of freeway capacity and generate revenues for
other highway and transit improvements.
Express lanes, or HOT lanes, have been in operation for more than a decade in Houston,
Los Angeles, and San Diego, and opened in Denver, Miami, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and
Seattle in the past five years (20–26).
Surveys show most travelers use express lanes to bypass congestion when they are late to
pick up a child at daycare, to squeeze more working hours out of a day, or to catch a plane. For
this reason, and because revenue from express lanes often supports transit service, express lanes
are widely supported by travelers at all income levels (27).
The San Francisco 2035 RTP establishes and funds the Bay Area Express Lane Network,
extending the express lane concept to a regional network of express lanes spanning 800 miles
(27). The San Francisco MPO estimates it will cost $7.6 billion to build, finance, and operate the
network over the next 25 years. With gross express lane toll revenues reaching $13.7 billion over
the same period, the remaining $6.1 billion in net revenue would be available to finance
additional improvements in the express lane corridors. To keep express lane traffic flowing, tolls
during congested periods will be comparatively high so only a small number of non-carpoolers.
Tolls will be much lower during periods of lighter traffic. Non-carpoolers using the express lanes
will pay their tolls through the FasTrak® system, which allows drivers to pay without forcing
slowing down or stopping (27).
San Diego also has plans for an extensive network of HOT lanes on more than 200 miles
of highway. Pricing will be used to cover selected connectors and a network of ramp meters in
the region (21).
Ewing, Proffitt 6
Other regions with less ambitious plans to institute or expand express lanes include
Atlanta, Denver, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Seattle (22, 24, 26, 28, 29).
Minor Street Expansion
The design of minor street networks has slipped through the cracks between engineering and
planning. Yet, a meta-analysis of more than 200 studies of the built environment and travel
showed that street design and network connectivity are primary determinants of VMT, walking,
and transit use (14). The elasticities found by Ewing and Cervero (14) suggest that a 10 percent
increase in intersection density is associated with a 12 percent reduction in VMT, a 39 percent
increase in walking, and a 23 percent increase in transit use.
Adequate public facilities requirements that coordinate land use and transportation with
respect to roadway capacity are one way for communities to influence the design of local street
networks. A review of regulations in 14 U.S. communities provides examples of requirements
aimed at three network characteristics: (1) block size, (2) degree of curvature, and (3) degree of
interconnectivity (30). With block length limits, land development codes control the spacing of
streets, thereby creating relatively predictable and evenly distributed networks of streets. While
much less common, the ratio of travel distance via the network to straight-line distance between
points is also sometimes used to affect block size, curvature, and connectivity. With
connectivity requirements, land development codes require a certain ratio of street segments to
street ends, thereby effectively limiting the number of cul-de-sacs and loop roads.
Conventional Practice
Conventional practice is to focus attention and funding on freeways and arterials. If they are
projected to operate below some acceptable level of service, then the RTP includes road
widening or operational improvements among the funded projects. Seattle’s RTP is typical of
this emphasis:
Roadway capacity expansion projects include over 1,500 new miles of highway
and regional arterial lanes to address the region’s worst choke points, complete
projects that have been started, and anticipate future problems (26).
The problem with this focus is twofold. First, it ignores the role played by lesser
roadways in the functional hierarchy – roads classified as minor arterials, collectors, or local
streets. Another problem is the incontrovertible fact that improvements to higher-level facilities
induce additional VMT. This is apparent from the literature generally (8, 12).
Best Practice
Minor arterials, collectors, and local streets can either relieve some of the pressure on arterials or
add to that pressure depending on how complete the network is. They also can make walking and
cycling either attractive or nearly impossible. A few RTPs acknowledge the importance of a
dense network of interconnected minor streets, including Cincinnati’s:
The curvilinear cul-de-sac street pattern typical of recent subdivision design in the
OKI region usually has very long blocks and many dead end streets. This pattern
offers few route options since all traffic is typically funneled out onto a small
number of arterial roads, which can cause congestion. ... Improving street
connectivity by providing parallel routes and cross connections, and a small
Ewing, Proffitt 7
number of closed end streets, can reduce traffic on arterial streets and reduce
travel time (31).
Few MPOs include funding for minor roads in their plans, budget resources for them, or
establish street connectivity guidelines. The Denver RTP is an exception:
While local streets are not depicted as part of the regional roadway system, they
are important for providing access to and through local developments and
neighborhoods. The costs to build and maintain local streets, including collectors
and minor arterials, are included in the 2035 MVRTP (22).
The City of Charlotte has established a connectivity policy that emphasizes a system of
streets providing multiple routes and connections between origins and destinations.
Connectivity is important because a highly connected street network can greatly
reduce trip lengths, thereby reducing vehicle miles travel which in turn results in
reduced emissions (33).
In one notable example of minor street regulation on a broad scale, the state of Virginia
maintains secondary street acceptance requirements. Virginia is one of a few states that manage
the maintenance and operation of local streets, providing an opportunity for direct influence on
street design.
Before the Virginia Department of Transportation will accept responsibility for
maintaining local streets, they must meet certain connectivity requirements. The connectivity
requirements aim to link adjacent developments and undeveloped parcels, thus improving the
overall capacity of the transportation network, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and improving
emergency response times. As a way of quantifying connectivity, the rules use a “connectivity
index” which takes the number of street segments and divides it by the number of intersections.
Index requirements vary with area type, with more connections required in compact areas than in
suburban or rural areas. However, all new developments must have multiple transportation
connections. Furthermore, compact and suburban area types must provide block layouts allowing
reasonably direct pedestrian connections through the development and to adjoining property.
Developers can choose not to tie into the provided connections per the new rule; however this
will result in the inability of the neighborhood to be accepted into the state system.
Transit Expansion
For many transit riders, transit is a choice. For these discretionary riders, transit comfort and
convenience improvements determine whether or not they will choose transit (3, 34). Pricing
can make transit a competitive mode, especially if the tripmaker can reduce trip costs by using
transit. In TCRP Report 95, Turnbull et al. (35) concluded that if the overall cost of the trip,
including transit fare and cost to get to the facility, is less than the cost of the trip using the
automobile only, demand tends to be higher.
Park-and-ride facilities make transit an easier decision for many commuters. Four travel
surveys from San Jose, San Francisco, Chicago, and Delaware showed that time and costs
associated with all components of the trip, including the availability of parking spaces at the
desired mode change location, are the primary incentives in choosing to take transit (36). In
Connecticut, the commuter rail line increased ridership by 0.74 to 0.77 people for every new
parking space added to its park-and-ride facilities, including 0.11 to 0.6 “new riders” presumed
to have switched to commuter rail as a result of parking improvements (35). A study of
Ewing, Proffitt 8
commuter rail in New Jersey found that non-resident parking restrictions at stations reduced
ridership (37). Heavy rail systems have some of the largest and most used park-and-ride
facilities. Demand is highest at stations in the suburbs with good highway access. Atlanta’s
MARTA offers 26,000 parking spaces with over 50 percent concentrated near the end of the line
Studies of bike accommodations at rail stations show similar results. Ewing (38) noted
that people will ride a bicycle 2-3 miles to a transit stop, eight times the typical walking distance,
which means a service area 64 times larger for bicyclists than pedestrians. Bike carriers on
transit vehicles also allow bicycles to be used for “last-mile” connections, something even the
automobile (in a park-and-ride mode) cannot match.
Aside from facility improvements, transit networks must be convenient, safe, and
reliable. Wait and transfer times are particularly important. An examination of over 50 work
purpose travel demand models from throughout the United States found each minute of transit
wait time was 2.12 times as important as each minute of in-vehicle travel time. Increasing transit
frequency reduces these wait times and makes transit a more attractive travel mode (39). Transit
reliability is rated by tripmakers as one of the most important factors for work trips. Evans (39)
cites attitudinal studies of commuters in Baltimore and Philadelphia that found “arrival at
intended time” to be the second most important travel attribute for work trips after “arrival
without accident.”
Providing information and promotional materials can inform citizens about their travel
options and the impacts of their choices. Promotions such as free or reduced fares entice
consumers with an extra incentive for riding transit. Turnbull & Pratt (40) examined seven mass
market promotions with incentives and found ridership increased during the promotional events
in all but one instance.
Perhaps the ultimate enhancement to transit accessibility is placing more residences and
activities within reasonable walking distances of transit stations and stops. This is the thrust of
transit-oriented development (TOD), which generally refers to higher density development
located around a major transit station or stop. A national survey conducted for Smart Growth
America and the National Association of Realtors found that 56 percent of respondents
expressed a preference for communities with a mix of denser housing, sidewalks, shopping and
schools within walking distance, commutes of less than 45 minutes, and nearby public
transportation (41). Hedonic studies of housing prices back up these findings. Houses in
neighborhoods with improved internal connectivity, pedestrian access to commercial
destinations, better transit access, and less external connectivity command a price premium (42,
Conventional Practice
Conventional practice is to fund highways heavily and transit lightly, then lament the fact that
travelers seem to prefer the automobile. Consider the following passages from the Kansas City
Kansas City’s system of roadways is among the most extensive in the nation.
Recently, new statistics made available from the Federal Highway Administration
confirm that Kansas City continues to possess the most freeway miles per person
of all urbanized areas with populations greater than 500,000 (p. 2-12).
It should be noted that the sharp drop in the KCATA’s [transit] ridership during
the early 1980s is in part due to the significant reduction in service implemented
Ewing, Proffitt 9
at that time. … Ridership has decreased slightly since 2001, mostly due to a
reduction in scheduled service miles resulting from decreased funding support (p.
It is a self-fulfilling prophecy that transit cannot compete with the automobile if transit
service is cut and freeways are expanded. Only 1.3 percent of commute trips in Kansas City are
by transit, one of the lowest shares for a large urbanized area in the U.S (18).
Best Practice
The best practice gives transit investments a higher priority than highway investments because
transit investments can ease traffic congestion without inducing additional VMT and the social
costs that accompany it (GHG emissions, for example). The Texas Transportation Institute
estimates that in the Boston region, annual person-hour delay on roadways is 54 percent lower
than what it would be without public transportation (44). TTI has performed similar
calculations, with similar results, for other large regions.
Because it represents a win-win for congestion and VMT, some MPOs shift more funding
to transit than its relatively low mode share might suggest. In San Francisco,
Almost two-thirds of plan expenditures are spent on public transit … in an effort
to reduce vehicle miles traveled, congestion on Bay Area freeways, and
greenhouse gas and particulate matter emissions (27).
In Boston, the MPO voted to “flex” $208 million in highway funding for transit projects
(44). This means the MPO is spending approximately two dollars on transit projects for every
three dollars on highway projects.
Even in Los Angeles, with its autocentric culture, more is now being spent on transit than
on highways.
Beginning in the 1980s, a major shift occurred away from building roadways and
into transit projects and services. Between 2000 and 2005, regional transit use
increased by more than 16 percent, and in 2005, our region reached the highest
ridership per capita in about 20 years (29).
These RTPs illustrate two other principles of the transit oriented planning. First, a full
range of transit service types should be provided, including the newest addition to the transit
family, bus rapid transit (BRT). Second, land use changes that encourage TOD should be
planned for transit station areas in order to boost transit productivity.
On the range of services provided, Denver, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Portland, Salt Lake
City, and others now have it all (22, 24, 25, 45). Take Salt Lake City. Its plan calls for extending
the region’s commuter rail line by 22 miles, expanding the streetcar and light-rail network by 32
miles, and adding nine new BRT lines (25). In smaller urbanized areas, “having it all” may mean
something different. In Tucson, for example, the RTP proposes new BRT and streetcar services,
and possibly commuter rail at some point, but no light rail (46).
On the promotion of transit-oriented development around stations, many previously
autocentric cities have followed the lead of Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and Portland.
Charlotte’s 2025 Integrated Transit/Land Use Plan redirects development from auto-oriented
wedges to transit-served corridors. When completed, the network will serve four times as many
transit riders as the present system and will include 14 miles of BRT, 21 miles of LRT, 16 miles
Ewing, Proffitt 10
of streetcar, 25 miles of commuter rail, and an extended network of bus service. Over the next 30
years, growth is expected to intensify centers, corridors, and transit station areas (33).
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
The presence of bicycle facilities has consistently correlated with higher rates of cycling (47–54).
In a study of 42 cities, Dill and Carr (49) found that every additional mile of bicycle paths and
lanes correlated with a 1 percent increase in bicycle ridership when controlling for factors such
as weather and spending on infrastructure.
In terms of facility type, there is a clear preference for shared-use bicycle paths and
separated bicycle lanes, also called cycle-tracks, over riding in lanes shared with auto traffic.
People will bicycle out of their way in order to use dedicated paths and lanes (55–59). In a large
study of 92 cities, Buehler and Pucher (50) controlled for a variety of demographic, weather and
built environment characteristics and found that a 10 percent increase in the supply of dedicated
bike lanes is associated with a 3.1 percent increase in the level of bicycle commuting, while a 10
percent increase in the supply of separated bicycle paths is associated with a 2.5 percent increase
in the level of bicycle commuting.
The design of the built environment also affects the use of bicycle infrastructure. In a
study of 3,280 utilitarian bicycle and car trips in metropolitan Vancouver, Canada, cycling trips
were positively associated with less hilliness; higher intersection density; less highways and
arterials; presence of bicycle signage, traffic calming, and cyclist-activated traffic lights; more
neighborhood commercial, educational, and industrial land uses; greater land use mix; and higher
population density (60). Additionally, Handy and Xing identified high monthly parking costs, the
social environment of the workplace and a residential preference for a good environment for
cycling, a measure of self selection, as positively impacting bicycling travel behaviors (61).
According to research by the Portland Bureau of Transportation and subsequent research
by the Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation, existing and potential bicyclists can be
categorized into a few distinct categories. Approximately 1 percent of the population is strong
and fearless when bicycling, 7 percent is enthused and confident regarding bicycling, 60 percent
is “interested but concerned” regarding cycling, and 33 percent will never bicycle regularly (62,
63). These categories provide some guidance for targeting investments to encourage bicycling.
According to this model, places that have achieved bicycle mode shares over 30 percent have
started to successfully accommodate this “interested but concerned” demographic.
Regarding design standards, cities are pioneering new guidelines that emphasize
separation and protection of bicycles in an effort to encourage the interested but concerned
demographic. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), a coalition
of transportation professionals from major cities throughout the U.S., has released two editions
of a manual that incorporates separated facilities such as cycle tracks, bicycle-priority designs
such as bicycle boulevards, and traditional bicycle lane designs (65). In contrast to the new
standards adopted by major US cities, the latest national-level guidance, the AASHTO Guide for
the Planning, Design and Operation of Bicycle Facilities, focuses solely on conventional bike
lane designs adjacent to automobile traffic (66).
Conventional Practice
The conventional practice is to treat bicycle and pedestrian travel as somewhat incidental to the
regional transportation system. “While many of the denser parts of the region have
comprehensive sidewalk networks, the more rural and recently developed suburban areas have
Ewing, Proffitt 11
been designed primarily for the automobile, as pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and
crosswalks are not consistently included in roadway projects.” (67).
In most regions, bicycle and pedestrian travel is not forecast along with auto and transit
travel. Most regions do not have “complete streets” policies to guarantee that new roadways
accommodate bicycle and pedestrian users, nor do they plan for closing gaps in the existing
bicycle and pedestrian networks.
Best Practice
One best practice with respect to bicycle and pedestrian travel is to adopt ambitious mode share
targets. The Seattle MPO has set a goal of 20 percent of all trips by biking and walking by 2030
(26). The current mode share is 5 percent.
Another best practice is to adopt a complete streets policy so all new roadways
accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. Some MPOs, like New York’s, have no formal policy
but rely on state and local governments to pursue complete streets:
The region is at the forefront of designing and operating transportation
infrastructure that supports all types of travel. NYMTC members continue to
develop what have been called “complete streets,” streets that are open and safe
for all users. Benefits include improved access to the transit system, which
encourages higher transit ridership and discourages auto use (69).
Other MPOs, like St. Louis’s, try to cajole constituent governments into providing
complete streets:
In 2006, the Council launched the Great Streets Initiative to expand the way
communities think of transportation. Rather than viewing a roadway project as
solely a way to move more cars and trucks faster, the goal of the St. Louis Great
Streets Initiative is to trigger economic and social benefits by centering
communities around interesting, lively and attractive streets that serve all modes
of transportation (70).
Going a step further, the Sacramento MPO, in coordination with the local Complete
Streets Coalition, has developed a Complete Streets Resource Toolkit. The toolkit is part of
SACOG's complete streets technical assistance program. The toolkit includes fact sheets, case
studies, presentations, and photo simulations that put resources at the fingertips of any advocate,
community member, planner, or engineer.
A third best practice involves the retrofitting of existing streets with sidewalks and bike
lanes. Sidewalks are currently provided on only 70 percent of arterial roads within the Denver
urbanized area. An additional 500 linear miles are needed to complete the system (22). Even the
Portland region has major gaps in its pedestrian network. In 2001, the region had 1,230 miles of
potential pedestrian facilities in transit/mixed use corridors and pedestrian districts. However,
only 821 miles of those 1,230 potential miles had sidewalks, for a pedestrian system that was
only 66 percent complete (45).
In this regard, the best practice is to develop bicycle and pedestrian master plans for
completing these networks and to fully fund these plans. For instance, each New York City sub-
area has developed its own pedestrian and bicycle plans to guide future investments in non-
motorized transportation (69). The Reno MPO has a Regional Bikeways Plan that will place bike
lanes on nearly all roadways in the central area. The RTP anticipates that 80 percent of the plan
will be completed by 2020 and that 100 percent will be completed by 2040 (71).
Ewing, Proffitt 12
However, among regions earmarking funds for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, none
spends as much on those facilities as the mode share would seem to justify. In Sacramento, for
instance, 3.36 percent of total funds ($2.4 billion in escalated costs) are earmarked for exclusive
bicycle and pedestrian improvements, including bicycle trails, sidewalks, ADA retrofits, and
supporting facilities. In addition, 25 percent of the road capital projects have a bicycle or
pedestrian feature that is not included in the $1.4 billion total (32). That is one of the highest
percentages among featured RTPs, but it is still far less than the bike-ped mode share.
A fourth best practice is to forecast bicycle and pedestrian travel as available mode
choices, accounting for mode shifts as facilities are improved and land use patterns become more
compact. The common failure to even acknowledge the possibility of nonmotorized trips puts
these modes at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis motorized modes when it comes to funding
A wealth of research over the past few decades has linked roadway capacity expansions
to increasing levels of VMT. An even larger body of research shows that more time spent behind
the wheel has deleterious effects on the health, economic well-being, and the environment of
people and the places they call home. But this does not mean that MPOs should never pursue
capacity expansion projects. Most Americans still depend on automobiles to get them where they
need to be, a situation that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. While it is clear that
MPOs can no longer simply follow the predict and provide model of adding new freeway and
arterial lanes whenever traffic projections show congestion increasing, the direction they should
go is less obvious.
The 35 RTPs analyzed for this study offer some answers to this question. Many U.S.
MPOs are employing innovative approaches to transportation capacity expansion that minimize
the threat of induced demand and the negative outcomes associated with high rates of VMT.
When it comes to highway expansions, the emerging best practice is to add HOT lanes
rather than general-purpose lanes. These facilities not only temper demand and VMT growth by
encouraging carpooling and off-peak travel, they bring in valuable revenue in the form of tolls
from single-occupant vehicles. Many MPOs have used these revenues to expand their network of
HOT lanes or plug budget holes for transit and other programs. Similarly, minor roadways can
play a role in improving regional transportation if new projects focus on improving connections
between key origins and destinations for all modes. This includes “complete streets” that
encourage walking, biking, and transit.
Many plans frame transit improvements as capacity expansions if they are designed to
attract riders who otherwise would drive. Best practices for planning transit involve setting
ambitious mode-share targets and funding frequent, reliable, high-quality service. Marketing
programs and incentives can also increase transit ridership significantly, especially in regions
that experience regular road congestion during peak commute times. Improving bicycling and
pedestrian infrastructure can also draw people out of their cars. Increasing the network of bike
lanes, especially protected bikeways, and sidewalks are the best strategies here, so best practices
are simply planning for and funding these expansions.
A range of factors influence how – and whether – MPOs adopt best practices. Federal
planning guidelines, such as MAP-21’s national highway system performance goals that
emphasize congestion reduction and system reliability, systematically bias MPOs toward
capacity expansion. Updated rules and guidelines that emphasize emissions reduction and
Ewing, Proffitt 13
encouraging active transportation as well could balance the scales. Congressional action on a
new transportation bill to replace MAP-21 will bear watching.
Future research also should look more in-depth at the MPOs that have adopted innovative
best practices and how they managed to move beyond an exclusive focus on roadway expansion.
Do non-structural programs such as marketing or other incentives, for instance, affect demand
for highway and roadway expansion? Answering these questions would require an approach that
goes beyond an analysis of RTPs and is therefore beyond the scope of the current study.
However, by identifying innovative practices, the current work provides a foundation for
exploring these important questions.
Ewing, Proffitt 14
1. Schrank, D., T. Lomax, and S. Turner. Urban mobility report. Texas, 2009.
2. Downs, A. Still Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak-Hour Traffic Congestion. Brookings
Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 2004.
3. Litman, T. A. Smart Congestion Reductions: Re-evaluating the Role of Highway
Expansion for Improving Urban Transportation. Victoria, B.C., 2010.
4. Noland, R. B. Traffic fatalities and injuries: Are reductions the result of “improvements”
in highway design standards? 2001.
5. Hansen, M., and Y. Huang. Road Supply and Traffic in California Urban Areas.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 31, No. 3, 1997, pp. 205–218.
6. Handy, S., A. Degarmo, and K. Clifton. Understanding the Growth in Non-Work VMT.
Austin, Tex., 2002.
7. Duranton, G., and M. A. Turner. The Fundamental law of road congestion. American
Economic Review, Vol. 101, No. October, 2011, pp. 2616–2652.
8. Cervero, R. The Built Environment and Travel: Evidence from the United States.
European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2003, pp.
9. Morris, J. M., P. L. Dumble, and M. R. Wigan. Accessibility indicators for transport
planning. Transportation Research Part A: General, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1979, pp. 91–109.
10. Crane, R., and R. Crepeau. Does neighborhood design influence travel?: A behavioral
analysis of travel diary and GIS data. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1998, pp. 225–238.
11. Cervero, R. Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced Travel. Journal of the
American Planning Association, Vol. 69, No. 2, 2003, pp. 145–163.
12. Ewing, R. Highway-Induced Development: Research Results for Metropolitan Areas.
Ewing, Proffitt 15
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol.
2067, Dec. 2008, pp. 101–109.
13. Ewing, R., K. Bartholomew, S. Winkelman, J. Walters, D. Chen, B. McCann, and D.
Goldberg. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change.
Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C., 2007.
14. Ewing, R., and R. Cervero. Travel and the Built Environment. Journal of the American
Planning Association, Vol. 76, No. 3, Jun. 2010, pp. 265–294.
15. Levine, J., J. Grengs, Q. Shen, and Q. Shen. Does Accessibility Require Density or
Speed? Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 78, No. 2, Apr. 2012, pp.
16. Litman, T. A. Transportation cost and benefit analysis. Victoria, B.C., 2009.
17. Federal Highway Administration. MAP-21 Performance Requirements Summary. Accessed Nov. 14, 2015.
18. Mid-America Regional Council. Transportation Outlook 2040. Kansas City, Mo., 2010.
19. Turnbull, K. F., H. S. Levinson, R. H. Pratt, J. E. Evans, and K. U. Bhatt. HOV Facilities.
Transportation Research Board Transit Cooperative Research Program, Washington, D.C.,
20. Houston-Galveston Area Council. Bridging Our Communities: The Houston-Galveston
Regional Transportation Plan. Houston, Tex., 2012.
21. San Diego Association of Governments. 2030 San Diego Regional Transportation Plan:
Pathways for the Future. San Diego, Calif., 2007.
22. Denver Regional Council of Governments. 2035 Metro Vision Regional Transportation
Plan. Denver, Colo., 2011.
23. Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization. Mobility Options 2040 Eyes on the
Future. Miami, Fla., 2014.
24. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Council. Transportation Policy Plan. Minneapolis,
Ewing, Proffitt 16
Minn., 2010.
25. Wasatch Front Regional Council. Regional Transportation Plan 2015-2040. Salt Lake
City, Utah, 2015.
26. Puget Sound Regional Council. Transportation 2040. Seattle, Wash., 2010.
27. Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Change in Motion: Transportation 2035 Plan
for the San Francisco Bay Area. San Francisco, Calif., 2009.
28. Atlanta Regional Commission. Plan 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. Atlanta, Ga.,
29. Southern California Association of Governments. Regional Transportation Plan 2012-
2035 Sustainable Communities Strategy Towards a Sustainable Future. Los Angeles,
30. Handy, S., R. G. Paterson, and K. S. Butler. Planning for Street Connectivity. American
Planning Association, Chicago, 2003.
31. Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments. 2040 OKI Regional
Transportation Plan. Cincinnati, Ohio, 2012.
32. Sacramento Area Council of Governments. Sacramento Region Metropolitan
Transportation Plan for 2035. Sacramento, Calif., 2008.
33. Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2035 Long-Range
Transportation Plan. 2010.
34. Phillips, R., J. Karachepone, and B. Landis. Multi-Modal Quality of Service Project.
35. Turnbull, K. F., J. E. Evans, and H. S. Levinson. Park and Ride/Pool: Traveler Response
to System Changes. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2004.
36. Hendricks, S., and M. Outwater. Demand Forecasting Model for Park-and-Ride Lots in
King County, Washington. Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1623, 1998.
Ewing, Proffitt 17
37. Deka, D. The impacts of non-resident parking restrictions at commuter rail stations.
Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 24, 2012, pp. 451–461.
38. Ewing, R. Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? American Planning Association.
Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 1, 1997, pp. 107–126.
39. Evans, J. E. Transit scheduling and frequency. In Traveler Response to Transportation
System Changes, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
40. Turnbull, K. F., and R. H. Pratt. Transit Information and Promotion. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2003.
41. Belden Russonello & Stewart LLC. The 2011 Community Preference Survey: What
Americans are looking for when deciding where to live. Washington, D.C., 2011.
42. Song, Y., and G. J. Knaap. New urbanism and housing values: A disaggregate
assessment. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 54, No. 2, 2003, pp. 218–238.
43. Sohn, D. W., A. V. Moudon, and J. Lee. The economic value of walkable neighborhoods.
URBAN DESIGN International, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2012, pp. 115–128.
44. Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization. Journey to 2030. Boston, 2007.
45. Portland Metro Regional Government. 2035 Regional Transportation Plan Update.
Portland, Ore., 2010.
46. Pima Association of Governments. 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. Tucson, Ariz.,
47. Nelson, A. C., and D. Allen. If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them:
Association Between Bicycle Facilities and Bicycle Commuting. Transportation Research
Record, Vol. 1578, 1997.
48. MacBeth, A. G. Bicycle Lanes in Toronto. ITE Journal, Vol. 69, No. 4, 1999.
49. Dill, J., and T. Carr. Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities: If You Build
Them, Commuters Will Use Them. Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1828, No. 1,
2003, pp. 116–123.
Ewing, Proffitt 18
50. Pucher, J., and R. Buehler. Walking and Cycling for Healthy Cities. 2010.
51. Parker, K. M., J. Rice, J. Gustat, J. Ruley, A. Spriggs, and C. Johnson. Effect of bike lane
infrastructure improvements on ridership in one New Orleans neighborhood. Annals of
Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 45, No. SUPPL.1, 2013.
52. Buehler, R., A. Hamre, D. Sonenklar, and P. Goger. Trends and determinants of cycling
in the Washington, DC region. 2011.
53. Duthie, J., J. F. Brady, A. F. Mills, and R. B. Machemehl. Effects of On-Street Bicycle
Facility Configuration on Bicyclist and Motorist Behavior. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2190, No. -1, 2011, pp. 37–
54. Queensland Transport. Bicycle Mode Share to CBD and CBD Fringe 1986 to 2006. 2007.
55. Barnes, G., and K. Thompson. A Longitudinal Analysis of the Effect of Bicycle Facilities
on Commute Mode Share. 2006.
56. Moudon, A. V., C. Lee, A. D. Cheadle, C. W. Collier, D. Johnson, T. L. Schmid, and R.
D. Weather. Cycling and the built environment, a US perspective. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2005, pp. 245–261.
57. Krizek, K. J., A. El-Geneidy, and K. Thompson. A detailed analysis of how an urban trail
system affects cyclists’ travel. Transportation, Vol. 34, No. 5, 2007, pp. 611–624.
58. Dill, J. Bicycling for transportation and health: the role of infrastructure. Journal of
public health policy, Vol. 30 Suppl 1, No. 1, 2009, pp. S95–S110.
59. Lusk, A. C., P. G. Furth, P. Morency, L. F. Miranda-Moreno, W. C. Willett, and J. T.
Dennerlein. Risk of injury for bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the street. Injury
prevention: Journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury
Prevention, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2011, pp. 131–135.
60. Winters, M., M. Brauer, E. M. Setton, and K. Teschke. Built environment influences on
healthy transportation choices: Bicycling versus driving. Journal of Urban Health, Vol.
87, No. 6, 2010, pp. 969–993.
Ewing, Proffitt 19
61. Handy, S. L., and Y. Xing. Factors Correlated with Bicycle Commuting: A Study in Six
Small U.S. Cities. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 5, No. 2,
2011, pp. 91–110.
62. Geller, R. Four Types of Cyclists. Portland, Ore., 2009.
63. Dill, J., and N. McNeil. Four types of cyclists? Examination of typology for better
understanding of bicycling behavior and potential. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2387, 2013, pp. 129–138.
64. The Technical and Environmental Administration. Copenhagen Bicycle Account.
Copenhagen, 2011.
65. NACTO. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Washington, D.C., 2012.
66. AASHTO. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Bicycle Facilities.
Washington, D.C., 2012.
67. Baltimore Regional Transportation Board. Transportation Outlook 2035. Baltimore, Md.,
68. North Central Texas Council of Governments. Mobility 2030: The Metropolitan
Transportation Plan for the Dallas-Ft. Worth Area, 2009 Amendment. Dallas, 2009.
69. New York Metropolitan Transportation Council. 2010-2035 NYMTC Region
Transportation Plan. New York, 2010.
70. East-West Gateway Council of Governments. Legacy 2035: The Transportation Plan for
the Gateway Region. St. Louis, Mo., 2007.
71. Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County. Regional Transportation Plan:
2008-2030. Reno, Nev., 2008.
Ewing, Proffitt 20
TABLE 1 MPOs and Urbanized Areas Included in The Study
Urbanized Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Atlanta, GA
Atlanta Regional Commission
Austin, TX
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Baltimore, MD
Baltimore Regional Transportation Board
Boise, ID
Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho
Boston, MA
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization
Burlington, VT
Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Charlotte, NC
Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization
Charlottesville, VA
Charlottesville Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization
Chattanooga, TN
Chattanooga Transportation Planning Organization
Chicago, IL
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning
Cincinnati, OH
OKI Regional Council of Governments
Colorado Springs, CO
Pike's Peak Area Council of Governments
Columbus, OH
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX
North Central Texas Council of Governments
Dayton, OH
Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission
Denver, CO
Denver Regional Council of Governments
Des Moines, IA
Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Durham, NC
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
Eugene, OR
Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization
Honolulu, HI
Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization
Indianapolis, IN
Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization
Kansas City, MO
Mid-America Regional Council
Lansing, MI
Tri-County Regional Planning Commission
Los Angeles, CA
Southern California Association of Governments
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
Metropolitan Council
New York, NY
New York Metropolitan Transportation Council
Philadelphia, PA
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Council
Portland, OR
Portland Metro Regional Government
Raleigh, NC
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Reno, NV
Regional Transportation Commission
Sacramento, CA
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Salt Lake City, UT
Wasatch Front Regional Council
San Diego, CA
San Diego Association of Governments
San Francisco, CA
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Seattle, WA
Puget Sound Regional Council
St. Louis, MO
East-West Gateway Council of Governments
Tallahassee, FL
Capital Region Transportation Planning Agency
Tucson, AZ
Pima Association of Governments
... The second scenario is BRT and tram projects with highway expansion. According to Ewing and Proffitt [21], the best practice for road capacity expansion is to prioritise new transit projects over addition to regional roadway networks. In this scenario, the road capacity for other transport modes will not be reduced. ...
Full-text available
Background: Commuting time is highly influenced by traffic congestion. System dynamics simulation can help identify the cause of traffic problems to improve travel time efficiency.Objective: This study aims to reduce traffic congestion and minimise commuting time efficiency using system dynamics simulation and scenarios. The developed scenarios implement the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and trams projects in the model.Methods: System dynamics simulation is used to analyse the transport system in Surabaya and the impact of BRT and trams project implementation in the model in order to improve commuting time and to reduce congestion.Results: From the simulation results, with the implementation of BRT and tram projects along with highway expansion, traffic congestion is predicted to decline by 24-44%. With the reduction of traffic congestion, travel time efficiency is predicted to improve by 11-28%. On the contrary, implementation of BRT and tram project without highway expansion is predicted to increase the traffic congestion by 5% in the initial year of implementation, then traffic congestion is predicted to decline by 2% in 2035.Conclusion: Based on the scenarios, transport project implementation such as BRT and trams should be accompanied with improvement of infrastructure. Further research is needed to develop a more comprehensive transportation system to capture a broader view of the problem. Keywords: Model, Simulation, System Dynamics, Traffic Congestion, Travel Time
Developing countries are facing various challenges and mass scale urbanisation; and issues related to urban mobility are few of them. Particularly mega cities are struggling with increased rates of motorisation along with dilapidated conditions of public transport systems. To overcome these mobility hurdles the adoption of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is considered an optimal option for countries with limited financial and technical resources. Likewise, the policy makers of Pakistan introduced the first BRT named the Lahore Metro Bus (LMB) in 2013. This research examines the role of LMB under the lens of urban planning. To determine the potentials of BRT (LMB) in terms of urban development this research paper is organised into two sections. In section one the nature of the executed metro bus service in Lahore is explored and in section two the potentials of this service from the perspective of urban planning are discussed. The methodology adopted in this study is a mixed method research structured on an exploratory sequential framework. Semi structured interviews are conducted with planning professionals of Lahore explaining the role that the service has or ought to have in terms of urban development. These interviews with planning professionals highlight certain discourses, explaining the current planning process of transit service and future policy implications. The study concludes that the metro bus concept is executed as a stand-alone mobility component in Lahore. Therefore, the benefits are limited to move people from one place to another. However, if the metro service were envisioned as a component of urban policy then it could have had a wide potential to impact the urban form of the city. It was further determined that the adapted measures as a part of this concept are narrowly engineering focused towards the technical aspects of this service, while the socio-cultural components of the city are neglected. To enhance the benefits of LMB service from the perception of urban planning, the concept of Neo- Traditionalism is suggested in conjunction with the existing transit facility. The application of Neo- Traditional Neighbourhood Design (NTND) approach would be the first step to turn the transit neighbourhoods into Neo-Traditional communities. These communities appear and function like old styled environment friendly towns. A Neo Transit Lahore Model (NTLM) is derived as an outcome of this paper. This model would curtail the negative impacts of urban sprawl by promoting the use of public transport and non-motorised travel in the transit neighbourhoods of Lahore. In this study the contemporary transit infrastructure is used as a tool to revive the conventional features of Lahore. The parameters of this approach are analysed in three selected neighbourhoods along the LMB corridor. The Neo-Traditional transit model approach will have social, economic and environmental implications. Keywords: New Urbanism, Neo-traditional neighbourhoods, Connection between communities, Lahore Metro Bus Service
This paper describes the accessibility scoring approach applied by the Virginia Department of Transportation (DOT) in the Smart Scale project prioritization process in 2018. The accessibility scoring approach identifies the increase in jobs accessibility for candidate projects submitted for state funding. The Smart Scale process was implemented in 2015 and entered its third round of applications in 2018; some 800 projects were evaluated during its first two years. This paper contains the following elements: an general overview of jobs accessibility as defined and measured by Virginia DOT for the Smart Scale approach; the development of the Smart Scale accessibility scoring system, including a summary of research performed to identify system parameters; the relationship between mobility and accessibility; and the Smart Scale accessibility transferability to other locations and initiatives and the possible evolution of the Virginia DOT approach in the future.
Full-text available
Bicycle lanes have been installed progressively in downtown Toronto, Canada, since 1993. This marks an important trend, as perhaps for the first time in North America since the invention of the automobile, road space for motor vehicles is being reallocated to bicycles. Toronto's experience has demonstrated that bicycle lanes need to be carefully designed and implemented with ample opportunities for consultation with all key stakeholders. They have shown that many four-lane roads can operate satisfactorily with two midblock and three intersection motor-vehicle lanes. Loss of on-street parking is one of the most controversial issues associated with their implementation. On the other hand, bicyclists feel safer than they did before the lanes were installed. Bicycle-traffic volumes have increased on streets with bicycle lanes, while remaining static or possibly declining citywide. The impacts on motor-vehicle capacity are relatively modest and are considered an acceptable tradeoff for the benefits that arise from encouraging cycling.
Full-text available
This study investigated how the benefits of a walkable neighborhood were reflected in the American real estate market by examining the economic values of urban environmental factors supporting walking activities. Property values were used as a proxy measure for economic value and analyzed in relation to land use characteristics that have been known to correlate with walking at the neighborhood scale. Four aspects of the built environment supporting walking were included in the analyses: development density, land use mix, public open space and pedestrian infrastructure. Hedonic models were employed where the property value was regressed on the measures of the four sets of correlates of walking in a neighborhood. Models were estimated for four land use types – single-family residential, rental multi-family residential, commercial and office. The findings did not support previous arguments that increasing density weakens the quality of a neighborhood. To the contrary, the positive association of higher development density with the value of single-family residential properties detected in King County suggested that high development density might increase surrounding property values. The pedestrian infrastructure and land use mix significantly contributed to increases in rental multi-family residential property values. Higher development density with higher street and sidewalk coverage were also favored by retail service uses. In relation to land use mix, mixing retail service uses and rental multi-family residential uses helped make rental housings more attractive.
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of efforts by communities across the United States to increase street connectivity. It is aimed at commmunities struggling with this goal themselves. The report looks at the motivations behind such efforts, the wide variety of issues these efforts have raised, and the different approaches that communities have taken to resolve them. • What is the most appropriate way to measure connectivity? • How much connectivity is the right amount? • What is the best network design for achieving the desired level of connectivity? • What does street connectivity mean for nonautomobile modes? • How can connectivity in commercial areas be improved? • What can be done about existing street networks? Nevertheless, planners, decision makers, and residents should gain from this report a better understanding of the concept of connectivity as well as ideas about how best to address the goal of connectivity in their own communities. The report is organized as follows. Chapter 1 describes the history of street network design, including the emergence of the concept of a street hierarchy after World War II. Chapter 2 discusses the arguments for and against increased street connectivity. Chapter 3 includes summaries of efforts by 11 U.S. cities and one regional agency to increase connectivity; it also describes the jurisdictions' ordinances and the political processes that resulted in their adoption. Chapter 4 compares the case of Raleigh, North Carolina, where the city succeeded in adopting increased connectivity standards, with that of Austin, Texas, where various parties have been negotiating a connectivity requirement for several years; these cases illuminate the importance of a cost-benefit analysis of connectivity standards during the adoption process. The Afterword concludes with a discussion of the larger issues that need further attention as efforts to promote street connectivity evolve.
Problem: Localities and states are turning to land planning and urban design for help in reducing automobile use and related social and environmental costs. The effects of such strategies on travel demand have not been generalized in recent years from the multitude of available studies.Purpose: We conducted a meta-analysis of the built environment-travel literature existing at the end of 2009 in order to draw generalizable conclusions for practice. We aimed to quantify effect sizes, update earlier work, include additional outcome measures, and address the methodological issue of self-selection.Methods: We computed elasticities for individual studies and pooled them to produce weighted averages.Results and conclusions: Travel variables are generally inelastic with respect to change in measures of the built environment. Of the environmental variables considered here, none has a weighted average travel elasticity of absolute magnitude greater than 0.39, and most are much less. Still, the combined effect of several such variables on travel could be quite large. Consistent with prior work, we find that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is most strongly related to measures of accessibility to destinations and secondarily to street network design variables. Walking is most strongly related to measures of land use diversity, intersection density, and the number of destinations within walking distance. Bus and train use are equally related to proximity to transit and street network design variables, with land use diversity a secondary factor. Surprisingly, we find population and job densities to be only weakly associated with travel behavior once these other variables are controlled.Takeaway for practice: The elasticities we derived in this meta-analysis may be used to adjust outputs of travel or activity models that are otherwise insensitive to variation in the built environment, or be used in sketch planning applications ranging from climate action plans to health impact assessments. However, because sample sizes are small, and very few studies control for residential preferences and attitudes, we cannot say that planners should generalize broadly from our results. While these elasticities are as accurate as currently possible, they should be understood to contain unknown error and have unknown confidence intervals. They provide a base, and as more built-environment/travel studies appear in the planning literature, these elasticities should be updated and refined.Research support: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Growing awareness of environmental and public health problems associated with motorized transportation has led to a recent effort to promote nonmotorized modes of travel. Previous studies have shown that facility design plays a large role in encouraging bicycling. With the aim of defining the roadway configurations that lead to safe motorist and bicyclist behavior, this research examines the impact of design elements, including the type and width of the bicycle facility, the presence of adjacent motor vehicle traffic, parking turnover rate, land use, and the type of motoristbicyclist interaction. Observational studies conducted at 48 sites in three large Texas cities characterize bicyclist and motorist behavior through lateral position measurements and instances of motorist encroachment on an adjacent lane. These observations were used to build two multivariate regression models and allowed for direct site-to-site comparisons. Notable results include the observation that bicycle lanes create a safer and more predictable riding environment relative to wide outside lanes, and that the provision of a buffer between parked cars and bicycle lanes is the only reliable method for ensuring that bicyclists do not put themselves at risk of being hit by opening car doors.
Walking and cycling are the healthiest ways to get around our cities, providing valuable physical activity for people on a daily basis. These forms of active transport also generate indirect public health benefits by reducing the use of automobiles, thus diminishing air, water, and noise pollution and the overall level of traffic danger. This paper provides a broad overview of the role walking and cycling can play in making our cities healthier. First, we summarize the scientific evidence of the health benefits of walking and cycling. Second, we examine variations in walking and cycling levels in Europe, North America, and Australia. Third, we consider the crucial issue of traffic safety. Finally, we describe a range of government policies needed to encourage more walking and cycling: safe and convenient infrastructure such as sidewalks, crosswalks, bike paths and lanes, and intersection crossings; traffic calming of residential neighbourhoods; integration with public transport; land-use policies that foster compact, mixed-use developments; people-friendly urban design; improved traffic education; strict enforcement of traffic regulations; and reductions in motor vehicle speed limits.
At commuter rail stations in many affluent suburban communities of New Jersey, non-residents are prohibited from parking or are charged a higher fee. This paper examines the impacts of non-resident parking restrictions on rail usage. It uses data from a large survey of commuter rail passengers, a detailed parking inventory of station parking lots, and data from the American Community Survey. It compares the catchment areas of stations and the likelihood of individuals boarding at stations with and without parking restrictions by using ordinary least squares, mixed regression, and logit models. It further examines the rail use propensity of communities when the nearest station prohibits non-resident parking by ordinary least squares and tobit models. The analyses show that, all else being equal, stations with non-resident parking restrictions have smaller catchment areas and passengers are less likely to use these stations compared to stations without restrictions. The implications are discussed.