Ewing, Proffitt
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
IMPROVING DECISIONMAKING FOR TRANSPORTATION CAPACITY EXPANSION: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF BEST PRACTICES FOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS AUTHORS Reid Ewing; University of Utah Department of City + Metropolitan Planning; 375 South 1530 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0370; telephone: 801-581-8255;
[email protected] David Proffitt; University of Utah Department of City + Metropolitan Planning; 375 South 1530 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0370; telephone: 801-581-8255;
[email protected] Submitted Nov. 13, 2015 Word count: 7,165 Tables and figures: 1
Ewing, Proffitt 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
2
ABSTRACT 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 fossilfuel use and climate change. Though conventional practice among metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) is to simply expand roadway capacity to relieve congestion, many MPOs have developed new solutions. This study qualitatively analyzes a national sample of 38 regional transportation plans (RTPs) 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 innovative practices such as the use of high-occupancy toll lanes on major freeways, 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
3
INTRODUCTION 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 capacityexpansion 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
STUDY APPROACH 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. TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE. 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. CONVENTIONAL & BEST PRACTICES 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 highoccupancy 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 (19). 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, 43). 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 RTP. 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. 10-9). 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 subarea has developed its own pedestrian and bicycle plans to guide future investments in nonmotorized 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 decisions. CONCLUSIONS 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
REFERENCES 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. 119–137.
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. 157–172.
16.
Litman, T. A. Transportation cost and benefit analysis. Victoria, B.C., 2009.
17.
Federal Highway Administration. MAP-21 Performance Requirements Summary. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/about/summary.cfm. 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., 2006.
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., 2014.
29.
Southern California Association of Governments. Regional Transportation Plan 20122035 Sustainable Communities Strategy Towards a Sustainable Future. Los Angeles, 2012.
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. 2001.
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., 2010.
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– 44.
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., 2007.
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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Urbanized Area Atlanta, GA Austin, TX Baltimore, MD Boise, ID Boston, MA Burlington, VT Charlotte, NC Charlottesville, VA Chattanooga, TN Chicago, IL Cincinnati, OH Colorado Springs, CO Columbus, OH Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX Dayton, OH Denver, CO Des Moines, IA Durham, NC Eugene, OR Honolulu, HI Indianapolis, IN Kansas City, MO Lansing, MI Los Angeles, CA Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN New York, NY Philadelphia, PA Portland, OR Raleigh, NC Reno, NV Sacramento, CA Salt Lake City, UT San Diego, CA San Francisco, CA Seattle, WA St. Louis, MO Tallahassee, FL Tucson, AZ
Metropolitan Planning Organization Atlanta Regional Commission Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Baltimore Regional Transportation Board Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization Charlottesville Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization Chattanooga Transportation Planning Organization Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning OKI Regional Council of Governments Pike's Peak Area Council of Governments Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission North Central Texas Council of Governments Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission Denver Regional Council of Governments Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization Mid-America Regional Council Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Southern California Association of Governments Metropolitan Council New York Metropolitan Transportation Council Delaware Valley Regional Planning Council Portland Metro Regional Government Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional Transportation Commission Sacramento Area Council of Governments Wasatch Front Regional Council San Diego Association of Governments Metropolitan Transportation Commission Puget Sound Regional Council East-West Gateway Council of Governments Capital Region Transportation Planning Agency Pima Association of Governments
