Transp PlanningPolicy TTP 220
Popular in Course
Popular in Transportation Tech & Policy
Dr. Meagan Hills
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
This 8 page Class Notes was uploaded by Dr. Meagan Hills on Tuesday September 8, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to TTP 220 at University of California - Davis taught by Susan Handy in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 47 views. For similar materials see /class/187533/ttp-220-university-of-california-davis in Transportation Tech & Policy at University of California - Davis.
Reviews for Transp PlanningPolicy
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/08/15
Higlz way Blues Notlzing a Little Accessibility Can It Cure BY SUSAN HANDY I recently movect from Berkeley to Austin tlze quotBerkeley of Texas quot Altlzouglz tlzere are similarities amt Austin is certainly as close to Berkeley as Texas gets tlzere are plenty of ttzings I miss atvout Berleeley I miss ttze tzills anal the tag I miss gooct Clzinese fooal anal leaifooct Super Burritos antt clzeap expertly matte caffe lattes Most ofall I miss lzaving my favorite restaurants a copy stzop a bike slzop a pet store a bookstore amt a super market all witlzin a slaort 1716 pleasant walk from lzome But I like Austin quotIt s easy quot I tell my friencts it s easy to get arouna quot Unlilee Berkeley Austin is built for cars Arterials are wiale witlz many lanes Major arterials are taeing upgractect to freeways at an impressive rate complete witlz ttzreelane frontage roaa s on eaclz siote Of course little room is left for trikes let alone tecticateal tailee lanes and little tlmuglzt is given to tlae pectestrian in eittzer resialential or commercial areas But as long as I m in my car getting arounct CCU0772 7139 58 605781 gt Susan Han ty is assistanl professor of communin anal regional planning a lie University of Texas Austin TX 787121100 Tliis essay derives from 137 Ltovtoral alissertafion in City and regional planning a lie University of California Berkeley A C C E S 5 NUMBER 5 FALL 1994 The difference between Berkeley and Austin as I see it is the difference between accessibility and mobility In Berkeley getting around by car is a pain but I can get to the kinds of places I like In Austin I drive around easily but it doesn t really do me much good because I can t get to the kinds of places I like Of course to some degree I have no one to blame but myself for Austin s lack of accessibility After all the fact that I don t like barbecue as much as burritos and I prefer walking to driving is a matter of taste and training But Austin s lack of accessibility the lack from my perspective is the fault of others too It s the fault of land use planners whose traditional approach to zoning seg regated rather than integrated land uses and whose longrange plans have failed to coor dinate the city s growth It s the fault of big retailers who prefer big sites near freeways and expressways with parking ample enough to meet Christmasseason demand It s the fault of developers who favor the fringe of the city where the land is cheap and plentiful It s the fault of my fellow Austinites who haven t demanded the things I miss partly because they don t know what they re missing and who are perfectly happy to drive And it s the fault of transportation planners who have focused their attention on increasing road capacity to accommodate everincreasing traf c This approach might increase accessibility in the short run but new freeways and expressways have enabled lower density development throughout the city and have pushed the edge of the city outward The resulting increase in mileage between activities and the automobileorien tation of the development that has occurred have killed off almost all nonautomobile alternatives Not only does this mean that accessibility declines it means that automobile use increases which means that congestion increases which means that automobile travel times increase which means that eventually accessibility declines even further The net result is that despite all that road construction it s getting harder to get places SIGNS OF CHANGE The problem is that transportation planners in Austin and just about everywhere else have histon cally focused their efforts on enhancing mobility particularly auto mobile mobility with little understanding of or thought for the longrun impact on acces sibility Fortunately we are seeing encouraging signs of a broadening perspective a growing awareness of the role of the transportation system in the development process and in the creation of livable communities The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 IST EA has helped to propagate the concept of a single integrated transportation system rather than a collection of competing modes Although automobile or more precisely highway and freeway mobility is still the primary focus of the federal program as shown by the breakdown of funding ISTEA emphasizes transit and other nonautomobile modes as well Expanded alternatives to the automobile and improved coordination among modes will create a greater range of choice and more choices in the transportation system will enhance accessibility A growing recognition of the importance of land use broadens the discussion further Transportation planners increasingly view transportation and land use as com plementary components of the larger metropolitan system The question transportation planners often now ask is how can we design communities to provide better envi ronments for pedestrians bicyclists and transit riders and thus reduce automobile depen dence They may also ask how can we provide more opportunities within closer dis tances and thus reduce total travel Transportation planners are implicitly asking how can we enhance accessibility by changing land use patterns rather than only by expand ing the transportation system It s not that transportation planners haven t recognized the importance of land use in the past but rather that they ve left it to others Transportation planners have tradi tionally taken the current or projected land use pattern as a given then analyzed the implied generation and distribution of trips They have focused on the performance of the transportation system not the overall performance of the metropolitan system In the emerging ISTEA way of thinking transportation planners must consider how best to change land use patterns as well as how best to change the transportation system I don t mean to say that transportation planners shouldn t worry about movement Rather they should worry about movement not for mobility s sake but for accessibility s sake Three rst steps are now needed agreement on the distinctions between accessi bility and mobility consensus among transportation planners and everyone else involved on the goal of enhanced accessibility and development of performance measures that will allow us to monitor our progress toward this goal WHAT IS ACCESSIBILITY Accessibility is the potential for interaction both social and economic It is deter mined by the spatial distribution of potential destinations the ease of reaching each destination and the magnitude quality and character of the activities found there Travel cost is central the less that travel costs in time and money the more places that can gt A C C E S 5 NUMBER 5 FAIL I994 be reached within a certain budget and the greater the accessibility Destination choice is also crucial the more destinations and the more varied the destinations the higher the level of accessibility Travel choice is equally important the wider the variety of modes for getting to a particular destination the greater the choice and the greater the accessibility Accessibility is thus determined by both patterns of land use and the nature of the transportation system although two people in the same place may evaluate their accessibility differently as wants and tastes vary In contrast mobility is the ability to travel the potential for movement It re ects the spatial structure of the transportation network and the level and quality of its service Mobility is determined by such characteristics as road capacity and design speed and in the case of automobile mobility by how many other people are using the roads Like accessibility mobility may vary by person as different people have different physical and monetary capacities But mobility is a characteristic of the transportation system alone it is one half of the equation only Good mobility usually contributes to good accessibility because it means easier trav el between two points but good mobility doesn t do you any good if the places you d like to reach don39t exist my situation in Austin And poor mobility doesn t necessarily mean poor accessibility if goods services and activities can be accessed without vehicular travel by using telecommunications for example or within very short distances as was my situation in Berkeley Mobility is not a suf cient condition nor is it always a nec essary condition for accessibility The concept of accessibility acknowledges that the demand for travel is derived from the demand for activities The concept of mobility ignores the derived nature of travel demand focusing instead on the the ability to travel as though sheer movement were an end in itself But mobility is only the means activities are the end and acces sibility the key RETHINKING OUR GOALS As a planning goal accessibility has two critical advantages over mobility First it allows for tradeoffs between land use and transportation policies and focuses attention on the levelof service of the metropolitan system as a whole rather than of just the trans portation system Policies designed to increase the mixing of land uses can be compared to policies designed to increase the capacity of an intersection for example by answer ing the question what effect does each have on accessibility Second accessibility as a planning goal provides clear direction for policy makers While increased mobility may be a good thing higher levels of accessibility are inherently a good thing This means that transportation planners and land use planners must work together for a change The best example we have of coordinated transportation and land use plan ning is probably Portland Oregon where statelevel mandates have pushed coordina tion an urbangrowth boundary was adopted at the same time that policies shifted away from freeway expansion and land use plans are now being created for development of areas around current and future lightrail stations Austin planners look longingly to Portland and dream of the day when cooperation between land use and transportation planners and among the environmental community the neighborhoods and the developers might be even half as good Getting all parties to buy into the common goal of enhancing accessibility is a crucial step toward building livable communities MEASURING OUR PROGRESS If our goal changes then the measures by which we monitor our progress must change as well Because mobility has been so central to transportation planners they almost universally use performance measures that re ect the ease with which vehicles can get through the transportation system measures like freeway and intersection level of service or volumetocapacity ratios or vehiclen les traveled If our goal is accessi bility then we must abandon these measures and develop new measures that re ect the spatial distribution of activities and the ease of travel between them While it s easy to say that planners and policy makers should develop and adopt mea sures of accessibility it s more dif cult to say what form these measures should take Accessibility has been measured in a variety of ways for a variety of purposes and it is not at all clear what the most appropriate measure is Most importantly if our concern is with accessibility and its contribution to quality of life in a metropolitan region then our measures of accessibility must accurately re ect residents own evaluations conscious and unconscious of their community While an extensive literature on accessibility measures provides a place to start a great deal more work is needed before we ll understand how best to measure accessi bility A number of research efforts are underway in fact to develop new kinds of per formance measures and may produce recommendations for measuring accessibility Communities will nd it even harder however to set accessibility standards and imple ment the policies necessary for reaching their goals GETTING PEOPLE TO WHERE THEY WANT TO BE If we start thinking about accessibility rather than mobility we will begin to envi sion all kinds of new possibilities new approaches new solutions Instead of ghting the endless con ict between maintaining mobility and controlling the negative effects of transportation we can move on to constructive discussions of alternatives that enhance accessibility while protecting the environment and improving the quality of life in our communities Metropolitan life is rich because it offers a spectrum of opportunities for work for learning for shopping for play The problem with today s metropolitan regions is not how slowly the traf c ows on the freeway during rush hour but rather how hard it is to get from home to work to the store to a friend s house and sometimes to a good Chinese restaurant 0 FURTHER READING J Black and M Conroy Accessibility Measures and the Social Evaluation of Urban Structurequot Environment and Planning A Vol 9 1 977 pp 10131031 MQ Dalvi Behavioural Modelling Accessibility Mobility and Need Concepts and Measurementquot in DA Hensher and PR Stopher eds Behavioural Travel Modelling London Croom Helm 1979 Reid Ewing quotTransportation Service Standards As If People Matterquot Transportation Research Record Vol 1400 1993 Kevin Lynch Good City Form Cambridge MIT Press 1981 JM Morris PL Bumble and MR Wigan Accessibility Indicators for Transport Planningquot Transportation Research A Vol 13A 1979 pp 91109 Wilfred Owen The Accessible City Washington DC The Brookings Institution 1972 GH Pirie The Possibility and Potential of Public Policy on Accessibilityquot Transportation Research A Vol 15A No 5 1 98 1 pp 377 38 1 M Wachs and T Gordon Kumagal Physical Accessibility as a Social Indicatorquot SocioEconomic Planning Science Vol 7 1973 pp 431456 A C C E S S NUMBER 5 FALL I994 TTP220 Transportation Policy and Planning ISTEA A Sea Change What was intended change What was actual change Why did it happen Organized counterbalance to traditional highway lobby o eg APA AIA 1000 Friends bike and ped groups 0 key was STPP coalition Result 0 Highways and transit treated more equally wrt planning matching 0 Opportunity for multimodal or intermodal strategies 0 Better planning before money spent Key changes More in a minute Funding amounts categories exibility Flaming requirements What difference did it make It s like turning an ocean liner 1 Change the process 7 slow because of implementation issues 2 Change the projects 7 slow because ofprojects in the pipeline 3 Change travel patterns 4 Improve environment communities ISTEA was an opportunity 7 change only if we take advantage of it Funding More control to MPOs Established TMAs vs small MPOs Some funding directly to TMAs see below Funding Categories re ect federal priorities determine what kinds of projects Old way by facility different classifications of highways Interstate FAP FAS FAU New way by purpose exibility to spend across modes spend on new kinds of proj ects Surface Transportation Program STP 326 billion in SAFETEALU 0 Given directly to TMAs ie large MPOs 0 Fund eligible for nonhighway bike transit pedestrian First Reauthorization debate I If nonattainment 7 100 of STP I Otherwise 7 75 of STP 0 Transportation Enhancements 7 10 set aside I e g bikeped safety education scenic of historic highway programs environmental mitigation transportation museums etc Congestion Mitigation Air Quality CMAQ program 86 billion 0 Given to states with nonattainment areas directly to MPOs o Apportioned based on population and severity of AQ problem 0 Projects must I contribute to AQ attainment I control VMTcapita o e g bicycle coordinator traffic signal coordination Transit billion 0 Given to transit agencies 0 Capital grants Section 3 7 discretionary 40 new starts 40 rail modernization 20 bus 39 82 billion for 6 years for new starts vs 191 projects in TEA21 0 Formula grants Section 9 7 for capital or operations National Highway System NHS 305 billion 0 De ned by 1195 law 7 160000 miles 0 Single system with economic focus 0 Flexibility to spend NHS on transit bikepeds 7 IF it improves NHS performance High Priority Projects or demonstration projects or earmarks or pork 0 500 projects for 65 billion in ISTEA o 1850 projects for 94 billion in TEA21 o 6373 projects in SAFETEALU for 242 billion in SAFETEALU see http wwwtaXp ayernet Transportation s afete alu states htm Other highway 0 Interstate Maintenance 252 billion in SAFETEALU 0 Bridge 7 repair and replace 216 billion 0 Other I Appalachian Development Highway System TEA21 I Federal Lands Highways Program I Recreational Trails Program TEA21 Highway Safety Misc Programs 7 including University Transportation Centers program Devolution Donor vs donee states Proposals to scrap the federal program and leave it up to the states AASHTO Minimum guarantee program 0 state guaranteed to get at least 905 of what it contributes to HTF 0 MG used to balance other highway to get to 905 I Each state gets at least 1Myr o Divided among STP IM NHS Bridge CMAQ Other new TEA21 programs Job Access and Reverse Commutes 750 million Transportation amp Community amp System Preservation Pilot Program 120 million for communities for demonstrations research on TLU issues Innovative nancing 7 more later in quarter Concern over vulnerability to annual budget cycles appropriations vs authorizations Creation of rewall 198 vs 218 billion so 20 billion in red zone Transit rewall xed but highway rewall adjusted based on HTF receipts Next Reauthorization debate How much should we be spending on transportation House bill started at 375 billion proposal for 5 cent gas tax increase didn t y Continued concern over fairness 7 Equity Bonus instead of MG 0 Increases from 905 to 92 o No less than 117121 of average TEA21 apportionments Interesting new SAFETEALU programs Safe Routes to School 7 612 million 0 Administered by states Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program 100 million 0 Four areas speci ed including Marin County Funding notes Most programs by formula 7 population road miles etc 0 But some discretionary Most of money goes to states 7 they decide how to divide 0 But some directly to MPOs transit agencies Federal share is up to 80 state or local share is 20 0 But higher local shares when competing e g for LRT Vulnerability to annual budget cycles 7 cuts 0 But TEA21 set rewall S ISTEA era means More money More exibility between highways and transit Broader range of projects eligible 0 Monday Planning requirements
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'