1. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Jeffrey Tumlin

2. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Why Smart Growth? How do you convince an existing neighborhood to allow dense, in-fill development in its midst?

3. “No Growth” does not solve congestion  High housing prices  Service workers move to next county  Very long trips  Congestion throughout region

4. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 No Growth in Marin County, CA  Median house price in 2000: $530,000  More jobs filled by out-of-county residents: 15% in 1960, 33% in 2000  20% increase in commute trip length in five years  41% increase in commute travel time in five years  75% increase in Bay Area freeway congestion 1992-98

5. “Sprawl Growth” does not solve congestion  Low-density, single-use development at the edge  Virtually all trips are by car  Long trip distances  Congestion throughout sub- region  Transit mode share declines  Network serves fewer people

6. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Sprawl Growth in Contra Costa County, CA  4.1% of trips by transit (23.1% in San Francisco)  Long trips oContra Costa:23 miles / 42 minutes oBay Area:17 miles / 34 minutes  Transit commute mode share fell 25% 1993-2001  Transit travel speed fell 11%

7. “Smart Growth” does not solve congestion … but produces less congestion than other models  Many trips by transit  Trips are shorter, resulting in less spread of congestion  Allows transit mode share to increase over time

8. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 “Smart Growth” in Pleasant Hill, CA Residential:  52% fewer peak period trips than typical  Trips are shorter Office:  25% fewer trips than typical  Trips shorter  Non-peak direction Congestion:  Yes, but much less here than anywhere else

9. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Dense Development Dense development oriented to transit is the solution to congestion, not the cause Source: From data in Holtclaw, John (2000), “Smart Growth – As Seen From the Air”. Household income/size, pedestrian/bike friendliness and transit accessibility are all held constant.

10. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Is Congestion Always Bad? Some congestion can:  Make transit travel times competitive  Reduce trip lengths and auto use  Contribute to “urban feel” and sense of place  Create successful retail street Detroit is the only major city to have solved its congestion problem!

11. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Transit Transit, like new auto lanes, never “relieves” congestion It can do two things:  Allow more economic expansion (more jobs, more housing)  Meet social equity goals

12. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Productivity-Based Transit System Invests all transit resources into a few dense corridors, serving key markets very well. Result:  High ridership  Low cost per passenger ride  Many people with no service

13. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Coverage-Based Transit System Spreads investment out, serving all areas equally poorly. Result:  Low ridership  High cost per passenger ride  Very popular among scattered elderly and low income populations

14. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Politics-Based Transit System  Complaint-based planning - torturous bus routes designed to serve Mrs. Smith who once complained to the transit board in 1982  Highest-profile, rather than the most useful, projects selected – light rail to nowhere

15. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Why do people choose a mode of travel?  Travel time  Reliability  Cost  Dignity

16. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Rule No. 1: Transit Follows Density As density increases, so does potential market Density allows for increases in frequency

17. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Density Recommendations for Varying Levels of Service ServiceFrequencyCoverageD.U./ Acre Rapid Transit (Rail) 5 min peak headway 100-150 sq mi corridor 12 Light Rail5 min peak headways 25-100 sq mi corridor 9 Bus-Frequent Service 120 buses/day ½ mi between routes 15 Bus- Intermediate Service 40 buses/day ½ mi between routes 7 Bus- Minimum Service 20 buses/day ½ mi between routes 4 Source: Pushkarev, B. S., Zupan, J. M. and R. S. Cumella. (1982) Urban Rail in America -- An Exploration of Criteria for Fixed-Guideway Transit. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

18. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Frequencies every 12 minutes or better start to attract riders who have a choice of modes. Rule No. 2: Ridership Follows Frequency

19. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 If it’s faster to take the bus or train, people will use it in droves. Rule No. 3: Ridership Follows Travel Time

20. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 If you want continued economic growth, you must invest in fast, efficient transit. This is geometry, not ideology. Your performance measures must focus on moving people and goods, rather than vehicles. Moral:

21. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Challenge: Giving travel time advantages to transit means degrading capacity for cars. Transit must not be stuck in same congestion as other traffic.

22. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 How many people an hour can be moved in a lane? Light rail can move 19 times as many people as a typical auto (occupancy of 1.3) Source: Vuchic, Vukan (1992), Urban Passenger Transportation Modes

23. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 So creating bus-only lanes increases capacity dramatically…

24. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 It’s not just about street space… Moving 15,000 persons per hour requires 85 acres of parking.

25. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Traffic Congestion is Non-Linear  5% reduction in traffic volumes on a congested highway = 10-30% reduction in delay  10% reduction in traffic volumes can increase speeds by more than 10mph So capacity reduction for cars can be easily accommodated with small mode shift to transit Sources: Homburger and Perkins (1992), Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering; Transportation Research Board (1994), Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209.

26. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Transit travel-time tools:  Signal prioritization  Queue-jump lanes  Signal preemption  Dedicated right-of-way Remember: If you cut transit travel time in half, you can double capacity and double frequency at no cost!

27. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Los Angeles Metro Rapid 25% + Speed Increase and Growth Ridership 1/3 of Ridership Increase is NEW riders!

28. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Parking is the real tool for managing congestion Parking is a car magnet! San Francisco Downtown 1968-1984:  250,000 new jobs  Little or no private parking  11,000 spaces in City-owned garages  Prices set to discourage commuter parking  No increase in congestion

29. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Parking should be regulated… … not by building type, by by available roadway capacity Examples:  San Francisco  Portland  Seattle  Cambridge

30. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 There is no justification… … for minimum parking requirements  Except to promote “ free, ” hyperabundant parking and promote more driving.  Why force developers to provide more parking than is needed?

31. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Minimum Parking Requirements Minimum parking requirements are a major obstacle to affordable housing in cities Each parking space:  Adds 20-25% to the cost of building a unit  Reduces the number of units produced by 20-25%

32. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Management of Spillover Parking Management of spillover parking is critical to reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements  Customer friendly residential parking permit districts  Limit permits sold to spaces available  Grandfather in existing residents; sell to newcomers at market rate  Limit permits by parcel to legalize illegal in-law units  Allow neighborhoods to sell excess capacity to commuters and keep revenue for improvements

33. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Parking must be tightly regulated in your design codes  Eliminate minimums if possible – or at least reduce based upon actual ownership and use patterns by district  Allow “ landscape reserves ”  Reward developers for good TDM with relaxed parking  Consider adoption of parking maximums to meet specific economic and congestion relief goals  Forbid curb cuts on commercial streets  Limit width of garage doors as percentage of lot or house  Limit placement of garage doors to back or side  Forbid parking within 25 ’ of front lot line  Require active uses on ground floor of parking structures

34. The Smart Growth Transportation Model New Partners for Smart Growth January 25, 2002 Smart Growth does not solve traffic and congestion … but generates less than other alternatives Smart transportation policies can make it work:  Transit that provides a real choice  Allocation of right of way that favors people  Parking policies that include rational pricing