Authors:

Laura Everitt

Jim Lamey

Sean Suder

Transportation is the key that unlocks the door to irresponsible growth. Without the emergence of transportation, sprawl and suburban development would not exist. Additional transportation, if not planned and placed in an equitable context, leads to a furtherance of ad-hoc sprawl.

So if transportation is a key factor in the creation of sprawl, how is it a growth management tool? The design of transportation infrastructure and patterns can be manipulated to create transportation systems that assist in the management of growth. Systems that encourage mass transportation instead of single occupancy vehicle use can act as a growth management tool. Designing pedestrian friendly development around transportation as opposed to auto-oriented development is a responsible approach to manage growth.

To illustrate these ideas further, the following provides a list of objectives, obstacles to be overcome, best practices, and recommendations for designing a transportation system. In conjunction, four key areas will be highlighted as targets for responsible growth; roads, light-rail systems, bus systems, and alternative transportation forms. Each explores the many ways in which transportation can be used as a growth management tool.

Planners should aspire to the following objectives in facilitating healthier and safer communities:

1. Manipulation of the road network particularly placement and additions

2. Diligent research and development regarding transportation alternatives including light rail and bus systems

3. Alter Americans’ current perceptions about transportation alternatives through educational programs

I. Roads and Automobiles

Objectives:

1. To reduce dependence on automobiles and provide more choices for transportation to promote growth management

2. To improve road design standards that allow for greater flexibility

3. To maximize the efficiency of current road networks

4. To redirect funding from roadways towards other modes of transportation

5. To reduce transportation costs by reducing the use of automobiles and the infrastructure needed to support them

Issues:

America’s love of the automobile:

Americans enjoy the privacy, convenience, and safety of automobiles. While Americans often prefer this form of transportation to public transportation, it is important to understand the profound physical impact it has had on our communities. Today, roads act as arteries for cars, and become barriers for alternative modes of transportation. On many of today’s busiest roads, sidewalks are not constructed and street crossing is prohibited. Yet people seem readily to accept their reliance on cars, even for short trips. America’s love of cars has grown out of necessity. As residential developments are built without proximity to employment centers or shopping facilities, residents have had no choice but to use automobiles. Today, planners can help American’s rely less on automobiles by promoting growth that provides transportation alternatives.

Safety concerns with public transportation:

Public transportation has developed a tarnished image over the last 30 years. Many citizens believe that busses and subways are dirty, dangerous, and riddled with crime. While some systems may have problems, this perception is greatly overstated. In cities such as Washington D.C. and Boston subway systems are the preferred method of daily commuting.

Reluctance of politicians to change the status quo:

Americans depend on their cars largely because of a political climate that encourages automobile use. Currently, gas prices are low, and highway subsidies are consistently higher than funding for public transportation. Politicians can legislate great change in our automobile reliance by enacting new highway, property tax, and fuel price policies. However, this is unlikely as politicians, fearing unfavorable public opinion, may be reluctant to pioneer new visions for transportation.

Difficulty changing road budgets and appropriations:

Transportation planners often succumb to the most common solution, even if it is not effective. The current practice of building new roads and widening existing roads will be difficult to change. Often, shortly after the roads are built, they are overburdened with congestion. State transportation agencies, realizing that new road construction does not always solve transportation problems, should reconsider budget appropriations, and look to spend money for innovative and alternative transportation programs.

Uncoordinated transportation and local land use policies:

Most state transportation agencies and local land planners operate completely independent of one another. This can result in inefficiency and poor spatial planning. Communities would benefit greatly from collaborative long-term comprehensive plans that are developed in conjunction with state transportation agencies.

Belief that cars are efficient:

People mistakenly believe that cars are more efficient than mass transit. Cars, however, are only as efficient as the roads they travel. Traffic congestion is escalating as more people live father away from where they work, play and shop. Congestion is not just a phenomenon in large urban centers. Commuters have quadrupled the amount of time they waste in traffic in small and medium cities since 1982. In addition, increased time in cars contributes to air pollution. Public transportation systems generate significantly less pollution per rider than do cars, use less land to operate, and are frequently more time efficient.

Reluctance of engineers to change road design standards:

New roads in America are often expensive, wasteful, and poorly designed. Today, roads are over-engineered by public officials and transportation technicians in the name of public safety. However, frequently these same roads are more hazardous and reduce the quality of life in neighborhoods. Excessively wide streets in residential areas contribute to speeding and create an uncomfortable environment for walking. Many subdivision ordinances prohibit planting trees between roads and sidewalks for fear that cars will run into them. Yet, pedestrians and bicyclers feel protected and more comfortable on a tree-lined street. The preference given to automobiles is obvious. Communities must be willing to alter current road design standards to achieve a greater balance in transportation.

Best Examples:

Recommendations:

Promote collaboration between transportation authorities and land use planners:

Most transportation and local planning agencies work independently of one another, although their work is closely linked. Neither group seems to understand the profound impact that transportation has on land use. The integration of transportation planning with local land use planning could maximize the efficiency of transportation and at the same time guide sensible growth. Road design and construction should not be a response to demand, it should be interwoven into the planning discussion at the local and regional level.

Implement Transportation Management Strategies:

Transportation authorities should maximize the effectiveness of existing roads rather than use new road construction as a crutch. Many tools can be used to improve road efficiency. Reversible lanes, traffic calming, high occupancy vehicle lanes, and preferential parking programs can reduce travel times and increase road efficiency. In addition, new traffic engineering concepts should be continually explored for specific situations.

Flexible road design standards for site specificity:

Often, over-engineered road design standards limit transportation choices, isolate neighborhoods, create hazardous settings, and otherwise harm the quality of life within a community. Unnecessarily wide neighborhood streets discourage pedestrian and bicycle use and increase car speeds. Also, off street parking requirements can work to the detriment of a community, as pedestrians feel more comfortable on sidewalks with a buffer of cars. Flexible road standards would give designers more opportunities to use varying widths, medians, sidewalks, bike lanes, and landscaping to develop better streetscapes with more opportunities for transportation and recreation. These streets could specifically respond to the topographic, soil, and vegetative condition of a particular location.

Reducing Road subsidies for sprawl:

Most states spend a great deal of their transportation budget on roads, a majority of that goes to new road construction. Transportation planners often give preference to new roads as they simultaneously neglect older road networks. Virginia is an example of this strategy where 84% of the urban highways are not in good condition, however the majority of the road budget is applied to new road construction. State transportation agencies could help reduce sprawl and improve the driving safety and the quality of paved roads if they reconsidered the appropriation of money and set new priorities. The maintenance of existing roads should take precedent over new road construction.

Bibliography:

1. Southern Environmental Law Center, Smart growth in the Southeast: new approaches to guiding development. (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Law Institute, 1999).

2. Beaumont, Constance Epton, Smart states, better communities: how state governments can help citizens preserve their communities. (D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1996).

3. Porter, Douglas R., Managing growth in America's communities.(Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1997).

4. De Grove, John Melvin, Planning and growth management in the states. (Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1992).

5. http://www.transact.org/ - Transportation Action Organization, 11/16/99

II. Light Rail

Objectives:

1. To provide economic incentives for corporations and citizens to locate in the central city thus strengthening the region’s core and making it an attractive alternative to sprawl development

2. To provide an alternative to cars

3. To control the path of growth by concentrating development around the region’s most valuable asset, transportation facilities

4. To encourage dense development around transit which leads to infill of urban areas

5. To provide an attractive asset for developers to market and quickly approve projects that are higher in density and promote pedestrianism

6. To redirect funding from roadways that open up new areas to sprawl and create more traffic

Issues:

The general public’s love affair with the automobile:

The automobile enamors twentieth-century Americans. Only 5% of Americans use mass transportation such as light rail. The automobile remains the dominant form of transportation in American metropolitan regions. Even in regions with light rail systems, commuters typically use automobiles 85% more than light rail systems. Those cities with a “rail bias” – where citizens are accustomed to travel by automobile, have a particularly difficult time convincing commuters to give up their cars for light rail. However, cities such as Dallas, Texas have recently overcome the bias and attracted thousands of commuters to light rail.

Misconceptions about safety and light rail:

The general public maintains concerns about safety both on light rail vehicles and near light rail stations. Night usage is considered dangerous in many areas. Perceptions about safety and mass transit are worsened by media stories about muggings, even murders on and around mass transit. Sacramento, California’s light rail system was plagued with bad press in 1997 when an elderly woman was murdered on a light rail car. For a light rail system to be successful, it is important to realign the public perception to one of safety, convenience, and general trust in light rail.

Lack of regional cooperation between localities in a region seeking a light rail system:

Many localities adopt a “not in my backyard” approach to light rail systems when a regional system is sought. This position against light rail often delays, or even kills regional light rail projects. This approach can also move the rail route from the most effective route to less effective routes. When creating a regional system, disagreements in the type of mass transit sought can also delay the completion of a system. For example, the Cincinnati area is considering a light rail system but progress is being delayed by a dispute between transportation officials in Cincinnati, Ohio and those across the Ohio River in Covington, Kentucky. Cincinnati officials are seeking a catenary system of on-grade rail and Northern Kentucky is looking to build a monorail system. This is effectively slowing the process and may eventually kill the entire project if a compromise is not reached. When creating a successful light rail system it is imperative that all localities come to a consensus on the location of stations, right-of-way, and type of light rail vehicle employed.

Perceptions that light rail is fiscally irresponsible:

There is a perception among many that light rail systems fail fiscally and that they do not recover the large upfront and maintenance costs that they incur. In fact, most light rail systems do not make a profit but instead break even and are subsidized by the government. It is important to note that light rail systems are not constructed to turn a profit but are meant to improve a region’s quality of life, promote economic development and save regions expenses in many other areas such as pollution.

Difficulties choosing the type of light rail system desired:

There is no single effective rail system that has swept cities around the world. In fact, regions can opt for catenary systems, monorail, diesel powered, and tram systems depending on their needs. In addition, there is a myriad of manufacturers who present a variety of each product. Much of the research and development associated with light rail and mass transit is directed toward futuristic alternative forms that are impractical and expensive for regions. It is important to note that safety perceptions are highly negative for underground systems and that most systems constructed today are on grade systems visible at street level.

Localities’ unwillingness to implement transit oriented designs around transit centers:

Localities often fail to zone for transit oriented development that would cluster development around transit and create compact development aiding to curb sprawl development. For example, in Montgomery County, Maryland, officials failed to upzone parcels around a transit center effectively giving their stamp of approval for increased low-density suburban development further from the urban area. Transit oriented development promotes density and pedestrianism and can be attractive to developers who target their projects for individuals who desire relief from congested suburban highways.

Best Examples:

Ø Portland, Oregon: Light Rail Curbs Sprawl

Ø Denver, Colorado: Using Light Rail to Revitalize Downtown

Ø Dallas, Texas: Using Education to Spur Light Rail Use

Ø San Diego, California: A Fiscally Responsible Light Rail System

Ø Arlington, Virginia: Developing Around Transit

Recommendations:

1. A locality interested in exploring a light rail system should begin by educating the community on the benefits of light rail on quality of life within a region. Show the citizens that light rail is safe, cost effective, quiet, alleviates traffic, and promotes infill development that curbs sprawl. Also, educate and encourage corporations to adopt mass transportation incentives for their workers and interest them in the benefits of a regional light rails system. When the corporate citizen and the general public is on board, it will be easier to get politicians interested which will make the funding process less cumbersome.

2. Once a light rail system is in the planning stages or undergoing expansion, make necessary zoning changes and comprehensive plan amendments to promote high-density transit oriented development. By encouraging transit-oriented development, one may be creating infill development as well as rejuvenating existing neighborhoods. This may have a positive effect on the region by making it attractive for corporations and citizens to locate in the urban areas served by mass transit and therefore contribute to curbing sprawl. The results of these actions may be similar to those in Arlington, Virginia and Dallas, Texas where millions of new commercial square footage and thousands of residential units have been built around transit centers. This can do wonders for a declining tax base.

3. When expanding a light rail line or constructing a new line outside of an urban area place transit stations strategically where higher density transit oriented development will occur. If one places stations consecutively along a corridor making it convenient for the citizens and stopping at a certain distance, then the growth may be encouraged to follow the transit lines. This will effectively allow a locality to manage the direction and extent of its growth.

4. Embrace compromise with regard to the type of transit and location of transit centers when planning for light rail. Develop consensus-building strategies to unite the localities in a region around a light rail plan. As was illustrated in the Cincinnati region, disputes in the details of a light rail system can cause delay or even death of a light rail project.

5. Develop incentive programs for residents and corporations who locate around transit centers. Also, encourage corporations to give incentives to employees who live near transit centers and utilize light rail for commuting. Provide density allowances to corporations who locate near transit stations and within a certain proximity to transit. Promote transit-oriented growth – growth that follows transit as opposed to transit following growth. This can be achieved through tax abatements, density allowances, and other incentives. Provide infrastructure subsidies for development in and around transit centers.

6. Treat transit as a proactive growth management effort as opposed to a reactive measure to growth and traffic problems. Build the transit first and encourage growth around it as opposed to building transit as a response to the problems associated with growth. As witnessed in Portland, urban growth boundaries are much more effective when transit dictates attractive development areas.

Resources:

www.lrta.org – Light Rail Transit Association

Cincinnati Street Railway, Inc. Volume 2, Issue 9, September 1999

www.apta.com – American Public Transportation Association

US Census Bureau, 1990, Census, Journey to Work

Federal Highway Administration, New Perspectives in Commuting, 1992

www.tri-met.org – Portland Oregon’s MAX site

www.dart.org – Dallas, Texas’ DART site

www.sandag.cog.ca.us – San Diego’s light rail site

www.rtd-denver.com – Denver’s RTD site

www.oki.org – Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana Regional Council of Governments

III. Bus Systems

Objectives:

1. To promote denser living conditions around the bus stops in order to facilitate greater ridership

2. To promote residences closer to the core city in order to strengthen the city and make it a more attractive place to live

3. To create a more environmentally friendly world

4. To provide an alternative to cars and create a less auto dependent society

5. To provide a highly desirable place to live

6. To close the gap between those of different socio-economic statuses

Issues:

Americans have stigmatized bus ridership:

There is a perception among many that buses only cater to lower socio-economic classes. They have stigmatized ridership as for those who do not have any other transportation options such as a personal car. For these reasons, it is difficult to build a bus system that will attract those who have other means of transportation to use it.

Americans love their cars:

Americans have abandoned designing on a human scale and now design only for the personal transport vehicle. Because design has continued in such a manner, Americans have become accustomed to the car and need to be re-introduced to mass transit.

Buses are slower than using cars:

In general, buses are slower than cars because they do not go exactly where you personally would like to go. Americans have become so obsessed with getting things done faster that they have forgotten other things that are important such as clean air and green space. It will be important to remind citizens that it is in their best interest to use mass transit.

Buses serve only limited areas:

Buses necessarily cannot go to every destination that humans would like to go. Because Americans are attached to the idea of going directly to their destination, they feel that buses are inefficient. They do not add into the equation that the bus is getting many people there as opposed to only one person in the average car ride.

Best Examples:

Ø Connecting Zoning With Transportation

Ø Car Free Campaign

Ø Compressed Natural Gas Buses

Ø Buses and HOV Lanes

Ø Getting Tourists on Mass-Transit

Ø Intermodal Transportation Center

Ø Guaranteed Ride Home Programs

Recommendations:

1. If your community is intending to implement or upgrade a bus system, remember that marketing is key. Americans have grown dependent upon and attached to their cars. They need to be retrained into thinking about and using other forms of transportation. They also associate mass transportation with lower incomes so that they may feel that their status level precludes them from using mass transportation. A successful bus system will be one that has anticipated these problems and implemented ways to deal with them.

2. Try to use fuels that are cleaner than diesel for running your buses. Compressed natural gas engines are both cleaner and quieter than traditional diesel buses. These characteristics not only create a more environmentally friendly bus system but they also make one that is more pleasant to ride. The more pleasant the experience the more likely you are to increase your ridership.

3. Create transportation centers that focuses on buses and connects commuters to other forms of transportation. Make these centers vibrant with the types of services a commuter would need such as newspaper stands and coffee shops. The more activity then the more likely for people to use the transit stop.

Links:

1. www.transact.org/5yrs/index.htm

2. www.dot.gov/programs.htm

3. www.sonoran.org

Bibliography:

www.transact.org/5yrs/index.htm

IV. Alternative Modes of Transportation

Alternative modes of transportation can include walking, biking, carpooling and ferrying.

Objectives:

1. Creating a more environmentally friendly nation

2. Reducing the number of single occupancy vehicles on the road

3. Promoting residences closer to the core city in order to strengthen the city and make it a more attractive place to live

4. Providing an alternative to cars and create a less auto dependent society

5. Closing the gap between different socio-economic classes

6. Expanding the availability and quality of transit options, improve facilities for

7. bicyclists and pedestrians, and support efforts to promote carpools and vanpools.

Issues:

Developed areas are not built to human scale:

The biggest impediment to walking or biking is the fact that developed areas are not built on a human scale – that is they are built without responding to pedestrian dimensions and comfort. They are built on the scale of the automobile, which almost prohibits walking and makes biking treacherous unless special precautions are taken. Because it is difficult to get from one place to another on foot or bike it will be difficult to convince Americans to give it a try even when it is possible.

The car is part of the American dream:

The car has become a part of the transportation package. Americans perceive the car as a provider of the freedom that we as a nation have come to cherish so greatly. It will be necessary to help citizens feel that alternatives offer them a different kind of freedom—the freedom to do other things than concentrate on the road while driving.

The car makes alternative modes of transportation dangerous:

The use of the car has made walking and biking dangerous. Walking and biking provide no protection to the human when struck by a car so many Americans do not do it because it is dangerous. The key is to design pedestrian and bike paths that are safe for people to use.

Americans perceive walking or biking as inefficient:

Americans forget that they are getting exercise while getting from one place to another. Then they do not have to drive to the gym to workout. It can save time in the long run.

Best Practice Examples:

Ø Springfield, Massachusetts: A Riverwalk

Ø Long Beach, California: A Full Service Bike Station

Ø San Francisco, California: Connecting Ferries With Other Transportation

Ø Boulder, Colorado: Downtown Shuttle bus

Ø Staten Island, New York: Transit Center

Ø Charlottesville, Virginia: Creating Tourist Trails

Recommendations:

1. Communities thinking of expanding its alternative transportation connections should consider creating a hub where all of them link together. Providing easy transfer from one to the other is key to setting up a useful network.

2. Education is highly important to spur people to use these alternatives. Americans are attached to their cars and often do not even know what other options are available. It is important to implement a marketing campaign to encourage use of these facilities.

3. It is important to integrate visitors to a community into existing transportation plans. Visitors can generate a lot of traffic and must be considered in planning and marketing campaigns. Providing easy access to these alternatives as well as information is necessary.

Links:

www.transact.org/5yrs/index.htm

www.dot.gov/programs.htm

www.sonoran.org

Bibliography:

www.transact.org/5yrs/index.htm

V. Education

Objectives:

1. Create a more environmentally friendly nation

2. Educate the next generation of transit users about alternative system

3. Educate parents through their children about mass transportation

4. Promote denser living conditions around transit stops in order to facilitate greater ridership

5. Promote residences closer to the core city in order to strengthen the city and make it a more attractive place to live

6. Provide an alternative to cars and create a less auto dominated societ

Issues:

The car is part of the American dream:

The car has become a part of the package. Americans perceive the car as a provider of the freedom that we as a nation have come to cherish so greatly. It is necessary to help citizens know that the bus offers them a different kind of freedom—the freedom to do other things than concentrate on the road while driving.

Finding space on the agenda for teaching transportation lessons may be difficult:

Teachers have much to accomplish in a limited amount of time with students. There is a great deal of pressure to teach reading, writing and arithmetic so other not so historically essential subjects might not take top priority.

People do not want to put the effort into finding single occupancy vehicle alternatives:

It is easy for Americans to get into their cars whereas finding alternatives takes time and energy. They also do not want to be inconvenienced by alternative modes of transportation.

It is difficult to teach an old dog new tricks:

To take on the teaching of adults in this country is a daunting task. Americans are set in their patterns of using cars to drive anywhere they want to go. It is often difficult to convince adults to change their habits, especially those generations who have grown up with the perception that the automobile is the “American way.”

Best Examples:

Ø Phoenix, Arizona: Clean Air Campaign

Ø Portland, Maine: Kids & Transportation

Ø Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Employers Promoting Alternative Transportation

Recommendations:

1. Educating the young is highly important if you want to make a new transportation system work or even make an old one work better. Today’s children are the potential mass transit users of tomorrow, but the potential must be tapped through education. By educating children, not only is the next generation of transit users reached but so are the parents.

2. Marketing alternatives to the car can be particularly effective when there is a large group of people heading to the same destination such as a workplace. Providing incentives to companies to provide benefits to employees who use alternative transportation is very effective in the campaign to get people out of their cars.

Links:

www.transact.org/5yrs/index.htm

www.dot.gov/programs.htm

www.sonoran.org

I. Roads and Automobiles

Objectives:

Issues:

High Occupancy Vehicles and Park & Ride

Linking Land Use and Transportation Planning

Increasing the Efficiency of Roads

II. Light Rail

Objectives:

Issues:

Best Examples:

III. Bus Systems

IV. Alternative Modes of Transportation

Bibliography:

Bibliography: