The study that resulted in this book was initiated in September 2001 to examine how decisions about public transportation, land development and redevelopment, and historic preservation have complemented one another in dozens of communities nationwide. The goal of the study was to demonstrate how transit and historic preservation act as compatible forces to revitalize communities. We set out to illuminate the many ways in which communities of all sizes have restored their urban or suburban cores and made full use of those centers’ capacities to help metropolitan areas grow sustainably. We wanted to find out how historic preservation values are informing community planning for public transit, and how these values are being used in development decisions intended to promote transit use.
Transportation, acting through enhanced accessibility, is a long acknowledged influence in the shaping of cities and the determination of land development potential. The reverse, however, the impact of land use decisions on transportation outcomes, has only gradually achieved recognition. It is these reverse impacts — of interest in the treatment of land use and site design options as “transportation” strategies, a facet of “smart growth” — that provides the impetus for this chapter. Presented here is information on what is known or surmised about the relationships between land use/site design and travel behavior.
The connection between transportation and land use plays an important role in both explanations of sprawl and estimates of the costs of sprawl. Transportation and land use are inextricably linked in two basic ways and many more subtle ways. First, transportation investments and policies influence development patterns: commercial development stretches out along highway corridors, new subdivisions pop up after the new freeway opens, shopping malls and gas stations congregate at interchanges. In this way, transportation investments contribute to sprawl, but they can also be used as smart growth strategies to help to fight sprawl. Second, development patterns shape travel patterns: the design of suburban areas makes transit and walking a challenge, the separation between land uses in low–density developments makes driving a necessity. In this way, sprawl contributes to automobile dependence, but smart growth policies to fight sprawl can reduce automobile dependence. Both theory and…
National transportation policy faces a number of urgent imperatives, including mitigation of air pollution and greenhouse gas production, and coping with congestion in the face of constrained capacity to construct and expand roadways. Because of these concerns, research into the interaction of land use and transportation policy has focused on the capacity of alternative land use approaches--including transit villages, New Urbanist development, jobs-housing balance, and compact development in general--to moderate growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). These development forms are referred to collectively in this study as "alternative" development.
In October 2002, ULI–the Urban Land Institute convened a panel of 14 experts in Washington, D.C., to discuss the topic “smart growth transportation for suburban greenfields.” The purpose of the forum was to stimulate a dialogue on the question of how the smart growth principle of expanding travel choices can be applied in emerging growth areas on the fringes of metropolitan development. Typically, these areas are developed in ways that depend almost exclusively on highways and cars as the chief means of transportation. The major question before the panel was whether and how greenfield development could be adapted to make use of other travel choices more feasible. A diverse group of real estate professionals participated, such as developers, real estate advisers, financiers, and land use planning practitioners, as well as representatives of federal, state, and regional transportation agencies and organizations.
Rising concerns about traffic congestion, loss of farmland, urban disinvestment, and the costs of public infrastructure have led an increasing number of state and local governments to adopt new policies to better manage metropolitan growth. Such programs often involve a package of tools such as zoning, comprehensive plans, subdivision regulations, development fees and exactions, and infrastructure investments and are sometimes described as growth controls, growth management, sustainable development, or smart growth. Despite these efforts' increasing popularity, some observers are concerned that such efforts adversely affect land and housing markets and lead to problems of housing affordability.
This paper examines the decentralization of employment using zip code data on employment by industry. Most American cities are decentralized on average less than 16 percent of employment in metropolitan areas is within a three mile radius of the city center. In decentralized cities, the classic stylized facts of urban economics (i.e. prices fall with distance to the city center, commute times rise with distance and poverty falls with distance) no longer hold. Decentralization is most common in manufacturing and least common in services. The human capital level of an industry predicts its centralization, but the dominant factor explaining decentralization is the residential preferences of workers. Political borders also impact employment density which suggests that local government policies significantly influence the location of industry.
The paper reports on the implementation of parking cash-out in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Region in 1999 and 2000. Since parking costs in a downtown setting are typically a substantial portion of commuting costs, cashing-out parking subsidies can provide a strong incentive for commuters to choice an alternative to driving alone.
City and county leaders in California are most motivated to push for pedestrian-oriented infrastructure and land uses when there is a clear economic benefit to their communities.2 There are solid connections between walkable environments and economic viability. This brochure highlights some aspects of that nexus.
The Transit Friendly Design Guide flows from the Calgary Transportation Plan 1995 and the Sustainable Suburbs Study. It has been developed with the help of community stakeholders to describe how community design and transit service can be mutually supportive. Application of the principles and policies contained in this guide will create an environment that will help make Calgary Transit’s vision a reality.