Transcript No Slide Title - ACCESS Magazine

Neighborhood Form,
Traffic and Congestion
Presented at
Tackling Traffic Congestion
UCLA Conf. Center, Lake Arrowhead CA, 21 October 2002
Dr. John Holtzclaw
Chair, Sierra Club Transportation Committee
Consultant: Transportation and Land Use Research
[email protected]
Urban vs. Sprawl Auto Use
SPRAWL
San Ramon CA
Res. Density (hh/res. acre)
3.2
TRANSIT
VILLAGE
Rockridge,
Oakland CA
URBAN
CENTER
North Beach,
San Francisco
METRO
CENTER
Manhattan
10
100
200
Holtzclaw, Using Residential Patterns and Transit to Decrease Auto Dependence and Costs, 1994;
Newman and Kenworthy, Cities and Automobile Dependence, 1989
3 Hh/Res Acre
(Courtesy City of Portland)
Community Transformation
courtesy Steve Price
http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/community/transformations/index.asp
Transform only main street - San Pablo Ave in El Cerrito, CA
No Parking
Surface Parking
As Shown
Census Tract Avg.
60 hh/res ac
15 hh/res ac
30 hh/res ac
12 hh/res ac
C T Before Transf.
9 hh/res ac
9 hh/res ac
(census tract is 8 x 10 blocks)
San Francisco
North Beach
Paul and Tira
90 Hh/Res Acre
Backyard, No parking
San Francisco - North Beach
90 Hh/Res Ac
Underground parking
San Francisco
West of Union Square
3 x 4 block zone
7 live theatres, fine hotels,
cafes and markets
1 to 36 stories,
mostly 4 - 16 stories
467 - 536 Hh/Res Ac
15% of land residential
limited parking
San Francisco
West of Union Square
3 x 4 block zone
7 live theatres, fine
hotels, cafes and markets
1 to 36 stories,
mostly 4 - 16 stories
467 - 536 Hh/Res Ac
15% of land residential
limited parking
Urban vs. Sprawl Auto Use
SPRAWL
San Ramon CA
TRANSIT
VILLAGE
Rockridge,
Oakland CA
URBAN
CENTER
North Beach,
San Francisco
METRO
CENTER
Manhattan
Res. Density (hh/res. acre)
Transit (veh/hr nearby)
Shopping (5 w/in 1/4 mi)
Pedestrian amenities
3.2
1
no homes
low
10
27
25% of homes
medium
100
90
all homes
high
200
very high
all homes
high
Autos/capita
Auto miles/capita
Ann. household auto costs
0.79
10,591
$8,200
0.66
6,455
$5,030
0.28
2,759
$1,900
0.12
1,145
$800
Holtzclaw, Using Residential Patterns and Transit to Decrease Auto Dependence and Costs, 1994;
Newman and Kenworthy, Cities and Automobile Dependence, 1989
Location Efficient Mortgage
LEM research
Institute for Location Efficiency
Center for Neighborhood Technology (Chicago)
Natural Resources Defense Council
Surface Transportation Policy Project
LEM Research
Nearly 3000 neighborhoods (TAZs)
Chicago, LA and San Francisco metro areas
How do: densities (3 measures)
shopping
proximity
public transit
ped/bike (grid, short, narrow, sidewalks, setbacks)
family income
family size
affect: vehicles (census data)?
VMT (odometer readings from smog checks -- total
driving, not just commutes)?
Driving vs Residential Density
35000
Annual VMT/Hh
30000
25000
20000
SF
LA
Chicago
15000
10000
5000
0
0
50
100
150
Households/Residential Acre
200
Auto Mileage, Density & Stage of Life
Daily Household Mileage
MTC's 1990 Houehold Travel Survey
120
100
80
60
Single Adults
Adults, kids 16-21
40
Adults, kids <16
20
Retired
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Households/Residential Acre
300
350
400
Driving vs Density by Household Size
Chicago, Los Angeles & San Francisco regions
40000
Annual VMT/Hh
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
>4 pop/hh
10000
2-4 pop/hh
<2 pop/hh
5000
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Households/Residential Acre
350
400
Driving vs Density by Income
Annual VMT/Household
35000
Chicago, Los Angeles & San Francisco regions
30000
25000
20000
Wealthy (>$60K)
Middle Income
15000
10000
Poor (<$30K)
5000
0
0
20
40
60
Households/Residential Acre
80
100
Veh/Hh, VMT/Veh and VMT/Hh in metropolitan San Francisco
Veh  4.722 22.520  H 


Hh
RA


 0.3471
VMT
H 

 10386  0.5041 

Veh
TA


$


1  e  0.000112 P 


0.0419
1.2386

1  1.0519 P Tr  60.312  0.2336


H



P

$

1  0.02759  1  0.0704 Ped  0.01743  22136 
H

P

VMT Veh VMT


Hh
Hh Veh
For the 3 metropolitan areas, the R2 = 79 – 96% for Veh/Hh and 80 – 94% for VMT/Hh.
H/RA is Households/Residential Acres, H/TA is Households/Total Acre, $/P is Income/Capita,
P/H is Persons/Hh, Tr is Zonal Transit Density and Ped is Ped/Bicycle Friendliness
Reported in: John Holtzclaw,* Robert Clear, Hank Dittmar, David Goldstein and Peter Haas,
Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socio-Economic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership
and Use---Studies in Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Transportation Planning and Technology,
Vol. 25(1),pp 1-27, March 2002. http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/online/0308-1060.html
Also reported at http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/transportation/holtzclaw-awma.pdf
Impact of Density and Transit on Driving
Annual
VMT/Household
San Francisco Bay Area
25000
20000
15000
2
150
300
10000
5000
0
450
0
300 600
900
Zonal Transit
Density
Hh/Res Acre
Impact of Density and Transit on Driving
Annual
VMT/Household
San Francisco Bay Area
25000
20000
15000
2
10000
150
5000
300
0
0
300
600
Zonal Transit
Density
450
900
Hh/Res Acre
What About Traffic Congestion?
Forget eliminating it; rather provide people with alternatives to it:
1. Convenient, accessible neighborhoods
 Zone for compact neighborhoods with sidewalks, local shopping and
restaurants, but with no front and side yard setbacks nor require off-street
parking.
 Incorporate attractive architecture, green building standards and quality
construction.
 Design streetscapes to provide pleasant pedestrian and bicycle conditions
and calmed traffic.
 Provide a wealth of parks, creeks, wildlife corridors and recreation areas.
 Seek diversity in family incomes, ethnicity and building heights.
 Locate neighborhoods near downtown or other centers.
2. Improve public transit service by increasing frequency and
providing separate ROWs with grade separations or signal
preemptions.
3. Eliminate subsidies to auto use.