Download
a new direction for transportation n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
A New Direction for Transportation: PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
A New Direction for Transportation:

A New Direction for Transportation:

72 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

A New Direction for Transportation:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. A New Direction for Transportation: Building Livable Communities Surface Transportation Policy Project May 14, 2002

  2. STPP: WHO WE ARE • Surface Transportation Policy Project • Started in 1990 • federal transportation bills (ISTEA > TEA-21) • Local efforts in 8 target regions including CA • http://www.transact.org

  3. Transportation Has Many Benefits, But also Inherent Problems: • Death & Injury From Accidents • Air Pollution & Dependence on Foreign Oil • Traffic Congestion • Suburban Sprawl & Higher Taxes for Infrastructure • Gov’t and Personal Costs & Expenses • Declining Mobility for Children & Seniors

  4. Today We’ll Focus On: • The Transportation-Land Use Connection • Mass Transit • Affordability • Safety • ISTEA/TEA-21 reauthorization • What the Future Holds

  5. CALIFORNIA’S TRAFFIC TRENDS

  6. CA POPULATION 1900 - 2000

  7. THE CAUSES OF CONGESTION • Growth in driving has far outpaced population growth • VMT per capita has also increased • Only 13% of VMT growth due to population increases

  8. SPRAWL MAKES CONGESTION WORSE • jobs-housing imbalance • scatter development & sprawl • lack of affordable housing • forces all trips into cars

  9. OLD GRID PATTERNS MORE EFFICIENT

  10. CUL DE SACS CREATE MORE TRAFFIC

  11. ZONING REQUIREMENTS MAKE WALKABLE COMMUNITIES ILLEGAL!

  12. AMERICA’S MAIN STREET c. 1950

  13. THEN PARKING LOTS APPEAR...

  14. THE MODERN MAIN STREET...

  15. CAN INFILL REDUCE TRAFFIC? (1) CA study of 27 neighborhoods (Holtzclaw) • doubling residential density • auto ownership, VMT reduced 16% (2) Bay Area neighborhoods study • doubling residential density • VMT reduced 20-30% (3) New Trends in Traffic Demand • Work commute shrinking as percentage • Errand trips increasing, mixed use key

  16. RESULT: PROBLEM: NO INCENTIVES FOR INFILL • Fiscalization of Land Use • No ‘carrots’ or rewards for infill or housing • NIMBYs kill housing, help promote sprawl • The ‘California Commute’ notorious • ACE Train: biggest ridership increase for 2 yrs

  17. SOLUTION: INCENTIVES FOR INFILL • Using transportation funds as incentives for: • infill housing near transit • downtown redevelopment • mixed use infill • Basics: • $2000 per bedroom • 2 yrs to break ground • Only cities can win grants

  18. HOUSING INCENTIVE RATIONALE • less use of regional roads • reverse “fiscalization” • better jobs-housing balance

  19. SAN MATEO COUNTY CASE STUDY • Redwood City: Franklin Street Project • 282 units, 480 bedrooms • Won $705,000 transportation grant • Transpo grant “held the deal together” • Walking distance to frequent transit

  20. INCENTIVES: THE ROLE OF REGIONS • Transportation can’t work in a vacuum • Housing and transportation regional issues • Regions will never have land use authority • Regions will have purse strings • Regions should reward local gov’t with $

  21. INCENTIVES: ROLE OF THE STATE • State must communicate what it wants • State must reward behavior it wants: • ITIP dollars, esp. if SB45 split changes • ITIP ranking priority • state STP dollars • TEA dollars (TEA-21) • Park Bond $$ • Housing $$

  22. SB1262 (TORLAKSON) • 10 percent of transp capital dollars for regions • reward local jurisdictions for infill housing • important coalition supporting: • STPP • BIA (Building Industry Association) • CA Assoc of Realtors • Sierra Club • California Labor Federation • California Carpenters Assoc • Non Profit Affordable Housing Developers

  23. PART II: The Role of Mass Transit in California • CA ridership on transit & rail up 5% in 2000 and 6% in 2001 • California and New York combine for half the transit ridership in the country • Transit must serve several markets at same time: choice riders & captive riders • Transit must provide basic service for those without cars: ie social equity issue

  24. California’s Love Affair with Transit?

  25. BRT CASE STUDY: LOS ANGELES MTA • Two corridors: 16 miles & 26 miles • $8.2M capital cost • ridership up 25% • travel time down 25% • ‘’intermediate” application -- signals

  26. BRT CASE STUDY: AC TRANSIT • Most ambitious BRT project in Bay Area • Telegraph Ave/ International Blvd • Berkeley - Oakland - San Leandro • Separate lanes, preboarding, low floor buses, GIS technology

  27. BRT CASE STUDY: AC TRANSIT • Capital Costs: $340M bus vs $890M light rail • Operating Costs: $26M existing; $46M bus vs $55M light rail • Ridership: 35% increase bus vs 43% increase LRT • Travel time: 100 mins vs. 65 mins vs. 64 mins

  28. ANYWHERE, USA

  29. REBUILDING STREETS FOR BUSES...

  30. DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWS BRT...

  31. PART III: Redefining Transportation Safety • 25 percent of all traffic deaths are bicyclists and pedestrians • Children, Elderly and Disabled are most at risk and losing basic mobility • In California, pedestrian crashes second leading cause of death for 5-15 yrs old

  32. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY BY THE NUMBERS • 20% of all traffic deaths • 700 deaths/yr; 14,000 injuries • 2nd leading cause of accidental death for kids 5-12 • 9% of all trips • Probably much higher • 1% of all transportation spending • state and federal transpo funds

  33. WE’LL ALL BE OLD SOMEDAY...

  34. The School Commute: A Traffic Problem and a Health Crisis • 25 percent of morning and afternoon rush hours are now parents driving kids to school • Roughly two-thirds of kids biked or walked to school in the 1960s; today less than 10 percent do • America is raising least active generation of kids ever; child obesity up 55% from 1963

  35. SOLUTION: SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL • $25M/yr thru 2005 • Apply to Caltrans • Increase walking/biking • Decrease injuries/fatalities • Bike paths, crosswalks, traffic calming, signals • Must have public support

  36. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY & ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

  37. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY: THE SPEED FACTOR

  38. Very Challenging 39 feet Very Wide Very Fast

  39. PART IV: AFFORDABLE TRANSPORTATION • Location, Location, Location • Transportation costs $7,000 per household • Living in walkable communities saves money: • within a third of a mile from transit • walking distance from shops, schools, • from $6,000 to $15,000 savings per year

  40. For Families, Transportation Is Second Highest Cost …

  41. Money That Could Be Going To Home Ownership, Which Builds Wealth …

  42. … Is Instead Going To Car Ownership, Which Depletes Wealth.

  43. SF BAY AREA AUTO COSTS • CHOICES SAVE MONEY • Annual household transportation savings as much as $6,000 • Up to 30,000 fewer miles driven each year

  44. PART V: TEA-3 & BEYOND • Federal reauthorization of ‘TEA-21’ bill in 2003 • ISTEA in 1991 started changes in thinking • STPP’s “New Transportation Charter” Dec 2001 • http://www.antc.net

  45. READING THE “TEA” LEAVES • Era of Shrinking Resources: both state & feds • Traditional interests: “more money, less rules” • STPP coalition: “be smarter about solutions” • more local control • more accountability • more choices • better planning, more performance measures • flexibility with targeted investments