Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 106
4 | Future Residential Development Patterns This chapter explores the potential for more compact, mixed-use devel- opment and reduced automobile travel. It first examines the oppor- tunities for growth in the demand for compact developments, starting with demographic trends—primarily the aging of the population and immigration—that will shape housing needs and preferences, the location of housing, and travel well into the middle of this century and beyond. The discussion then turns to best estimates of new housing units needed by 2030 and 2050, some of which could be developed at higher densities. These estimates form the basis for the scenarios developed in the next chapter to estimate potential effects on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), energy use, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Also discussed are the potential effects of higher energy prices and measures to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on development patterns. Although the future provides many opportunities for change, the various impediments to the supply of compact development are discussed next. The resulting apparent undersupply of more compact development is then considered, followed by strategies for addressing impediments and increasing the supply of compact, mixed-use devel- opment. The chapter ends with a summary of key findings. 106

OCR for page 106
107 Future Residential Development Patterns opportunities for growth in demand for compact development The primary opportunity for changing development patterns lies in the number of new housing units that will be constructed. Millions of new units will be required every year, both because the population is projected to grow (largely as a result of immigration) and because some housing units are torn down and replaced every year. Demographic and economic trends, particularly the retirement of the baby boom generation, the increasing importance of immigrants, and higher energy prices, could result in a larger share of these new units being built in more compact, mixed-use developments. Demographic Trends Aging of the Population Aging of the baby boom generation over the next several decades will result in a historically unprecedented generational shift with profound implications for the housing market in the United States.1 By 2010, the leading edge of the boomers will pass the age of 65, and growth of the elderly population will substantially exceed that of younger adults (see Table 4-1). As they have in every decade since the 1970s, the boomers will dominate changes in the housing market until at least 2030 as they downsize and eventually withdraw entirely from home ownership. Because of the size of the boomer cohort, nearly every state will experience these trends (Pitkin and Myers 2008). Two effects are of particular interest in this study. First, starting in about 2015, the boomers may begin to sell off their large supply of housing, primarily in low-density suburban areas, as they move to smaller units (Pitkin and Myers 2008). Second, new construction will likely cater to the demand of seniors for retirement housing, following 1 This section draws heavily on a paper by Pitkin and Myers (2008) commissioned for this study.

OCR for page 106
108 Driving and the Built Environment TABLE 4-1 Population Growth Each Decade and by Dominant Age Group, 1960–2050 (in millions except as indicated) Population Growth Dominant Age Group Total 25+a Decade Ages 25–64 Ages 65 Age Group Growth Percent of Total 1960–1970 10.6 7.1 3.4 55–64 3.1 28.9 1970–1980 22.9 17.3 5.6 25–34 12.1 53.0 1980–1990 25.1 19.6 5.5 35–44 12.0 47.7 1990–2000 24.0 20.2 3.8 45–54 12.8 53.5 2000–2010 21.4 16.3 5.2 55–64 11.8 54.8 2010–2020 22.1 7.8 14.4 65–74 10.5 47.5 2020–2030 19.2 2.4 16.8 75–84 8.3 43.4 85+ 2030–2040 20.1 11.5 8.6 5.8 28.9 85+ 2040–2050 19.0 12.3 6.7 5.5 28.7 Note: Since 1970, when the leading edge of the baby boomers turned 25, and continuing until 2030, when the leading edge will turn 85, this generation accounts for more than 40 percent of the growth in the U.S. population each decade. a Those age 24 and younger are excluded because few persons in this age group are homeowners. Source: Pitkin and Myers 2008, Table 4. the general principle that future housing development demand is shaped by growth at the margin rather than by the average growth in new households.2 These effects could represent an important opportunity for shifts to denser development patterns as boomers downsize and move to smaller housing units and possibly to more central, walkable locations (Myers and Gearin 2001). These preferences could shift even more strongly once such new retirement-friendly developments are available 2 The idea is that only 1 to 2 percent of all households each year live in newly constructed units, and it is this small minority to which developers cater. Thus, a demographic change such as the demand of boomers for retirement housing has the potential to drive major shifts in development patterns if it involves distinctly different preferences from the growth categories of prior decades (Pitkin and Myers 2008).

OCR for page 106
109 Future Residential Development Patterns in greater numbers in the market and boomers become more familiar with them. Recent studies suggest, however, that the jury is still out on whether boomers will move in large numbers to city centers (Engelhardt 2006; Frey 2007).3 On the one hand, perhaps more than past retiring generations, the boomers possess the education, wealth, interest in amenities, and potential to continue to work and pursue leisure activities longer to be attracted to cities. Nevertheless, they are the first truly “suburban generation,” born and raised in the suburbs, and it is unclear whether they will be interested in moving to a city environment (Frey 2007, 15). As yet there is little evidence from current retirees of any net shift of population toward central cities, nor has the amount of new construction been sufficient to indicate a structural shift in the location of new urban development (Engelhardt 2006; Pitkin and Myers 2008). Regardless of whether the boomers retire to central cities, their travel will be reduced as they age. The 2001 National Household Travel Survey found that licensed drivers age 65 and older drove an average of about 7,700 miles annually, more than 40 percent fewer miles than the next lowest age group (55 to 64) (Hu and Reuscher 2004, Table 23). Older drivers also took fewer daily person trips (3.4 on average)—about one-quarter fewer than the 55 to 64 age group (Hu and Reuscher 2004, Table 13). The trend over time, however, has been toward increased VMT and trip taking by older drivers (Hu and Reuscher 2004, Tables 13 and 23). The extent to which the boomers will drive more than current retirees depends on their continuing suburban lifestyle; their health; and their propensity to prolong working, either full- or part- 3 Although it is unclear where the boomers will move within metropolitan areas (suburbs or center cities), Census Bureau projections for 2000 to 2030 suggest that aging in place—in the same state and metropolitan area, if not in the same house or community—rather than migration will drive the growth rates of senior populations in states (Frey 2007). The fastest overall growth of senior populations is projected for a group of western states (not including California, where congestion and housing prices are already high) and certain southern states (Texas, Georgia, and Florida), where large numbers of senior and presenior populations (55 to 64 years of age) already reside.

OCR for page 106
110 Driving and the Built Environment time. If future cohorts of retirees are healthier and wealthier, as many expect, they will likely drive longer. To the extent they choose to live in more urban settings with mixed uses and good transit, their continued mobility will also enable them to travel by other transportation modes (e.g., transit, walking). Immigration Immigrant populations have risen sharply in recent years and are younger than the existing population on average. As noted, they are the primary source of U.S. population growth, helping to offset the nation’s aging population. Immigrant populations will also play an important role in future housing demand and provide another opportunity for denser development patterns. Immigration levels increased sharply between 1997 and 2006 to an average annual net flow of about 1.16 million per year, with the result that the foreign-born share of the U.S. population has more than doubled from its historic observed minimum in 1970 to 13.1 percent in 2006 (Pitkin and Myers 2008, 22). The foreign-born share of new entrants to the housing market has increased accordingly, to about 25 percent in 2006 (Pitkin and Myers 2008, 23). Projecting the future housing demand of foreign-born households involves many uncertainties, not the least of which is forecasting immigration flows. The latter can be significantly altered by changes in U.S. laws regulating immigration, border enforcement, numbers of illegal immigrants, the demand for labor in the United States, and population and economic growth in source countries. Pitkin and Myers (2008) recommend use of an intermediate-range population forecast, which projects a foreign-born population in the range of 13 to 16 per- cent of the total population by 2030, growing to 14 to 19 percent by 2050 (see Table 4-2). Individuals of Hispanic origin represent the dominant immigrant group. Together with native-born Hispanics, they are projected to represent 20 to 23 percent of the total U.S. population by 2030 and 22 to 29 percent by 2050.

OCR for page 106
111 Future Residential Development Patterns TABLE 4-2 Population of the United States by Nativity and Ethnicity, 2006 and Projected for 2030 and 2050 (in millions except as indicated) 2030 2050 2006, Observeda Censusb Pewc Censusb Pewc Total population 298.8 363.6 371.8 419.9 438.2 Percent foreign born 12.5 12.8 16.0 13.8 18.6 Percent Hispanic, native and foreign born 14.7 20.1 22.5 22.3 29.2 a U.S. Census Bureau estimate for July 1, 2006; percent foreign born from American Community Survey 2006. b Census 2004 Interim. Foreign-born share inferred from Census 2000, Middle and High series on which the Interim series immigration is based. c Pew (Passel–Cohn) Main. Source: Pitkin and Myers 2008, Table 6. Immigrant flows have tended to be geographically concentrated, with new immigrants settling near groups with the same ethnicity. Before the 1990s, densely settled areas in the northeast and west were the dominant destination. Since about 1990, new immigrants, especially those of Hispanic origin, have been locating in the south and midwest in much greater numbers than previously (Pitkin and Myers 2008). Nevertheless, and of direct relevance to this study, foreign- and native-born Hispanics are much more likely to locate in central cities and remain there than are non-Hispanics of similar nativity status (Figure 4-1). In fact, between 2000 and 2004, Los Angeles and New York still accounted for nearly one-quarter of the increase in the U.S. foreign-born population (Frey 2007). The housing patterns of foreign-born householders, Hispanic and non-Hispanic alike, differ substantially from those of the native born, in part reflecting the greater propensity of immigrant populations to locate in central cities. For example, immigrants who arrived in the United States in the previous 10 years are about three times as likely to live in multifamily housing (Pitkin and Myers 2008, 26). This large

OCR for page 106
112 Driving and the Built Environment 50 Native born Percentage of Cohort Population Entered <1980 40 Entered 1980–1989 Entered ≥1990 30 20 10 0 Hispanic Non-Hispanic Central Inside Inside Outside Outside Central Inside Inside Outside Outside city of MSA, not MSA, not MSA, MSA, city of MSA, not MSA, not MSA, MSA, MSA in central in central urban rural MSA in central in central urban rural city— city— city— city— urban rural urban rural FIGURE 4-1 Distribution of population among metropolitan locations, 2003, by origin, nativity, and period of entry (MSA metropolitan statistical area). Source: Pitkin and Myers 2008, Figure 7. difference, however, is short-lived, falling by more than half within a decade of arrival, reflecting income growth and assimilation of immi- grant populations (see Figure 4-2). The convergence pattern of Hispanic immigrants is thought to be somewhat slower because of continuing educational and income gaps, but the evidence here is mixed (see Smith 2006 and Perreira et al. 2006, for example, in Pitkin and Myers 2008). A similar pattern of differences and then convergence toward the mean is found in the travel behavior of immigrant populations. For example, a study of immigrant populations in California, where the foreign-born population now represents more than one-quarter (26 percent) of the total, found that recent immigrants, regardless of race or ethnicity, are significantly more likely to commute by transit than are native-born adults of a similar race or ethnicity, controlling for other determinants of mode choice (Blumenberg and Shiki 2007). After their first 5 years in the United States, however, immigrant

OCR for page 106
113 Future Residential Development Patterns 70 2003 Households in Multifamily Units 60 1990 50 Percentage of 40 30 20 10 0 Non-Hispanic Hispanic Entered Entered Entered Native Entered Entered Entered Native ≥1990 1980–89 <1980 born ≥1990 1980–89 <1980 born FIGURE 4-2 Households in multifamily units, by origin and nativity of householder, 1990 and 2003. Source: Pitkin and Myers 2008, Figure 5. populations, much like their native-born counterparts, begin to pur- chase and use automobiles as their economic status rises (Blumenberg and Shiki 2007). The rate of assimilation for different ethnicities varies considerably, though, even after controlling for income. Asian immi- grants, for example, move rapidly to automobile use. Hispanics, who make up close to one-third (32 percent) of California’s population, tend to use transit more than do native-born commuters even after 20 years in the United States, which perhaps suggests cultural differences for this group (Blumenberg and Shiki 2007). The Youth Market Another opportunity for more compact, mixed-use development may be found in young adults. Although young adults who are entering the housing market are less numerous than the baby boom generation, they appear to exhibit a stronger preference than their predecessors for urban living (Pitkin and Myers 2008). The amenities and sophistication of many cities are magnets for the often young, highly educated niche

OCR for page 106
114 Driving and the Built Environment market of nontraditional households, variously termed the “creative class” (Florida 2002) and “knowledge workers” (Storper and Manville 2006; Cervero 2007). The resurgence in apartment construction in many central cities (Birch 2002 in Pitkin and Myers 2008) is consistent with growing preferences for more compact development and more central locations. The amount of new construction has not yet been sufficient, however, to demonstrate a significant shift in development patterns (Pitkin and Myers 2008). High Energy Prices The demand for more compact development might also be encouraged by a future that could include sustained higher energy costs or the lingering effects of the current subprime mortgage crisis.4 W hat if, for example, higher energy prices persist—both gasoline prices at the pump and residential heating and cooling costs—or a significant carbon tax is imposed to reduce GHG emissions? In the short to medium term, consumers would likely respond by driving less, reducing VMT, and purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles. In the longer term, higher energy prices could motivate residents and businesses to relocate to more densely developed areas, both to reduce travel distances and to increase opportunities for travel by alternative modes (e.g., transit, walking, bicycling). What evidence is available that these changes will occur? The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published two studies in 2008 examining consumer response to the most recent upward trend in gasoline prices that began in 2003.5 The first study examines changes 4 No studies could be found on the impact of the mortgage crisis on long-term housing demand and, in particular, on the location of housing within metropolitan areas. One could hypothesize that the supply of lower- and moderate-income units, which tend to be attached housing or housing on smaller lots, would increase as a result of foreclosures. Much of this housing currently exists in central cities, in older suburban areas, or at the metropolitan fringe. 5 Prior gasoline price increases occurred in 1974 and 1979 in conjunction with Mideast oil supply interruptions and again in 1990 (CBO 2008b).

OCR for page 106
115 Future Residential Development Patterns from 2003, when gasoline cost $1.50 per gallon, to 2006, when it cost $3 per gallon (CBO 2008b). The second study is an update that examines consumer response to the increase in the price of gasoline to $4 per gallon by May 2008 (CBO 2008a). CBO finds that consumers were less responsive to the price of gasoline, particularly in the short term, than they had been several decades ago. CBO attributes this finding to growth in real income, which has made the cost of gasoline a smaller fraction of consumers’ disposable income; improved fuel economy; and the development of distant suburbs, which has made some consumers more reliant on the automobile (CBO 2008b). Nevertheless, CBO cites evidence that motorists cut back on the number of trips, and with gasoline at $4, they drove less than in previous years.6 In addition, there was a shift to cars and away from less fuel-efficient sport utility vehicles and minivans. The share of light trucks fell from about 55 percent of the light-duty vehicle fleet in 2004, to below 52 percent by 2006, to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 44 percent when gasoline prices rose above $4 per gallon in 2008 (CBO 2008a; CBO 2008b). CBO also quantifies the relationship between gasoline prices and fuel consumption. Estimates of the short-run elasticity of demand for gasoline indicate a modest response; each 10 percent increase in the retail price of gasoline is estimated to have reduced consumption by about 0.6 percent (CBO 2008b). Estimates of the long-run elasticity of demand for gasoline indicate that a sustained increase of 10 percent in price would reduce gasoline consumption by about 4 percent. The substantially larger long-term effect is attributed to the ability of consumers to make more significant changes, such as purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles and moving jobs or residences or both to 6 On the basis of a sample of California freeways, CBO found that between 2003 and 2006, freeway drivers adjusted to higher gasoline prices by making fewer trips and by driving more slowly. Every 50 cent increase in price resulted in about a 0.7 percent decline in weekday freeway trips in areas where rail transit was available (CBO 2008b). With sharply higher prices in 2008, VMT declined nationwide according to statistics collected by the Federal Highway Administration, a phenomenon not seen since the 1970s (CBO 2008a).

OCR for page 106
116 Driving and the Built Environment reduce their commuting and other trip distances. For the effect to be fully realized, however, CBO notes that prices would have to remain sufficiently high for about 15 years for the entire stock of passenger vehicles to be replaced (CBO 2008b). CBO also examines the impact of higher gasoline prices on possible government policies to reduce gasoline consumption and CO2 emissions, including taxes and more stringent fuel-efficiency [corporate average fuel economy (CAFE)] standards. CBO notes that a gasoline tax increase, or a carbon tax under a cap and trade system, would have to be very high to make a difference in motorist behavior, both because such taxes represent a relatively small share of the total price of gasoline7 and because Americans have limited alternatives to automobile travel. In Europe, for example, high energy prices have probably contributed to higher- density developments, and high taxation has sustained these prices. Moreover, because of more stringent CAFE standards promulgated as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which require manufacturers to increase the fuel-efficiency of passenger vehicles to an average of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020, CBO concludes that carbon taxes on CO2 emissions envisioned in current climate change legislation would probably have little or no effect on average fuel economy (CBO 2008a).8 Nevertheless, were it politically feasible, raising gasoline prices would encourage motorists to drive less. In contrast, the CAFE standards should encourage driving by reducing gasoline costs (motorists can drive farther on a gallon of gasoline), although CBO notes that the “rebound” effect may be small (CBO 2008a). Small and Van Dender (2007a; 2007b) explore the size of the rebound effect by decomposing the effects of an increase in fuel prices into two 7 The average gasoline tax, including state levies, is about 46 cents per gallon, 18.4 cents of which is the federal tax (CBO 2008b). 8 CBO estimates that gasoline prices would have to rise above $6.50 per gallon—from a $2.00–$2.50 per gallon tax added to $4.00 per gallon gasoline—for the average fuel economy of new vehicles to approach the 35 miles per gallon required by the new CAFE standards (CBO 2008a).

OCR for page 106
133 Future Residential Development Patterns states and counties within states have adopted less stringent measures that encourage, but do not mandate, more compact development and preservation of farmland. In Maryland, for example, Montgomery County’s Agricultural Reserve Program, created in 1980, has preserved more than half of the county’s 93,000 acres of viable farmland at the metropolitan area fringe through transfer of development rights and easement purchases.29 A comprehensive survey of local land use regulations in the 50 largest U.S. metropolitan areas found that urban containment programs and measures to control new development, such as growth boundaries or building caps and moratoriums, are far less pervasive than zoning regulations and comprehensive planning (Pendall et al. 2006). At the national level, for example, only an estimated 16 percent of jurisdic- tions have urban containment programs. However, these jurisdictions tend to be more populous and expansive than others, accounting for 27 percent of the total metropolitan population surveyed and 38 per- cent of the land area. Only a small fraction of jurisdictions, representing an equally small fraction of population and land area, have permit caps or building moratoriums.30 Nevertheless, states and regions are becoming more proactive about managing growth than they were in the past. Ten states have instituted laws enabling, and in some cases requiring, local governments to adopt growth management measures consistent with state goals. Another 15 states have reformed their planning laws over the past 30 years to encourage stronger local planning (Pendall et al. 2006). At the local level, impact fees, which link permission for new development to the imposition of fees for infrastructure provision, have become one of the most common tools for land use regulation. They are imposed 29 The county downzoned land in the rural upcounty area from one unit per 5 acres to one unit per 25 acres. Landowners were allowed to sell the difference in development rights to downcounty areas where greater density was allowed (Smart Growth Network 2003). 30 For example, only about 2 percent of the jurisdictions surveyed, with 4 percent of the residents and 3 percent of the land area, have permit caps (Pendall et al. 2006).

OCR for page 106
134 Driving and the Built Environment by 37 percent of survey respondents, representing 56 percent of the population and 46 percent of the land area of the 50 largest U.S. metropolitan areas (Pendall et al. 2006). California recently became the first state to enact legislation aimed at curbing GHG emissions through land use controls.31 Governor Schwarzenegger directed the California Air Resources Board, which has responsibility for regulating air pollution in the state, to work with California’s 18 metropolitan planning organizations to set and achieve GHG emissions reduction targets for 2020 and 2035. The legislation promotes sustainable community strategies, that is, more compact land use patterns coupled with transit investments, with the objective of reducing automobile trip lengths by bringing people closer to destinations and providing alternative transportation modes. The current recommended target reduction for 2020 from such strategies is small, however—about 5 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, or approximately 3 percent of the 30 percent reduction needed by 2020 if the state’s GHG emissions are to be returned to 1990 levels (CARB 2008). The long-term goal is to put California on a path to reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Making Compact, Mixed-Use Developments More Attractive to Developers and Lenders Another approach for increasing support for compact, mixed-use developments is to cater to households that have indicated support for such developments. This is a long-term, iterative process, however; increasing supply ought to increase support, but support is needed 31 SB-375 directs the California Air Resources Board to set targets for reducing GHG emissions attributable to VMT for California’s 18 metropolitan planning organizations. A companion funding bill, SB-732, provides a framework for coordinating state spending to promote planning for sustainable communities and implementation of urban greening projects (Center for Clean Air Policy, October 2008 newsletter, www.ccap.org/docs/news/138/News%20 from%20the%20Center%20for%20Clean%20Air%20Policy%20--%20Oct.%2008%20--%20 FINAL%202.pdf). Both bills were passed in September 2008.

OCR for page 106
135 Future Residential Development Patterns to increase supply. Nevertheless, the more it can be shown that such developments can be profitable and not lower surrounding property values, the more acceptable they are likely to become (Meyer and Dumbaugh 2004). This is particularly important for developers and financial institutions, which are risk averse in normal financial times and even more so in the current financial environment of limited credit. Typically, developers and lenders look for projects that are compatible with other developments in local markets (i.e., that meet local zoning and subdivision controls). Financing of mixed-use developments can be particularly problematic because many developers and lenders have experience in dealing with only one type of development (Meyer and Dumbaugh 2004 and Kirby and Hollander 2004 in TRB 2005). An informal survey of institutional lenders in the Atlanta, Seattle, and Boston markets conducted by Meyer and Dumbaugh (2004) revealed that lenders are not averse to more compact developments as long as such developments are not expressly prohibited by local zoning and are not the first such development in an area. The presence of profitable existing compact developments in a local market and evidence of other supporting public and private investments (e.g., transit) should increase the acceptability of similar new projects (Smith-Heimer and Golem 2001). As the case studies of Portland, Oregon, and Arlington County, Virginia, detailed in the previous chapter illustrate, complementary coordinated public infrastructure investments and development incentives can facilitate the development of more compact, mixed- use communities. In both cases, extensive new rail transit investment was the catalyst for more compact development. Not all urban areas have similar opportunities for such extensive transit investments. Nevertheless, well-targeted investments in public parks and open spaces, sidewalks and walking paths, and other amenities can help make compact developments, either new developments or strategic infill, more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly. Provision should also be made for upgrading existing infrastructure, including streets and water and

OCR for page 106
136 Driving and the Built Environment sewer lines, to the extent that compact development occurs in already developed areas, straining the capacity of the existing infrastructure. Implementing Integrated Street Design and Reduced Parking Requirements In recent years, transportation engineers have attempted to modify the design of local streets in recognition of their role in shaping the travel patterns of the communities they serve. As part of the move- ment toward more context-sensitive design,32 strategies such as traffic calming, which has been used for many decades, and “complete streets,” a more recent policy and design approach, are oriented toward serving the needs of all users, not just vehicular traffic, and have begun to take hold. Traffic calming, which is appropriate for new as well as existing developments, is aimed at slowing traffic speeds in residential neighborhoods and near schools through self-enforcing physical devices.33 Complete streets are roadways designed and operated for the safety and access of all users, including pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as motorists.34 Use of street grid patterns in new developments, rather than cul-de-sacs, improves street connectivity and access to neighborhood commercial uses where they exist. Improved connectivity encourages more walking, bicycling, and transit use (where available). It can also result in modest reductions in VMT from shorter trip distances and, more important, reduce congestion on main routes. Organizations that develop traffic engineering standards 32 Context-sensitive design refers to roadway standards and development practices that are flexible and sensitive to community values, helping to ensure that design projects not only move users safely and efficiently but also are in harmony with the natural and human environments (Victoria Transport Policy Institute, TDM Encyclopedia, www.vtpi.org/tdm/ tdm57.htm). 33 Examples include vertical deflections (speed humps and bumps and raised intersections); horizontal deflections (serpentines, bends, and deviations in a road); road narrowing (via neckdowns and chokers); and medians, central islands, and traffic circles. 34 Complete streets typically contain the following features: sidewalks, bicycle lanes, wide shoulders, crosswalks, bus pullouts or special bus lanes, and center medians.

OCR for page 106
137 Future Residential Development Patterns and guidelines—ITE, the Federal Highway Administration, and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials— have all issued design guidance and manuals on these topics. Removing “excess” parking can also create more walkable streets and provide more space for other community uses, such as parks and greenspaces. Some municipal governments have begun to establish maximum rather than minimum parking requirements for new devel- opments to curb what they perceive as an oversupply of parking. However, care must be taken to balance parking needs with other uses and to ensure that alternative modes of transport are available (Smith 2009). It is not surprising that minimum parking requirements are being questioned in TODs, where good transit service is typically available. Some cities, such as Portland, Oregon, have developed sophisticated maximum parking requirement ordinances that vary within the city depending on the characteristics of different districts and the distance of a land use from mass transit.35 findings This chapter has examined whether decentralization and suburbaniza- tion of the population, which have characterized the development of metropolitan areas for decades, are likely to continue. Projections to 2030 and, with less certainty, to 2050 indicate that housing pref- erences and travel patterns may change in ways that support higher- density development and reduced VMT, although by how much is unclear. The aging of the population, in particular the aging of the baby boom generation, will have a profound impact on the housing market for many decades once the leading edge of the boomers passes the age of 65 in 2010. The boomers will begin to sell off their large supply of 35 Portland’s maximum allowed parking spaces ordinance can be viewed online at www. portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=28148.

OCR for page 106
138 Driving and the Built Environment low-density, suburban housing as they downsize to smaller units in more compact settings or move to retirement communities. They will also drive less as they age. The jury is out, however, on whether this first truly suburban generation will leave the suburbs for center city locations or age in place or near family members. The foreign-born share of the population is projected to continue to grow to between 13 and 16 percent of the U.S. population by 2030 and to as much as 20 percent of the population by 2050. Immigrant populations, particularly Hispanics, the dominant group, have housing preferences and travel patterns different from those of native-born populations. Recent immigrants tend to live in multifamily housing, Hispanics locate disproportionately in central cities, and all immigrant groups are heavy users of public transportation where it is available. As they become assimilated, however, immigrant groups tend to converge toward the population mean in their housing and transportation preferences. Young adults who are entering the housing market represent another potential market for more compact development. Although less numer- ous than the boomers, they appear to be exhibiting stronger preferences than their predecessors for urban living. The future may also be characterized by sustained higher real energy prices, which could remain well outside the norm of the past 30 years. Evidence from past energy spikes suggests that in the short and medium terms, motorists cut back on the number of trips they take and buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, the latter effect predominating. Whether they would move jobs or residences to reduce travel and energy costs has not been observed because high energy prices have not persisted. As long as incomes continue to rise, however, and transportation costs remain a relatively small share of household budgets on average, high energy prices will be only one of many factors that drive residential and employment location decisions. In summary, a population that is aging and includes more immigrants and young adults with urban preferences is likely to be more inclined

OCR for page 106
139 Future Residential Development Patterns to live in more compact developments, own fewer automobiles, drive less, and use alternative modes of transportation. Should they occur, sustained higher energy prices would reinforce these trends. Taking advantage of this potential shift in housing preferences and travel patterns will require addressing numerous impediments to change. Local zoning regulations, particularly regulations that restrict density levels and mixing of land uses, represent one of the most significant impediments to more compact, mixed-use development. Street designs and parking requirements focused on automotive travel reinforce automobile-oriented development. The result of such impediments, particularly exclusionary zoning, is an apparent undersupply of higher density, mixed-use developments, despite evidence from survey research of increased interest in such communities. Some of these impediments can and are being addressed with new context-sensitive zoning, municipal street designs and parking requirements that reflect the needs of all users, and targeted public infrastructure investments to encourage private development. More stringent measures, such as urban growth boundaries, are being insti- tuted in a few locations characterized by strong regional and state roles in land use planning and growth management. But land use policies aimed at effecting sweeping changes in metropolitan area development patterns are likely to be slowed by political resistance from existing homeowners and local governments that reflect their interests, a lack of metropolitan and state government initiatives that could provide incentives on a large enough scale to counter local resistance, and the durability and value of the existing housing stock itself. The greatest opportunities for building more compact, mixed- use developments are likely to lie in new housing construction and replacement units in areas already experiencing density increases, such as inner suburbs and developments near transit stops and along major highway corridors or interchanges. The next chapter presents an attempt to measure the potential size of this market and the likely effects on reducing VMT, energy use, and CO2 emissions.

OCR for page 106
140 Driving and the Built Environment references Abbreviations CARB California Air Resources Board CBO Congressional Budget Office FHA Federal Housing Administration HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development NRC National Research Council TRB Transportation Research Board UPI United Press International Arrington, G. B., and R. Cervero. 2008. TCRP Report 128: Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Birch, E. L. 2002. Having a Longer View on Downtown Living. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 5–21. Blumenberg, E., and K. Shiki. 2007. Transportation Assimilation: Immigrants, Race and Ethnicity, and Mode Choice. Presented at 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Brown, M. A., F. Southworth, and T. K. Stovall. 2005. Towards a Climate-Friendly Built Environment. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. www.pewclimate.org/ docUploads/Builidngs_FINAL.pdf. Accessed Feb. 2, 2009. CARB. 2008. Climate Change: Proposed Scoping Plan, A Framework for Change. www.arb. ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/documents/psp.pdf. Accessed Feb. 10, 2009. CBO. 2008a. Climate-Change Policy and CO2 Emissions from Passenger Vehicles. Economic and Budget Issue Brief. Washington, D.C. CBO. 2008b. E ffects of Gasoline Prices on Driving Behavior and Vehicle Markets. Washington, D.C. Cervero, R. 2007. Economic Growth in Urban Regions: Implications for Future Transportation. www.uctc.net/papers/808.pdf. Cervero, R., and G. B. Arrington. 2008. Vehicle Trip Reduction Impacts of Transit- Oriented Housing. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 1–17. DeGrove, J. M. 2005. Planning Policy and Politics: Smart Growth and the States. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, Mass. Downs, A. 1999. Some Realities About Sprawl and Urban Decline. Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 955–974. Downs, A. 2004. Still Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak-Hour Traffic Congestion. Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page 106
141 Future Residential Development Patterns Duany, A., E. Plater-Zyberk, and J. Speck. 2000. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. North Point Press, Union Square West, N.J. Engelhardt, G. V. 2006. Housing Trends Among Baby Boomers. Research Institute for Housing America, Mortgage Bankers Association, Washington, D.C. Eppli, M. J., and C. C. Tu. 1999. Valuing the New Urbanism. Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C. Ewing, R., K. Bartholomew, S. Winkelman, J. Walters, and D. Chen. 2007. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C. www.smartgrowthamerica.org/gcindex.html. Accessed Oct. 17, 2007. FHA. 1935. Subdivision Development. Circular No. 5, Washington, D.C. Fischel, W. A. 1999. Does the American Way of Zoning Cause the Suburbs of Metropolitan Areas to Be Too Spread Out? In Governance and Opportunity in Metropolitan America (A. Altshuler, W. Morrill, H. Wolman, and F. Mitchell, eds.), National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 151–191. Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. Basic Books, New York. Frey, W. H. 2007. Mapping the Growth of Older America: Seniors and Boomers in the Early 21st Century. Living Cities Census Series, Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. Handy, S., J. F. Sallis, D. Weber, E. Maibach, and M. Hollander. 2008. Is Support for Traditionally Designed Communities Growing? Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 209–221. Hu, P. S., and T. R. Reuscher. 2004. Summary of Travel Trends: 2001 National Household Travel Survey. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. HUD and U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. American Housing Survey for the United States: 2007. Current Housing Reports, H150/07. Washington, D.C., Sept. www.census. gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf. Kirby, S. D., and M. Hollander. 2004. Consumer Preferences and Social Marketing Approaches to Physical Activity Behavior and Transportation and Land Use Choices. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. http:// trb.org/downloads/sr282papers/sr282KirbyHollander.pdf. Levine, J. 2006. Zoned Out: Regulation, Markets, and Choices in Transportation and Metropolitan Land-Use. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. Levine, J., and A. Inam. 2004. The Market for Transportation–Land Use Integration: Do Developers Want Smarter Growth Than Regulations Allow? Transportation, Vol. 31, pp. 409–427. Masnick, G. S., and Z. X. Di. 2003. Projections of U.S. Households by Race/Hispanic Origin, Age, Family Type, and Tenure to 2020: A Sensitivity Analysis. In Issue Papers on Demographic Trends Important to Housing, Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page 106
142 Driving and the Built Environment Meyer, M. D., and E. Dumbaugh. 2004. Institutional and Regulatory Factors Related to Non-Motorized Travel and Walkable Communities. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. http://trb.org/downloads/sr282papers/ sr282MeyerDumbaugh.pdf. Myers, D., and E. Gearin. 2001. Current Preferences and Future Demand for Denser Residential Environments. Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 633–659. Nelson, A. C. 2004. Toward a New Metropolis: The Opportunity to Rebuild America. Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. Nelson, A. C. 2006. Leadership in a New Era. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 72, No. 4, pp. 393–405. NRC. 1999. Governance and Opportunity in Metropolitan America (A. Altshuler, W. Morrill, H. Wolman, and F. Mitchell, eds.), National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Pendall, R., R. Puentes, and J. Martin. 2006. From Traditional to Reformed: A Review of the Land Use Regulations in the Nation’s 50 Largest Metropolitan Areas. Research Brief. Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. Perreira, K., K. M. Harris, and D. Lee. 2006. Making It in America: High School Completion Among Immigrant Youth. Demography, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 511–536. Pitkin, J., and D. Myers. 2008. U.S. Housing Trends: Generational Changes and the Outlook to 2050. Analysis and Forecasting, Inc., and School of Policy, Planning, and Development, University of Southern California. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/ Onlinepubs/sr/sr298pitkin-myers.pdf. Portland Metro. 2000. Light Rail Transit Station Zone. Chapter 33.450, Title 33. Planning and Zoning, Portland, Ore. Shoup, D. 2005. The High Cost of Free Parking. Planners Press, American Planning Association, Chicago, Ill. Small, K. A., and K. Van Dender. 2007a. Fuel Efficiency and Motor Vehicle Travel: The Declining Rebound Effect. Energy Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 25–51. Small, K. A., and K. Van Dender. 2007b. If Cars Were More Efficient, Would We Use Less Fuel? Access, No. 31, pp. 8–13. Smart Growth Network. 2003. Getting to Smart Growth II: 100 More Policies for Implementation. www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/gettosg2.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2008. Smith, J. P. 2006. Immigrants and the Labor Market. Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 203–233. Smith, M. 2009. Planning for Parking. In Transportation Planning Handbook (M. Meyer, ed.), Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C. Smith-Heimer, J., and R. Golem. 2001. Summary of Panel Discussions with California TOD Developers. Appendix 1 to Chapter 6 of Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study, Technical Appendix, California Department of Transportation, pp. 128–139. Song, Y., and G. J. Knaap. 2003. New Urbanism and Housing Values: A Disaggregate Assessment. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 218–238.

OCR for page 106
143 Future Residential Development Patterns Storper, M., and M. Manville. 2006. Behavior, Preferences and Cities: Urban Theory and Urban Resurgence. Urban Studies, Vol. 43, No. 8, pp. 1247–1274. TRB. 2005. Special Report 282: Does the Built Environment Influence Physical Activity? Examining the Evidence. National Academies, Washington, D.C. UPI Business News. 2008. Average Age of Vehicles in U.S. Increasing. Southfield, Mich., Feb. 22. Yang, Y. 2008. A Tale of Two Cities: Physical Form and Neighborhood Satisfaction in Metropolitan Portland and Charlotte. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 74, No. 3, pp. 307–323. Zeng, Y., K. C. Land, Z. Wang, and D. Gu. 2006. U.S. Family Household Momentum and Dynamics: An Extension and Application of the ProFamy Method. Population Research and Policy Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 1–41.