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 345
EXPANDING METROPOLITAN HIGHWAYS: Implications for Air Quality and Energy Use Appendix D Review of Studies of Transportation Investments and Land Use Key studies that attempt to link the effect of transportation investment on land use and urban form are reviewed in this appendix. The studies include major highway and rail investments in the United States and Canada. MAJOR HIGHWAY INVESTMENTS Beltways During the 1970s considerable controversy arose about the potentially negative effects of beltways on the economic fortunes of central cities. A major evaluation performed for the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development compared economic indices in metropolitan areas with and without beltways to help guide future national and local policy decisions (Payne-Maxie and Blayney-Dyett 1980). To enable the reader to appreciate the difficulty of assessing the effects of transportation in
OCR for page 346
EXPANDING METROPOLITAN HIGHWAYS: Implications for Air Quality and Energy Use vestments on land use, the results of and problems with this study are summarized in detail in this section. Statistical techniques such as analysis of variance and multiple regression were used in the study to compare the presence or absence of beltways on a variety of measures of economic impact within metropolitan areas. Results from a sample of 27 metropolitan areas with beltways were compared with results from a sample of 27 metropolitan areas without beltways. The measures were tracked over 10 years or more (depending on the availability of data and the length of time since construction of the beltways). In an attempt to determine the effect of beltways on the distribution of growth within metropolitan areas, central-city population growth was compared with that of the suburbs, and the location of housing development, manufacturing activity, wholesale employment, and retail sales was examined. In general this analysis found few statistically significant differences in development patterns in beltway and nonbeltway metropolitan areas, and the differences that were found were not large or consistent over time. The study findings on the possible land use effects of beltways can be summarized as follows. Central-city population: It proved hard to deduce any effect of beltways on central-city population. Regional effects (growth in Sun Belt versus Frost Belt metropolitan areas) appeared to swamp other effects. Retail sales: The comparative increase in retail sales between central cities and suburbs was not significantly different in areas with beltways compared with areas without beltways. Suburban housing development: The presence of beltways did not determine the rate of suburban housing development. Cities without beltways had more suburban than urban housing development, which made it difficult to argue that beltways induced residential development in the suburbs at the expense of the central city. Manufacturing employment: For the 1967 to 1972 period, the study found that in cities with beltways, manufacturing employment in the central city lagged, whereas it grew in the suburbs.
OCR for page 347
EXPANDING METROPOLITAN HIGHWAYS: Implications for Air Quality and Energy Use In cities without beltways, suburban and central-city employment in manufacturing grew at a comparable rate. However, no significant differences between beltway and nonbeltway cities were apparent during the 1972 to 1977 period. Wholesale employment: No significant difference was found between beltway and nonbeltway cities in the rate of wholesale employment growth outside central cities. Many methodological problems were encountered in the Payne-Maxie and Blayney-Dyett (1980) study. Most notably, because older metropolitan areas in the Northeast and Midwest were more likely to have partial or full beltways than cities in the Sun Belt, it was difficult to establish a meaningful comparison group. In addition, even though the comparison cities may not have had beltways, they surely had extensive arterial road networks in existence or under construction. It would be difficult with aggregate statistics to separate the effects of beltways on the location of development within a region from those of a good or rapidly expanding arterial road system. Significant measurement problems were also encountered during the study, Census data classify many economic measures on the basis of jurisdiction. However, to measure the effects of beltways on the location of growth and economic activity as required by location theory, the study needed to measure the effect on central business districts, which in many cases are considerably smaller than the census-defined jurisdictions. The necessary data were unavailable. There were also a limited number of years of data available for several economic impacts of interest. A major difficulty encountered was the degree of correlation (multicollinearity) among the explanatory variables. In other words, the measures of variables thought to independently affect an outcome, such as the location of central-city employment or economic activity, were found to be interrelated. It was not possible in many instances to separate the effects of beltways within a metropolitan area from national shifts in population and economic growth toward Sun Belt cities, shifts in manufacturing activity to suburbs and exurbs, and other trends.
OCR for page 348
EXPANDING METROPOLITAN HIGHWAYS: Implications for Air Quality and Energy Use Major Capacity Expansions Recent analysis has suggested that expansion of major arterial highway capacity of several routes in California has induced additional traffic (Hansen et al. 1993). Estimates from this study suggest that after approximately 15 to 20 years, a 10 percent expansion in highway capacity results in a 4 to 7 percent increase in traffic. The traffic-inducing effects of capacity expansion estimated in this study were discussed in Chapter 4. The study did not attempt to estimate the percentage increase in traffic attributable to changes in land use. Included as part of the study, however, were separate analyses of the effects of capacity expansion on increased development and interviews with real estate developers and local planners to determine whether their decisions were influenced by highway capacity expansions. The study used pooled time-series and cross-sectional data collected from 26 communities potentially affected by eight freeway-widening projects. All the freeways were Interstates or state highways of near-Interstate quality. Three projects were in the San Francisco Bay area, one was in the Sacramento area, two were in greater Los Angeles, and two were in San Diego. Most of the affected communities were small jurisdictions on the edge of or outside the urbanized area. Many could be viewed as bedroom communities for residents who commute to jobs in the urbanized area. All the projects occurred in or near metropolitan areas that have experienced rapid population growth and extensive highway construction during the last 30 years or more. Development Patterns The study analyzed the changes in residential and commercial development in the corridors in which capacity had been increased relative to development in the same region, while controlling for gasoline prices, regional income, and other variables. Statistically significant relationships were found between expanded highway capacity and increased residential construction in the same corridors relative to residential construction in the region. The capacity expansions were correlated with an increased rate of single-family home construction initially, but the rate of increase slowed with time. This finding could indicate that the highway projects accelerated the point in time at
OCR for page 349
EXPANDING METROPOLITAN HIGHWAYS: Implications for Air Quality and Energy Use which construction occurred, but did not cause an aggregate increase in development. For multifamily housing, the capacity expansions were associated with a one-time spurt in development, which then dissipated. Commercial development also accelerated with the completion of capacity expansions, but industrial development did not. Although the authors of the study concluded that the intensification of land uses may have been caused by capacity expansions in the same corridors, they could not determine whether this development was offset by decreased development elsewhere in the same region. They also did not know whether the increased development would increase traffic because the intensification of residential and commercial land uses in the corridors may have resulted in shorter trips. Development Decisions In a separate phase of the study, researchers selected seven cities as case studies and interviewed developers and land use planners to determine whether their decisions were influenced by or depended on highway capacity expansion projects. The interviews indicated that developers and planners viewed the capacity expansions to have been of minor importance. Many developers indicated that the highway projects had not been considered in their decision making at all. The consensus among developers and planners was that development would have occurred without the capacity expansion projects. The attractiveness of the quality of life and the moderate housing prices were believed to be much more important than individual highway capacity expansion projects. The study authors were surprised to find that developers and planners placed such little importance on the capacity expansions, especially given that the statistical analyses suggested that they had been important in at least accelerating the rate of development. On the other hand, highway capacity expansion, population growth, and residential development had been occurring in these areas for 30 years or more. The minor impact of individual highway projects on development decisions could be explained by the expectations of both developers and planners that growth would occur and that new development would be served by highway capacity eventually, if not initially.
OCR for page 350
EXPANDING METROPOLITAN HIGHWAYS: Implications for Air Quality and Energy Use MAJOR RAIL INVESTMENTS Studies of the impact of large investments in transit, which are often viewed as encouraging denser development patterns, may also shed light on the land use impacts of major transportation investments. Several evaluations have been conducted on the development impacts of new rail transit lines and new rail systems in the United States. Major evaluations have also been conducted of the development impacts of large-scale investments in rail systems for Toronto and Montreal, Canada, which provide for an interesting comparison with the evaluations of rail system investments in the United States. U.S. Rail Transit Impacts The impact of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system investment on land use has been the subject of many studies.1 The consensus is that development in the downtown area may have been redirected and residential development in the outlying areas served by BART may have been accelerated (Meyer and Gomez-Ibanez 1981). The overall impact of the investment, however, is perceived as quite small. Potential increases in development density around some transit stations were blocked in some instances by community opposition, and the existence of a built environment around other stations hindered or precluded more dense development. In cases in which office buildings have been built near BART stations in suburban communities such as Walnut Creek and Concord, surveys indicate that few of the workers actually use BART (Garrison and Deakin 1992). Oakland, which has been struggling to attract development to the downtown area, has had little success in luring development to its BART stations. Early analyses of the development impact of the rail system in the Washington, D.C., area provided conclusions similar to those reached in analyses of BART (Meyer and Gomez-Ibanez 1981). In a summary of development impacts through 1982, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) concluded that the Metro system had little impact on the demand for building development in the newer areas of downtown, which was already high, and had little effect
OCR for page 351
EXPANDING METROPOLITAN HIGHWAYS: Implications for Air Quality and Energy Use in the declining areas of the old downtown (MWCOG 1983). The presence of Metro facilitated development around some stations in suburban communities, particularly in Arlington County, Virginia, and Montgomery County, Maryland, but the development depended heavily on local acceptance of changes in zoning densities. Increased development near other suburban stations was blocked by residents who feared the consequences for low-density neighborhoods. Metro was not able to attract development to stations in declining or low-income residential areas of the region. The MWCOG analysis indicated that Metro had mixed effects on development, but less than half the mileage of the system had been built by the time the study was completed. In the areas in which Metro was judged to have a positive impact, no attempt was made to estimate whether the system had induced new development or shifted development that would have otherwise occurred. The extension of the Lindenwold line from Philadelphia to Camden County, New Jersey, has been studied extensively. Few land use impacts could be discerned. One study judged that the investment had improved the attractiveness of downtown Philadelphia (Gannon and Dear 1972), but did not address whether the increased investment around transit stations diverted investment from other parts of the downtown (Garrison and Deakin 1992). Boyce et al. (1972) found that residential housing values near the line were enhanced, but found other evidence to suggest that some of the increased value was transferred from decreased housing values for residences located farther from the new line. The line may have enhanced the attractiveness of multifamily and commercial development near the suburban stations in Camden County, but the availability of developable land and local zoning and growth policies appeared to be the primary determinants (Boyce et al. 1972). Canadian Rail Transit Impacts Major investments have been made in rail transit systems for Toronto and Montreal, and Toronto's experience has been the subject of many studies. Case studies tend to find a substantial impact of the rail investment on land use, but the results from more sophisticated statis-
OCR for page 352
EXPANDING METROPOLITAN HIGHWAYS: Implications for Air Quality and Energy Use tical analyses that control for other influences on development are mixed (Meyer and Gomez-Ibanez 1981). In their extensive review of the studies, Knight and Trygg (1977) concluded that the Toronto system did have a substantial impact on land use. The land use consequences were in part due to a variety of influences that stimulated demand for downtown office space in Toronto and by coordinated land use planning by local governments in the area. Analyses of the impact of the rail system investment in Montreal showed less impact. The rail system was believed to have enhanced the attractiveness of downtown, but limited land for development and lack of special high-density zoning around the stations appeared to have mitigated the potential impact on density (Meyer and Gomez-Ibanez 1981). NOTE 1. See work by Knight and Trygg (1977) for a bibliography of the studies. REFERENCES ABBREVIATION MWCOG Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Boyce, D.E., B. Allen, R.R. Mudge, P.B. Slater, and A.M. Isserman. 1972. Impact of Rapid Transit on Suburban Residential Property Values and Land Development: Analysis of the Philadelphia-Lindenwold High-Speed Line. Regional Science Department. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Gannon, C., and M. Dear. 1972. The Impact of Rail Rapid Transit Systems on Commercial Office Development: The Case of the Philadelphia-Lindenwold High-Speed Line. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, June. Garrison, W., and E. Deakin. 1992. Land Use. In Public Transportation, 2nd ed. (G. Gray and L. Hoel, eds.). Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 527–550. Hansen, M., D. Gillen, A. Dobbins, Y. Huang, and M. Puvathingal. 1993. The Air Quality Impacts of Urban Highway Capacity Expansion: Traffic Generation and Land Use Change. UCB-ITS-RR-93-5. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Berkeley, April.
OCR for page 353
EXPANDING METROPOLITAN HIGHWAYS: Implications for Air Quality and Energy Use Knight, R., and L. Trygg. 1977. Land Use Impacts of Rapid Transit: Implications of Recent Experience Prepared by DeLeuw, Cather & Co. for the U.S. Department of Transportation. Meyer, J., and J. Gomez-Ibanez. 1981. Autos, Transit, and Cities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. MWCOG. 1983. Metrorail Area Planning: Metrorail Before-and-After Study. Washington, D.C., Aug., 169 pp. Payne-Maxie and Blayney-Dyett, Urban and Regional Planners. 1980. The Land Use and Urban Development Impact of Beltways, Final Report. DOT-OS-90079. U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Oct.
OCR for page 354
EXPANDING METROPOLITAN HIGHWAYS: Implications for Air Quality and Energy Use Appendix E Minority Statement of Michael A. Replogle The committee charged with evaluating the effects of added highway capacity on the environment and energy use has reviewed extensive literature and conducted numerous meetings in pursuit of consensus. Although I concur with many of the report's findings, some of the findings and much of the report's tone are based on judgments or opinions I must reject on the basis of my 18 years of experience as a transportation planning engineer and modeling professional. The committee report is correct in identifying the need to improve our analysis tools, but it errs by asserting that we cannot adapt these tools to meet current regulatory requirements without substantial delay. The problem is not a lack of good science to support analysis, but institutional resistance to the use of good science in transportation analysis that would challenge entrenched and powerful pro-highway expansion interests. One might hope that the report will contribute to increased investment in improved analysis and transportation/environmental monitoring systems. It would be unfortunate if the report's conclusions are misread as an excuse for inaction, regulatory rollback, and a resurgence of business-as-usual highway policies on the basis that we just
Representative terms from entire chapter: