Public Transport and Development: Making It Work

Transcription

1 Public Transport and Development: Making It Work Robert T. Dunphy Urban Land Institute World Bank Transport Forum 2006 March 28, 2006

2 Transportation Development Disconnect Now Few Then places w/o car Many choices Bus, tram, walk Short trips

3 Growth Moving Away from Transit Percent Population Growth M e tro A re a s Las Vegas Austin Phoenix Atlanta Raleigh-Durham West Palm San Francisco Chicago New York Boston Philadelphia Washington low transit High transit

4 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000, ,000 0 Annual Transit Ridership, Europe and North America Moscow Istanbul Paris London St. Petersburg Lisbon New York Toronto Chicago San Francisco Los Angeles Washington Boston US, Canada Europe Source: American Public Transportation Association Thousands of rail and bus boardings

5 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Commuting by Transit Europe and North America Moscow Istanbul Lisbon London Paris New York Toronto Washington San Francisco Atlanta Los Angeles US, Canada Europe Source: American Public Transportation Association % of City residents commuting by transit

6 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Transit Share of Commuting in US Primary Region City Secondary Transit New Transit San Antonio Sacramento Austin St. Louis Dallas - Ft. Worth Charlotte New York Chicago San Francisco Washington, DC Boston Philadelphia Honolulu Seattle Baltimore Pittsburgh Portland* New Orleans Los Angeles Minneapolis Denver Las Vegas Milwaukee Miami Atlanta Buffalo San Jose Cleveland San Diego Houston Salt Lake City Transit

7 Making the Case Transit will work here Transit Supportive Development will work here

8 Being there: Best Transportation solution Choices other than driving Effective transit Short drive

9 Gains in Downtown Living Downtown Citywide % C h an g e in P o p u latio n Norfolk Seattle San Diego Los Angeles Lower Manhattan Portland Chicago Denver San Francisco Cleveland Source: Eugenie L. Birch Who Lives Downtown, Brookings, US Census

10 Urban Infill Good for Transportation Options to Driving Builds transit ridership Reinforces transit service Short drives Enhances community

11 Urban Infill Hard for Developers Takes Longer More expensive Unproven Market High Risk Uncertain Profits

12 Suburban Development Transportation challenges Density Disconnected Patterns No sidewalks Expense What transit? Resistance to different

13 Suburban Development Easy for Developers Where the Growth is, but Need different approach for traffic Remaking older commercial centers Smart Growth at fringe Transit ready development Create unique places Preservating land

14 Remaking the Image of Transit Connections Speed/Reliability Ride/Comfort Shelter Information

15 Copenhagen and Arlington Real estate success needs attractive sites, and consistency of local actions

16 Copenhagen 1947 Finger Plan Corridors radiating to historic towns Good public transport Separated by wedges of farmlands and green space Later road connections Accepted by the public Local zoning with little regional oversight

17 US Car Ownership Copenhagen Denmark European Union Arlington Co per 1,000 inhabitants

18 Public Transit in Copenhagen 1,000 buses/ 300 trains Common fare system Coordinated schedule 800,000 daily trips Fare box covers ½ costs

19 Copenhagen - Evenly Balanced Commuting Cars Public Transit Walking/Cycling ** 70% of commuter trips from the suburbs to downtown are by public transit**

20 Average During Daylight Hours 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Growing People Places 5,900 1, *Six-fold growth in pedestrian oriented spaces since 1960

21 Passenger Transport (1,000) Number 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20, Metro S-trains Road Transport

22 Driving expensive Keys to Success Efficient public transit Growth targeted around transit Increased space for pedestrians and bicyclists Enhanced urban core

23 Orestad The 6 th Finger Economic development outside city center 10 minutes south by public transit Air, road crossroads to Sweden Government owned land Land sale funded metro construction 20 to 30 years build out

24 Orestad Plan Modern office choices Large office spaces Quality architecture / environmental 4 districts 60,000 jobs 20,000 pop 20,000 students

25 Copenhagen Lessons Strengths Plan was historically and culturally contextual Broad public support Consistent decisions - 60 years Weaknesses Transit has spurred decentralization Bedroom communities with few jobs Most AM peak transit is radial

26 Arlington 1943

27

28 Arlington County Then: Declining corridor

29 Arlington Concept Plan Move Transit from Freeway to Main St Cluster Development

30 Rosslyn Ballston Land Use Plan

31 Rosslyn Early Development

32

33 Arlington Corridors Commuting Drive Alone Transit Walk/Bike

34 Development Increases Transit in 30,000 25,000 Corridor Person Trips 20,000 15,000 10,000 5, Wilson Boulevard U.S. 29/Lee Highway I-66 Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

35 10,000 Arterial Traffic Constant 9,000 8,000 7,000 Vehicle Trips 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, NCR Transportation Planning Board, Wilson Boulevard U.S. 29/Lee Highw ay I-66

36 Arlington Lessons Strengths Strong location in path of growth Receptive population Deteriorating suburban corridor Transit located to support growth 3 decades of consistent planning Weaknesses Loss of Affordable housing Lack of attention to parks

37 Fred Dock Robert Cervero Maureen McAvey Doug Porter Bob Dunphy

38 Thanks! Robert T. Dunphy