Innovative Management Solutions To Transport Problems

Innovative Management Solutions To Transport Problems Todd Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute Presented at the SSTI Community of Practice Minneapolis 24 September 2010

Creating Paradise Paradise is not a distant destination, it is something we create in our own communities.

Sustainable Planning Sustainability emphasizes the integrated nature of human activities and therefore the need to coordinate planning among different sectors, jurisdictions and groups. 9/30/2010

Preventing Problems Sustainability planning is to development what preventive medicine is to health: it anticipates and manages problems rather than waiting for crises to develop.

Sustainabile Transportation? Is a transport system sustainable if all vehicles are electric powered?

Electric Power Does Not: Reduce traffic congestion Reduce accidents Reduce roadway costs Reduce parking facility costs Reduce vehicle purchase costs Improve mobility for non-drivers Improve social equity Improve public fitness and health Reduce sprawl Protect threatened habitat

Paradigm Shifts Growth - expanding, doing more. Development - improving, doing better. Mobility - physical movement. Accessibility - obtaining desired goods, services and activities.

Past Visions of Future Transport 1949 ConvAIRCAR Flying Car 1958 Firebird Segways Supersonic Concord

2001 A Space Odyssey

Wheeled Luggage

Per Capita Annual Vehicle Mileage Trends Supporting Multi-Modalism Motor vehicle saturation. 12,000 Aging population. 10,000 US UK Rising fuel prices. Increased urbanization. 8,000 6,000 Increased traffic and parking congestion. 4,000 2,000 0 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2003 Year Rising roadway construction costs and declining economic return from increased roadway capacity. Environmental concerns. Health Concerns

Annual Passenger Kms Per Capita OECD Travel Trends 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2007 Year U.S. Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Netherlands Norw ay Portugal Spain Sw eden Sw itzerland U.K.

The Population is Aging 1990 2050

Portion of Total Population Urbanization Between the 1940s and 1980s the population became more suburbanized. Now, about half of North Americans live in suburbs. 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Suburban 10% Central City 0% 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year

Tradeoffs Automobile-oriented improvements often degrade active transportation conditions. Undervaluing nonmotorized transport tends to bias planning decisions toward automobile dependency and away from multimodal accessibility.

Optimal Modal Split Small shifts from automobile to alternative modes causes large increases in walking, cycling and public transit demand. For example, a 5-point shift can increase use of alternative modes by 50%. 16

Total Travel Trends During the last century automobile travel grew significantly while travel by alternative modes stayed stagnant. During the next century automobile travel growth will decline while use of other modes will increase. Walking and Bicycling Public Transit Automobile 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060

Average Daily Vehicle-Miles Per Capita US Daily Vehicle Travel 40 35 30 5 0 Sacramento Portland Buffalo Honolulu Colorado Sp. Pittsburgh San Jose Salt Lake City San Diego Seattle Denver-Aurora Louisville Dallas-Ft Worth Detroit Atlanta St. Louis Davis, CA Eugene, OR (FHWA. 2007) Houston Charlotte Raleigh Birmingham 18 25 20 15 10

Mode Split International Mode Split 70% 60% 50% Transit Bike Walk 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% (Bassett, et al. 2008) 19

Commute Share US Mode Split 50% 40% 30% Work at Home Public Transport Bicycle Walk 20% 10% 0% New York San Francisco Boston Chicago Seattle Madison Honolulu, HI Portland Durham Akron Detroit Toledo Winston-Salem Rockford Knoxville Fort Wayne Jackson, MS Birmingham, AL Flint 21

What is The Transportation Problem? Traffic congestion? Road construction costs? Parking congestion or costs? Excessive costs to consumers? Traffic crashes? Lack of mobility for non-drivers? Poor freight services? Environmental impacts? Inadequate physical activity? Others?

Current Transport Planning Current planning tends to be reductionist: each problem is assigned to a single agency with narrowly defined responsibilities. For example: Transport agencies deal with congestion. Environmental agencies deal with pollution. Welfare agencies deal with the needs of disadvantaged people. Public health agencies are concerned with community fitness. Etc.

Reductionist Decision-Making Reductionist planning can result in public agencies implementing solutions to one problem that exacerbate other problems facing society, and tends to undervalue strategies that provide multiple but modest benefits.

Win-Win Solutions Put another way, more comprehensive planning helps identify Win-Win strategies: solutions to one problem that also help solve other problems facing society. Ask: Which congestion-reduction strategy also reduces parking costs, saves consumers money, and improves mobility options for non-drivers.

Comparing Benefits Planning Objectives Expand Roadways Efficient and Alt. Fuel Vehicles Shifts from Auto Alternative Modes Vehicle Travel Impacts Increased VMT Increased VMT Reduced VMT Reduce traffic congestion Roadway cost savings Parking cost savings Consumer cost savings Improve mobility options Improve traffic safety Energy conservation Pollution reduction Land use objectives Public fitness & health

Conventional Evaluation Generally Considered Congestion impacts Vehicle operating costs Per-mile crash impacts Per-mile pollution emissions. Often Overlooked Parking costs Total consumer costs Downstream congestion Crash, energy & pollution impacts of changes in mileage Land use impacts Impacts on mobility options for non-drivers/equity impacts Changes in active transport and related health impacts 27

Dollars Per Vehicle Mile Comparing Costs $0.30 $0.25 $0.20 Often Overlooked Generally Considered $0.15 $0.10 $0.05 $0.00 28

Cost Per P assenger-mile Vehicle & Facility Costs $1.80 $1.60 $1.40 $1.20 $1.00 $0.80 $0.60 $0.40 $0.20 Parking Costs Roadway Costs Vehicle Operation $0.00 Bus Heavy Rail Commuter Rail Light Rail Automobile - Small City Auto - Medium City Auto - Large City

Monthly Household Expenditures Affordability $2,000 $1,800 $1,600 Transport Housing $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 Urban Inner Suburb Outer Suburb Exurban 30

Transprot Portion of Household Expenditures Transportation Affordability 25% 20% Automobile Dependent Muti-Modal 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Per-Capita Annual Transit Passenger-Miles

Housing Foreclosures Housing foreclosure rates are much higher in automobiledependent locations. Denver Houston

Annual Transport Expenditures Per Capita Raise My Taxes, Please! $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 Transit fares Transit subsidies Roads Parking Vehicles High quality public transit typically requires about $268 in additional subsidies and $104 in additional fares annually per capita, but provides vehicle, parking and road cost savings averaging $1,040 per capita, plus other benefits: Congestion reductions $1,000 Accident reductions $0 Current Average Improved Transit Service Pollution reductions Improved mobility for non-drivers, Improved fitness and health

Traffic Fatalities Per 100,000 Pop. U.S. Crash Rates 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 Rural Urban 2 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Per Capital Annual Vehicle Mileage 34

Traffic Fatalities Per 100,000 Residents Traffic Fatalities 25 20 Automobile Dependent Multi-Modal 15 10 5 0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Annual Per Capita Transit Passenger-Miles

Smart Growth Safety Impacts

What Gets People Moving? Recommended minimum: 20 minutes of moderate exercise a day. Although there are many ways to be physically active, active transportation is one of the most common, and improving active transportation conditions is a practical way to increase physical activity.

Average Daily Minutes Land Use Impacts On Travel 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Automobile Transit Walk Auto Dependent Mixed Multi-Modal Urban Index Rating 38

Jobs Created Per $1 million Expenditure Community Economic Impacts Project employment impacts. 25 20 15 10 Reducing business transport costs (congestion, parking, taxes) increases productivity and competitiveness. Reducing vehicle expenditures and expanding transit service increases regional employment and business activity. Agglomeration efficiencies. 5 Supports strategic land use development objectives. 0 Petroleum General Automobile Expenses General Consumer Expenditures Public Transit Increases affordability, allowing businesses to attract employees in areas with high living costs. Changes in household expenditures on vehicles and fuel.

Per Capita Annual GDP (2004) Per Capita GDP and VMT $60,000 $50,000 Productivity tends to decline with increased mobility. (Each dot is a U.S. urban region.) Bureau of Economic Analysis and FHWA data $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 R 2 = 0.2923 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Per Capita Annual Mileage (2005)

Per Capita Annual GDP Per Capita GDP and Transit Ridership $90,000 $80,000 Productivity tends to increase with transit ridership. (Each dot is a U.S. urban region.) Bureau of Economic Analysis and FHWA data $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 R 2 = 0.3363 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Per Capita Annual Transit Passenger-Miles

Per Capita GDP and Urban Density Productivity tends to increase with population density. (Each dot is a U.S. urban region.) Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Transportation Statistics Data

Per Capita GDP and Lane-Miles Productivity tends to decline with increased roadway supply. (Each dot is a U.S. urban region.) Bureau of Economic Analysis and FHWA data

Annual Economic Returns Value of Highway Expansion Now that the highway system is mature, economic returns from further expansion have declined. 38% 33% 28% 23% 18% 13% 8% Highway Capital Private Capital 3% -2% 1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89 44

Annual Transport Expenditurs Sprawl Is Costly Increases infrastructure and public service costs. Increases transportation costs and reduces travel options. Environmental costs (reduced greenspace and wildlife habitat). $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $- Smart Growth Sprawl 45

Smart Growth Benefits Economic Increased resource efficiency Lower development costs Lower public service costs Road and parking cost savings Economies of agglomeration More efficient transportation Social Improved transport options, particularly for nondrivers Improved housing options Community cohesion Preserves unique cultural resources More opportunities to exercise Environmental Greenspace & habitat preservation Reduced air pollution Increased energy efficiency Reduced water pollution Reduced heat island effect

Social Equity Equity objectives: An equal share of public resources for people with equal needs. Savings and benefits to lowerincome people. Increased opportunity to people who are physically, socially or economically disadvantaged. Basic mobility.

Choosing Transportation Futures 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Past Trends Basic Plan Moderate Enhancements Major Enhancements 2010 2015 2020 2025 Walking/cycling programs Transit service Transit-oriented development Parking management & pricing Commute trip reduction School transport management Smart growth policies PAYD insurance Road pricing

Conventional Transport Indicators Roadway Level-of-Service (LOS) Average traffic speeds. Per capita congestion delay. Parking occupancy rates. Traffic fatalities per billion vehicle-miles. Traffic fatalities per 100,000 population. 49

Conventional Transport Indicators Roadway Level-of-Service (LOS) Average traffic speeds. Per capita congestion delay. Parking occupancy rates. Traffic fatalities per billion vehicle-miles. Traffic fatalities per 100,000 population. 50

Multi-Modal Level-Of-Service (LOS) Mode Walking Cycling Ridesharing Public transit Automobile Telework Delivery services Level of Service Factors Sidewalk/path quality, street crossing conditions, land use conditions, security, prestige. Path quality, street riding conditions, parking conditions, security. Ridematching services, chances of finding matches, HOV priority. Service coverage, frequency, speed (relative to driving), vehicle and waiting area comfort, user information, price, security, prestige. Speed, congestion delay, roadway conditions, parking convenience, safety. Employer acceptance/support of telecommuting, Internet access. Coverage, speed, convenience, affordability.

Multi-Modal LOS (Jacksonville) Cycling LOS Pedestrian LOS 52

Multi-Modal Prioritization Cycling Improvements Pedestrian Improvements 53

What Mode is Most Important? Conventional transport evaluation indicates that automobile travel is far more important than active transportation, providing 15 times as many person-trips and 50 times as many person-miles. From this perspective, walking and cycling are minor modes of travel, and so deserves only modest public support.

Counting All Walking NMT Transit Auto More comprehensive travel surveys typically increase the portion of nonmotorized travel 2-6 times by counting currently overlooked walking and cycling trips. Conventional Comprehensive

Mode Split Trips (UK Data) 90% 80% 70% Distance Time 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Walk/Bike Automobile A small portion of distance but a large portion of travel time.

Win-Win Transportation Solutions Market reforms justified on economic principles that help provide various economic, social and environmental benefits. Improved travel options. Incentives to use travel alternatives. Accessible land use. Policy and market reforms.

Efficient Transportation 1. Consumer options (good walking, cycling, public transit, taxi, delivery services. 2. Cost-based pricing. 3. Neutral public policies (they do not arbitrarily favor automobile travel).

Mode Shifts How do we convince people who drive luxury cars to shift mode? 9/30/2010

Attracting Discretionary Riders Quality service (convenient, fast, comfortable). Low fares. Support (walkable communities, park & ride facilities, commute trip reduction programs). Convenient information. Incentives such as parking cash out. Integrated with special events. Positive Image.

Annual Subway Trips (millions) Transit Fare Innovations 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 MetroCard and Integrated Fares Introduced Trend Line 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Impacts increase over time. Transfers. Electronic fares. Bulk discounts to groups (college students, employees, etc.) Off-peak discounts. Debit cards.

Daily Vehicle Travel Per Capita

Transit Station Level-Of-Service Clean Comfort (seating, temperature, quiet) Convenience (real-time user information, easy fare payment) Accessible (walkability, bike parking, nearby housing, employment, nearby shops) Services (refreshments, periodicals, etc.) Security

Information Provide information when and were users need it: Walking, cycling and driving directions. Transit route, schedule, fare and real-time arrival. Travel times for various modes (e.g., transit vs. driving). Special problems (warnings of delays). On-board wifi services. Parking availability and price. Discounts and incentives.

Connected Bus (www.theconnectedbus.org) Automatic Vehicle Location: Increases schedule accuracy, reliability and traffic management. Signal Priority: Transmits data to give buses priority through traffic signals. User Information: Transit routes, schedules, arrival times, fares, destinations and wayfinding. WiFi: Wireless Internet access for passengers at bus stop and on buses. Automated Announcements: Digital announcements assist passengers and reduce driver stress. Automatic Fare Collection and Passenger Counter: Transmits fare collection and passenger load information to central database. Vehicle Health Monitor: Tracks engine performance data to help identify potential problems. Safety and Security Monitoring: Transmits video to central operations location. Operator Training and Performance: Collects data to monitor operator performance.

Ridesharing Market studies suggest that a third of suburban automobile commuters would consider vanpooling, if it had: Flexibility. High Occupant Vehicle priority lanes and parking. Financial incentives. Integration with public transit. Employer support.

Employee Trip Reduction Programs Employers encourage employees to walk, bicycle, carpool, ride transit and telework rather than drive to work.

Transport Management Association Ride-On in San Luis Obispo County: develop and implement creative solutions to transportation and mobility issues. It provides: Shuttle bus services. School transportation. Special event transportation. Employee lunchtime shuttle. Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) contract services. Transport information and referral. Commuter baseline survey. Guaranteed/Emergency Ride Home.

Walking and Cycling Improvements More investment in sidewalks, crosswalks, paths and bike lanes. Improved roadway shoulders. More traffic calming. Bicycle parking and changing facilities. Encouragement, education and enforcement programs.

School & Campus Transport Management Programs that encourage parents and students to use alternative modes to travel to schools, colleges and universities.

Logistics: Freight Management Improve rail and marine transport services. Efficiently price road use (higher rates per mile for heavy vehicles). Encourage more efficient local delivery services. Reduce total goods volumes.

Raise My Prices, Please! Of course, motorists do not like to pay more for roads and parking, but unpriced facilities are not really free, consumers ultimately pay through higher taxes and retail prices. The choice is actually between paying directly or indirectly.

Paying Directly Returns Savings To Motorists Paying directly is more equitable and efficient, since users pay in proportion to the costs they impose. Free facilities force everybody to pay, including non-drivers and motorists who reduce their vehicle use. Paying directly gives individual consumers the savings that result when they drive less, providing a new opportunity to save money. Motorist Reduces Mileage Reduced Congestion, Road & Parking Facility Costs, Reduced Crashes, etc. Economic Savings

Cost-Based Pricing Rank Category Examples Best Second Best Time- and locationspecific road and parking pricing Mileage-pricing Variable road pricing, location-specific parking management, location-specific emission charges. Weight-distance charges, mileage-based vehicle insurance, prorated MVET, mileage based emission charges. Third Best Fuel charges Increase fuel tax, apply general sales tax to fuel, pay-at-the-pump insurance, carbon tax, increase Hazardous Sub. Tax. Bad Fixed vehicle charges Current MVET, vehicle purchase and ownership fees. Worst External costs (not charged to motorists) General taxes paying for roads and traffic services, parking subsidies, uncompensated external costs.

Road Pricing Charge motorists directly for using specific roads, based on use. Charge tolls, with higher rates during congested periods and lower rates during off-peak. Use electronic pricing systems that eliminate the need for tollbooths.

Gasoline Price (US$/Liter) Fuel Taxes $1.80 $1.60 $1.40 $1.20 $1.00 $0.80 $0.60 $0.40 $0.20 $0.00 Canada 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 Average Annual Vehicle Kilometers United States Canada Denmark France Germany Italy Japan Netherlands Norway Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States

Parking Management More flexible parking requirements. Share parking spaces rather than having assigned spaces. Charge users directly for parking, rather than indirectly through taxes and rents. Parking Cash Out (Employees who current receive free parking are able to choose a cash benefit or transit subsidy instead.)

Parking Pricing and Cash Out Parking is never really free, consumers either pay directly or indirectly. Paying directly tends to be more fair and efficient, and typically reduces parking demand about 20%.

Distance-Based Pricing Motorists pay by the vehiclekilometre, so a $600 annual premium becomes 3 /km and a $2,000 annual premium becomes 10 /km. This gives motorists a significant financial incentive to drive less, but is not a new fee at all, simply a different way to pay existing fees.

Carsharing Automobile rental services intended to substitute for private vehicle ownership. 80

Roadway Design Traffic lanes Parking lanes Bus or HOV lanes Bus stops Bike lanes Sidewalks and crosswalks Traffic speeds and volumes Landscaping (especially shade trees) Building orientation

Smart Growth Development Compact (density) Mixed development (proximity) Urban villages Connectivity Walkability/bikability Public transport Public realm Parking management 82

Location-Efficient Development Locate affordable housing in accessible areas (near services and jobs, walkable, public transit). Diverse, affordable housing options (secondary suites, rooms over shops, loft apartments). Reduced parking requirements. Reduces property taxes and utility fees for clustered and infill housing.

Change Is Possible In many situations, consumers are happy to change their habits, given suitable support. Many travelers want to drive more safely or use alternative mode. But they need information, resources and encouragement. 9/30/2010

Puget Sound Vanpool Market Plan Telephone survey of commuters and employers in target areas. Current commute distance & mode. Level of interest in vanpooling (have you considered vanpooling in the last year?). Effects of pricing and affinity products. Barriers to mode shifting. 9/30/2010 Results identify cost-effective interventions and predict their impacts. Potential for doubling or tripling vanpool ridership. Being developed into a plan with specific goals, objectives and programs.

Memo From Future Self Hope for the best but prepare for the worst: Physical disability diverse and integrated transport with universal design (accommodates people with disabilities and other special needs). Poverty and inflation affordable housing in accessible, multi-modal locations. Higher energy prices improve efficient modes (walking, cycling and public transport). Isolation and loneliness community cohesion (opportunities for neighbors to interact in positive ways).

Changes Required Educate decision makers concerning smart growth benefits and strategies. Change the way we think about and solve transport problems. New funding and development practices. New organizational relationships to create more integrated transport and land use planning.

Supported by Professional Organizations Institute of Transportation Engineers. American Planning Association. American Farmland Trust. Federal, state, regional and local planning and transportation agencies. International City/County Management Association National Governor s Association Health organizations. And much more...

Motorists Benefit Too More balanced transport policy is no more anti-car than a healthy diet is anti-food. Motorists have every reason to support these reforms: Reduced traffic and parking congestion. Improved safety. Improved travel options. Reduced chauffeuring burden. Often the quickest and most cost effective way to improve driving conditions.

Comprehensive Transportation Evaluation Framework Introduction to Multi-Modal Transportation Planning Smart Transportation Economic Stimulation Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis Smart Transport Emission Reduction The Future Isn t What It Used To Be Online TDM Encyclopedia and more... www.vtpi.org

www.vtpi.org Info@vtpi.org Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA Specializing in Progressive Transportation Decision Making Theory and Practice: Innovative Solutions Full Cost Analysis Mobility Management Transport and Land Use Interactions Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Public Transit Evaluation Transport Equity Sustainable Transport Planning Comprehensive Evaluation and Planning Bicycle & Pedestrian Planning Innovative Management Solutions To Transport Problems Information Resources Cambridge Systematics (2009), Moving Cooler: Transportation Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (www.movingcooler.info). Karen Chapple and Carrie Makarewicz (2010), Restricting New Infrastructure: Bad for Business in California?, Access 36 (www.uctc.net/access); Spring 2010, pp. 8-13; at www.uctc.net/access/36/access-36restrictingnewinfras.pdf. Sisinnio Concas and Philip Winters (2007), Economics of Travel Demand Management: Comparative Cost Effectiveness and Public Investment, Center for Urban Transportation Research (www.nctr.usf.edu); at www.nctr.usf.edu/abstracts/abs77704.htm. Joe Cortright (2007), Portland s Green Dividend, CEOs for Cities (www.ceosforcities.org); at www.ceosforcities.org/internal/files/pgd%20final.pdf. CTOD (2008), Capturing the Value of Transit, Center for Transit-Oriented Development, Reconnecting America (www.reconnectingamerica.org) for the U.S. Department of Transportation; at www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/projects/318. Robert Gosier, David Simchi-Levi, Jonathan Wright, and Brooks A. Bentz (2008), Past The Tipping Point: Record Oil Prices Require New Supply Chain Strategies To Enable Future High Performance, Accenture (www.accenture.com). IEDC (2006), Economic Development and Smart Growth: Case Studies on the Connections Between Smart Growth Development and Jobs, Wealth, and Quality of Life in Communities, International Economic Development Council (www.iedconline.org); at www.iedconline.org/downloads/smart_growth.pdf. Kaydee Kirk, et al. (2010), Framework for Measuring Sustainable Regional Development for the Twin Cities Region, Center for Urban & Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota (www.cts.umn.edu); at www.cts.umn.edu/publications/researchreports/pdfdownload.pl?id=1328. Todd Litman (2005), Evaluation Public Transit Benefits and Costs, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf. Todd Litman (2006), Changing Travel Demand: Implications for Transport Planning, ITE Journal, Vol. 76, No. 9, (www.ite.org), September, pp. 27-33; at www.vtpi.org/future.pdf. Todd Litman (2007), Smart Transportation Investments: Reevaluating The Role Of Highway Expansion For Improving Urban Transportation, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/cong_relief.pdf. Todd Litman, Executive Director

Victoria Transport Policy Institute Todd Litman (2008), Win-Win Transportation Solutions: Cooperation for Economic, Social and Environmental Benefits, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/winwin.pdf. Todd Litman (2009), Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis, VTPI (www.vtpi.org/tca). Todd Litman (2009), Where We Want To Be: Home Location Preferences And Their Implications For Smart Growth, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/sgcp.pdf. Todd Litman (2010), Raise My Taxes, Please! Evaluating Household Savings From High Quality Public Transit Service, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/raisetaxes.pdf. Todd Litman (2010), Evaluating Transportation Economic Development Impacts, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/econ_dev.pdf. Todd Litman (2010), Affordable-Accessible Housing In A Dynamic City: Why and How To Support Development of More Affordable Housing In Accessible Locations, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/aff_acc_hou.pdf. Mark Muro and Robert Puentes (2004), Investing In A Better Future: A Review Of The Fiscal And Competitive Advantages Of Smarter Growth Development Patterns, Brookings Institute (www.brookings.edu); at www.brookings.edu/reports/2004/03metropolitanpolicy_muro.aspx. MTC (2007), Developing Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth in Local Jurisdictions: Best Practices, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (www.mtc.ca.gov); at www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/parking_seminar/bestpractices.pdf. NRDC (2010), Reducing Foreclosures and Environmental Impacts through Location-Efficient Neighborhood Design, Natural Resources Defense Council (www.nrdc.org); at www.nrdc.org/energy/files/locationefficiency4pgr.pdf. Jeffery J. Smith and Thomas A. Gihring (2004), Financing Transit Systems Through Value Capture: An Annotated Bibliography, Geonomy Society (www.progress.org/geonomy); at www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf; originally published as Financing Transit Systems Through Value Capture: An Annotated Bibliography, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Volume 65, Issue 3, July 2006, p. 751. Transit Score (www.walkscore.com/transit-score.php) measures how well a location is served by public transit based on the distance to the nearest transit stop and the quality of transit service. ULI and Ernst & Young (2009), Infrastructure 2009: Pivot Point, Urban Land Institute (www.uli.org); at www.uli.org/researchandpublications/reports/~/media/documents/researchandpublications/reports/infrastr ucture/infrastructure%202009.ashx. VTPI (2010), Online TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org/tdm). WalkScore (www.walkscore.com) calculates the walkability of a location based on proximity to public services such as stores, schools and parks. Chris Webber and Glenn Athey (2007), The Route To Growth: Transport, Density And Productivity, Briefing Paper No. 4, Centre For Cities (www.ippr.org/centreforcities); at www.ippr.org.uk/members/download.asp?f=/ecomm/files/route_to_growth.pdf&a=skip. 2