Travel Behavior 101 and Intro to Types of Evidence. TTP220 Transportation Policy and Planning S. Handy 5/16/16

Travel Behavior 101 and Intro to Types of Evidence TTP220 Transportation Policy and Planning S. Handy 5/16/16

But first Is Your City's Street Grid Really a Grid? CityLab, 3/26/14 http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/03/how-symmetrical-your-city/8731/?utm_source=nl link1_051316 Vizual Statistics http://vizual-statistix.tumblr.com/post/80468941142/unlike-like-emperor-kuzco-i-was-actually-born

grid connectivity

Google Earth s trippy infrastructure art isn t a glitch See more at Postcards from Google Earth Google Earth is a database disguised as a photographic representation. These uncanny images focus our attention on that process itself, and the network of algorithms, computers, storage systems, automated cameras, maps, pilots, engineers, photographers, surveyors and map-makers that generate them.

Presentation Schedule Monday May 23 Wednesday May 25 Wednesday June 1 Sharon Raphael Drew Jamey Ena Antonio Amy Yanlong Sarah Leticia Hang Autumn Laura Xioadong Qian Mounir High speed rail Commuter rail LRT First mile last mile Bike sharing Bike stuff Smart growth TOD Mobility hubs e-activities Green streets HO/T lanes Eco-driving Car sharing Congestion pricing Freight stuff

What this assignment is all about: Evidence-Based Policy

SB375 Sustainable Communities Planning Act of 2008 Targets for per capita GHG emissions reduction from cars and trucks for metropolitan areas, by reducing vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) 2020 2035 Sacramento 7% 16% Bay Area 7% 15% LA region 8% 13% San Diego 7% 13%

Sustainable Communities Strategies

How do we know what will work? How do we know what combination of strategies will achieve the targets?

By implementing the transportation and land use components of the MTP/SCS, and including measures from the Scoping Plan, 2020 emissions are forecasted to be 17.34 MMtCO2e for the region in 2020. This is 12 percent below the target set by AB 32.

Empirical research Forecasting models Estimates of policy effect sizes Forecasts of impacts of policies Policy decisions

1. What does the evidence tell us? 2. How can we improve the evidence? 3. How can we apply the evidence in evaluating projects and strategies?

What these strategies are all about: Getting people to make different decisions about their daily travel

Travel Behavior Theory: How do people make decisions about their daily travel? For example How did you get to school today and why?

Nested choices Long-term Choices Lifestyle Residential Location Mid-term Choices Driver s license Auto ownership Short-term Choices Trip frequency Trip destination Mode choice

Choice process Set of choices available Drive alone Shared ride Bus Rail Bicycle Walk Skateboard Qualities of choices available Cost Time Comfort Safety Value placed on different qualities Cost vs. Time vs. Comfort vs. Safety

Travel Behavior 101 Choice set: what choices are available? Utility of each choice: a linear equation Variables: What are the characteristics of each choice? Note: perceptions versus reality Coefficients: How important are each of these characteristics? Note: variation from person to person Maximize utility: most likely to make choice, from choice set, that gives highest utility

So what can we do to change behavior? What are the change levers?

Change levers Change choice sets Add/decrease new choices Increase/decrease awareness of existing choices Change characteristics of choices Improve/diminish selected chars of selected choice Improve/diminish perceptions of selected chars Change weight given to characteristics Increase/decrease importance that people give to that characteristic

Changing Behavior We make choices that maximize our utility utility = f (benefits, costs) What matters is relative utility utility driving vs. utility of alternatives To shift choices, change relative utilities Decrease utility of driving Increase utility of alternatives

Changing the Relative Utilities Utility Factor Decrease Utility of Driving Increase Utility of Alternatives Time Congestion Improved transit service Network gaps filled Cost Pricing Increased subsidies Convenience e.g. Remote parking Support facilities Comfort e.g. Cell phone ban Improved design Crime prevention

Empirical Evidence: How do we know what strategies will change behavior?

Types of Evidence Stage 1: Associational Studies What factors are associated with the behavior of interest? What strategies might we want to try, given the evidence on correlates? Intervention Implementation of strategy Stage 2: Intervention Studies What is the change in behavior from before to after the implementation of the strategy? What impact did the strategy have on behavior? Did it work?

Strategies are at different stages Stage 1: Smart growth TOD Ped infrastructure Bike infrastructure Pricing E-activities Stage 2: Traffic calming Safe routes to school Commuter rail BRT Transit fares ITS applications Car sharing Bike sharing Social marketing

Caltrans Study Eight neighborhoods, by design and location Mail-out, mail-back survey 1672 respondents (24.7%) Questions on travel attitudes and neighborhood preferences Questions on changes in travel and changes in neighborhood for recent movers

Selection of Neighborhoods Traditional Neighborhood Suburban Neighborhood Large Metro Area Mountain View Sac Midtown Sunnyvale Sac Natomas Stand-Alone City Santa Rosa JC Modesto Central Santa Rosa RV Modesto Fringe

Sacramento - Traditional

Sacramento - Suburban

Vehicle Miles Driven per Week 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 148 Traditional 18% difference! 175 Suburban Source: Handy, Cao, and Mokhtarian, 2006

Elasticities for BE and VMT Ewing and Cervero, Journal of the American Planning Association, 2010 Weighted average Range across studies Job density 0 0 to 0.02 Jobs-housing balance -0.02-0.09 to 0.03 Household/population density -0.04-0.12 to 0 Job accessibility by transit -0.05-0.10 to -0.03 Proximity to nearest transit stop -0.05-0.19 to -0.01 Land use mix -0.09-0.27 to -0.01 Intersection/street density -0.12-0.29 to -0.04 Percent 4-way intersections -0.12-0.15 to 0 Job accessibility by auto -0.20-0.31 to -0.03 Distance to downtown -0.22-0.27 to -0.20

Association = differences in land use associated with differences in travel

Causal Effect = Changes in land use lead to changes in travel 45

Self-Selection Effect = Preferences for travel influence type of neighborhood chosen

TRB Special Report 298 careful before-and-after studies of policy interventions to promote more compact, mixed-used development to help determine what works and what does not Natural experiments Intervention studies Policy evaluation 47

Experimental Design: What are the key elements of an experimental study?

Evaluation Studies Element Treatment and control groups Measures of outcomes of interest Before and after measurement Issues What is the treatment? Who is the treatment group? What is an appropriate control group? How to measure outcomes accurately? How to measure outcomes efficiently? How long before the treatment? How long after the treatment?

Davis Studies Target Store opening: Shopping patterns before and after Fifth Street Road Diet: Mode split to downtown and bike/ped safety before and after Cannery/West Village Project: Travel patterns before-andafter moving in

Target was controversial City council put approval on November 2006 ballot Target approved by 51.5% margin (674 votes) Con siphon business from downtown increase local driving and traffic reduce bicycling in town Pro fill retail need: I can buy socks in Davis! reduce trips to Woodland, etc. keep tax dollars in Davis

Target Study Repeat cross-sectional: survey before, survey after Random sample of residents with addresses each time Recruitment via letter to residents On-line (or paper) self-administered survey One reminder postcard BEFORE SURVEY AFTER SURVEY September 2009 October 2010 4,613 residents invited 4,434 residents invited 1,018 responses 1,025 responses 22% response rate 23% response rate

One-way distance from home Miles 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2.19 2.04 Downtown Davis Elsewhere in town 3.61 at Target (in town) 17.89 Beyond Davis

Percent driving 100% 80% 81.7% 81.6% 92.9% 98.2% 60% 40% 20% 0% Downtown Davis Elsewhere in town at Target (in town) Beyond Davis

Frequency of shopping trips Occasions per month 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.3 4.0 3.0 2.9 2.0 3.3 2.4 Year 1 Year 2 1.0 0.0 Downtown Davis Elsewhere in town *** at Target (in town) Beyond Davis *** Significance for t-test of means (across years): * p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.

Total shopping VMT per month Vehicle-miles (per capita monthly) 120 100 80 60 40 20 96.8 Downtown Davis Elsewhere in town Beyond Davis at Target (in town) 0 Year 1

Total shopping VMT per month Vehicle-miles (per capita monthly) 120 100 80 60 40 20 96.8 79.6 Downtown Davis Elsewhere in town Beyond Davis *** at Target (in town) Overall ** *** 0 Year 1 Year 2 Significance for t-test of means (across years): * p < 0.10; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.

Fifth Street Road Diet Outcome Bike/ped counts on Fifth Perceptions of ease of access to downtown Frequency of trips to downtown Route choice to campus from East Davis Source Observation Target Survey + repeat Annual Campus Travel Survey

West Village Movers Study Plans for the community s $300 million first phase include 343 faculty/staff houses. In light of the current real estate market, timing for the housing construction is being evaluated - Campus News, 2/1/13

Natural experiments for programs Telecommuting programs Car sharing programs Employer-based trip reduction programs 60

Natural Experiments for Infrastructure http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images& cd=&docid=gf_snfcppwuirm&tbnid=cbyuwdleswlnqm:&ved=0caeqjxw& url=http%3a%2f%2fgreenlaneproject.org%2f&ei=nr0zusovmom4iglcyydq CQ&bvm=bv.52164340,d.cGE&psig=AFQjCNFV1BMutZ6GjiFrxkM4Vidcp0TcJg &ust=1379208956696122 Green Lane Project Portland State University 5 cities http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncat egorized/2009/02/20/expomap_2.gif Expo Line Opening UC Irvine, USC 1 line 61

Bike Intervention Evidence Infrastructure Type Effect Bikeability? Bike Lanes + 2-way travel on 1-way streets? Shared bus/bike lanes? Off-street paths? Signed bicycle routes + Bicycle boulevards + Cycletracks + Colored lanes + Shared lane markings? Bike Boxes? Bicycle signal phases? Maintenance + Wayfinding signage? Shortcuts and cut-throughs? Source: Pucher, Dill and Handy, 2010

Bike Intervention Evidence Facility Type Effect Trip reduction programs? Individualized marketing programs + Travel awareness programs? Safe Routes to School programs + Bike-to-Work days + Ciclovias + Other bike promotions + Education/training + Bike sharing programs + Other access programs + Helmet laws - Speed limits + Source: Pucher, Dill and Handy, 2010

Bike Intervention Evidence City Bogota London Berlin Paris Barcelona Portland Boulder Source: Pucher, Dill and Handy, 2010 Policies and Program 344 km of separate bike paths, Ciclovia, car-free days, restrictions based on license plates, car-free zones, educational campaigns Development of bicycling network, traffic calming, intersection modifications, bike parking, bike training, promotions, maps, pricing Bike network tripled, traffic calming, bike parking, trip planning website, mandatory education, short-term rentals at stations Tripling of bike network, bike parking, bike sharing program, traffic calmed zones, education and training, intersection modifications Expansion of bike network, bike sharing program, marketing to schools, bike parking, traffic calmed zones Expansion of bike network, colored bike lanes, bike-only signals, bike parking requirements, bike racks on buses, education, promotions, individualized marketing program Bike network expansion, bike parking requirements, promotions, trip planning website

Evidence Cycle Best Practices Policy Adoption Evaluation

For Paper Evidence quality: Best : intervention or evaluation studies Acceptable: associational/correlational studies Evidence sources: Best: peer-reviewed journal articles Acceptable: agency reports Use with caution: material from websites of advocacy groups

The big picture: What are all direct and indirect benefits and costs?

e.g. Benefits of Smart Growth More walking Less driving More exercise Smart Growth Less energy consumption Less pavement Less built space Less pollution More green space Better Quality of Life

For Paper Focus on primary benefit What is the main goal motivating the adoption of the strategy? What does the MPO/other agency hope to achieve as a result? Consider also: Co-benefits : other benefits besides the primary benefit that are likely to accrue Costs or disbenefits or downsides : the negative things that could happen, too

For Wednesday 5-7 minute informal overview of topic to group 1. Describe and define the strategy. 2. Outline primary benefits and evidence. 3. Outline potential co-benefits. 4. Outline potential downsides. 5. Summarize overall assessment. Discussion and suggestions among group