Public Transport and Development: Making It Work Robert T. Dunphy Urban Land Institute World Bank Transport Forum 2006 March 28, 2006
Transportation Development Disconnect Now Few Then places w/o car Many choices Bus, tram, walk Short trips
Growth Moving Away from Transit Percent Population Growth 1990-2000 0 20 40 60 80 100 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
3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 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
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
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Transit Share of Commuting in US - 2000 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
Making the Case Transit will work here Transit Supportive Development will work here
Being there: Best Transportation solution Choices other than driving Effective transit Short drive
120 100 Gains in Downtown Living 1970-2000 80 Downtown Citywide 60 40 20 0 % 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 -20-40 -60 Source: Eugenie L. Birch Who Lives Downtown, Brookings, 1970-2000 US Census
Urban Infill Good for Transportation Options to Driving Builds transit ridership Reinforces transit service Short drives Enhances community
Urban Infill Hard for Developers Takes Longer More expensive Unproven Market High Risk Uncertain Profits
Suburban Development Transportation challenges Density Disconnected Patterns No sidewalks Expense What transit? Resistance to different
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
Remaking the Image of Transit Connections Speed/Reliability Ride/Comfort Shelter Information
Copenhagen and Arlington Real estate success needs attractive sites, and consistency of local actions
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
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 185 330 469 649 771 US Car Ownership Copenhagen Denmark European Union Arlington Co per 1,000 inhabitants
Public Transit in Copenhagen 1,000 buses/ 300 trains Common fare system Coordinated schedule 800,000 daily trips Fare box covers ½ costs
Copenhagen - Evenly Balanced Commuting Cars Public Transit Walking/Cycling ** 70% of commuter trips from the suburbs to downtown are by public transit**
Average During Daylight Hours 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Growing People Places 5,900 1,750 1968 1995 *Six-fold growth in pedestrian oriented spaces since 1960
Passenger Transport (1,000) Number 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1994 2002 2003 2004 Metro S-trains Road Transport
Driving expensive Keys to Success Efficient public transit Growth targeted around transit Increased space for pedestrians and bicyclists Enhanced urban core
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
Orestad Plan Modern office choices Large office spaces Quality architecture / environmental 4 districts 60,000 jobs 20,000 pop 20,000 students
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
Arlington 1943
Arlington County Then: Declining corridor
Arlington Concept Plan Move Transit from Freeway to Main St Cluster Development
Rosslyn Ballston Land Use Plan
Rosslyn Early Development
Arlington Corridors Commuting Drive Alone Transit Walk/Bike
Development Increases Transit in 30,000 25,000 Corridor Person Trips 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1977 1979 1981 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 Wilson Boulevard U.S. 29/Lee Highway I-66 Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
10,000 Arterial Traffic Constant 9,000 8,000 7,000 Vehicle Trips 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 NCR Transportation Planning Board, Wilson Boulevard U.S. 29/Lee Highw ay I-66
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
Fred Dock Robert Cervero Maureen McAvey Doug Porter Bob Dunphy
Thanks! Robert T. Dunphy www.uli.org 800-321-5011