Urban Transportation in the United States: A Time for Leadership Presentation by Wendell Cox Preserving the American Dream Conference Raleigh-Durham 10 January 2003 American Urban Areas: Transport Crisis Objective Based Policy The Problem What Are We Trying to Do? Mobility & Urban Productivity Thrust of Current Urban Planning Visionless: Slogans not Answers Manage Decline The State of Urban Transport Policy Making Things Worse: Smart Growth Transit: Niche Market NC: A new type of urban area The Answer: Objective Based Policy U. Of Paris Research Larger Commute Shed Greater Productivity (Elasticity 0.12) 1 2
Urban Global Competitiveness Urban Densities Low in US South Carolina? 125,000 Boise? 100,000 Austin, Texas & Dell Expansion To Tennessee Due to Traffic Congestion Bangalore? 75,000 50,000 25,000 Population/ Square Mile 0 Hong Kong Asia Western Europe Los Angeles Portland Int l Urban Densities Falling Making Things Worse: Smart Growth 0% -5% Canada USA Western Europe Asia -10% -15% -15.1% -16.8% -20% -20.1% -25% -30% Change in Density 1960-1990 -28.5% 3 4
Urban Land Area Expansion Paris from a Rental Car 1954 1999 Paris City -725,000 Suburbs +3,960,000 Urban Sprawl in Milan from 1971 City: -470,000 Suburbs: +680,000 Paris suburbs Paris: More Paris than is Not the Paris Ville de Paris European Suburbs: Commercial Stockholm Big Box Home Store Stockholm: Arlanda Corridor Strip Development: Paris Copenhagen suburbs 5 6
2,5 00% 2,0 00% 1,5 00% 1,0 00% 500% 0% NOx CO NMHC 8 15 30 55 90 100 MPH: Grams per Mile Compared to 90 KPH Portland Gives Up on Densification 18,000 ACRES ADDED 2000, 29,000 MORE IN 2004? 300,000 250,000 200,000 252,000 236,000 254,500 282,900 250,000 200,000 150,000 Traffic Rises @ 0.7+ Density Vehicle Miles/ Urban Square Mile: 1995 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 Adopted Plan Actual Potential Industrial Addition URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY: ACRES 2040 Maximum 2000 2002 Approved 2004 Review 100,000 50,000 0 Higher Urban Speed: Pollution Less <250 625 2,500 7,000 10,000+ Traffic Intensity & Density: 2001 Air Pollution Improvements 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Daily Vehicle Miles Per Square Mile Less than 2,000 2,000-2,999 3,000-3,999 4,000 & Over 7 8
Reason for Neighborhood Choice Other Location 17.9% Roadways 84% Neighborhood 25.9% Transit 16% Job Location 17.9% Other Reasons 17.7% Jobs-Housing Balance: Hopeless: Failures in UK & Sweden Transit 1% Charlotte Light Rail Election Promises: Traffic Congestion Relief House 20.5% 2001 AHS Weighted for Owner/Renter Ratio The Charlotte Train Wreck Modal Irrationality: Example of Atlanta Transit 55.0% Highways 97.0% Transit: Downtown & the Core Transit 3.0% Highways & Oher 45.0% Paris Transit Pass 9 10
Transit Shares Highest in Asia US Transit: Market Share 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Hong Kong Asia Western Europe USA 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% USA New York Portland Charlotte RDU Triad Transit: Market Share Losses Transit in US: Costly (1) 0% -5% -10% -15% -20% -25% RATE PER DECADE SINCE 1980 Western Europe USA & Asia Canada $0.50 $0.45 $0.40 $0.35 $0.30 $0.25 $0.20 $0.15 $0.10 $0.05 $0.00 1995$ (PPP)/ Passenger Mile PROFITABLE: NO SUBSIDY US Australia Canada Europe Asia 11 12
Transit in US: Costly (2) Getting People Out of Cars Automobile Competitive Service Speed Convenience Geographical Access Time Access Love Affair with the Automobile? Manhattan Hightstown Traffic will get so bad. That people will get on transit??? Charlotte: Time Competitive Transit Transit in US: Costly (3) What Transit? Expenditures/ Passenger Mile Transit: $0.60 Auto $0.20 Don Valley Parkway & GO Train Toronto 13 14
Illusion of Transit Choice Transit is About Downtown Sapporo Subway The Role of Density There is No Transit Choice Except for the Few (OUTSIDE HONG KONG) Transit Auto Toronto or Los Angeles? High Density Paris: Little Auto Competitive Service in Suburbs 15 16
Cars or Transit? THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND HK Transit Choice for All? Auto Competitiveness & RDU HK Transit: Ceaucescu s Choice 17 18
NC: 21 st Century Metropolitan Areas North Carolina: 21 st Century Urban Areas Contiguous Urbanized (Built Up) Area POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE: 2000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 4,478 6,311 1,783 2,874 1,694 1,745 1,191 NY LA Atlanta Average RDU Charlotte Triad Contiguous Urbanized (Built Up) Area SHARE OF POPULATION IN METROPOLITAN AREA 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 93% 81% 77% 72% 41% 40% 23% NY LA Atlanta Average RDU Charlotte Triad 19 20
Contiguous Urbanized (Built Up) Area SHARE OF POPULATION IN STATE: >1,000,000 AREAS North Carolina Cities Without Cities: Stuttgart, Etc. By Thomas Sieverts U of Darmstadt A New Kind of Urban Area Example: RDU Metro & Urban Areas Objective Based Policy Durham HK Raleigh MacDonald-Cartier Freeway: Toronto 21 22
Traffic in Portland & Houston: 1985-2000 30 MINUTE DRIVING RADIUS: PEAK PERIOD Portland: Transit & Smart Growth Houston: Highways & Market 1985 2000 2000 1985 Washington s Role: Get Out of the Way Pretending the Core is the City Houston Planning Trend Urban Area: 2001 Core 80 70 60 50 Peak Period Travel Time (Minutes) 30 Minute Trip Without Congestion 40 30 20 10 0 2000 2025 23 24
Peak Hour 30 Minute Distance 1985, 2001 & 2025 2001-2025 Travel Time Decrease 7 Minutes 1986 2025 2001 $900 $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 Per Capita Costs & Benefits BENEFITS FAR GREATER THAN COST Annual (2000$) $47 $60 $232 $121 Costs Trend Maintain 1.15 TTI $764 Benefits Houston 100% Plan Houston 100% Plan: Affordable 80 70 60 50 40 Peak Period Travel Time (Minutes) 30 Minute Trip Without Congestion $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 2025 Per Capita 6:1 Cost: Benefit Ratio $24,000 30 20 10 0 2000 2025 Trend 2025 Plan $10,000 $5,000 $0 $164 Extra Plan Cost Income Increase 25 26
Labor Markets & Opportunity Minneapolis-St. Paul $20 BILLION TO ELIMINATE CONGESTION Planning Trend 30 Minute Drive Time From Carey: Depiction Objective Based Planning New Capacity: EXPANSION & INNOVATION MODALLY NEUTRAL Urban Global Competitiveness South Carolina? Boise? London Cordon Pricing: Recognizing the Difference Between Hong Kong & Omaha Austin, Texas & Dell Expansion To Tennessee Due to Traffic Congestion Bangalore? 27 28
Objective Based Policy Regional focus Objectives, not projects Establish long-term objectives Traffic condition goal Identify requirements Funding Local User (local taxes, tolls, etc) Project criteria Cost per delay hour Modally neutral: Highways, ITS, transit Wendell Cox Consultancy publicpurpose.com demographia.com email: policy@publicpurpose.com 29