Accessibility- vs. Mobility-Enhancing Strategies for Addressing Auto Dependence

1. Accessibility- vs. Mobility-Enhancing Strategies for Addressing Auto Dependence Susan Handy University of California Davis

4. Consequences… • Avg. annual hours of congestion delay per person grew from 11in 1982 to 26 in 1999 at a cost of $77.8 billion. • 36 U.S. regions with 85 million people fail to meet national standards for ozone. • Transportation sector contributed 513 million metric tons of CO2 and accounted for 18% of global oil consumption in 2000.

5. The policy dilemma… • Should policies focus on accommodating growing levels of VMT because that’s apparently what the public wants to do? • Should policies focus on limiting VMT so as to reduce environmental and other costs?

6. The alternatives! • Improvements in vehicle and fuel technology to reduce environmental impacts without limiting driving. • But… that doesn’t solve everything! • Reduce the need for driving by enhancing accessibility rather than mobility. • Planning for Accessibility!

7. Accessibility, mobility, what’s the difference? • CAMPO 2025 Regional Transportation Plan: “The primary goal of the CAMPO 2020 Plan is to provide an acceptable level of mobility and accessibility for the region’s residents with the least detrimental effects.”

8. Accessibility, mobility, what’s the difference? • CATS 2020 Regional Transportation Plan: “Provide an integrated and coordinated transportation system that maximizes accessibility and includes a variety of mobility options that serve the needs of residents and businesses in the region.”

9. Accessibility, mobility, what’s the difference? • TEA-21: “Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight”

10. Huh? Accessibility vs. Mobility • Mobility is the potential for movement • Accessibility is the potential for interaction

11. Good Mobility • Ability to move around

12. Poor Mobility • Inability to move around

13. Good Accessibility • Ability to get what you need • Choice of destinations • Choice of modes

14. Poor Accessibility • Inability to get what you need • No destination choices • No mode choices

15. Accessibility vs. Mobility • Good mobility usually contributes to good accessibility, BUT... • You can have good accessibility with poor mobility • You can have poor accessibility with good mobility

16. The Problem • In most places in the U.S…. • Accessibility is mobility-dependent • Mobility is car-dependent • That has implications for… • Persons who can’t drive • Quality of life for those who can

17. Planning for Mobility • Focus on the means, not the end: • Maximize movement • Emphasize vehicle needs • Implications for communities: • Encourages sprawl • Limits choices • Built into standard performance measures

18. Planning for Mobility + + Levels of Congestion Ease of Travel + + Amount of Travel Planning for Mobility

19. Planning for Accessibility • Focus on the ends, not the means: • Maximize interaction, satisfaction • Emphasize person needs • Implications for communities: • Encourages alternatives to sprawl • Expands choices • Requires new performance measures

20. Planning for Accessibility - Levels of Congestion Need for Travel ? ? Amount of Travel Planning for Accessibility

21. Strategy Options • Mobility-Enhancing Strategies • Road building • ITS • Accessibility-Enhancing Strategies • Land use strategies • ICT • Mobility-Limiting Strategies • Pricing • Road restrictions

22. Mobility-Enhancing Philosophy • Metropolitan regions need more highways and freeways to serve growing populations • We should respect the desire of the majority to use their cars • Adding capacity will reduce congestion and its impacts

23. ITS - Intelligent Transportation Systems • From information and automation… • Roads • Cars • Transit • Freight

24. Evidence on New Capacity • Recent studies on “induced travel”: • UC Berkeley study: 10% increase in capacity leads to 9% increase in traffic • Others: 10% increase in capacity leads to 4.7% to 12.2% increase in traffic • Noland and Cowart: capacity increases account for 15% of VMT growth annually • Induced travel offsets improvements in congestion, air quality, and other impacts

25. Evidence on ITS • TransGuide reduced accidents by 15% and emergency response time by 20% in San Antonio (TxDOT) • Advanced Traveler Information System led to changes in route, departure time, confidence in Seattle (Volpe) • Smart Ramp for HOVs and buses saved 8.5 - 19.2 minutes per week per user in Portland (Lall & Lucas) • Long-term effects not yet clear...

26. Who supports this strategy? • Road building… • Departments of Transportation • The “road lobby” • The majority of the public? • Most of the politicians?

27. Who supports this strategy? • ITS… • Technology believers • Many of the leading transportation engineering researchers • Industry, esp. defense-related industry • Most of the politicians?

28. Accessibility-Enhancing Philosophy – Land Use Strategies • By designing communities more like they used to be, we can reduce auto dependence

29. Neighborhoods should include a commercial center • Neighborhoods should be linked by a regional transit system

30. Interrelated ideas… • New Urbanism • Transit-oriented development • Downtown revitalization • Smart growth • Infill development • Preservation

31. Evidence on NU, et al. • Higher densities are correlated with lower average vehicle-miles traveled: • Higher shares of transit and walking • Shorter driving trips • Neighborhood design encourages walking but doesn’t always reduce driving: • 3.4 miles/month saved in best case in Austin (Handy)

32. Who supports this strategy? • Most urban designers • More and more planners • Some developers • A healthy share of the public • Growing numbers of politicians

33. Accessibility-Enhancing Philosophy – ICT • Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) provide accessibility without the need for mobility: • Telecommuting • Tele-activities • “E-commerce”

34. Evidence on ICT • Telecommuting reduces person-miles traveled by 75% on telecommuting days but ability and desire to telecommute is limited (Mokhtarian, et al.) • Aggregate impact of telecommuting on annual VMT is 0.8% or less (Choo, et al.) • Travel impacts of e-commerce not yet clear…

35. Who supports this strategy? • Some industry… mixed on telecommuting, high on e-commerce • Most regional transportation planners • A growing number of interest groups for the mobility impaired: rural areas, persons with disabilities • Everyone…?

36. Mobility-Limiting Philosophy • Drivers pay significantly less for their trips than they should: • Out-of-pocket vs. total cost to individual • Individual vs. societal costs • If drivers directly paid the full cost of their trip, they would choose to drive less • Correct pricing leads to economically efficient choices

37. Pricing Strategies Ideally... • Gas tax increases • Parking charges • Congestion pricing Realistically… • Parking cash-out • HO/T lanes - “Value Pricing”

38. Evidence on Pricing • Gas Price: 10% increase in price could mean 1% decrease in driving (Schipper) • Parking Fees: 10% increase in fees could mean 1.6% decrease in driving (Shoup) • Congestion Pricing: $0.20 per mile during peak could mean 6% decrease in driving (Litman) • Parking Cash-Out Programs: Reduced vehicle trips by up to 27% in LA (Wilson) • HO/T Lanes: $2 bought 20 minute savings in Houston (TTI)

39. Who supports this strategy? • Believers in the market, with fixes • Many of the leading transportation planning researchers

40. So to conclude… • Adopt accessibility-enhancing strategies to provide choices • Adopt mobility-limiting strategies to encourage choices that reduce VMT

41. The BIG question… Just how much mobility can we rightly expect and demand?

42. The growing Response… Don’t we have a right to the freedom not to drive, too?