Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity

1,111

Published on

Early American cities were built around dense street networks and relied upon a wide variety of modes for transportation. For more than 50 years, however, many small cities have been physically …

Early American cities were built around dense street networks and relied upon a wide variety of modes for transportation. For more than 50 years, however, many small cities have been physically restructured in efforts to provide automobile access comparable to that in the surrounding suburbs. In those cities, the level of automobile use, the physical form, and the level of activity are now very different from cities that, instead, made greater efforts to preserve their existing urban form. This study looks at 11 small cities that have exhibited very different trends in terms of automobile use and infrastructure provision since 1960 in order to gauge how these differences have impacted long-term urban vitality in those cities.
This study relies on socioeconomic and demographic data dating back to 1960, historical travel mode share data, maps depicting the amount of land used for transportation purposes, and policy review. This approach provides unique insight regarding the aggregate impacts of automobile use on urban land consumption and urban vitality as well as a historical perspective revealing how these cities evolved and key policies that enabled these changes.
In our study, we found that higher levels of automobile use correspond with lower concentrations of activities (residential and employment). This is due in large part to the amount of land needed for automobile infrastructure. The cities were divided into two groups: “low automobile use” and “automobile dependent.” On average, parking consumes more than twice as much urban land per activity in automobile dependent cities. These cities also have fewer than half as many productive activities per square mile. The study also reveals that incomes and automobile ownerships rates are higher in cities with low automobile use, suggesting that individuals will choose not to use their automobiles if there are diverse transportation choices and if non-automobile modes of transportation are attractive options. This lessens the amount of automobile infrastructure needed.
Evidence suggests that policy decisions within each city have greatly influenced the changes they experienced over time. Based on the trends revealed in this study, a productive, long-term policy approach should incorporate measures that support diverse transportation systems and efficient use of urban space.

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,111
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. An Evaluation of Automobile Use, Parking Provision, and Urban Activity
    Christopher McCahill
    Ph.D. Candidate
    Civil & Environmental Engineering
    Norman Garrick
    Associate Professor
    Civil & Environmental Engineering
    UTC New England
    UCONN
    Conference on Performance Measures for Transportation and Livable Communities
    Austin, TX
    Sept. 7-8, 2011
  • 2. “Parking Demand”
    Nantucket Parking Study
    2010 Draft
    Utilization study
    Max utilization: 94%
    + 77 spaces (on-street)
    Land use study
    Demand: 2,870 spaces
    + 670 spaces
    Local zoning codes
    + 2,337 spaces
  • 3. “Parking Demand”
    < 3/4 mile
  • 4. Increase parking?
  • 5. Theoretical model of land consumption
    Land used for transportation
    2
    B
    Automobile mode share
    Land used for activities
    1
    C
    A
    3
    Taller buildings and/or Fewer activities
  • 6. Hartford, CT - 1953
  • 7. Hartford, CT - 1965
  • 8. 1957
  • 9. 1995
  • 10. Cambridge, MA
  • 11.
  • 12.
  • 13.
  • 14.
  • 15. Land used for transportation
    Automobile mode share
  • 16.
  • 17.
  • 18. Level of activity
  • 19.
  • 20.
  • 21. Limits on growth?
  • 22. Driving to work:
  • 23. Findings…
    High levels of automobile use (and parking) correspond with fewer activities
  • 24. Findings…
    Cities with the most activities have preserved their urban fabric and provide a range of transportation options
  • 25. Contact:
    christopher.mccahill @ engr.uconn.edu
  • 26. Good urban planning must provide a place for the motor car: that goes without saying. But this does not in the least mean that the motor car must be permitted to penetrate every part of the city and stay there, even though it disrupts all other activities.
    - L. Mumford (1961)
    Too much dependence on private automobiles and city concentration of use are incompatible.
    Depending on which pressure wins most of the victories, one of two processes occurs: erosion of cities by automobiles, or attrition of automobiles by cities.
    - J. Jacobs (1961)

×