SB 375 Challenges and Opportunities for   the Inland Empire: A Research ViewGreener California: Impacts of SB 375 and Winn...
Challenges► Dominance   of the automobile► Local government  fragmentation and competition► Development shaped by  regiona...
Opportunities► Complement    existing density w/  mixed, walkable uses► Develop around improved transit► Intensify and div...
Resident perceptions (2007)►   Driving conditions degraded,►   Commutes take 2x as long as ideal    conditions, expect fur...
Compact development► Higher average densities► Mixed land uses► Strong centers, linked by transit► Interconnection of stre...
Transit-oriented development as a    form of compact development► Moderate   to higher density  development cluster around...
California TOD Study►   Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented    Development in California (2004)       Comprehensive...
TOD residents► Transitshares among TOD residents exceed  surrounding city by a factor of 4.9                              ...
TOD residents: commuteridership higher than “non-work”                      Drove                                      Dro...
Office workers► Transitshares among TOD workers exceed  surrounding region by a factor of 3.7                             ...
Other factors affecting transit               ridership► Parking  supply and pricing► Feeder buses► Retail shop density► S...
CA TOD study conclusions► TOD sites have higher transit shares; variation related to:   Characteristics of users   Maturit...
Turning around a container ship….► Land    use patterns change slowly…    Difficult to meet targets with land use,    tran...
Land use authority► SCS  is “not a land use plan”► Local issues in responding to SCS land use  strategies:    Opposition t...
Potential partnerships: local roles in           GHG mitigation► Governments   can team with large local institutions   Co...
Cal Poly Pomona (CPP)►   One of 526 signatories of the Presidents Climate Commitment       Inventory, early actions, GHG r...
Inventory Results• Role of  transportation• CA energy  efficiency  requirements• Sequestration  < 1%
Capital versus Operating Strategies► Tendency     to capital strategies     Ribbon-cutting     Distrust of behavioral appr...
CPP 2030 Draft GHG Plan►   Transportation related measures:      Reduce emissions associated with travel        ► 40%  use...
Lessons and Suggestions►   Regional – subregional – local    cooperation essential►   Compact development must    be tailo...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

LTC, Annual Forum, Greener California: Impacts of Senate Bill 375 and Winning Strategies for Southern California, 05/22/2009, Richard Willson

220 views

Published on

Richard Willson; Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Cal Poly Pomona

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
220
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

LTC, Annual Forum, Greener California: Impacts of Senate Bill 375 and Winning Strategies for Southern California, 05/22/2009, Richard Willson

  1. 1. SB 375 Challenges and Opportunities for the Inland Empire: A Research ViewGreener California: Impacts of SB 375 and Winning Strategies for Southern California Leonard Transportation Center Dr. Richard Willson, FAICP Department of Urban and Regional Planning California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
  2. 2. Challenges► Dominance of the automobile► Local government fragmentation and competition► Development shaped by regional economy, not local economics► “Locked in” built form
  3. 3. Opportunities► Complement existing density w/ mixed, walkable uses► Develop around improved transit► Intensify and diversify suburban activity centers► Use infrastructure network differently► Pricing/TDM policy► High IE growth share► Population ready for change
  4. 4. Resident perceptions (2007)► Driving conditions degraded,► Commutes take 2x as long as ideal conditions, expect further worsening► Most have transit w/in walking distance (84%) – but do not use it► Responses to higher transportation cost: carpool, reduce car ownership, fuel efficient cars, transit► Climate change affects choice of new car (47%)
  5. 5. Compact development► Higher average densities► Mixed land uses► Strong centers, linked by transit► Interconnection of streets► Human scale design► Research summary provided in Growing Cooler (Ewing et al) ► VMT growth may swamp vehicle efficiency and low carbon fuels ► 20-40% VMT reduction possible with compact development ► Compact development + more transit service + road pricing = stronger results
  6. 6. Transit-oriented development as a form of compact development► Moderate to higher density development cluster around high frequency transit► Mixed uses-residential, employment, shopping► Walking distance to transit stop► Less car use, ownership► Ideally, a network of TODs
  7. 7. California TOD Study► Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California (2004) Comprehensive study of TOD sites throughout California Lund, Cervero and Willson Report available on line at http://www.csupomona.edu/~rwwillson/► Sites studied: Light rail: San Diego Trolley, Los Angeles Blue Line, San Jose VTA, Sacramento Heavy rail: Los Angeles Red Line, BART Commuter rail: San Diego Coaster, LA Metrolink, Caltrain► No Inland Empire sites, no BTOD
  8. 8. TOD residents► Transitshares among TOD residents exceed surrounding city by a factor of 4.9 Transit Commute Mode Share (Rail and Bus) 100 90 80 70 Total trips (%) 60 44.9 50 37.8 40 26.5 30 17.4 20 13.8 13 5.4 5.8 3.3 6.6 4.2 4.8 10 0 All Residential BART: Pleasant BART: S. LA Metro: Long SD Trolley: Caltrain Sites Hill Alameda Cnty Beach Mission Valley Commuter Surveyed Sites Surrounding City
  9. 9. TOD residents: commuteridership higher than “non-work” Drove Drove Drove Carpool Carpool Drove 20% Alone 4% Rode in alone 67% Carpool Rode in 62% 1% Carpool 6% Rode Rail Rode 24% Rail Rode 5% Rode Walked Bus Walked Bicycled Bus 1% 2% 4% 1% 3% Work Trip Travel Modes (n=877) Non-Work Travel Modes (n=486) 26% total for work 8% total for non-work
  10. 10. Office workers► Transitshares among TOD workers exceed surrounding region by a factor of 3.7 Transit Commute Mode Share (Rail and Transit) 100 90 Surveyed Sites 80 70 Surrounding Region Total Trips (%) 60 50 38.5 40 29 30 18.8 17.2 20 9.5 9.5 5.1 7.8 4.7 6 4.7 10 2.9 3.4 2.7 0 All Office Sites BART: BART: Wlnt LA Red Line: SD Trolley: Sacramento Metrolink: Berkeley Crk/Fremont Hollywood Missn Valley LRT Anaheim
  11. 11. Other factors affecting transit ridership► Parking supply and pricing► Feeder buses► Retail shop density► Street connectivity► Pedestrian characteristics – sidewalk density, street tree density, street light density, block face density► Distance from station to office
  12. 12. CA TOD study conclusions► TOD sites have higher transit shares; variation related to: Characteristics of users Maturity and connectivity of system Characteristics of trip destination► Impacts in lower density areas are smaller, less studied Regional VMT versus local traffic
  13. 13. Turning around a container ship….► Land use patterns change slowly… Difficult to meet targets with land use, transportation, and housing planning for new development► Local attitudes toward density► Policy and operational changes required (change the base): Peak period road pricing, revenues directed to transit Parking pricing Convert roadway space to HOV, transitways Telecommunication substitution Residential mobility (for jobs/housing balancing)
  14. 14. Land use authority► SCS is “not a land use plan”► Local issues in responding to SCS land use strategies: Opposition to density Mitigating traffic impacts Resident reaction► Regional – subregional – local partnership is essential
  15. 15. Potential partnerships: local roles in GHG mitigation► Governments can team with large local institutions Coordinate built form investment Transportation partnerships (capital and management) Public awareness/education
  16. 16. Cal Poly Pomona (CPP)► One of 526 signatories of the Presidents Climate Commitment Inventory, early actions, GHG reduction plan for carbon neutrality, monitoring, education Work is a collaboration with Dr. Kyle Brown ASLA, Co-Chair, CPP Climate Action Team► CPP setting: 1,400 acres, 20,000 students Separated land uses Complex trip chains Physical barriers (roads, topography) Favorable solar insolation zone
  17. 17. Inventory Results• Role of transportation• CA energy efficiency requirements• Sequestration < 1%
  18. 18. Capital versus Operating Strategies► Tendency to capital strategies Ribbon-cutting Distrust of behavioral approaches ► Experience with incentives only Consumer sovereignty versus…► Flexible, inexpensive, (tricky) (ongoing), operating programs
  19. 19. CPP 2030 Draft GHG Plan► Transportation related measures: Reduce emissions associated with travel ► 40% use alternatives to SOV (transit/carpool) ► Zero emissions university fleet ► Offset air travel (100%) Reduce trips and/or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) ► Reduce commuters to 73% of campus population (on/near campus housing) ► Reduce campus trips by 30-40% (online/hybrid courses, alternative work schedule)► Other measures: education, renewable energy, reduced energy consumption, scope 3 consumables
  20. 20. Lessons and Suggestions► Regional – subregional – local cooperation essential► Compact development must be tailored to IE conditions► GHG from existing VMT must be reduced► Government and large Regional and institutions can partner to State mandates local initiatives support SB 375 goals► Research needed to assess impacts of new land use forms in IE Non-profits/► CPP Inventory: http://www.csupomona.edu/~climate/reports.shtml private companies► Paper: JAPA, 74: 497-504

×