Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Hysteresis &Urban RailThe effects of past urban rail oncurrent residential & travel choicesDavid Block-SchachterOctober 15...
1.    Intro2.    History3.    Ideas4.    Hypotheses & mechanisms5.    Methods6.    EvidenceAgenda
Ideas• Heterogeneous response• Buffalo• Delorean, iran hostage crisis, soviet union, mtv, mubarak, AIDS• Things accumulate...
Ideas                  Historical	     vision	   Qualita0ve	                       Quan0ta0ve	                            ...
History• The tape of history is played uniquely forward (Gould)• Ports & harbors• Factories & housing• Roads & bridges• Mo...
Pre-history
Fill and wharfing out
Post WWII
History• Post roads   1673 New York à Springfield à Boston               (washington street roxbury silver line )• Turnp...
History          Source: Binford
History          Source: Binford
Source: BPL
History
History
History
History
Methods       Era             Speed   Fares      Reach         Competition   Urban trends1865   Horsecar        +       Va...
History1865 - Horsecar
History1925 – Streetcar, Elevated & Subway
History
History1960 – Heavy and Light Rail
History2000 - Heavy and Light Rail
East Cambridge Bridge, 1912 (Detroit Publishing Company)
Harvard Square, 1912 (Detroit Publishing Company)
History                     	  12	  	                                                                                     ...
IdeasThis is why history matters                       Source: HowStuffWorks.com
Ideas• It is not possible to predict the next step without knowing the history of the system• Iron ore retains magnetizati...
Ideas        Source: Wikipedia
Ideas• Self evident: current options determined by past choicesIn transportation• Durable capital—long-lived residential, ...
Hypotheses                                                                    Historical	  • Exploring one historical proc...
IdeasWe don’t do it often•  Capital is durable•  Land Use and transport inter-related
HypothesesStrong     DensityModerate   Auto ownershipMinimal    Mode choiceProximity to past railinfluences current behavior
Hypotheses• Influences present rail and bus location• Behavior persists• Built environment: direct or via preferences / at...
HypothesesMechanisms
Hypotheses• Cumulative causation• Durable capital built around infrastructure• Useful life, staged development, capitalizi...
Hypotheses     Habitual travel choice (Garling)+    Transit agency incentive to replicate or add frequency on new     mode...
HypothesesDirect.   Past rail affects quality of BE (connectivity é routes)          BUT objective v. perceived (Gim); in...
HypothesesHeuristic that simplifies complex decision making• Property of BE (unique to places near past rail)• Result of h...
Hypotheses• Planning horizon too short by a century• Locating growth and local incentives• Urban “renewal” was even worse ...
Prove it
MethodsHYP: Proximity to past rail influences current behaviorMECHANISM: Plausible direct and indirect effects:     rail p...
MethodsTract level for density, auto ownership, mode choice• Spatial error model with adjacency matrix corrects for violat...
Methods• IPUMS 1860, 1930• Maps, turned into vectors• Census 1960-2000, UTPP, CTPPData
Evidence
EvidenceCHAPTER 4. NETWORK PATHS                                                           11                          192...
Evidence• The monocentric model implies a specific functional form—negative exponential—that results from regressing the n...
Evidence                                20,0002000 Density (ppl. / sq. mi.)                                18,000         ...
EvidenceDensity gradients
EvidenceAuto ownership models
EvidenceMode share models
Evidence(1)  Past access to rail à density > auto ownership, but both significant.     Mode share not significantly influ...
Evidence• Travel behavior lit: behavior is a function of the current attributes of the person andthe environment.• This fi...
EvidenceUse history•  Efforts to understand how the history and present of a place may influence its   future, for time fr...
Thank you
Jz class 20121015.pptx
Jz class 20121015.pptx
Jz class 20121015.pptx
Jz class 20121015.pptx
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Jz class 20121015.pptx

353 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Jz class 20121015.pptx

  1. 1. Hysteresis &Urban RailThe effects of past urban rail oncurrent residential & travel choicesDavid Block-SchachterOctober 15, 2012
  2. 2. 1.  Intro2.  History3.  Ideas4.  Hypotheses & mechanisms5.  Methods6.  EvidenceAgenda
  3. 3. Ideas• Heterogeneous response• Buffalo• Delorean, iran hostage crisis, soviet union, mtv, mubarak, AIDS• Things accumulate on top of intentions and accidentsPredicting the future is hard
  4. 4. Ideas Historical   vision   Qualita0ve   Quan0ta0ve   predict   &   model   Ahistorical  Using history as guide
  5. 5. History• The tape of history is played uniquely forward (Gould)• Ports & harbors• Factories & housing• Roads & bridges• More buildings• Streetcars• More buildings• And so onEmergence ofcities
  6. 6. Pre-history
  7. 7. Fill and wharfing out
  8. 8. Post WWII
  9. 9. History• Post roads 1673 New York à Springfield à Boston (washington street roxbury silver line )• Turnpikes turn, pike. Middlesex (hampshire st) chartered 1805, free 1846 25 cents per vehicle + 4 cents per man or horse• Bridges tolls to free• Omnibus 1793 stagecoach over west boston bridge• Horsecar 1856 central square across west boston bridge to bowdoin• Steam Rail 1830 Boston & Lowell – later Green Line D branch• Streetcar 1889 electrified in Allston• Subway 1897 “first”• Elevated 1901 last “major” american cityTransport history primer
  10. 10. History Source: Binford
  11. 11. History Source: Binford
  12. 12. Source: BPL
  13. 13. History
  14. 14. History
  15. 15. History
  16. 16. History
  17. 17. Methods Era Speed Fares Reach Competition Urban trends1865 Horsecar + Variable + - Immigration1925 Streetcar+ ++ Standard +++ + Expansion1960 Consolidation +++ + ++ Flight2000 Expansion +++ + +++ Gentrification4 eras
  18. 18. History1865 - Horsecar
  19. 19. History1925 – Streetcar, Elevated & Subway
  20. 20. History
  21. 21. History1960 – Heavy and Light Rail
  22. 22. History2000 - Heavy and Light Rail
  23. 23. East Cambridge Bridge, 1912 (Detroit Publishing Company)
  24. 24. Harvard Square, 1912 (Detroit Publishing Company)
  25. 25. History  12     80%   x  100000   Growth  rate   Popula0on   70%    10     60%    8     50%    6     40%   30%    4     20%    2     10%    -­‐         0%   1810   1820   1830   1840   1850   1860   1870   1880   1890   1900   1910   1920   1930   1940   1950  Fares, frequency, transfers, ubiquityEffective 50% decrease due to inflation & free transfers from system consolidationConcurrent inner ring growthBoston, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, SomervilleHorsecars v. streetcars
  26. 26. IdeasThis is why history matters Source: HowStuffWorks.com
  27. 27. Ideas• It is not possible to predict the next step without knowing the history of the system• Iron ore retains magnetization after magnetic field removed• Urban rail is magnet. Built environment is iron oreHysteresis Source: HowStuffWorks.com
  28. 28. Ideas Source: Wikipedia
  29. 29. Ideas• Self evident: current options determined by past choicesIn transportation• Durable capital—long-lived residential, industrial, and commercial buildings—is anorder of magnitude greater than the public or private investment in transportationinfrastructure• Changing the transport path requires significant incremental value.• And there are coordination problemsPath dependence
  30. 30. Hypotheses Historical  • Exploring one historical process – this  the evolution of urban rail from single vision  cars pulled by horses, to those poweredby electricity, and eventually multi-car Qualita0ve   Quan0ta0ve  trains running on elevated, surface, andunderground tracks predict   &  • In one city – Boston – over an extended model   Ahistorical  time period – from 1865 to the present• Examine impacts of proximity to rail on residential density and travel (autoownership, mode choice)• HYP. Urban rail has permanent direct and indirect effects on the geography ofdensity and behavior over exceptionally long time frames, and that these effectsoutlast the urban rail itself—they are persistent and hysteretic.What is this work about?
  31. 31. IdeasWe don’t do it often•  Capital is durable•  Land Use and transport inter-related
  32. 32. HypothesesStrong DensityModerate Auto ownershipMinimal Mode choiceProximity to past railinfluences current behavior
  33. 33. Hypotheses• Influences present rail and bus location• Behavior persists• Built environment: direct or via preferences / attitudes• Culture: family hist., neighbor pressure, pos. externalities, BE• Municipal action: zoning, N/IMBY, political power• AND/OR proxy for omitted and uniqueWhy?
  34. 34. HypothesesMechanisms
  35. 35. Hypotheses• Cumulative causation• Durable capital built around infrastructure• Useful life, staged development, capitalizing access• Legal and institutional rationales for re-useà Hard to make new paths: incremental valueà Easy to serve existing marketMech: Infrastructure
  36. 36. Hypotheses Habitual travel choice (Garling)+ Transit agency incentive to replicate or add frequency on new mode= Existing riders may not revisit mode choiceà Reduced effect over timeMech: Behavioral persistence
  37. 37. HypothesesDirect. Past rail affects quality of BE (connectivity é routes) BUT objective v. perceived (Gim); indicators (Crane, Lee) à Changes attributes of residential and travel behaviorIndirect. BE as mnemonic device retaining signs and symbols associated with use of rail à  Influences weighting of existing attributesMech: Built environment
  38. 38. HypothesesHeuristic that simplifies complex decision making• Property of BE (unique to places near past rail)• Result of historical travel behaviorPerceptions of behavioral control (Ajzen)• Past rail à more usage in past• Slow migration + habitual choice à more usage todayMech: Culture
  39. 39. Hypotheses• Planning horizon too short by a century• Locating growth and local incentives• Urban “renewal” was even worse than previously thought• Multimodal complements to enlarge growth effects of railIf I’m right
  40. 40. Prove it
  41. 41. MethodsHYP: Proximity to past rail influences current behaviorMECHANISM: Plausible direct and indirect effects: rail persistence, demographics, BE, cultureBehaviort = f ( BEt−1, Demographict−1, RailAccesst−n , RailAccesst , Exogenous)Proximity to. Buffer around routes. Lack of stop, frequency information, consistency between erasPast rail. Horsecars (1865), streetcars (1925), pre-MBTA (1960)Influences. Has a statistically significant effect onCurrent behavior. Density, auto ownership, mode choiceBasics
  42. 42. MethodsTract level for density, auto ownership, mode choice• Spatial error model with adjacency matrix corrects for violation of OLS errors dueto misfit to tract facets• Sensitivity testing for matrix, correctionMultinomial logit for household auto ownership• v. ordered logit / probitMultinomial logit for individual mode choice• All trips (not just JTW)• Individual panel structure• Origin & destination attributes• Home location (restriction to non-home trips)• Validation of VOT against CTPS published estimatesMethods
  43. 43. Methods• IPUMS 1860, 1930• Maps, turned into vectors• Census 1960-2000, UTPP, CTPPData
  44. 44. Evidence
  45. 45. EvidenceCHAPTER 4. NETWORK PATHS 11 1925 1960 20001865 0.89 0.88 0.871925 0.92 0.881960 0.92n= 2,210 blockgroupsCHAPTER Table 4.1: Access correlation by actual distance to rail 4. NETWORK PATHS 13modern rail makes use of the sameEstimate way as older Estimate right of Std. incarnations of urbanrail but does not use all of these historical paths. The test for this hypothesis isIntercept 0.352 ***the degree to which the modern city is composed of areas that (a) always***Dist. to 1960 Rail (d1960) 0.283 0.578 hadaccessto 1925 Rail never had access to rail, and (c) had access in given period,Dist. to rail, (b) (d1925) 0.177 0.127 ***Dist. to others. If (d1865)but not 1865 Rail those areas that had urban rail access in 2000 also had the 0.233 0.326 ***d1960level of access during prior periods, then this hypothesis is verified. **same * d1925 0.017 0.043d1960 * d1865seen in Table 4.2, the strength of findings depends on how access As can be 0.052 0.192 *** •  High degree of correlationd1925 is defined. At the blockgroup level, 83% (one minus the last column) ofto rail * d1865 -0.031 -0.192 ***d1960 areas with access to urban rail in 2000 had similar access to urban rail inthose * d1925 * d1865 -0.002 -0.048 *** between access in erasprevious periods—when access is defined by a radius 1/10 mile from the centroiddependent: distance to urban rail, 2000; r = 0.876, n = 2,210 blockgroups 2of each blockgroup. By 1/2 miles, 96% of areas that had access in rail in 2000‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1also had it in previous periods. Furthermore, beyond 1/10 mile, current access to •  Not entirely mediated byrail is more dependent on access to rail in periods prior to 1960—approximately Table 4.3: Relative effects of distance to rail: 1865-1960 on 2000 access in most recent erathe advent of the modern system in Boston—than it is to access to rail in 1960. The implication of these findings is that the visual inspection also rings true Findings: infrastructure Estimate Std. Estimatefrom a statistical perspective. Urban rail extensions in the past 4 decades haveIntercept to areas that had 0.362 to rail prior to 1960, but had lost that accesslargely been access ***Dist. to 1865 Railby 1960. These conclusions are not 0.994 merely the products of spatial definition. 0.893 ***dependent:rail in theto urban rail, in Table 4.2 is also strongly blockgroups on whereAccess to distance modern era 1925; r2 = 0.797, n = 2,210 dependent‘***’existed in prior‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’on an area and population basis.rail 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 periods 0.1 Table 4.4: Relative effects of access to horsecars on access to streetcars4.3 Permanence to persistence4.4 Section explores the relative weight that accessThis Buses in prior periods has onsubsequent access. The main method used is regression of distance to rail inLeft unexamined thus far is the role of the motor bus in replacing the streetcar.period t on periods t 1 through t n. If rail is permanent but not persistent,Between 1925 and 1960 the entirety of surface running routes in Boston wereprevious periods (t 2 through t n) effects on the present (t) are mediatedremoved, save for the branches of the (not-yet-named) Green Line. Did busthrough access in the most recent period (t 1). Access in periods t 2 throughroutes fill the void in access left by this massive change? Or was the planingt n will be insignificant. If rail is both permanent and persistent, access toparadigm for bus coverage un-moored from dependence on past routes by theurban rail in periods t 2 through t n will also be significant. There will be asame forces that removed the fixed streetcar guideways?measurable effect on where new rail is placed based on historical rail corridors. Some anecdotal evidence points to bus routes as largely consistent with As is evident in Table 4.3, 1960 plays the largest role in determining access
  46. 46. Evidence• The monocentric model implies a specific functional form—negative exponential—that results from regressing the natural logarithm of density on distance from theCBD. Access to rail in each period is an additional binary regressor. If the coefficienton rail proximity in past periods is significant and positive, the associated densitygradient is taller.Density: theory
  47. 47. Evidence 20,0002000 Density (ppl. / sq. mi.) 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Dist to CBD (mi.) Actual w.out 1925 Rail (endogenous network) w.out 1925 Rail (exogenous network)Density comparisons
  48. 48. EvidenceDensity gradients
  49. 49. EvidenceAuto ownership models
  50. 50. EvidenceMode share models
  51. 51. Evidence(1)  Past access to rail à density > auto ownership, but both significant. Mode share not significantly influenced by past access to rail after controlling for current access.(2)  Demographic and built environment controls, as well as controls for additional causal mechanisms reduce the measured effect, but do not eliminate it.(3)  Density + auto ownership: past rail > current Mode share vice versaSummary
  52. 52. Evidence• Travel behavior lit: behavior is a function of the current attributes of the person andthe environment.• This finds: past existence of rail is an indicator both of some omittedcharacteristic(s) of the BE unique to those places that once had rail and a culturalinheritance, but the mixture of the two is unknown.v. literature
  53. 53. EvidenceUse history•  Efforts to understand how the history and present of a place may influence its future, for time frames beyond BCA or design charetteWhere and when to build within cities•  Costs of (re)development, neighborhood opposition•  Mechanisms for patience over long time framesPlanning timeframes and goals•  Scenario planning, built environment endowmentsCultural interventions•  Local policies to support national goals; direct and indirectWhy it matters
  54. 54. Thank you

×