Accessibility- vs. Mobility-Enhancing Strategies for

Addressing Auto Dependence

Susan HandySusan Handy

University of California DavisUniversity of California Davis

Figure 1. Vehicle-Kilometers-Traveled per Person in the U.S.

(1936 - 2000)

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

1936

1940

1944

1948

1952

1956

1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000

Figure 2. Total Capital Outlays for Roads in the U.S. (1956 - 2000)

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$7019

56

1959

1962

1965

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

Mil

lion

s of

Con

stan

t 200

0 D

olla

rs

Consequences…

Avg. annual hours of congestion delay per Avg. annual hours of congestion delay per person grew from 11in 1982 to 26 in 1999 person grew from 11in 1982 to 26 in 1999 at a cost of $77.8 billion.at a cost of $77.8 billion.

36 U.S. regions with 85 million people fail 36 U.S. regions with 85 million people fail to meet national standards for ozone.to meet national standards for ozone.

Transportation sector contributed 513 Transportation sector contributed 513 million metric tons of COmillion metric tons of CO22 and accounted and accounted

for 18% of global oil consumption in 2000.for 18% of global oil consumption in 2000.

The policy dilemma…

Should policies focus on accommodating Should policies focus on accommodating growing levels of VMT because that’s growing levels of VMT because that’s apparently what the public wants to do?apparently what the public wants to do?

Should policies focus on limiting VMT so Should policies focus on limiting VMT so as to reduce environmental and other costs?as to reduce environmental and other costs?

The alternatives!

Improvements in vehicle and fuel Improvements in vehicle and fuel technology to reduce environmental technology to reduce environmental impacts without limiting driving.impacts without limiting driving. But… that doesn’t solve everything!But… that doesn’t solve everything!

Reduce the need for driving by enhancing Reduce the need for driving by enhancing accessibility rather than mobility.accessibility rather than mobility. Planning for Accessibility!Planning for Accessibility!

Accessibility, mobility, what’s the difference? CAMPO 2025 Regional Transportation CAMPO 2025 Regional Transportation

Plan: “The primary goal of the Plan: “The primary goal of the CAMPO CAMPO 2020 Plan2020 Plan is to provide an acceptable level is to provide an acceptable level of of mobilitymobility and and accessibilityaccessibility for the region’s for the region’s residents with the least detrimental effects.”residents with the least detrimental effects.”

Accessibility, mobility, what’s the difference? CATS 2020 Regional Transportation Plan: CATS 2020 Regional Transportation Plan:

“Provide an integrated and coordinated “Provide an integrated and coordinated transportation system that maximizes transportation system that maximizes accessibilityaccessibility and includes a variety of and includes a variety of mobilitymobility options that serve the needs of options that serve the needs of residents and businesses in the region.”residents and businesses in the region.”

Accessibility, mobility, what’s the difference? TEA-21: “Increase the TEA-21: “Increase the accessibilityaccessibility and and

mobilitymobility options available to people and for options available to people and for freight”freight”

Accessibility vs. Mobility

Mobility is the potential for movementMobility is the potential for movement Accessibility is the potential for interactionAccessibility is the potential for interaction

Huh?

Good Mobility

Ability to move aroundAbility to move around

Poor Mobility

Inability to move aroundInability to move around

Good Accessibility

Ability to get what you needAbility to get what you need Choice of destinationsChoice of destinations Choice of modesChoice of modes

Poor Accessibility

Inability to get what you needInability to get what you need No destination choicesNo destination choices No mode choicesNo mode choices

Accessibility vs. Mobility

Good mobility usually Good mobility usually contributes to good contributes to good accessibility, BUT...accessibility, BUT... You can have good You can have good

accessibility with poor accessibility with poor mobilitymobility

You can have poor You can have poor accessibility with good accessibility with good mobilitymobility

The Problem

In most places in the U.S….In most places in the U.S…. Accessibility is mobility-dependentAccessibility is mobility-dependent Mobility is car-dependentMobility is car-dependent

That has implications for…That has implications for… Persons who can’t drivePersons who can’t drive Quality of life for those Quality of life for those

who canwho can

Planning for Mobility

Focus on the means, not the end:Focus on the means, not the end: Maximize movementMaximize movement Emphasize vehicle needsEmphasize vehicle needs

Implications for communities:Implications for communities: Encourages sprawlEncourages sprawl Limits choicesLimits choices

Built into standard Built into standard performance measuresperformance measures

Planning for Mobility

Planning for Mobility

Ease of Travel

Amount of Travel

Levels of Congestion

+ +

+ +

Planning for Accessibility

Focus on the ends, not the means:Focus on the ends, not the means: Maximize interaction, satisfactionMaximize interaction, satisfaction Emphasize person needsEmphasize person needs

Implications for communities:Implications for communities: Encourages alternatives to sprawlEncourages alternatives to sprawl Expands choicesExpands choices

Requires new performance Requires new performance measuresmeasures

Planning for Accessibility

Planning for Accessibility

Need for Travel

Amount of Travel

Levels of Congestion

-

? ?

Strategy Options

Mobility-Enhancing StrategiesMobility-Enhancing Strategies Road buildingRoad building ITSITS

Accessibility-Enhancing StrategiesAccessibility-Enhancing Strategies Land use strategiesLand use strategies ICTICT

Mobility-Limiting StrategiesMobility-Limiting Strategies PricingPricing Road restrictionsRoad restrictions

Mobility-Enhancing Philosophy

Metropolitan regions need more highways Metropolitan regions need more highways and freeways to serve growing populationsand freeways to serve growing populations

We should respect the desire of the We should respect the desire of the majority to use their carsmajority to use their cars

Adding capacity will reduce congestion Adding capacity will reduce congestion and its impactsand its impacts

ITS - Intelligent Transportation Systems

From information and automation…From information and automation… RoadsRoads CarsCars TransitTransit FreightFreight

Evidence on New Capacity

Recent studies on “induced travel”:Recent studies on “induced travel”: UC Berkeley study: 10% increase in capacity UC Berkeley study: 10% increase in capacity

leads to 9% increase in trafficleads to 9% increase in traffic Others: 10% increase in capacity leads to 4.7% Others: 10% increase in capacity leads to 4.7%

to 12.2% increase in trafficto 12.2% increase in traffic Noland and Cowart: capacity increases account Noland and Cowart: capacity increases account

for 15% of VMT growth annuallyfor 15% of VMT growth annually Induced travel offsets improvements in Induced travel offsets improvements in

congestion, air quality, and other impactscongestion, air quality, and other impacts

Evidence on ITS

TransGuide reduced accidents by 15% and TransGuide reduced accidents by 15% and emergency response time by 20% in San Antonio emergency response time by 20% in San Antonio (TxDOT)(TxDOT)

Advanced Traveler Information System led to Advanced Traveler Information System led to changes in route, departure time, confidence in changes in route, departure time, confidence in Seattle (Volpe)Seattle (Volpe)

Smart Ramp for HOVs and buses saved 8.5 - 19.2 Smart Ramp for HOVs and buses saved 8.5 - 19.2 minutes per week per user in Portland (Lall & minutes per week per user in Portland (Lall & Lucas)Lucas)

Long-term effects not yet clear...Long-term effects not yet clear...

Who supports this strategy?

Road building…Road building… Departments of Departments of

TransportationTransportation The “road lobby”The “road lobby” The majority of the The majority of the

public?public? Most of the politicians?Most of the politicians?

Who supports this strategy?

ITS… ITS… Technology believersTechnology believers Many of the leading transportation Many of the leading transportation

engineering researchersengineering researchers Industry, esp. defense-related industryIndustry, esp. defense-related industry Most of the politicians?Most of the politicians?

Accessibility-Enhancing Philosophy – Land Use Strategies

By designing communities more like they By designing communities more like they used to be, we can reduce auto dependenceused to be, we can reduce auto dependence

Neighborhoods should include Neighborhoods should include a commercial centera commercial center

Neighborhoods should be Neighborhoods should be linked by a regional transit linked by a regional transit system system

Interrelated ideas…

New UrbanismNew Urbanism Transit-oriented developmentTransit-oriented development Downtown revitalizationDowntown revitalization Smart growthSmart growth Infill developmentInfill development PreservationPreservation

Evidence on NU, et al.

Higher densities are correlated with lower Higher densities are correlated with lower average vehicle-miles traveled:average vehicle-miles traveled: Higher shares of transit and walkingHigher shares of transit and walking Shorter driving tripsShorter driving trips

Neighborhood design encourages walking Neighborhood design encourages walking but doesn’t always reduce driving: but doesn’t always reduce driving: 3.4 miles/month saved in best 3.4 miles/month saved in best case in Austin (Handy)case in Austin (Handy)

Who supports this strategy?

Most urban designersMost urban designers More and more plannersMore and more planners Some developersSome developers A healthy share of the publicA healthy share of the public Growing numbers of Growing numbers of

politicianspoliticians

Accessibility-Enhancing Philosophy – ICT Information and Communications Information and Communications

Technologies (ICT) provide accessibility Technologies (ICT) provide accessibility without the need for mobility:without the need for mobility: TelecommutingTelecommuting Tele-activitiesTele-activities ““E-commerce”E-commerce”

Evidence on ICT

Telecommuting reduces person-miles Telecommuting reduces person-miles traveled by 75% on telecommuting days but traveled by 75% on telecommuting days but ability and desire to telecommute is limited ability and desire to telecommute is limited (Mokhtarian, et al.)(Mokhtarian, et al.)

Aggregate impact of telecommuting on Aggregate impact of telecommuting on annual VMT is 0.8% or less (Choo, et al.)annual VMT is 0.8% or less (Choo, et al.)

Travel impacts of e-commerce not yet Travel impacts of e-commerce not yet clear…clear…

Who supports this strategy?

Some industry… mixed on telecommuting, Some industry… mixed on telecommuting, high on e-commercehigh on e-commerce

Most regional transportation plannersMost regional transportation planners A growing number of interest groups for the A growing number of interest groups for the

mobility impaired: rural areas, persons with mobility impaired: rural areas, persons with disabilitiesdisabilities

Everyone…?Everyone…?

Mobility-Limiting Philosophy

Drivers pay significantly less for their trips Drivers pay significantly less for their trips than they should:than they should: Out-of-pocket vs. total cost to individualOut-of-pocket vs. total cost to individual Individual vs. societal costsIndividual vs. societal costs

If drivers directly paid the full cost of their If drivers directly paid the full cost of their trip, they would choose to drive lesstrip, they would choose to drive less

Correct pricing leads to economically Correct pricing leads to economically efficient choicesefficient choices

Pricing Strategies

Ideally...Ideally... Gas tax increasesGas tax increases Parking chargesParking charges Congestion pricingCongestion pricing

Realistically…Realistically… Parking cash-outParking cash-out HO/T lanes - “Value HO/T lanes - “Value

Pricing”Pricing”

Evidence on Pricing

Gas Price: 10% increase in price could mean 1% Gas Price: 10% increase in price could mean 1% decrease in driving (Schipper)decrease in driving (Schipper)

Parking Fees: 10% increase in fees could mean Parking Fees: 10% increase in fees could mean 1.6% decrease in driving (Shoup) 1.6% decrease in driving (Shoup)

Congestion Pricing: $0.20 per mile during peak Congestion Pricing: $0.20 per mile during peak could mean 6% decrease in driving (Litman)could mean 6% decrease in driving (Litman)

Parking Cash-Out Programs: Reduced vehicle Parking Cash-Out Programs: Reduced vehicle trips by up to 27% in LA (Wilson)trips by up to 27% in LA (Wilson)

HO/T Lanes: $2 bought 20 minute savings in HO/T Lanes: $2 bought 20 minute savings in Houston (TTI)Houston (TTI)

Who supports this strategy?

Believers in the market, with fixesBelievers in the market, with fixes Many of the leading transportation planning Many of the leading transportation planning

researchersresearchers

So to conclude…

Adopt accessibility-enhancing strategies to Adopt accessibility-enhancing strategies to provide choicesprovide choices

Adopt mobility-limiting strategies to Adopt mobility-limiting strategies to encourage choices that reduce VMTencourage choices that reduce VMT

The BIG question…

Just how much mobility can we rightly Just how much mobility can we rightly expect and demand?expect and demand?

The growing Response…

Don’t we have a right to the freedom not Don’t we have a right to the freedom not to drive, too?to drive, too?