Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

3 Defining Smart Growth Smart growth is a more current manifestation of the 1970s’ growth-management movement and has been promoted for various reasons. Smart-growth design generally includes compact development (moderate to modestly high density), a mixture of land uses in that development, and a range of feasible transportation options that promote and facilitate the use of modes of travel other than the automobile (e.g., transit, bicycles, and walking) (Smart Growth Network 2011; Carlson and Mathur 2004). Most research on smart growth has focused on personal travel and not on goods movement. Considerable research shows that smart-growth communities frequently demonstrate lower automobile-based trip making, with a commensurate increase in shorter, non-motorized trips and increased transit use (Cervero 1989, 1996; Cervero and Landis 1997). These attributes are attractive to communities and regions looking for ways to reduce peak-period automobile trip making and thus reduce demand for increased roadway capacity, while also providing a wide variety of other public benefits such as reduced greenhouse-gas emissions and healthier lifestyles due to increased physical activity levels. Table 1 identifies the principles of smart growth as defined by the Smart Growth Network. While central to achieving smart-growth outcomes, some of the principles have no direct effect on, and are not affected by, goods movement. Greater attention is given in this report to those principles that most closely relate to goods movement—the ones associated with the transportation system. Smart-growth practices are intended to foster communities with a unique sense of place; preserve natural and cultural resources; equitably distribute the costs and benefits of devel- opment; expand employment, transportation, and housing choices; and support long-range, regional sustainability (Porter et al. 2005; EPA 2010). These broad principles lead to physi- cal environments that, on a regional scale, are dichotomized into compact urban centers or villages and rural countryside. Urban areas are centers of population and employment. They are characterized by high residential and employment density; a mix of land uses and housing types; affordable housing options; and a range of transportation options including passenger cars, transit, and non-motorized options. With population and employment focused in dense, affordable, and accessible urban areas, development pressure is relieved from the countryside on the urban fringe. Rural resource lands are left to provide essential agriculture and ecological functions, as well as nearby access to open space and recreation for urban populations. Demand for truck trips is increased in urban areas (Klastorin et al. 1995), but the cost and environmental impact per delivery order is less in denser areas (Wygonik and Goodchild 2011). The overarching theme of smart growth is efficiency. Compact urban jurisdictions can pro- vide infrastructure and services at a lower per-capita expense (Porter et al. 2005), and because a variety of housing, jobs, goods, and services are available within close proximity, trip lengths in smart-growth areas are shortened (Cervero 1989, 1996; Cervero and Landis 1997). Often, C H A P T E R 2

4 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement distances between trip origins and destinations are short enough to support non-motorized transportation options such as walking or bicycling. Transit is also more effective at serving dense, mixed-use nodes or corridors. For these reasons, urban smart growth has been associated with decreased vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and increased walking and transit use (Frank et al. 2007; Frank et al. 2006; Ewing et al. 2002; Ewing and Cervero 2001; Handy et al. 2005; Porter et al. 2005). Reduced VMT may translate into reduced greenhouse-gas emissions, decreased fuel and energy consumption, reduced traffic congestion, and increased physical activity for those travelers who choose to use transit or non-motorized forms of transportation (TRB 2009). Although the benefits of smart-growth development are most apparent in urban settings, they also provide benefits in rural communities. The same principles of mixed uses and center or vil- lage clustering may reduce the number and shorten the distances of local trips. For example, even in a rural setting, the proximity of the grocery store to the post office will shorten trip length or eliminate secondary trips. Because of lengthy commutes, among other things, rural smart-growth development may have minimal impact on regional vehicle miles of travel. Nonetheless, the ben- efits of smart-growth development will promote non-motorized modes for local trips and as such may improve health (through physical activity) and reduce localized air-quality issues. While smart growth is sensitive to community context, strategies to implement smart growth are often the result of state or regional growth-management regimes. Growth management varies drastically across the states that implement it. The strongest growth-management regimes require the designation of urban growth areas and sufficient infrastructure to absorb the preponderance of future new development, thereby protecting natural and resource lands (Born and Bassok 2010). Create a range of housing opportunies and choices. Providing quality housing for people of all income levels is an integral component in any smart growth strategy. Create walkable neighborhoods. Walkable communies are desirable places to live, work, learn, worship, and play, and therefore they are a key component of smart growth. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboraon. Growth can create great places to live, work, and play, as long as it responds to a community’s own sense of how and where it wants to grow. Foster disncve, aracve communies with a strong sense of place. Smart growth encourages communies to cra a vision and set standards for development and construcon that respond to community values of architectural beauty and disncveness, as well as expanded choices in housing and transportaon. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effecve. For a community to be successful in implemenng smart growth, it must be embraced by the private sector. Mix land uses. Smart growth supports the integraon of mixed land uses into communies as a crical component of achieving beer places to live. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and crical environmental areas. Open space preservaon supports smart growth goals by bolstering local economies, preserving crical environmental areas, improving communies’ quality of life, and guiding new growth into exisng communies. Provide a variety of transportaon choices. Providing people with more choices in housing, shopping, communies, and transportaon is a key aim of smart growth. Strengthen and direct development toward exisng communies. Smart growth directs development toward exisng communies already served by infrastructure in order to ulize the resources that exisng neighborhoods offer and to conserve open space and irreplaceable natural resources on the urban fringe. Take advantage of compact building design. Smart growth provides a means for communies to incorporate more compact building design as an alternave to convenonal, land consumpve development. Table 1. Principles of smart growth (from Smart Growth Network 2011).

Defining Smart Growth 5 To achieve these goals, local jurisdictions (e.g., cities and counties) are required to develop a comprehensive plan that describes how anticipated population and employment growth and associated infrastructure needs will be met. Local jurisdictions use a myriad of tools to imple- ment smart-growth goals. With regard to goods movement, the aspects of smart growth concerned with transporta- tion and transportation efficiency are most pertinent. Several smart-growth principles will have significant effects on urban goods movement, the location of trip generators, and the land use surrounding these facilities. These components affect one or more of the following: safety (including crash rates and severity), number of vehicle trips, length of vehicle trips, environmen- tal impacts, and roadway capacity. These aspects will be further addressed through modeling, which is discussed in Chapter 8. Aspects of smart growth that deal with land use and can affect changes in urban form have benefits for the transportation system, the environment, and the well-being of people (in terms of physical and mental health), but they also impact goods movement. In particular, increased densities and the mix of land uses are effective at achieving smart-growth principles, while at the same time increasing the demand for goods in certain areas and increasing the potential for conflicts between modes. In other words, while many issues that jurisdictions and regions are concerned with improve with the implementation of smart-growth principles, issues surround- ing goods movement may be exacerbated unless properly considered. A reference manual developed for the Washington State Department of Transportation cata- logued 50 different regulatory tools used by jurisdictions across the nation to implement smart- growth strategies that would result in land uses that help minimize travel time and cost while increasing travel options (Moudon et al. 2003). These tools demonstrate the breadth of potential strategies, and they are classified in six categories: compact development, mixed land uses, con- nectivity of motorized and non-motorized facilities, pedestrian environment and safety, parking, and affordable housing. Not all smart-growth developments and communities exhibit all the characteristics contained in the smart-growth principles. In other words, places that may be perceived as having smart growth may in fact only reflect some of the important qualities of smart growth necessary to achieve the various intended benefits. The trip-making behavior associated with smart-growth developments and neighborhoods is a function of many factors, including, but not limited to the following: • The actual mix of land uses in the smart-growth area • The total size of the smart-growth area • The quality and completeness of the non-motorized transportation network to, from, and within that area • The quality of the transit service to, from, and within the smart-growth community, as well as how effectively the transit service and non-motorized transportation network connect the smart-growth community to other destinations Other factors such as weather, the availability and cost of parking, and public attitudes toward walking, biking, and transit can play significant roles in the actual travel behavior of residents and employees who live and work in smart-growth communities. 2.1 Benefits of Smart Growth The concepts of smart growth and growth management are utilized throughout the United States as planners around the country attempt to combat sprawl to control its theorized effects. Many scholars argue that sprawl is a cause of obesity and that denser urban forms can reduce the

6 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement scale of this disease (Ewing et al. 2002; McLellan and Borak 2005). Those interested in congestion claim that denser designs will reduce or shorten the number of household trips (Litman 2005; Downs 2004). Along similar lines, research focusing on air quality suggests that denser designs would also reduce overall emissions (Frank 2005). These assumptions are not without their critics. In terms of air quality, some researchers are beginning to suggest that only considering the ambient environment does not suffice and that the micro-scale should also be considered (Dannenberg 2003). Others argue that the built envi- ronment’s role in people’s desire to walk or bicycle is actually much smaller than the effects that weather or terrain have on those choices (Cervero 2003). The following discussion highlights the most salient impacts of smart-growth principles. 2.1.1 Trip-Length Reduction Many studies document a reduction in commuting trip lengths in areas where the jobs- housing ratio (a planning tool in which a jurisdiction achieves a roughly equal number of jobs and housing units) is considered to be relatively balanced. The jobs-housing balance is central to smart growth in several ways. Allowing for areas that include both employment and hous- ing takes advantage of compact design, which in turn leads to more walkable communities. In addition, a mix and balance of jobs and housing provides for a mix of land uses, which makes an area more attractive for, and raises demand for, walking, and increases the overall densities that support the ability to provide transit services. Taken as a whole, communities with a jobs- housing balance attract activities to them, directing further development to existing communi- ties and away from areas targeted for open space preservation or agricultural activities. Although a balance of jobs and housing may not mean that all the people who live in a community also work there, it (1) creates the opportunity for them to do so and (2) helps achieve multiple smart- growth objectives. Cervero (1989, 1996) suggests that having people live closer to where they work will cause a noticeable decrease in VMT, which implies a reduction in air pollution as a result of reduced tailpipe emissions and also a reduction in traffic congestion. A study of the 23 largest cities in the San Francisco Bay area found that residents in balanced communities had shorter commutes and were more likely to use modes other than the automobile for commute trip purposes (Cervero and Landis 1997). Cao et al. (2007) demonstrate that travel behavior is influenced by neighborhood charac- teristics, even when controlling for self-selection, that is, while some people choose to live in dense neighborhoods with ample transit service because of those traits, others still use transit more if it is available to them even if they have not explicitly chosen to locate near those transit facilities. Levine et al. (2005) found that Boston commute times were shorter than those in Atlanta because of the amenities provided and the types of pedestrian-oriented development that exist within the city. This study goes on to suggest that Atlanta residents might choose higher-density dwelling areas that required less reliance on the automobile. Boarnet and Crane (2001) found that in Los Angeles and San Diego people residing in compact, access-friendly neighborhoods drove less, and they suggested that this difference may be attributed to the relatively higher cost of owning a car in more densely populated areas due to parking problems and traffic congestion. In a study using census tracts in the greater Seattle area, Frank and Pivo (1994) found that the choice of whether to drive is dependent on the mix of land uses and, further, that work-related trips were 30% shorter in census tracts shown to be more balanced in terms of jobs and housing. In a later study of the same region, Frank (2000) found that travel times were 24% longer for unbalanced census tracts. While the latter result is somewhat smaller than that of the previous

Defining Smart Growth 7 study, it still suggests that people living in areas with a better jobs-housing balance have shorter commute trips—a consequence of incorporating many of the smart-growth principles. 2.1.2 Consequences of Reduced Trip Length The most marked positive consequence of a reduction in trip length relates to the improve- ment in air quality. In an attempt to model the effects of various land decisions on air quality, 1,000 Friends of Oregon (1996) analyzed the impact of three different land-use alternatives on VMT: (1) a “no-build” alternative in which there would be no changes to Portland’s land-use patterns, (2) a “highway-only” option—including the proposed Western Bypass that would have circumvented the city, and (3) the “Land Use Transportation Air Quality Connection” (LUTRAQ) option. LUTRAQ involved adding higher densities, various transit-oriented devel- opment (TOD) features, rail lines, higher parking costs, and subsidized transit passes, that is, a smart-growth option. The results showed that LUTRAQ greatly reduced the number of trips and VMT, doubled the number of commuting trips using transit, and therefore reduced overall emissions and air pollution. The success of LUTRAQ is partly due to land-use policies and partly to transportation- demand-management (TDM) strategies (e.g., transit, rideshare) aimed at trip reduction that have been shown to be among the most cost-effective tools for improving air quality (Special Report 264 2002). Zavattero et al. (1998) found that TDM measures in the Chicago area increased trans- portation facility efficiency and reduced air pollution, thus combating a rise in suburbanization- induced highway congestion. Seika et al. (1998) modeled the air-quality emissions in London based on engine improvements for the vehicle fleet and several trip-reduction scenarios. While improved engine performance had a much greater effect in lowering pollution, modeled trip reduction that cut movements into the city core by 10% still showed a significant reduction of overall particulate matter (2%), carbon monoxide (2.5%), and nitrogen oxide (2%) in background urban concentrations. In addition to improved air quality, trip reduction has several other benefits. An overall reduc- tion in trips from the highway network would relieve congestion, which would increase produc- tivity and reduce costs to travelers and firms. The 2011 annual urban mobility report conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute (2012) states that the costs of traffic congestion in terms of wasted time and fuel were $100 billion in 2011, which included 1.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel and an annual average cost of $750 per traveler (Schrank, Lomax, and Eisele 2011). Of course, trip reduction may not be able to completely solve this problem. Downs (2004) suggested that as some drivers leave the roadway through TDM, telecommuting, or for other reasons, induced demand for the roadway would return conditions to what they were previously. Research on telecommuting and teleworking suggests that the reduction in trips creates the ability of workers to spend more time on leisure activities (Golob and Regan 2001). However, similar to the idea of induced demand, people with more free time would then be able to make trips elsewhere, though this might happen at different times of day and thus reduce congestion during the peak periods. Regardless, the smart-growth environment fosters situations in which reductions in trips are feasible, and the trips that are made may be shorter and more localized. 2.1.3 Trip-Frequency Reduction Similar to studies of trip-length reduction, Nowlan and Stewart (1991), examining the jobs- housing balance in Toronto, showed that for each additional 100 dwelling units added near the commercial core there were 120 fewer trips during the morning commute, and that for every 100 people who moved into the area there were 70 fewer commute trips. Buliung and Kanaroglou (2006) found that residents of Portland’s central business district (CBD) had far

8 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement fewer vehicle trips than their suburban counterparts. Further, residing within the CBD lowered the likelihood of auto ownership, with non-auto owners residing in the CBD traveling within a 7-square-kilometer radius, compared with a 25-kilometer radius for one-car households and a 100-kilometer radius for suburban households owning four vehicles. However, after a com- prehensive review of the literature on this topic, Badoe and Miller (2000) concluded that a jobs-housing balance will reduce regional driving trips in aggregate terms but that individuals make as many trips as they would have otherwise, albeit with those trips being shorter than they would have been and using more non-driving options. As such, with a mixing of land uses and consideration of affordable housing, thorough implementation of smart-growth principles can reduce regional trip making, improve air quality, reduce overall trip lengths, and promote mode shifts away from single-occupancy vehicles to transit and non-motorized modes of travel. 2.1.4 Residence and Firm Location-Decision Factors Certainly, not all roadway transportation congestion problems are due to a lack of jobs- housing balance, and transportation congestion would continue even if the imbalance did not exist. In other words, even if all communities in a region adopted smart-growth principles, some level of roadway congestion would continue. At present, when average job tenure is rela- tively short, residential choices are increasingly being made based on criteria unassociated with employment location—for example, housing affordability and school quality—and therefore lengthy commutes can be created even when no jobs-housing imbalance exists. Cervero (1989) found that executives switched employers, on average, every 3 years, and more recent national studies by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2006) have found overall job tenure to be 4 years. At the same time, Americans move roughly every 8 years—12.5% of the population moved between 2009 and 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). These frequencies suggest that factors other than the home-to-work commute length are more important for household and firm location decisions. Furthermore, in 1995 only 17% of all trips made were for work purposes, a fact which signifies that achieving a jobs-housing balance would only marginally alleviate roadway congestion (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 1997). More recent trip-purpose data show that this number has not changed much and that, in 2001, it even fell slightly to 16% (National Household Transportation Survey [NHTS] 2007). Nonetheless, fostering smart-growth communities may have enormous benefits, especially when considering the large percentage of non-work trips. 2.1.4.1 Residential Location Choice If work trips and housing costs are not the only considerations in location decision making, what are the factors related to housing choice? And can smart-growth communities address those considerations? Traditional models for residential choices only considered three factors: the length of the work trip, housing costs, and a final component that included everything else. Giuliano (1989) describes the three main critiques of these models: (1) they are too simple, relying principally on monocentric assumptions; (2) they are not able to deal with two-worker households in which separate commute trip lengths need to be minimized; and (3) they rely on assumptions that conditions are static, that is, they cannot deal with dynamic changes. Giuliano (1989) further suggests that to fully understand the location considerations for hous- ing, a temporal element must be added because workers will tend to minimize the travel cost to all potential jobs from their housing choice over the time they live in that location. In addition, a financial sensitivity element should be added to the transportation cost because at low perceived out-of-pocket costs people will drive more, and vice versa. Finally, proximity to activities (e.g., access to good schools) and neighborhood characteristics now play a much larger role in the

Defining Smart Growth 9 decision-making process. In other words, all else being equal, a smart-growth environment with many activities within walking distance of a residence would be preferable to a residence that offers poorer access and walkability. For more recent reviews of the residential-location-choice literature, see Bhat and Guo (2004) and Prashker et al. (2008). Handy et al. (2005) analyzed travel behavior in Northern California using myriad neighbor- hood characteristics such as accessibility, physical activity options, safety, socializing opportu- nities, outdoor spaciousness, and attractiveness, as shown in Table 2. These characteristics are notably similar to the smart-growth principles previously discussed, in that access, provision of non-motorized facilities, and safety all affect travel behavior in the same manner in which they affect smart growth. Their study concludes that proximity to, and an appropriate mix of, amenities reduces overall driving. 2.1.4.2 Firm Location Choice All else being equal, firms would want to minimize their total costs in choosing an operating location, which implies that in their location decision they should consider shorter commute times for employees along with site availability, access for customers, and cost. Further, because employers have to consider access to the labor force, and given that workers, especially those in high-technology industries, are geographically mobile (Herzog et al. 1986; Bagchi-Sen 2003), employers must also consider the amenities available to workers and local conditions, including taxes, school quality, and proximity to recreational activities. Access to amenities and proxim- ity to those amenities, through a diverse mix of land uses, are more prevalent in smart-growth communities. Table 2. Neighborhood characteristics (from Handy et al. 2005). Factor Statement Accessibility Easy access to regional shopping mall Easy access to downtown Other amenies such as a community center nearby Shopping areas within walking distance Easy access to freeway Good public transit service Physical acvity opons Bicycle routes beyond the neighborhood Sidewalks throughout the neighborhood Parks and open space nearby Good public transit service Safety Quiet neighborhood Low crime rates within neighborhood Low level of car traffic on neighborhood streets Safe neighborhood for walking Safe neighborhood for kids to play outdoors Good street lighng Socializing Diverse neighbors in terms of ethnicity, race, and age Quite a few people out and about within the neighborhood Considerable interacon among neighbors Economic level of neighbors similar to one’s own level Outdoor spaciousness Large back yards Large front yards Availability of off street parking Aracveness Aracve appearance of the neighborhood High level of upkeep in the neighborhood Variety of housing styles Big street trees

10 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement Gottlieb (1995) conducted a study of firm location choices in New Jersey and found that firms consider the availability of amenities in categories such as business, traffic, crime, pollu- tion, recreation, and public education and services in likely areas where their employees would locate. Segedy (1997) expanded on this concept, suggesting that firms consider “quality of life,” including such elements as clean air, vicinity to ski resorts, proximity to museums, and access to medical care. Finally, Mathur and Stein (2005) found that firms that locate within close proxim- ity to amenities will attract highly skilled employees and raise production, and they further noted that the effectiveness of the amenity in attracting people is greatest when the amenity is desired by both high- and low-skilled workers. These findings suggest that smart-growth environments should be more attractive for firms as they consider where to locate their business. 2.2 Other Components of Smart Growth To achieve the multiple benefits of smart growth, various other factors beyond land-use and transportation interventions are necessary to make areas attractive for people and firms to choose as places to locate. Five particular issues that do not directly affect goods movement are worthy of brief discussion: community collaboration, design elements, housing affordability and choices, preservation of green spaces, and streamlined permitting. Community collaboration in any planning process is necessary to ensure that citizens are able to achieve their personal vision. Without a meaningful participation process, people may not be invested in a planned future, which can undermine the success of whatever initiative is put forward. Stated simply, people have to like the changes that will be implemented. Nonetheless, whether or not citizens are engaged with planning activities, they still require all of the goods that are delivered to them or to nearby stores. Design elements, which may give a community a sense of place or make it attractive, similarly do not affect goods movement. Whether a house is a certain color, is oriented a particular way to the street, or has a unique architectural style also does not affect the amount of goods desired and required by its residents. Housing affordability has a pronounced impact on passenger travel. In locations with high housing prices that are also centers of employment, employees who cannot afford to live in that location will have to travel long distances to get to work. However, wealthy or not, residences and commercial areas still have a demand for goods. Although affordable housing should cer- tainly be addressed as part of land-use decisions, for the most part it, too, does not affect the demand for or distribution of goods. One potential minor exception would be in the case of large condominiums and apartment buildings, where high-end residences may have a door person to help facilitate deliveries, or separate entrances and elevators for deliveries, while more affordable housing may not have invested in such amenities. Preservation of green spaces, whether on a small or large scale, works as the counterbalance to focusing growth. From a goods-movement perspective, it is only necessary to consider where the trip generators will be located and not where they will be absent. In other words, the demand for goods is quite small in environmentally sensitive, open space, or other protected lands. As such, it is sufficient to consider density and the mix of use where the activity occurs, rather than where the demand for freight is low. Finally, a streamlined permitting process incentivizes development in some locations over others. It is intended to direct growth to locations where growth is desirable and places where smart-growth principles are already being utilized. While this tool helps jurisdictions implement smart-growth principles, much as with land preservation, it is sufficient to consider where growth

Defining Smart Growth 11 and development are occurring, rather than where it would be easier for development to occur in the future. Given that some of the previous smart-growth features do not directly affect goods move- ment, separating out the components of smart growth that do, and do not, relate to goods movement is useful. Five key areas of smart growth have an obvious connection to urban goods movement: 1. Access, parking, and loading zones • Parking restrictions 2. Road channelization, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities • Accessibility by bicycling, walking, and transit 3. Land use • Density and compact design • Geography—where development will occur • Land-use mix 4. Logistics • Parking restrictions • Density and compact design • Geography—where development will occur • Street network connectivity 5. Network system management • Limited road construction • Street network connectivity These characteristics, even without other smart-growth components, can be described as com- pact development, compact urban design, neotraditional development, or transportation-efficient land uses. The following section addresses the various factors that affect goods movement and discusses the impacts that these smart-growth components have on truck deliveries.