Research a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n C e n t e r

FALL 1 9 9 4
N U M B E R 3
 C O N T E \ T S
A c c e s s N o I F ( 1 1 1 1 9 9 4

ilighway Blues: 2
Nothing a Little Accessibility Can't Cure
SUSAN HANDY

Transit Villages: 8
rom I d e a ( 0 I m p l e m e n t a t i o n
ROBERT CERVERO

I Neu, miiol for Land Use and 1 4

Transportation Pia,
JOHN D L A N D I S

It Wasn't Supposed To Torn Out Like This:

Federal Subsidies and Dechning Transit Productivity
CHARLES LAVE

The Marriage of Autos and Transit: 2 6

flow To M a k e Tr a n s i l Popular , i g a i n
MELVIN M WEBBER

Papers in Print 3 2

The ACCESS A i r i o n a c A O

THE CAFE STANDARDS WORKED

PI% h a P i l ( 1 1 0 8 4 I r

C a l v r e i t y o l C 0 1111 r n i e T r a n e p o r t o t i o n Certifier

IOS N a v a l A r c h l t e t u o r e I u I I d h I , S e r k l a y , C A . 4 7 1 0
Tell 51011.13,737 P a m $11064.115454.
e-eed: A C C I S S U C L I N C I l i t e t i t i t . 1 0 1 )

Copytght C 1994 Regeatt ai the Unieetsity at Coldornia

Aothors of posters repotting on OCTC lip:Aniseed mbearch ate wleiy frtpanlible Fer tiNer content This research was sponsored by the
US Departnsent al troneponotion OM the Carifornia Department al Transportation. neither of which it liols4e For itt content 0t VI4

In this issue of Acciiss, we examine how land use
considerations can improve transportation planning.
Transportation planners have traditionally sought to max-
imize mobility by supplying better roads and common
carriers, thus making it easier to move around. Seldom
have they sought to improve the characteristics of desti-
nations. That's been the responsibility of city planners
and land developers. But, say our authors, that separation
of land use and transportation planning is no longer good
enough.
Susan Handy opens the discussion by urging that
transportation planners promote accessibility, rather than
mobility. Having recently moved to Austin. Texas, where
streets and highways dominate the transportation system.
she bemoans having to drive everywhere, wishing she
could just walk in places having rich mixtures of shopping,
eating, and other activities. Highways promote dispersion
of destinations, she claims, forcing dependence on cars.
thus leading to further dispersion. She asks us to focus on
getting people to various places, instead of focusing on
road construction that merely facilitates movement. In
addition to encouraging alternative transport modes, plan.
tiers should explore alternative land use patterns, she says.
proposing to get people to desired destinations by bring-
ing the various destinations closer together.
Land use patterns that concentrate housing near
transit stations seem to boost accessibility. Robert
Cervero, Michael Bernick. and their students have been
studying the feasibility of transit villagessmall commu-
nities where residents can live, shop, enjoy the outdoors,
and walk to public transit. Their research into recent hous-
ing developments near California rail stations finds that
new properties were leased quickly, at above-average
prices, and to people who use the nearby transit. Their
findings, summarized here by Cervero. led them to draft
a bill for the California legislature that creates incentives
for building mixed-use developments around transit sta-
tions. The Transit Village Act (AB 3152) has now been
adopted and signed into law.
II transportation planners are actively to consider land
use patterns, even going so far as to advocate land use poli-
cies. they'll need improved analytic and planning tools.
John Landis describes his California Urban Futures Model
1
which simulates the effects of specific land use and trans-
ismation policies on urban growth patterns. The model
allows transportation planners to coordinate with city plan-
ners before new land use patterns develop, instead of
responding after the fact.
Future plans will undoubtedly include public transit.
but the current transit financing crisis and the resultant
cutbacks in many cities indicate that this will not be an
easy task. Charles Lave traces the origin of transit's
financial problems. Starting thirty years ago, a series of
federal attempts to help the transit industry actually pro-
duced a progressive decline in its basic productivity.
nearly doubling the cost of providing bus services. The
future seems likely to see continued financial crisis and
further service cutbacks.
Concerned about the decline, in some places the
demise, of public transit, Melvin Webber looks at con-
temporary land use patterns and concludes that mass
transitthat is. transit using large vehiclesis a misfit
in America's suburbs. Given the small numbers of travel-
ers having the same origins, destinations, and schedules,
Webber holds that successful suburban transit must
use automobiles and other small vehicles. He envisions
centralized and computerized transport agencies using
modern telecommunications to assure real-time door-to-
door transit service, comparable in convenience to that of
private automobiles.
Our authors are calling on transportation planners*
creativity in getting people to their destinations.whether
it's sending transit vehicles to our doors, or putting our
doors next to transit stations, or planning for more shops
and services to be clustered together. That means we
must work toward enhanced accessibility, not merely
increased mobility. For them, as for our magazine, the
key concept is access.
Lydia Chen.
Editor
H i g h w a y Blues:
Nothing a Little Accessibility Can't Cure

BY S U S A N H A N D Y

I recently moved from Berkeley to Austin, the "Berkeley of Texas."

Although there are similarities, and Austin is certainly as close to Berkeley
asTexas gets, there are plenty of things 1 miss about Berkeley. I miss the
hills and the bay. I miss good Chinese food and Thai food, Super Burritos,
and cheap, expertly made caffe lattes. Most of all, I miss having my favorite
restaurants, a copy shop, a bike shop, a pet store, a bookstore, and a super-
market, all within a short and pleasant walk from home.
But I like Austin. "It's easy," I tell my friends, "it's easy to get around.
Unlike Berkeley, Austin is built for cars. Arterials are wide with many lanes.
Major arterials are being upgraded to freeways at an impressive rate, complete
with three-lane frontage roads oneach side. Of course, little room is left for bikes,
let alone dedicated bike lanes, and little thought is given to the pedestrian in
either residential or commercialareas. But as long as Em in my car, getting
around couldn't beeasier.

Sitaan 111,in1m p a o r a t a n I r i o t e e i a t i f comm. w i l o i J i d o i o n a l p l a n n i n g air 1 . , , , o f 0 1 7 , T 0 0 ,

A t u t i r, T X Z 8 1 1 2 - I i ifkl T h i g I f t l y l e r i r o B / r o n t itdp Joetne41 i l i n t e r i a t i n i n e i l p r i g t o n a Itinototioo n t t h e
Calrforti.i.

A ( C I S S
iALL 1 9 9 4
 The difference between Berkeley and Austin. as I see it. is the difference between
accessibility and mobility. In Berkeley. getting around by car is a pain, but I can get to
the kinds of places I like. In Austin, I drive around easily, but it doesn't really do me much
good because I can't get to the kinds of places I like. Of course, to some degree I have
noone to blame but myself for Austin's lack of accessibility. After all, the fact that I don't
like barbecue as much as burritos and I prefer walking to driving is a matter of taste and
training.
But Austin's lack of accessibilitythe lack from my perspectiveis the fault of
others. too. It's the fault of land use planners, whose traditional approach to zoning seg-
regated rather than integrated land uses and whose long-range plans have failed to coor-
dinate the city's growth. It's the fault of big retailers, who prefer big sites near freeways
and expressways with parking ample enough to meet Christmas-season demand. It's the
fault of developers, who favor the fringe of the city where the land is cheap and plentiful.
It's the fault of my fellow Austinites who haven't demanded the things I miss (partly
because they don't know what they're missing) and who are perfectly happy to drive.
And it's the fault of transportation planners, who have focused their attention on
increasing road capacity to accommodate ever-increasing traffic. This approach might
increase accessibility in the short run, but new freeways and expressways have enabled
lower-density development throughout the city and have pushed the edge of the city
outward. The resulting increase in mileage between activities and the automobile-orien-
tation of the development that has occurred have killed off almost all nonautomobile
alternatives.
Not only does this mean that accessibility declines, it means that automobile use
increases, which means that congestion increases, which means that automobile travel
times increase, which means that eventually accessibility declines even further. The net
result is that despite all that road construction, it's getting harder to get places.

SIGNS OF CHANGE

The problem is that transportation plannersin Austin and just about everywhere
elsehave historically focused their efforts on enhancing mobility, particularly auto-
mobile mobility, with little understanding of or thought for the long-run impact on acces-
sibility. Fortunately, we are seeing encouraging signs of a broadening perspective, a
growing awareness of the role of the transportation system in the development process
and in the creation of livable communities.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) has helped
to propagate the concept of a single, integrated transportation system, rather than a
collection of competing modes. Although automobileor more precisely highway and
freewaymobility is still the primary focus of the federal program (as shown by the
breakdown of funding), ISTEA emphasizes transit and other nonautomobile modes as
well. Expanded alternatives to the automobile and improved coordination among modes
will create a greater range of choice, and more choices in the transportation system will
enhance accessibility.
A growing recognition of the importance of land use broadens the discussion
further. Transportation planners increasingly view transportation and land use as com-
plementary components of the larger metropolitan system. The question transportation
planners often now ask is: how can we design communities to provide better envi-
ronments for pedestrians. bicyclists, and transit riders and thus reduce automobile depen-
dence? They may also ask: how can we provide more opportunities within closer dis-
tances and thus reduce total travel? Trdnsportation planners are implicitly asking: how
can we enhance accessibility by changing land use patterns rather than only by expand-
ing the transportation system?
It's not that transportation planners haven't recognized the importance of land use
in the past, but rather that they've left it to others. Transportation planners have tradi-
tionally taken the current or projected land use pattern as a given, then analyzed the
implied generation and distribution of trips. They have focused on the performance of
the transportation system, not the overall performance of the metropolitan system. In the
emerging ISTEA way of thinking, transportation planners must consider how best To
change land use patterns, as well as how best to change the transportation system. I don't
mean to say that transportation planners shouldn't worry about movement. Rather, they
should worry about movement not for mobility's sake but for accessibility's sake.
Three lirst steps are now needed: agreement on the distinctions between accessi-
bility and mobility, consensus among transportation planners and everyone else involved
on the goal of enhanced accessibility, and development of performance measures that
will allow us to monitor our progress toward this goal.

WHAT I S ACCESSIBILITY?

Accessibility is the potential for interaction, both social and economic. It is deter-
mined by the spatial distribution of potential destinations, the ease of reaching each
destination. and the magnitude, quality, and character of the activities found there. Travel
cost is central: the less that travel costs in time and money, the more places that can

ElliE111101=
N U I I I S FA L L 1 9 9 4
 be reached within a certain budget and the greater the accessibility. Destination choice
is also crucial: the more destinations, and the more varied the destinations, the higher
the level of accessibility. Travel choice is equally important the wider the variety of
modes for getting to a particular destination, the greater the choice and the greater the
accessibility. Accessibility is thus determined by both patterns of land use and the nature
of the transportation system, although two people in the same place may evaluate their
accessibility differently, as wants and tastes vary.
In contrast, mobility is the ability to travel, the potential for movement. It reflects
the spatial structure of the transportation network and the level and quality of its service.
Mobility is determined by such characteristics as road capacity and design speed and.
in the case of automobile mobility. by how many other people are using the roads. Like
accessibility, mobility may vary by person, as different people have different physical
and monetary capacities. But mobility is a characteristic of the transportation system
alone; it is one half of the equation only.
Good mobility usually contributes to good accessibility because it means easier trav-
el between two points, but good mobility doesn't do you any good if the places you'd like
to reach don't existmy situation in Austin. And poor mobility doesn't necessarily mean
poor accessibility. if goods, services, and activities can be accessed without vehicular
travelby using telecommunications, for exampleor within very short distances, as
wasmy situation in Berkeley. Mobility is not a sufficient condition, nor is it always a nec-
essary condition for accessibility.
The concept of accessibility acknowledges that the demand for travel is derived
from the demand for activities. The concept of mobility ignores the derived nature of
travel demand, focusing instead on the the ability to travel, as though sheer movement
were an end in itself. But mobility is only the meansactivities are the end and acces-
sibility the key.

RETHINKING OUR GOALS

As a planning goal, accessibility has two critical advantages over mobility. First it
allows for trade-offs between land use and transportation policies and focuses attention
onthe levelof-service of the metropolitan system as a whole, rather than ofjust the trans-
portation system. Policies designed to increase the mixing of land uses can be compared
to policies designed to increase the capacity of an intersection, for example, by answer-
ing the question: what effect does each have on accessibility? Second, accessibility as a
planning goal provides clear direction for policy makers. While increased mobility may
be a good thing, higher levels of accessibility are inherently a good thing.
This means that transportation planners and land use planners must work together,
for a change. The best example we have of coordinated transportation and land use plan-
ning is probably Portland. Oregon. where state-level mandates have pushed coordina-
tion: an urban-growth boundary was adopted at the same time that policies shifted away
from freeway expansion. and land use plans are now being created for development of
areas around current and future light-rail stations. Austin planners look longingly to

A C C I S S

Portland and dream of the day when cooperation between land use and transportation
plannersand among the environmental community, the neighborhoods, and the
developersmight be even half as good. Getting all parties to buy into the common goal
of enhancing accessibility is a crucial step toward building livable communities.
MEASURING OUR PROGRESS
If our goal changes, then the measures by which we monitor our progress must
change as well. Because mobility has been so central to transportation planners, they
almost universally use performance measures that reflect the ease with which vehicles
can get through the transportation systemmeasures like freeway and intersection level-
of-service, or volume-to-capacity ratios, or vehicle-miles-traveled. If our goal is accessi-
bility, then we must abandon these measures and develop new measures that reflect the
spatial distribution of activities and the ease of travel between them.
While it's easy to say that planners and policy makers should develop and adopt mea-
sures of accessibility, it's more difficult to say what form these measures should take.
Accessibility has been measured in a variety of ways for a variety of purposes and it is
not at all clear what the most appropriate measure is. Most importantly. if our concern is
with accessibility and its contribution to quality of life in a metropolitan region, then our
measures of accessibility must accurately reflect residents' own evaluationsconscious
and unconsciousof their COMMUnity.
While an extensive literature on accessibility measures provides a place to start, a
great deal more work is needed before we'll understand how best to measure accessi-
bility. A number of research efforts are underway, in fact, to develop new kinds of per-
formance measures and may produce recommendations for measuring accessibility.
Communities will find it even harder. however, to set accessibility standards and imple-
ment the policies necessary for reaching their goals.
GETTING PEOPLE TO WHERE THEY WANT TO BE
If we start thinking about accessibility rather than mobility, we will begin to envi-
sion all kinds of new possibilities, new approaches, new solutions. Instead of fighting
the endless conflict between maintaining mobility and controlling the negative effects
of transportation, we can move on to constructive discussions of alternatives that
enhance accessibility while protecting the environment and improving the quality of life
in our communities.
Metropolitan life is rich because it offers a spectrum of opportunities for work, for
learning, for shopping, for play. The problem with today's metropolitan regions is not
how slowly the traffic flows on the freeway during rush hour. but rather how hard it is
to get from home to work, to the store, to a friend's houseand sometimes to a good
Chine-se restaurant.
F U R T H E R R E A D I N G
J. B l a c k a n d M . C o n r o y, "Accessibility
M e a s u r e s a n d t h e Social E v a l u a t i o n o f U r b a n
S t r u c t u r e . - E n v i r o n m e n t a n d Planning A ,
Vo4. 9. 9977. pp. 1013-1031.
M . O . Dalivi. " B e h a v i o u r a l PAocielling,
Accessibility. M o b i l i t y a n d Need: C o n c e p t s
and M e a s u i e r n e n t , " in D.A. l i e n s h e r a n d
P. R . S t o p h e r. a d s , . B e h a v i o u r a l Tr a v a l
Modelling ( L o n d o n : C r o o m H e l m . 1 9 7 9 1 .
R e i d E w i n g , ' ' l l ' a n S n O r t a t i O n SIN4ce-
S t a n d a r d s : A l 11 People M a t t e r . '
Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n R e s e a r c h R e c o r d .
Vol, 1 4 0 0 , 1 9 9 3 ,
Kevits Ly n c h . G o o d a t i r F o r m ( C a m b r Woe:
M I T Preset 1 0 8 1 ) .
J.M. M o r r i s , P. L D u a n b i g g o d M . R . W i g a n .
"Accessibility Indicators f o r Tr a n s p o r t
Planning," Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n R e s e a r c h A .
Vol, 1 3 4 . 1 9 7 9 . p p . 9 1 - 1 0 9
Wa r r e d O w e n , T h e Accessibto Ctry
( Wa s h i n g t o n , D.C. T h e B r o o k i n g s
inst)tution. 1 9 7 2 )
Pills. " T h e Possibility a n d P o t e n t i a l
of Public Policy o n Accessibility."
Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n R e s e a r c h A . Vo l , 1 5 A , N o . S .
1981. 00. 3 7 7 - 3 8 1 .
M. Wa c h s a n d I . G o r d o n K u m a g a i .
" P h y s k a l Accessibility as a Social I n d i c a t o r. "
Socio-,Econorntic M a n n i n g Science, Vo l . 7 .
1 9 7 3 . P P. 4 3 7 - 4 5 6
A ( M S
 TRANSIT One of the more disappointing transportation trends of the 1980s
was mass transit's declining market share of metropolitan trips
throughout the United States. Despite the infusion of tens of

VILLAGES: billions of dollars in public assistance for constructing new facil-

ities and supporting bus and rail operations, transit's nationwide
share of total commute trips fell from 6.4 percent in 1980 to 5.3
percent in 1990. In California, while transit journeys rose in
absolute numbers during the 1980s (one of the few states where
From Idea to this was the case), transit's share of commute trips fell in the
state's four largest metropolitan areas, despite their new rail sys-
tems: greater Los Angeles-5,4 to 4.8 percent; San Francisco Bay
Implementation Area-11.9 to 10 percent; San Diego--3.7 to 3.6 percent: and
Sacramento-3,7 to 2.5 percent. Nor do these trends appear to
be slowing. Recent studies show Southern California's drive-
alone rate increased from 77 percent in 1992 to 79 percent in
1993. Given that California has invested over $10 billion state-
BY R O B E RT C E R V E R O
wide in urban rail transit infrastructure and is poised to spend
upwards of $160 billion more over the next thirty years, these
trends are worrisome.
One of many strategies being suggested to help reverse, or
at least slave off, the trend toward growing auto-dependency and
shrinking transit market share is to promote more intensive
development around rail stations. States like California have a
tremendous sunk investment in rail systems, yet most urban
development during the 1980s turned its back on transit, focus-
ing on freeway-served suburban corridors instead. Since the 1972
opening of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BARD. connecting San
Francisco to Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, 35 million
square feet of private office space have been built in areas
unserved by BARE compared to only 9 million square feet with-
in one-half mile of Bmrr stations in the two East Bay counties.
Focusing growth around rail stops, proponents argue, will
capitali2:e on expensive public transit investments and hopefully
produce other social benefits: increased regional accessibility
and reduced traffic congestion along rail-served corridors; a more
compact, sustainable urban form that conserves energy and
reduces pollution; increases in affordable housing; more choices
on where to live and how to travel; increased mobility for trans-
portation-disadvantaged groups: and the creation of a village
environment where people from all walks of life come into daily
valaget el La mesa, across from a Son Doe9-43 'galley station contact with each other.

C r r e t e p , , , r ett edit, p a t i t a l Ftki ed 1 . 11 0 , 1 e e , l i e e e t e t o f t h e N a t i e t n e d r t a n a f t A e r i e & ettRiaot

J1 l i e 1 . v e r r i l p it/ CiatileFtitt. Bertftley .0 A 0 4 720 11450

- A C C E S S
Transit Villages
The soinewhat nostalgic-sounding name of 'transit village"
has gained currency in recent years to describe these places
moderately dense, rnixed-use communities that. by design, invite
residents, workers, and shoppers to drive their cars less and use
transit more. Transit villages are hardly new ideas. They borrow
from the visions of early city planners like Ebenezer Howard,
who in M S advanced the idea of building garden cities that
would orbit London. separated by protected greenbelts and con-
nected by inter-municipal railways. In the United States, exam-
ples of early streetcar neighborhoods include Back Bay in
Boston. Riverside near Chicago, Roland Park in Baltimore, and
central Pasadena_ These neighborhoods, designed by the likes
of Andrew Jackson Downing and Frederick Law Olmstead.
depended on pedestrian access to transit to reach downtown jobs
and neighborhood centers, since they were built prior to the
invention of the automobile. Many of America's early rail-served
neighborhoods featured small cottage houses, had distinctive
grid-iron street patterns, and focused on a prominent civic space
near the rail stop.
Few good examples of transit village development exist in
the United States today. Of course there are high-rise apartment
towers near subways in big cities like New York and some recent
mixed-use concentrations near suburban rail stations in metro-
politan Washington. D.C. and in the San Francisco East Bay; how-
ever, few such places could be characterized as "villages."
Perhaps Europe offers the best modern-day examples of transit
village development, where dozens of compact, mixed-use satel-
lite communities are interconnected by regional rail systems in
metropolises like Stockholm and Copenhagen. In 1990, 38 per-
cent of the residents and 53 percent of the workers of Stockholm's
rail-served new towns commuted by transit.
Transit-Focused D e v e l o p m e n t In California
While the transit village is merely a concept today, recent
housing developments near California rail stations could turn the
concept into a reality. Over the past decade., 28 large housing pro-
jects have been built within one-quarter mile of such stations.
Most are rental apartment complexes with densities of 20 to 60
dwelling units (du) per acre, well above the benchmark of 12 to
15 do per acre used by planners as the minimum threshold nec-
essary to support rail in the suburbs. Presently, both Santa Clara
County Light Rail and BART are converting surface parking lots
at several stations into residential/retail projects. Developers
I Sam Pismo city Custacti rattcy 600,31A August 1992, p.1.
have been attracted to these sites because, by building on exist-
ing lots, they eliminate the risks of negotiating land purchases
among multiple property owners. Bay Area planners hope that
building housing atop former park-and-ride lots will lead to mini-
communities mushrooming around dozens of rail stations, as
BARrs creators envisaged more than 40 years ago.
Local governments are doing a lot to promote transit-ori-
ented development in California. The city of El Cerrito, for
instance, formed a redevelopment district around the Del Node
BAIn. station in the early 1990s for the purpose of promoting
affordable housing development near the station. Using tax-
increment financing to help underwrite the cost of assembling
land for the project, the city worked closely with a developer to
create the Del Norte Place project, a 135-unit apartment
complex with 19,000 square feet of ground-floor retail; 27 of
the units are priced below market as set asides for low- and
moderate-income families. Del Norte Place has leased rapidly.
It opened in mid-I992 and by mid-1993. 97 percent of its apart-
ments were occupied.
In Santa Clara County, several large housing projects, called
-trandominiums" by local boosters, have recently been built that
rely on rail proximity as a marketing tool. As part of the county's
Housing Initiative Program, plans are underway to build more
than 13.700 units of moderate-density housing (at 12 to 40 du per
acre) near light-rail stations. Sacramento's updated General Plan
calls for using an array of development incentives at 13 light-rail
stations, including higher allowable densities, lower minimum
parking requirements, tax increment financing, and industrial
development bonds. The city of San Diego has perhaps done the
most in recent years to embrace transit-oriented design concepts,
adopting a formal policy "to direct growth into compact neigh-
borhood patterns of development, where living and working envi-
ronments are within walkable distances of transit sytems,"10tay
Ranch, a n taster-plan ned community under construction adjacent
to the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista, will feature five village
clusters, at blended densities of 18 du per acre, that will be served
directly by an extension of the trolley line. A.-
A C C E S S
EAU 1994
 M a r k e t f o r Tr a n s i t Villages
Relatively little is known about the
market potential of transit village devel-
opment, in large part because little has
been built to date. Transit-oriented pro-
jects such as the celebrated Laguna West
development south o f Sacramento.
designed by architect Peter Calthorpe.
have struggled financially and for the
most part incorporate modest transit pro-
visions. Significant obstacles to building
transit villages include questionable mar-
ket viability, a shortage of conventional
financing, not-in-my-backyard opposition
to multi-unit housing development (espe-
cially in the suburbs), and the existence
of multiple landholders near many rail
systems (thus impeding land assem-
blage). Presently, the entire transit village
movement seems caught in a catch-22:
there are few examples, in part, because
of questionable market feasibility, arid the
market potential of transit villages is ques-
tionable because there are few examples.
In the absence of good U.S. examples
of transit villages, researchers with the
National Transit Access Center at UC
Berkeley recently attempted to dynami-
cally simulate them using computer-gen-
erated images. We presented slides of the
computer images, showing a -walk
through- four neighborhoods with differ-
ent density/amenity mixes, to more than
170 residents throughout the San
Francisco Bay Area and more than 20 of
the region's largest housing developers.
We controlled factors such as building
style and newness so that only densities
and amenities varied across the neigh-
borhoods. We particularly wanted to learn
how willing people might be to accept
moderately high residential densities,
needed to sustain rail transit services, in
A C C S S
return for more amenities like neighbor-
hood parks, retail shops, and eateries.
Far more respondents were willing
to reside in a transit village setting with
densities of 36 du per acre and nicer
amenities than in a similar setting with 24
du per acre but fewer community services
or amenities. Notably, people preferred
tightly spaced two-and-a-half-story row
houses located near a public park and
retail shops, to one- or two-story row
houses with larger yards but no nearby
park and fewer local services.
W h o C u r r e n t l y Lives in
Rail-Based Housing?
We also recently surveyed the resi-
dents of 28 large-scale housing projects
near California rail stations. They tend to
be young professionals, singles, and
emptynesters, with typically just one car
per househokl. In twelve housing projects
near BARI', for instance, there is an aver-
age of 1,66 people and 1.26 vehicles pee
household, compared to an average of
2,40 people and 1.64 vehicles for all other
households in the same census tracts.
However, what most distinguishes resi-
dents of housing near California rail sys-
tems is their tendency to work downtown
and in other locations well served by Iran -
sit In the case of five apartment and condo
complexes near the Hayward and San
Leandro suburban BART stations, 43
percent of employed residents work in
downtown San Francisco or Oakland.
compared to just 13 percent in the sur-
rounding census tracts. And an estimated
50 percent of the residents of 1.600 apart.
merit units near the suburban Pleasant
Hill BART station work in downtown San
Francisco or Oakland, compared to a city-
wide average of just 10 percent.
Builders are starting to recognize that a
number of young downtown workers
earning professional wages are attracted
to rail-based housing. Projects with more
amenities and catering to the tastes of
young professionals will likely appeal to
potential renters and buyers. One exam-
ple is the Park Regency Apartment devel-
opment near the Pleasant Hal BART
station, an upmarket complex, complete
with a pool, spa/sauna, and recreational
building, that has a waiting list of hopeful
tenants. Three-quarters of the Park
Regency's occupants are in the 18-34 year-
old range, and more than 50 percent earn
more than $40.000 annually.
Because rail-based households own
relatively few cars, zoning standards
should be relaxed to allow just one park-
ing space per unit in complexes near rail
stations. This would help drive down con-
struction costs by an estimated $12,000
per unit and also create a more petiestri-
an-oriented environment. Tenants could
choose to pay a monthly surcharge for
leasing a second parking stall in a central
location. Another novel idea would have
banks grant those living in rail-based con-
dominiums an -efficient-location" loan. If
rail-based housing does lower transporta-
tion costs, then these savings might
be subtracted from principal, interest,
taxes, and insurance when calculating
mortgage qualifications.
Rail-Based Housing, Rents,
and Ridership
We recently compared 1990 rents
between multi-unit suburban projects
within a quarter mile of BART stations ver-
sus projects beyond walking distance of a
station in Pleasant Hill, El Cerrito, and
Fremont. Using hedonic price models, we
(continued on pg. 12)
 A

A A
These four computer-generoted images simulate a 'walk though'
a transit village designed at 36 dwelling units per acre, First, a view
out of a second-story rear window into the rear yard al a house in the

village Second, a view outside the front door looking down the street
Third, o public pork at the end of the street (Mat did not exist in simu-

lations of lower density neighborhoods) Fourth, a retail plaza area

that leads to the nearby roil station Nine images were shown lot each
simu lated neighborhood

A ( ( I S S
111.1111t11 5 [ O a t 1 9 9 4
 found residences near BART leasing for around 835 more per month, controlling for the
influence of unit size. amenities. and other factors. Monthly rents per square foot for one-
and two-bedroom apartments near Pleasant Hill were $1.20. compared to an average of
$1.07 for comparable projects in the same geographic submarket but away from BAWLI
A healthy market demand plus the potential for developers to command higher rents
bodes well for the future of rail-based housing in the Bay Area
From the transit agency's standpoint, the primary benefit of clustering housing
around rail stations is that transit usage is likely to increase. Our surveys find that resi-
dents living within a quarter mile of a California rail station are three times as likely to
commute by rail as is the average worker living in the same city. The two most impor-
tant determinants of rail usage is whether trip destination is within walking distance of
a rail stop and whether parking is free. Among those living near HART stations and head-
ing to San Francisco job sites with no free parking, nearly nine out of ten work trips art-
by HART. For trips to secondary urban centers like Oakland and Berkeley. half of com-
mutes are by BART. For all other destinations (where often workers park free), only 6
percent of commute trips by station-area residents are by rail.
Merely clustering housing around rail stops will do little good if. as during much of
the 1980s. job growth occurs mainly along suburban freeway corridors. Both ends of
work tripshousing and job sitesmust be within reasonable proximity of stations if
clustered growth is to pay any accessibility and environmental dividendsin short,
more mixed-use transit village development will be necessary.

Housing developmeni ond Rice buildings around the Plooseat Hon BART siotion,

A C C E S S

Creating Transit Villages
Perhaps the most promising recent development in the transit village movement is
the signing of California's Transit Village Act. AB 3152, b y Governor Pete Wilson in
September 1904. This was a small but important step toward bringing the transit village
idea to fruition. Sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Bates of Oakland. the bill as original-
ly drafted would have allowed municipalities to designate a -transit village district- sim-
ilar to a redevelopment district. with special land assemblage and tax increment financ-
ing privilegees. The original bill also stipulated that developers building within the district
be granted a density bonus of at least 50 percent. Because of stiff opposition from fiscal
conservatives, most of these provisions were later removed from the bill
As passed. AB 3152 is a voluntary statute encouraging cities and counties to plan
more intensive development around rail stations, but it provides few fiscal powers or spe-
cial authority to do so. Sponsors hope the bill will eventually be expanded to provide more
financial incentives, perhaps granting transit village districts priority access to discre-
tionary state funds, such as from the Interrnodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
and fuel-price rebate programs.
Transit villages have a long way to go until implemented in states like California.
However, it's encouraging that many housing projects near rail stations are leasing
quickly, making profits, and attracting residents who patronize transit. Having a recep-
tive legislative environment, such as AR 3152. should also help pave the way for more
pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use communities around transit systems. Together, strong
market interest and a conducive policy environment should prove a powerful combina-
tion in taking transit villages from idea to implementation.
F U R T H E R R E A D I N G
M k h a e l B e r n i c k . " T h e May A r e a ' s E m e r g i n g
TransitElased Hiousing," U r b a n L e n d Vo l . 5 2 .
No. 7 . pp. 3 6 - 4 1 .
Peter Cattborne. T h e Next American
M e t r o p o l i s : Ecology. C o m m u n i t y. a n d t h e
A m e r i c a n D r e a m M e w Yo r k : P r i n c e t o n
A r c h i t e c i v r a i Press, 1 9 9 3 )
R o b e r t C e r v e r p . "Trairtait.iSissed H o u s i n g in
California: E v i d e n c e o n Ridership I m p a C t s . "
Tr a n s p o r t Policy Vo l . 1 , N o 3 . 1 9 9 4 .
PP- 1 7 4 1 9 3 .
R o b e r t C a r v e r . Tr a n s i t S u p p o r t i v e
Devetoprnerrt: E x p e r i e n c e s a n d P r o s p e c t s
( Wa s h i n g t o n , D . C . : F e d e r a l Tr a n s i t
Administration, 1 9 9 3 )
R o b e r t C a r v e r . M i c h a e l B e r n i c k . a n d Jill
Gilbert, M a r k e t O p p o r t u n i t i e s a n d B a r r i e r s
to Tr a n s i t , B a s e d D e v e l o p m e n t in California
(Berkeley: I n s t i t u t e o f U r b a n a n d R e g i o n a l
Development, Working Paper No. 6 2 1 ,
1994). UCTC No. 2 2 3 .
Robert C e r v e r o a n d Peter B o s s e l m a n n
Evaluation of the M a r k e t P o t e n t i a l for
Tr a n s i t - O r i e n t e d D e v e l o p m e n t Using Visual
Simulation Te c h n i q u e s ( B e r k e l e y : I n s t i t u t e o f
Urban a n d R e g i o n a l D e v e l O P m e r n .
Monograph 47, 1 9 9 4 ) . UCTC N o 2 4 7 .
Robert C e r v o r o a n d John D. L a n d i s .
" D e v e l o p m e n t I m p a c t s o f U r b a n Tr a n s p o r t :
A LLS. P e r s p e c t i v e . " lin Tr a n s p o r t a n d U r b a n
D e v e l o p m e n t , D . B a n i s t e r. a d ( L o n d o n ,
C h a p m a n a n d Hall, 1 9 9 5 , f o r t h c o m i n g )
J. H o l t i c t e w , R e s i d e n t i a l P a t t e r n s a n d
Transit. A u t o D e p e n d e n c e , a n d C o s t s
(San Francisco: R e s o u r c e s D e f e n s e
Council, 1 9 9 4 ) .
Peter K e i l , T h e N e w U r b a n i s m : To w a r d an
A r c h i t e c t u r e o r C o m m u n i t y ( N e w Yo r k !
M c G r a w - H i l l , Inc., 1 9 9 3 ) .
Allan Pisarski. N e w P e r s p e c t i v e s in
C o m m u t i n g ( Wa s h i n g t o n . D.C. F e d e r a l
Highway Administration. U.S titioartmerrt
at Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n . 1 9 9 2 )
R. PUIIIIIMAIrEV a n d J. Z u p a n , Public
Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d L a n d U s e tilicsornington:
Indiana U n i v e r s i t y Press. 1 9 7 7 ) .
i k C C I S S
HuM1111 5 F a l l i t
 Aerial photos such as
theseoftenmakethe
process of urbanization
seem inevitable. In fact,

urban developmentCLIPI
takemanydifferentforms
and occur at many differ-
entdensities,depending
onwhatpublicpoliciesare
adopted. The California
Urban Futures Model

allows decision makers to

Santa Clara County (detail). 1950

visualizethe landuseand
transportationresults
ofdifferentpublicpolicies
beforethosepolicies
areadopted.

Santa Clara County Watch 1980

 ANew Tool for Land Use
andTransportation Planning
BY J O H N D . L A N D I S

Transportation planners have traditionally considered land use policy to be

outside their purview and have generally accepted existing (or proposed)

land use policies and patterns as a given. That attitude changed. however,

with the passage of the Intennodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

of 1991 and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. For the first time, the

law required planners to explicitly consider the effects of alternative land

use policies on local land use patterns and thus on transportation system

performance.

In responding to these new requirements, transportation planners

quickly discovered their existing forecasting models deficient in two

respects. First, the existing models could not be reliably used to test the
land use and transportation implications of alternative regional and local

land use or development policies. Nor could the models be used to analyze

how major transportation investments such as freeways or mass transit sys-

tems might shape future land use patterns. What was neededand is still
neededwas a new conceptual approach for connecting local land use poli-

cies and patterns with transportation system performance.

104. n, Leadia de aus,ortate volette r i t p .and awttian41 plamoini at tit, fmiversAly ol Catilorsid. RfPiteleit, CA 01720)851,'

A C C E S S
NUIASEi 1 1 1 .
 FIGURE I
-
Conventional transportotioa planning
louses on the second hell
of this diagram (hive arrows),
hut CUFM focuses on the lint holt
(brown arrows).
The California Urban Futures Model
(cunt) offers one such approach. It is an
urban growth simulator that "grows'
counties and their constituent cities by
determining how much new residential
development is likely to occur at specific
locations. It mimics the economics of real
estate markets, with outcomes deter-
mined by profitability, site characteris-
tics. population growth trends, and a
series of scenarios consisting of alterna-
tive development restrictions and/or
incentives. CUFM is distinguished by its
explicit focus on the effects of alternative
land use policies.
USING THE MODEL FOR
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Local, county, and regional trans-
portation planners can use CUFM in two
ways.
1. They can use the model to check
effects of land use on travel by aggregat-
ing the model's outputsthe locations
and densities of new developmentinto
traffic analysis zones for conventional
A C C E S S
ALAND USETRANSPORTATION POLICY PLANNING FRAMEWORK
LOCAL,COUNTY, I REGIONAL
LANDUSEPOLICIES
0 1111 0
zanies
imfrastroctere
plans
financing
1
TRAVELDEMANDANALYSIS
trip goatrution
trip distriltution
modalchoke
roils ossignostat
transportation planning. Thus, they can
examine how different land use policies
might affect transportation-system out-
comes (traffic volumes, congestion levels.
pollutant emissions, transit ridership). It
may be, for example, that policies pro-
mating more compact urban development
lead to greater transit ridership in some
corridors and to greater highway conges-
tion in others. Alternately, to the extent
that certain environmental protection
policies might work against higher densi-
ty development, they might ultimately
lead to greater auto usage.
2. Transportation planners can use
the model to test the effects of specific
transit investments on development pat-
terns and densities. To the extent that
transportation investments are worth-
whilethat is, create valueneighboring
property values should rise, leading ulti-
mately to more intense development and
higher densities. (CUFM assumes more
profitable sites develop earlier and at
higher densities than less profitable
sites.) No empirically tested model cur-
MARKETFORCES LANDUSEOUTCOMES
demand for specs mix al eses
supply of load densities
prices L casts developensni potierls
loud toinfortios
TRANSPORTATIONSYSTEM
OUTCOMES
congestion
omissions
tronsit ridorsillp
I n volumes goods
rently exists to test the relationship
between transportation investments and
land use forms. Instead, policy discus-
sions are often dominated by unsupport-
ed claims regarding the ability of specific
transit or highway investments to radical-
ly reshape urban development patterns.
etrs'm provides an empirically founded
framework for testing such hypotheses.
Recent studies of rail mass transit
systems in California, for example, have
produced differing estimates of this capi-
talization effect. Home sales prices in
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in
1993 increased between $1.96 and S2.30
per meter of travel to a BART station.
Homes near San Diego trolley stations
also sold at a premium. Researchers found
nosuch premiums for proximity to free-
way interchanges or to other mass transit
systems. These types of transportation
premiumswhen and where they
occurcan easily be included in the
model's calculations.
THE LOGIC OF !UEFA FIGURE 7

CUFM consists of four linked submodels. run recursively (Figure 2):

L The Bottom-up Population Growth Submodel is the demand side of the model.
CITY OF LAMORINDA
It consists of two regression equations, one for cities, one for counties. This submodel
generates five-year population growth forecasts for every city and county in the model
study area. Unlike most urban forecasting models, which project local population growth
solely by distributing regional or county growth totals, this model projects each city's
population growth as a function of its current size, its growth history, its outward expan- 1910 1990 2 0 1 0
sion potential, and adoption of specific policies intended to promote or retard growth.
I. gollam-vp Population Growth Softwood
2. The Spatial Database is the supply side of the model. It consists of a series of prolects city residential growth as a function
map layers that describe the environmental, land use, zoning, current density, and acces- of past trends, state growth, and local
g r owth p o I i d e
sibility characteristics of all sites in the region or county. These various layers can be
analyzed individually or merged into a single layer describing development or redevel-
opment. An example of a developable land unit MRS) would be an undeveloped site with
steep slopes, served by sewers, zoned for light industrial uses, located less than 500
meters from a major freeway. DIAN are not legal parcels; however, they may approximate
collections of parcels in urbanized areas. The spatial database is also the primary tool for
displaying the model's outcomes in map form.

3. The Spatial Allocation Submodel is a series of procedures for allocating pro-

2. Spatial Database
jected population growth to appropriate sites or DIAIs. The primary function of this sub- goomotrAcolly combines information from
model is to "clear the market": to match demand (as manifest through city and county different layers to (recta a map and
population growth) to the supply of developable sites (as described by the attributes, clatobose of developable land units IDIUst

size, and location of Dills). The submodel evaluates, eliminates, and sorts the sites accord-
ing to profitability and suitability and then assigns projected population growth accord-
ingly. The allocation process is complete either when all forecast population growth is
allocated, or when all available [Airs are filled. Depending on the land use policy scenario
chosen, the model can collect any unallocated population growth as potential "spillover."
These procedures assume land developers seek to maximize profit, while adhering
to governmental land use and environmental regulation and conforming to prevailing or
permitted development densities.
3. * H s i Allocation Soboodol
4. The Annexation-Incorporation Submodel is a series of division rules for annex.
allocates praiected residentiol growth to the
ing newly developed DUN to existing cities. or for incorporating clusters of rit.lis into most profitable M s consisteni witts policies
new cities. being simulated

Once the data and parameters required for the Spatial Database and Spatial Allocation
Submodel have been assembled, any number of policy scenarios can be easily tested.
'Running' a scenario consists of filling out a computerized Scenario Form (Figure 3) indi-
cating which specific development prohibitions, regulations, or incentives are to be
applied in which areas.
cifFsi differs from other operational urban forecasting/simulation models. It details
the supply side of urban land and housing markets, and it uses a geographic information
system (GIS) to assemble and manage the supply side, GIS makes it possible to
incorporate a wide variety of available map-based data directly into the model. 4 A t h o u letetpetailee Sehmeidel
Furthermore, the model allocates growth to individual sites, not to aggregate areas such annexts or incorporates OtUt as apprapriose

as traffic analysis zones or census tracts.

A C C E S S
NUM OEN 5 FA L L 1 9 9 4
FIGURE 3
Semple Growth Anatolie' Scowls Form (Shaded rectangles indicate clsaices.1
ENTERTHENAMEOFTHISSCENARIO:
A. Soka popolonon protection; E ABAG r - - LOCAL
. Choose s Armin stomas:
F WITHTRANSIT
WITHOUT MUNE
C.Allow development iv wetlands? NO 1 YES
D. Reside:lid o p t i o n : HISTORIC
MARKET
USERDEFINED
CLIFMassumes residential land devel-
opers serve as intermediaries between
households (the ultimate consumers of
land), and the various suppliers of inputs
into the development process. Thus, the
J CUM model incorporates localized differences in
the cost and revenue structure of residen-
tial land development and then mimics the
decision-making processes of private land
developers. Work-trip travel times (or dis-
tances)the key determinant of growth
patterns in the majority of urban growth
modelsenter the model only indirectly, as
determinants of intercity housing price dif-

E. Nap restriction on
hillsidedevotopment?
1 ION
P. illeskkittial de vaopittont
mil hi assigned toHee
fallowingformland types:
G.Residentialdevelopment on be
essigatd fa riP following
GeneralMoecotegories:
H. Mere dopopulotion ;fellow, go?
I.Choose 0 residential deosity tot
devtlopmen r in /Wei:
J. Cheat/ residential density
fordevelopment
unincorporatedareas:
Doyorewont to have a weft el the retritz?
Doywo wen te view the tot-tilting woe
111.1 sumo.'" pfesents weonds tnLo,Ors, ar-o rnost typo di iderskond InJi allows ressdantini rkrmIopmeoton veal
curnwohrzoned for 4orenrarcidium%
ferentials. The critical variables are devel-
opment policies, not travel impedances.
The model also has a number of defi-
GRAZING ciencies. In its current form, it allocates res-
LOCALLYIMPORTANT idential growth but not commercial or indus-
PRIME trial growth. Employment growth, specified
STATEIMPORTANT at the county level, is treated as outside the
UNIQUE
model, and thus the model cannot be used to
OTHER
address issues of "jobs-housing balance."
AGRICULTURE OPENSPACE And, because it does not deal explicitly with
LANDEXTENSIVEAGITOATURI INDUSTRIAL O f Ha travel times or costs. Cl.411 is not a spatial-
LANDINTENSIVEAGRICULTURE NI-DENSITYRESIDENTIAL interaction model.
DIVERSIFIEDAGRICULTURE 11101-DENSITY RISIDOMAI
RURAL m a m a to-onerrir 11911111MAL AN EXAMPLE:
PUBLIC URBANRESIDENTIAL COUNTY GROWTH PLANNING
CO
COMMERCI
AL
CUFMcan be used at regional, county,
UNINCORPORATEDAREAS or local levels. In a pilot study undertaken
ALLAREAS with t h e Association o f Ray Area
Governments (ABAG). we examined the
1 MARKET development impacts of Measure A. a farm-
HISTORIC
land-preservation ordinance adopted in
COMPACTCITY
Solano County, California.
GENERALPLAN
Situated midway between San
MAURT Francisco and Sacramento, Solari County
HISTORK is currently one of the Bay Area's growth
COMPACTCITY hotspots. According to ABAG, the popula-
GENERALPLAN tion of Solano County is projected to grow
by 201.000 persons by the year 2010. The
YEA NO majority of the county's growth would be
YES NO focused in three cities. Fairfield (+48.100).
Vacaville (444.600), and Vallejo (+29.800),
 lano residents and officials want
job growth and economic development,
but they are concerned about effects on
the natural and historic environment.
Measure A enacted in 1984. prohibits the
intense urbanization of unincorporated
county lands outside existing city
spheres-of-influence. More significantly.
it limits the density of new development
on lands designated in the county gener-
al plan as reserved for agriculture.
Because such lands cannot be intensively
developed, Measure A made them less
attractive to large-scale subdividers and
homebuilders.
Although recently reenacted.
Measure A was originally set to expire in
1995. How would future development pat-
terns in SoIan County have been differ-
ent if the measure had not been renewed?
We considered three scenarios:
A: Measure A remains in effect
through 2010. (this is the status quo.)
B: Measure A expires in 1995, and
current general plan land use designa-
tions remain in place. Many lands now in
agricultural use would become open to
more intense development. Development
of each particular site would depend on its
profitability in residential use.
C: Measure A expires in 1995. but
current general plan land use designa-
tions can be changed. Many agricultural
parcels would become open to more
intense development, and residential
development could occur on commercial-
ly designated and agricultural sites.
Again, profitability in residential use
would determine the rate of development.
None of these policy scenarios would turn
development away from Solano County
because more than adequate developable
land exists in all three cases. Under sce-
natios B and Ceach city would be able to
accommodate its projected level of
growth within its current sphere-of-influ-
ence. Growth would not be displaced from
one community to another.
The same cannot be said for scenario
A. With Measure A in effect, large
amounts of farmland in the spheres-of-
influence of Benicia and Suisun City
would be precluded from urban develop-
ment, and both cities would become large
growth exporters. Benicia would export
12,000 residents to other parts of the coun-
ty. while Suisun City would export 1000
residents. Most of this displaced growth
would spillover into Vallejo and Dixon.
A picture being worth a thousand
words. (me of the useful aspects of CUEN
is its ability to present results in easily
understood map form. Figures 4 and 5
graphically compare projected develop-
ment patterns under scenarios A and B.
With these maps, local transportation
planners can gain a much clearer picture
of precisely where new facilities (high-
ways or transit lines) might be needed to
serve growth. Similarly, county planners
can use these scenario results to evaluate
how different land use alternatives might
increase or decrease congestion levels on
freeways.
SUMMARY A N D CONCLUSIONS
Ininsportation planners have made
considerable progress in recent years in
refining and improving transportation-
system demand and performance models.
Very little progress has been made. by
contrast, into modeling the underlying
land use patterns that determine trans.
portation.system demand. The extent to
which changes in land use policies will
ultimately reduce congestion and air poi.
lution. alter modal splits, and improve
accessibility cannot be adequately
gauged using today's planning models
and planning frameworks.
ctIFM presents onebut by no
means the only approach to filling this
critical gap. Beyond the immediately prac-
tical. the promise of models like this lies
in three areas. First, they pnwide an effec-
tive framework for collecting. organizing,
and understanding the millions of pieces
of information now available that describe
urban development and its effects.
Second, because models lack imagina-
tion, they force researchers and model
users to be explicit about their assump-
tions and about their knowledge of cause
and effect. In complicated dynamic sys-
tems such as urban areas. this -what-ir
capability is extremely useful. Finally.
efforts such as CUM teach their users
about the organization, structure, and
dynamics of complicated urban systems.
Used in this way models can be effective
in public education and teaching and pow-
erful tools for both land use and trans-
portation planning.
The constructions. testixg. and use of the
California Urban Futures Model was undertak-
en at the 10101111ft of Urban and Regional
Development with finds from The California
Policy Seminar, the Ustiomity of California
Transportation Center, and the Association of
Hay Area Governments. Key contributors to the
development of CLIFM hare included Michael
Teitz.Teti Bradshaw, Peter Hall, Edward Egan,
Aysr PaMJIA, RolfPendall, David Simpson. Qing
Shen, Ming Zhao, axd Ming Zkong,
A C C I S S
111111E11 L I 1994
 FIGURE 4 F U R T H E R R E A D I N G

Residentlei Devoiopment In Solo.. Coolly John D, L a n d i s . " T h e California U r b a n

Protected for 2 0 1 0 under scenario A General Plan and Measure A Futures Model: A New Generation of
Metropolitan Simulation Models."
Environment e n d Pianning P l a n n i n g
a n d Design Vo l . 2 1 . 1 9 9 4 . p a . 3 9 9 . 4 2 0 .
UCTC N o 2 4 4

NEWLOWDENSITY
Et.iti per Ion/Duel
NEW HIGHER DENSITY M I
1_4 p41SCNIVIKIft)
John 0 . L a n d i s a n d M i n g Z h a o , Pitot S t u d y
o f Soiano a n d S o n o m a L a n d U s e a n d
Ovveioument Policy Alternatives etterkeley:

URBANIZEDAREAS
1 institute o f U r b a n a n d Regional D e v e t o p m o n t
Working Paper 6 1 8 . 1 9 9 4 ) . I . / C M No. 2 4 5 .

SPHERESONILUENCE John O . Landis. Subtirapt G u h a t h a k u r i a . a n d

M i n g Zriang. Capitalisation o f Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n
HIGHWAYS - - i n v e s t m e n t s i n t o Single Family H o m e Prices:
A C o m p a r a t i v e Analysis or California Tr a n s i t
S y s t e m s a n d iwitghways 111erkeley: triethtutie o f
U r b a n e n d Regional D e v e i o p m e n t , ' N a r k i n g
Paper 5 1 9 . 1 9 9 4 ) . U C T C N o 2 4 6 .

Michael W e g e n e r, - O p e r a t i o n a l u r b a n
models: State or the Art.- Journal of the
A m e r i c a n Planning A s s o c i a t i o n Vo l . 5 0 .
No.t. 1994. pp, 17.90.

FIGURE S

elide.Ile I Deirelopmeat ia Select (Andy

?toweled lot 2 0 1 0 under scenario B General Plan without M e o w s A

I-110k

HEWLOWDENSITY M I
pit tea/ Oct.)

NEWHIGHERDENSITY
psites/strel

UR1ANIZID ARIAS

SPHERES-0E-INELIJINCI

HIGHWAYS

Under scenario A (Figure A), new low-density single-family residential development would
concentrate along the northern edge of Fairfield, along the eastern and northern edges al
Vacaville, and along Dixon's northwestern edge

Except in vocaville, scenario B (Figure 5) would produce very different results.

New single-family residential development would concentrate in eastern Fairfield,
southeastern Dixon, and among the hills and volley north of Benicia, Eastern Volisle
would remain relatively undeveloped_

A C C E S S
 It W a s n ' t Consider the urban transit -problem." In the 1960s the problem
was declining transit patronage. Finances received little discus-
sion because the industry was essentially self-supporting: oper-
ating costs were so low that passenger revenues covered costs.
Supposed hi the 1990s -problem- has a whole new meaning financial
deficits. Today, most transit revenue comes from governments.
not passengers, and the result is continual fiscal crisisthe
To T u r n O u t search for money to continue the subsidies.
The new transit problem grew from our efforts to solve
the old one.

Like T h i s Starting in the mid-1960s, federal policy encouraged public

takeover of the privately owned, self-supporting transit industry.
Public ownership was able to halt the long-term decline in rid-
ership, but it also led to an increasingly severe financial deficit_
Underlying the deficit is the large decline in the industry's pro-
Federal ductivityoutput per dollar of input. Indeed, if transit produc-
tivity had merely remained constant since 1964. when federal
intervention began, total operating costs would be more than 40
Subsidies percent lowerenough cost-reduction to erase most of the cur-
rent operating deficit, without raising fares.
and Declining It's uncommon to find such a rapid productivity decline in
any industry. In general. productivity increases over time, and a
Transit given quantity of input produces more and more outputwhich
is why per capita income rises. Titus the productivity change in
the transit industry is notable for both its downward direction and
Productivity its magnitude. Nor is there anything inherent in the transit indus-
try that creates decline. Among privately owned bus companies,
productivity rose 8.3 percent over this period.
To put all this into more concrete terms. Figure I shows what
has happened to operating costs over time. The vertical axis
BY CHARLES LAVE shows what it cost the average transit agency to put a bus out
onto the street for one hour, in constant 1985 dollars. Costs were
creeping up slowly before the federal-subsidy era. When the
Urban Mass Transit Ad ministration (tIMTA) began giving capi-
tal subsidies. the creep picked up speed, and when UMTA began
giving operating subsidies, costs began to soar_

The Study
We compiled detailed records for the 61 largest transit prop-
ertiesthose with operating revenues greater than 81 million in
1964tracing their individual financial histories from 1950
through 1985. These are shown in Table 1. To avoid the distort-
ed -averages- that aggregate statistics often produce. ,----

Citadel. L i a r. to proloaaor e c o a a n o c a t a r e

reirePonty Cah,torow. :trine. CA 0 2 7 1 7

A C C 1 S
COMM 5 , FAIL 1994
 FIGURE 1 we worked with individual transit
properites. We combined data from a
40
given year. giving equal weight to all
3S properties. Thus our averages reflect t
characteristics of a typical property.
30 Consider first the financial situation
2S
of a typical transit property thirty years
ago. In 1964,82 percent of the properties
were still privately owned. The top row in
Table 2 shows one of the key financial
is
1950 1955 1940 1965 1970 1975 1930 1935 indicators, revenue divided by operating
costs. Revenue was greater than operat-
ing costs during the period 1950-1964. In
Coil in constant 1 985 di:ilk:11i
1964 the revenue/cost ratio was 1.05 at a
typical property. The only really low ratio
IAILE 1
was 0.70 for San Francisco Muni-which,
significantly, has been publicly owned
TRANSIT PROPERTIES I N THE SAMPLE, 1 Y SIZE and operated since 1912.
1964REVENUE 1964REVENUE Since the transit industry was cov-
ISOM (S0001 ering its operating costs, why did the goy-
IL 81403 NY
ernnient deem it necessary to get into the
*Chicago Albany 3,213
NewYorkCity (TA) NY 74,726 Philadelphia(Subur) PA 3,163 transit subsidy business? One reason
Newark NI 54,510 Jacksonville Ft 3,017 had to do with projections of long-run via-
Philadelphia Pe 33,478 Nashville IN 2,993
Detioa MI 26,992 OrnohaCouncil NE 2,964
bility. Although the transit properties
Cleveland OH 23,155 Chicago(Subutbonl IL 2123 were taking in more money then they
Baltimore MD 21,662 Toledo OH 2,473 were paying out (row t h a t did not
MinneapolisSt Paul MN 13,420 WOrtgildr IAA 2,444
'Oakland 12,169 MA 2,241
assure long-run viability because these
Springfield
Iluilala NY 12,419 Allan OH 1,995 figures donot include depreciation costs.
Pittsburgh PA 11,611 FoilWorth TX 1,990 In row 2 we add depreciation to operat-
Menlo GA 10,132 Celt,Newpoil Coy KY 1.926
Cincinnati OH 1,189 Reading PA I 922 ing cost. This statistic answers the ques-
'SonFrancisco(MUNI) (A 8,613 Charlotte NC 1830 tion: can the property cover its immedi-
lEansosCity MO 1,105 Evanston It 1792 ate cash flow andhave enough money left
Mankirritom1 peens NY 6,640 Gory IN 1.719
loston MA 1,441 Wilmington Of 1,636 1 over to replace equipment when it wears
Dallas IX 6,378 DesPlaines It 1501 out? The answer for a typical property in
NeeMeans LA 6,105 Chattanooga TN 1.401 1964 was, no. The typical property was
'Memphis TN 5,691 'Sacramento 1.239
Portland OR 5,014 Knoxville TN 1,347 gradually running down its capital stock.
'SonDiego 5,053 'Immo 1,334 This was the background for one inter-
Soninterim rx 4,732 Harrisburg PA 1,321
vention theory: passengers were fleeing
Louisville KY 4,781 Allentown PA 1.316
Indionapern IN 4,437 Youngstown OH 1,211 the worn out. ill-maintained, outdated
Honolulu HA 4,502 Charlestoci wv 1,204 rolling stock. If only the properties could
Columbus OH 4118 GrandRapids t
m 1,113 somehow obtain modern equipment and
Novidence RI 3,919 DuluthSuperior MN 1,135
Itridgeport cr 3,426 ROS1041,WO( 1 NY NY 1.044 restore service, passengers would return
Sytocuse NY 3,218 Roanoke VA 1.020 to public transit.
Savonnali GA 1.002
Thus UMTA's program began as a
Publicly rimmed in 1964, oil others were primate companies. kind of one-shot injection of new capital.
Tobloconixeinx dolo 4 11 i . i u t procmotel neporlimg &tuba Ike Amonom Inmost Aziotillion Ic 194411wit hod Give the transit properties new equip-
manetkan si imilikAinPoseentlertummy*that row

A C C E S S
 Indicator s f a r a Typical Trams11 Property ( 1 9 3 5 donors)
1950 9551960
Revenue/Operaling Cosis 1.09 1.08
Ravenut/Op. Casio + Dearer. 1.00 0.99
Revenuetlaseaue Passesigers S 0.56 S 0.70
Operating Casts SI 8.84 520.39
(w/o depronXiles Hours
ment and all would be well. As we know,
it didn't turn out that way.
The initial UMTA subsidy program,
in 1964. was confined to capital subsidies;
transit companies still had to earn their
own operating costs. But 1975 saw a rad-
ical change in the UMTA program: the
federal government began subsidizing
operating costsas well. The third row, rev-
enue per revenue-passenger, hints at the
consequence of this decision, Passenger
fares had been rising steadily up through
1972 as transit managers struggled to
cover their rising costs. After 1975 all
attempts at fare-discipline were put aside.
and passenger revenue fell.
The drop in revenue may be viewed
in two quite different ways. First, one may
see it as the result of removing the remain-
ing constraint on transit management: the
obligation to earn operating costs.
Second, one may see it as a major change
in the goals assignedCotransit managers.
The old goal was straightforward: provide
a self-supporting service for those who
wished to use it. The new goal, assigned
by the government. was complex and
nebulous: use transit service as a tool to
solve urban problems, save the central
city. provide cheap mobility for the poor.
transport the handicapped, and so on.
1964 1970 197$ 1980 1985
1.06 1.05 0.92 0.57 0.38 0.34
0.99 0.98 0.87 0_50 0_38 0.34
50.63
5 0.79 S 0.87 S 0.88
522.15 $22.95 $24.54 529.16 534,39 540.18
54
Implementing the new goal required
expansion of transit service into low den-
sity areas that could not generate much
patronage, and reduction of fares to make
them affordable to anyone. The fall in rev-
enue was a direct consequence.
The Productlytty P l u m m e t
But transit's financial crises is not
just a revenue problem. More is involved
than the decline in earnings. The other
half of the problem is an enormous
increase in the cost of supplying the ser-
vice (reflected in the falling productivity).
The fourth row in Table 2shows that oper-
ating cost per bus-hour rose from :522.95
in 1964 to $40.18 in 1985, (Ali costs are in
constant 1985 dollars.) That is, the real
cost of putting an hour of bus service onto
the street has nearly doubled since the
federal government became involved in
the transit industry.
A Digression o n Productlytty
Mea5urement
Productivity is output divided by
input. What is the "output" Oa transit sys-
tem? It would be unfair to use bus-miles
as the output-measure: increases in traf-
fic congestion lower a property's output
of bus-miles, hence lowering its
 apparent productivity. But congestion is
not a factor within their control, and the
greater congestion in large cities would
put their transit properties at a disadvan-
tage on this measure. Likewise passen-
ger-miles is not a fair measure of transit
output: this is an era when transit man-
agers have been told to run buses into low
density suburbs to lure people out of cars,
and to provide mobility in areas which are
inherently unsuited to achieving reason-
able bus load factors. We should not
judge the productivity of a transit system
by using measures that its managerial
decisions cannot affect. Bus-hours of ser-
vice is a fairer indicator.
To measure the input side of pro-
ductivity. we use total operating costs.
A C C E S S
This is, in effect, a weighted average of the
cost of everything that goes into produc-
ing transit service.
The P a t t e r n o f
Productivity Changes
It is not enough to know that pro-
ductivity plummeted after the govern-
ment began helping the industry. We
need to ask what would have happened to
productivity in the absence of govern-
ment help. Such contrafactual questions
are inherently difficult. We need an alter-
native baseline to compare to the actual
productivity change. So we project the
1950-1964 productivity trend into the
future and then compare this to the
observed outcome. This is shown in
Table 3. The total time period is divided
into three parts: the pre-UMTA era, the
era of capital-subsidy only, and the era of
capital-plus-operating subsidies. In the
pre-UMTA era, productivity declined at
the rate of 1.I percent per year: in the era
of capital subsidies, productivity declined
at 2.1 percent per year: and in the era of
operating cost subsidies, productivity
declined at 3.1 percent a year. That is, the
decline in productivity accelerated by 50
percent when capital subsidies began,
and accelerated by another 48 percent
when operating subsidies were added in
as well Government intervention strong-
ly altered productivity trends.
All transit properties were not equal-
ly affected. Productivity trends differed
TABLE 3 F U
Th MAN. le Truest! Prodertivity at a typical Firm
P R O D U C T
1950-1964
The Pre-LIMIA
Era
ALLTRANSITPROPERTIES - 1 . 4 % per year
DIFFERENCE IN RATE Of DECLINE - 5 0 %
BETWEENERAS
by the size of the transit property: it fell
by121 percent at the large properties, by
75 percent at the medium properties, and
by 62 percent at the small properties.
That is, size is correlated with rate of
decline, Why might this beso? The large
transit properties are mostly in older
cities, those built before the auto age.
These cities have poor street systems, lit-
tle parking, and more people who depend
on transit as their primary source of
mobility. A transit strike in such cities is
genuinely paralyzing. Transit strikes
have much less effect in the smaller cities
because residents there have many alter-
native forms of mobility. Thus, it seems
likely there will be far more pressure to
settle strikes at higher wage terms in
large cities, and that transit management
in these cities will be less able to resist
productivity declines (labor is about
three-fourths of total operating costs).
It Wa s n ' t Supposed
To Turn O u t Like This
Federal policy started out with the
notion of a one-shot injection of capital to
rejuvenate the aging physical plant of our
transit systems. A cure, not perpetual
hospitalization. It didn't work out that
R T H E
I V I T
1964-1972 1915-1985
TheEra of M I A The Ele of (ALTA (*pilaf
Capital Sebtkliet andOperelimg Subsidies
-2.1% per year -3,1% per year
-40%
way. The subsidy money encouraged
government meddling in transit opera-
tion, asking transit systems to undertake
a variety of activities unrelated to their tra-
ditional goals.
The subsidies sent the wrong signals
to management and labor. Management
interpreted the message to mean: effi-
ciency was no longer primary: rather, it
was more important to expand passenger-
demand and to provide social services. So
routes were extended into inherently
unprofitable areas and fares were low-
ered to the point where no one would find
them burdensome. Labor interpreted the
message to mean: management now has
aSugar Daddy who can pay for improve-
ments in wages and working conditions.
Thus, over time, the federal doctor
developed new therapeutic goals, and the
transit patient developed an addiction to
the treatment_ Our attempts to solve the
original problem created a new one: a
serious decline in the basic productivity
of the industry, with an inevitable growth
in financial problems as the result.
R R E A D I N G
A. A l t s h u l e r. W o r n a c k . a n d J.R. PLICIVIT
The U r b a n Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n S y s t e m r P o i t t k S
a n d P o r k y Innovation, ( C a m b r i d g e . M A :
The M I T Press. 1 9 7 9 ) .
Wendell C o x , - A c h i e v i n g t h e Policy Goats o f
Public Tr a n s i t T h r o u g h C o m p e t i t i v e
C o n t r a c t i n g , " P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e U M TA
Tr a n s i t Policy W o r k s h o p , A n n a p o l i s . M D
September 1 9 8 8
Charles L a v e . " F e d e r a l Subsidies a n d t h e
Ruinous Decline in Tr a n s i t Productivity; i t
Wa s n ' t S u p p o s e d t o Tu r n O u t Wulf Th11.
Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n n i n g a n d Te c h n o l o g y.
Vol. 1 5 . 1 9 9 1 . p p . 1 1 5 - 1 2 4 . UCTC N o . 1 4 .
J.R- M e y e r a n d J.A. G o m e z - I b a n e z .
- M e a s u r e m e n t a n d A n a l y s i s Of
Productivity In Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n i n d u s t r i e s "
in K e n d r k k a n d V a c c a r o .
N e w D e v e l o p m e n t s to P r o d u c t i v i t y
M e a s u r e m e n t a n d Anetysls. ( C h i c a g o :
UniversIty or Chicago Press, 1 9 8 0 ) .
Don Pickrell. " R i s i n g D e f k i t s arid t h e
Uses o f Tr a n s p o r t Subsidies in t h e unttoct
Journal o f Tr a n s p o r t E c o n o m i c s a n d
Policy. VOL 2 4 . N o . 3 . 1 9 8 5 . p p . 2 8 1 - 2 9 8 _
J. P u n t e r, A M a r k e t e d t . a n d I H i r s c h m a n .
- I m p a n t s o f Subsidies o n t h e C o a t s o f U r b a n
Public Tr a n s p o r t . - J o u r n a l o f Tr a n s p o r t
Economics a n d Policy. Vo l . 1 7 , No. 2 , 1 9 8 3 .
pp. 1 5 6 - 1 7 6
M a r t i n Wa c h s . " U . S . Tr a n s i t Subsidy Policy:
In N e e d o f R e f o r m , - S e l e n e , , Vo l 2 4 4 .
J I M * 30, 1 9 8 9 . pp- 1545-49_
A C C E S S
1111111113 leti
 The M a r r i a g e o f
A u t o s & Tr a n s i t

H o w To M a k e Tr a n s i t

Popular A g a i n

BY M E LV I N M . W E B B E R

Carshave become the

overwhelmingly favorite trans-
portation mode in all the developed
countries, and they're rapidly taking
over in the rest ol the world, as well. They ve been one of the
mostpowerful forces for economic and social change wherever they've been
adopted, changing the wayswe do business, the wayswe live out our daily lives,
andprohably the wayswe think. Like telephones, autos have the fantastic capacity
to shrink geographic distance, permitting people to maintain close contact with
each other, even though they live miles apart.

Moirin At 9-.41,er ao projesor govq.rreu r i s o u r c o n i ., s l , t ' o . r e t r i t y C o l o l o r n s a , Berkeley, C A 04;24.-1,1;;:11 arv,1

obreeforo.11 tile Vrilreruity ari California Tratirortabo Certter

A C C E S S
 They've made it possible for most of us to leave the old urban centers and move into
decent houses in the spacious suburbs. They permit most of us to live where we choose
and then to accept jobs located at any compass point from Our homes. We're free
to go wherever we wish and whenever we wish, freed from the rigid schedules of
common carriers.
These freedoms have mixed consequences. During this, the century of the auto-
mobile, the high-density downtowns of most cities have stabilized or declined and, with
them, proportions of downtown jobs, radial patterns of travel, and use of public transit.
Declining transit riding must be the most tragic of those effects. Transit patronage
has been falling during most of this century, except for that brief period during World
War II when gasoline was rationed and there were no new cars to buy. In the years since
the War, transit riding has fallen steadilyfrom 114 trips per capita in 1950, to 37 in 1970.
to 31 in 1990 Since 1964 the federal government has spent more than $IM billion to
improve and expand transit service, and yet trips to and from work in urbanized areas.
the ones widely believed to be most amenable to transit, have been falling even more
dramatically: from 25 percent of work trips in 1960. to 14 percent in 1970. to 10 percent
in 1980. down to perhaps 5 percent today. In the suburbs, transit use is down to about
2.5 percent of trips to work. Nationwide, people use transit for only 2 percent of their
urban trips. With the exception of walking and bicycle trips, virtually all the rest are by
private car.

CARS TRAVEL BEST

Journalists keep telling us that -Americans have a love affair with the automobile.-
asthough some irrational infatuation has seized us. But they're wrong. Americansand
Europeans and Asians and Africanshave simply discovered that the automobile is the
most effective surface-transportation system yet devised. Unlike all other modes, it pro-
vides no-wait, no-transfer service and, owing to substantial subsidies, it does so at toler-
able cost. Where parking is available, as in most suburban settings, it provides door-to-
door accessibility. It's no wonder that Americans, and everyone else who can do so. have
adopted cars as their primary mode of travel.
Moreover, travel times for automobile commuters have been fallingfalling slight-
ly but falling nevertheless. Between 1983 and 1990, the national average commute trip
by car ebbed from 20.4 minutes to 19.7 minutes. During the same period, commuting
times via public transit increasedfrom 46.1 minutes to 49,9 minutes. (That's roughly 20
minutes by car and 50 minutes by transit.) During that same period, average mileage dis-
tances increased for auto commuters (from 9,9 to 10.6 miles) and decreased for transit
commuters (from 15.1 to 12.6 miles). For most automobile users the trends are toward
fewer minutes and greater access. For most transit riders, it's just the oppositemore
minutes and less access_ The time savings are surely one reason commuters chose cars
over buses and trains.

WHAT AeouT NONDRIVERS?

Even in America, all adults do not yet have discretionary use of cars. About 11 per-
cent of U.S. households still don't own one. About 10 percent of the driving-age popula-
tion aren't licensed to drive; they're either too old or too disabledor they live

A ( ( 1 5 5
ILIMS(1 5 I L I I 1 9 9 4
 in New York City where they can scarce-
ly use a car, even if they've got one.
Perhapsafourth of unlicensed adults can't
afford cars. About a third of U.S. house-
holds still have only one car that all fami-
ly members share. Thus, even though
automobiles dominate our transportation
system. even though there are more cars
than licensed drivers, many Americans
still don't have access to them.
That inequality poses a central issue
for transportation policy. It compels us to
ask. Bow can we bring the advantages of
automobile accessibility to everyone? One
way, of course, is to expand car ownership
but that might increase congestion, pol-
lution, and energy consumption.
Alternatively we might invent a kind of
public transit offering accessibility for
the carless, comparable to what car own-
ers enjoy.
THE CARS CONSEQUENCES
It's important to remind ourselves of
two value-laden facts:
1
First, automobiles were a major force
behind the geographic explosion of met-
CARPOOL
LOADING
6-9 AM
ummilo
A C C E S S
mpolitan areas, extending a long-term his-
torical trend. Autos, like telephones, per-
mit direct connection from everywhere to
everywhere, and that's what allows our
contemporary suburbs to thrive econom-
ically and socially. It would be a great loss
if that widespread connectivity were to be
weakened by anti-auto mandates con-
stricting free use of cars.
Second, and equally important, the
auto's popularity and the expanding sub-
urbs have caused the decline and, in some
places, the virtual demise of mass transit
services. Trips between dispersed origins
and dispersed destinations of contempo-
rary suburbs are not readily served by
conventional mass transit's large vehi-
cles: instead, they inevitably get served by
small, individualized vehiclesthat is, by
automobiles. Most often by automobiles
carrying only the driver. As a result. car-
less persons who remain dependent on
transit are made worse-off. In something
akin to a national social disaster, the rise
of the automobile and the decline of tran-
sit have meant that many citizens are
deprived of access to suburban jobs and
Strangers joining carpools toCVOS%the Son Francisco Bay Bridge
An officiol sign gehl marks what began as an informal gathering place.
hence to a livelihood and to the many
advantages of modern urban life. To be
sure the plight of the jobless can't be
blamed solely on the transportation sys-
tem: but, just as surely, automobile trans-
portation is implicated in the tragedy.
So, what can be done to reverse that
decline of public transit service?
RIDESHARING AS PUBLIC TRANSIT
Bryan Clymer. the former adminis-
trator of the Federal 'rransit Administra-
tion. redefined transit to include all pas-
senger vehicles carrying more than a solo
driver. He was declaring in effect that mod.
ern public transit includes carpools and
other small vehicles having multiple pas.
sengers. If we're willing to accept his con-
cept, my question can be modified to ask:
What incentives might induce solo drivers
to share their cars with others? Or What's
needed to turn solo-driven cars into tran-
sit vehicles? Or How can we turn more
drivers into riders?
It's something of a paradox that,
despite all the complaints about highway
congestion, we enjoy a tremendous
excess of capacity. As Wilfred Owen of
Brookings once observed, because most
American cars are carrying only the dri-
ver, at least three seats remain empty
enough empty front seats to cany the rest
of the U.S. population and enough back
seats for the entire population of the for-
mer Soviet Union. That fact has led to
many efforts to encourage carpooling. but
the sad part of that story is that rideshar-
ing has been on the decline. Nationwide.
carpooling fell from about 20 percent of
work trips in 1980 to about 13 percent in
1990. Can we now reverse that trend?
High-occupancy vehicles lanes
(HOV lanes) have proved somewhat suc-
cessful in encouraging ridesharing in
places like Virginia's Shirley Highway.
The San Francisco Bay Bridge's toll-free
HOV lanes forvehicles with three or more
persons triggered a telling unplanned
response: solo drivers now stop at BAKr
stations and bus stops to pick up two pas-
sengersstrangers who've been waiting
in polite queues. With three persons in the
car, the former solo-drivers now save up
to 20 minutes by avoiding the toil gates.
and the 81.00 toll besides. That bit of
casual, one-directional carpooling has
raised car occupancy on the bridge from
the regional average of LI to 1.9 persons
in the westbound morning peaka 73
percent improvement. It's an instructive
clue for transit-system redesign.
In addition to creating incentives for
voluntary ridesharing. improvements
must be made in more formal public tran-
sit systems. Because the contemporary
suburban pattern consists of dispersed
origins and destinations, the most promis-
ing strategies for public transit are those
Jitneys w e i t i n g a t Son FrenCiSce frilarnotionoi A i r p o r t
that use small vehicles. such as cars and
vansvehicles sized for the few persons
making the same trip at the same time.
DIAL 7 1 1
A merger of automobiles, tele-
phones, cellular phones, radios, satellite
locators, and computers could support
new transit systems that are compatible
with modern suburbs. Following Robert
Behnke's lead we envision computer-
based dating systems that. in real lime.
would match drivers and potential pas-
sengers having the same origins, desti-
nations, and schedules. A phone call to
-Multi-Mode Transport Central- would
permit residential neighbors with com-
mon destinations to fill some of those
empty seats on any given day and hour,
even though they're total strangers. The
incentive to the passenger is a convenient
trip by car at tolerable cost. The incentive
to the driver is reduced travel cost and
perhaps even supplemental income.
The Federal Transit Administration
is now exploring the idea, as are increas-
ing numbers of state and local trans-
portation agencies. Under the banner of
mrrs (Advanced Public Transportation
Systems), they're conducting experimen-
tal field tests of potentially integrated
communication-transportation transit
systems. We can now foresee metropoli-
tan-wide transit systems, each focused on
Transport Centrars computer. A person
wishing to go from here to there at a spec-
ified time phones the transport help line.
say 711, and places a request by punch-
ing the phone buttons. The computer then
searches for a neighbor traveling at that
time to that place and willing to share an
empty seat for a fee. If none is found, it
searches for the nearest publicly or pri-
vately owned bus, or van, or taxi which it
then sends to the caller's front door.
Being virtually guaranteed a ride at
an acceptable price and at the right time,
many who are now solo drivers might be
enticed into becoming carpoolersi.e.,
transit riders. Whether the vehicle 2-
A C C E S S
110M111 5 ' A L L 1 9 4 4
 that arrives is a neighbor's car, van, small bus, or taxi_ is probably inconsequential: what-
ever the small-vehicle type, the operational service characteristics are approximately the
same. Any of these interchangeable paratransit vehicles can provide door-to-door, short-
wait_ no-transfer service, comparable to the level of service that a private car provides
and, for some, without the hassle and costs of parking.
The utility of auto-based transit service need not be reserved to suburbanites. By
far, the largest number of transit-dependent adults today have low incomes, live in cen-
tral cities, and lack discretionary use of cars. Because most new jobs are opening in the
suburbs and because many center-city residents cannot live near those jobs, the decline
of conventional public transit continues to worsen their predicament- Where no bus routes
run from nearby inner-city locations to specific suburban job sites, some fortunate job
holders use gypsy cabs and other informal, perhaps illegal, paratransit services. But these
may be expensive and unreliable. A great many other persons simply remain unemployed.
Far better that everyone be able to dial 711 and be assured a ride to work and a ride home
Hong Kong public light bus at an acceptable price or_ for would-be drivers, a new source of income.

JITNEY FOR HIRE?

Other countries long ago demonstrated the viability of automobile-based transit ser-
vices. Jitneys are the main components of transit systems in many Third World coun-
tries. Some jitneys ply fixed routes while others operate like collective taxis and take pas-
sengers directly to their destinations. They offer employment opportunities for a great
many otherwise unemployed or underemployed persons. They furnish low-cost trans-
portation service that, in some places, approximates that of private autos. In virtually all
placesin sharp contrast to the heavily subsidized transit systems in the United States
they operate at a profit for their private operators.
Although jitneys have largely disappeared from this country, we still hold onto the
memories of their effectiveness and profitability. The new door-to-door airport shuttles
in Los Angeles and San Francisco suggest we may have a rebirth of privately owned, prof-
itable, small-vehicle systems operating in public-transit modes. However, a high barrier
stands in the way of expanding paratransit service in the United States. Strict regulations
in many cities severely constrain entry into the taxi-jitney business, largely through lim-
its on the numbers of licenses they allowno doubt a direct response to the wishes of
the taxi industry. However, if that oligopolistic constraint can somehow be overcome
if the jitney-taxi business can be opened to new entrants and if the attributes of high-tech
communications can be merged with the attributes of low-tech Third World jitneyswe
might generate a new high-quality transit service.
Any such paratransit system will have to deal with passengers' potential fear of
strangers. Recent experience with Shirley Highway and Bay Bridge carpools and with
rideshare benches in retirement villages suggest that persons living in the same neigh-
borhood are likely to be fairly trustingand safe. Nevertheless, a formalized transit
system must provide reasonable assurance of safety, at least comparable to that of munic-
ipal bus operators,

A C C E S S
 Of course, no transit system can become a panacea. Real-time carpools might never
attract more than 10 percent of potential commuters. But. by serving only that niche with-
in the corn miller market, it will go a long way toward reversing transit's long-term decline.
SMALL VEHICLES, BIG RETURNS
If it's true that the automobile owes its tremendous success to its door-to-door, no-
wait, no-transfer service, and if it's true that the structure of the modern metropolis is
incompatible with large-vehicle transit systems like trains, trolleys, or even 50-passenger
buses, then it must also be true that workable transit systems in low-density sections of
the metropolis must be those using automobile-like vehicles. 1 suggest that the ideal sub-
urban transit system will take its passengers from door to door with no transfers, with lit-
tle waitingand that it will fit the small numbers of persons having the same origin, the
same destination, and the same schedule. Only such a system can compete with the pri-
vate car on its own grounds.
So, if you're looking for a high-odds investment, just dial 711, talk to the computer,
and place your bets on transit systems that rely on automobiles.
F U R T H E R R E A D I N G
Robert W B e h n k e . California S m a r t Tr a v e i e r
Sifsfilm ( Wa s h i n g t o n . D.C.; U S D O T. F e d e r a l
Tr a n s i t A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , F e b r u a r y 1 9 9 2 1 .
Robert Cetvero, Fostering Commercial
Transit: A l t e r n a t i v e s in G r e a t e r Los A n g e l e s
(Los Angeles: R e a s o n Fcm.asdation, Policy
Insight No. 1 4 6 . S e p t e m b e r 1 9 9 2 ) .
Allan C- Pisarsid, r ratiPi SelhatetOr I s s u e s in
t h e 9 0 ' s ( Wa s h i n g t o n . D.C.; M O O T . F e d e r a l
H i g h w a y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Juty 1 9 9 2 ) .
R o b e r t W. Poole. J r. a n d M i c h a e l G r a t i n ,
Shuttke Va n s : T h e O v e r l o o k e d Tr a n s i t
Alternative (Los Angeles: Reason
F o u n d a t i o n . Policy P a p e r N o ) 7 4 5 . Arifil
1994).
M a r t i n Wa c h s . " C a n Tr a n s i t B e Saved'? O f
C o u r s e I t C a n . - In P r o c e e d i n g s o f the
M e t r o p o l i t a n C o n f e r e n c e o n Public
Trartsportation R e s e a r c h ( C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y
o f Illinois, U r b a n Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n C e n t e r, J u n o
1992), pp. 2 5 _
ittegneyi on the toed on Mondo
CC S S
 P A P E R S I N P R I N T

Adk-r. Jeffrey L and Bennett. Anna K. and Bums, Elizabeth C e r Ve r g l R o b e r t

Michael G. McNally David D. Little "Impowing Traffic Congestion by 'Profiling Profitabk Bus Routes"
'In-laboratory Experiments to -Earthowike Elleeta on Employee Regulating Employee Travel:. A 1990 U C T C 92
Investigate I )river Behavior Under Transportation."Studies on the Lorna Phoenix Survey-
Advanced Traveler Information Pettis Earthquake. No. 2 1991 ' C T C 2'2 Cervero, Robert
Systems tATISl' 1990 U C T C 152 "Ridership Impacts of Transit-Focused
1993 1 2 C T C 164 Burnio, Elizabeth Development in California"
Bennett, Anna K. and -Linking Geographic Information 1993 U C T C 176
Adler, Jeffrey 1... David D. Little Systems anti Trip Reduction: Success
Michael G. McNally and -Earthquake Effects on Employee and Failure in a Pilot Application' Cervern. Ruben
Wilfred W. Recker Transportation:Studies on the Loma 1993 u c r c 143 -Suburban Employment Centers;
'Interactive Simulation for Modeling Prieta Earthquake. Probing the Influence of Site Features
Dynamic Drivel- Behaviur In Response No. 2 Executive Summary Burns. Elizabeth on the Journey-to-Work'
to ATIS- 1999 U C T C 153 . " Vi l l i t t . S C o m m u t i n g A n a l ) N i S 1991 U M 49
1993 U C T C 171 Extended to the Suburban Southwest:
Berechman. J. and Tempe Arizona" Cervero. Robert
Adler. Jeffrey L . Thom** F. Golob Kenneth A. Small 1992 L ' C T C -Surviving in the Suburbs: TrainSICS
and Michael G. McNally -Modeling land Use and Ultimate Challenge"
"A Structural Model with Discrete- Transportation: An Interpretive Bums. Elizabeth K. UCTC 169
Choice Variables fur Predicting Review for Growth Areas" 'Employee and Student Trip
Enronle Behavior Under AT1S" 1968 L I C T C I Reduction: First Year Results from Cervero. Robert and John Landis
1993 U C T C 174 Metnipallian Phoenix" -Suburbanizatitle Of Jobs and the
lillankrion. Charles and 1994 u c - r c 226 Journey to Work-
Adler. Jeffrey L . Martin % t a u t 1991 u c r c
Wilfred W. Recker and 'Preliminary Evaluation of the Buena. Elizabeth K.
Michael G. McNally Coastal Transportation Corridor "Linking Geographic Information Cervero. Robert and Mark Durum
"A "..orillict Model and Interactive Ordinance in Los Angeles' Systems and Trip Reduction: -An As..es,rtient of Suburban-Targeted
Simulator (FASTCARS) for Predkting 1990 1 ; C 1 ' C 32 limitations in a Pilot Application" Transit Service Strategas in the
Enroute Driver liehavita in Response 1991 I C I C 241 United States"
In Real-lime Traffic Condition Brosobnatime. David 1903 U C T C 17fi
Intormation" -Multiple I w o ' a1ions tor I .Inear Cerwero. Robert
1992 U C T C 127 Regression Mode "Accessibility and Third World Rural Cervero. Ruben and
1991 u c r c 37 Development: A Case Study of Peter ileoweltrunin
Adler. Jeffrey Sumatra" "An Evaluation or the Market Potential
Wilfred W. Recker and Brownstone. Ilkinid and U M 108 lor Tranah4 >maned Development
Michael G. McNally M a m a * E. Gulch Using Visual Simulaltion Techniques"
'In-Laboratory Experiments to Analyze EffeetiverICSS ot Rideshiring Cervero. Robert 1991 U C T C 217
Emma'. Driver Behavior Under ATIS" Incentives: Discrete-Choice Models "Cungestion. Grovilh anti Public
1993 U C T C 148 of Commuting in Southern California" Chokes" Cervero, Robert and Val Menotti
1991 U C T C 93 1991 u c r c 51 -Market Profiles ci Rail-Based Housing
Adler, Jeffrey. L, Projects in California"
Wilfred W. Recker and Brownstone. David, Cervero, Robert 1991 U C T C 242
Michael G. McNally David S. Bunch and "Jobs-Musing. Balancing and
-Uaing Interactive Simulation to Thomas F. Golob Reginnal Mobility" Cervero. Robert. Michael Bernick
Model hiver Behavior Under ATIS" "A Demand Enrecaming System 1969 U C T C 50 and Jill Gilbert
1992 U C T C 126 for Clean-Fuel Vehicks' -Market Opportunities anti Bement to
1994 I I C T C 221 Cervero. Robert Transit-Based Development in
Baer, Chriatopher T.. "Land Market Impact* of Urban Rail California'
Daniel B. Klein and John Slajewaki Bunch, David S. Transit and Joint Development. An 1994 U C T C
"From Trunk to Branch Toil RI lads "Eatintability in the Multinomial E:mpirical Study ul Rail Transit in
in New York, 18004660" Probit Model" Washington, D.C. and Atlanta" Choy. Manhol. Mei-Po Kwan
1992 U C T C 121 1991 U M 71 1992 u c r c 135 and Hong L e o n g
RealTitne Distributed
Barnett. Roger Bunch. 1/asid S. and Cervero. Robert Geographic-al Database Systems"
-linfish i n t e r C i t y 125 and 225.- Ityuichi Kitamara "land 1:ses and Travel it Suburbaii 1994 U C I C 215
CalSpeed Series Proba Model Estimation Revisited: Activity Centers"
1992 U C T C 114 Trinomial Models of Household Car 1991 U C T C 91 Chu. Nueluto
Ownership" 'Endogenous l'op Scheduling,
Barnett. Roger 1991 L I C T C 70 Cervero, Robert The Henderson Approach
-Tilting Train11: The Italian Ell( and -1.olut Use Mixing and Suburban Reformulated and Compared with
the Swedish X-2000.. Burns, Elizabeth Mobility" the Vickrey Approach"
CalStwed Series " A - i o n ' . Metropolitan Travel 1986 U C T C 3 19913 1 3 C 1 . 0 199
1992 u c r c 113
Reduction Program'.1
T
C
U
2
9 Cervero, Robert
"Paratransit in Southeast Asia:, A
Market Reponiie to Poor Roads
1991 u c r c 90

A C C E S S
 P A P E R S I N P R I N T

Chu, Xuetiao and Deakin, Elizabeth Garrition. William L and Giuliani. Genevieve, Keith liwzing.
Gordon J. Fielding l i t e United States" f i r m Transpon Reginald R. Souleyrette 11 D i n e Perrine. and Martin Wachs
-Electronic Road Pricing in Southern Policy and the Environment: Six Case "The Relationship between "Preliminary Evaluation i.f Regulation
Caliturnia: Policy Obstacles la Studies) Transportation and Innovation" XV of the South Coast Air Quality
Congestion Pricing- 1999 U C T C 66 1994 L ' C T C 230 Management District"
199I L I C K 189 1991 t r c T c 60
Dealdn, Elizabeth Giuliano, Genevieve
Cohn. Theodore E. "Toll Roads: A New Direction i s Jobs-Housing Balance a Glazer, ilunihni and Esko Niskanen
"Integration by the Human Eye: lrnnsportation Issuer "Parking Fees. Congestion, and
Implications for Wanting for ELS Highways1
Ivry56
0
9 1991 u r n - 133 Consumer Welfare"
Signal Design" 1991 U C T C 24
1993 W I C 207 Deakin, Elizabeth Giuliano, Genevieve
"Transportation and Air Quality in 'New Directiuns for Understanding Glazer. Amihni and Esko Niskanen
Cohn. Theodore E. and Transportation and Land Use "When Do Consumers Favor h i m
David .1. Lasky California: A PolicyAnalysis1910(V
5
IC 1989 1 1 C T C 2 Increases: With Applications to
"Wallpaper Illusion: Cause of Congestion and to Regulation"
Disorientation and Falls on Escalators" lieakin. Elizabeth Giuliano, Genevieve and 1992 u r r c 193
1990 U C T C 160 Inutsportation and land Use Kenneth A. Small
Planning in California: Problems "Alternative Strategies Mr Coping with Glazer. Antihni and Esko Nisicanen
Crime. Randall and Opportunities for Impraved Traffic Crimp-ohm- "%liv Voters Mis Preh-r Corige,11 11
"Cars anti Drivers in the New Suburbs: Perfonnance" 1994 U C I C 188 Public Clubs"
Linking Access to Travel in 1988 U C T C 53 1992 I I c r c 195
Neotraditional Planning" Giuliano. Genevieve and
1994 U C T C 239 DeLuchl. Mark A. and J.M. Ogden Kenneth A. Small Glazer. Amihai and Kai A. Konrad
-S0lainilYtirtigen Furl-Cull Vehkles- i s the Journey to Work Explained by -Ameliorating Congestion by Income
Crime. Randall 1993 U C T C 158 Urban Structure?" Redistribution"
'Die Influence of Expected 1992 1 ICIC 107 1993 I VIC p c
Sullorhanization an Urban Form and Del.urki. stark A... QUAnki %Vilna
the Journey to Work" and Daniel Sperling Giuliano, Genevieve and Glaser. Amihni and kernel HibLinil
1994 I I C P C 240 "Electric Vehicles! Performance. Life- Kenneth A. Small "Governmental Failures in Evaluating
Cycle Costs, Emissions. and 'Nils:enters in the Los Angeles Programs"
De Vany. Arthur and Recharging Requirements- Region" 1994 U C T C 194
W. David Walla 1989 U C I C 7 1999 U C T C 39
"Network Connectivity and Pr It t Glazer. Amihai, Daniel Klein and
Convergence: Gas Pipeline Fielding, Gordon J. and Ginhano, G(1110(441.1- and Chartist; Lave
1)i-regulation* Daniel H. Klein Kenneth A. Small "Clean for a I lay: Troubles with
1993 U C T C 202 lligh Otrupancy / l o l l lanes; l l i c Determinants of Growth of California's Smog Check"
Phasing in Congestion Pricing a Lane Employment Subcenters- 1993 U C F C M t
De %any. Arthur and at a Time' 1994 u c r c 2211
W. David Walla 1993 I L I C T C 179 Gulledge. Reginald G.
"Pipeline Access and Markel Giuliano. Genevieve and -Ito People l'nderstand Spatial
Integration in the Natural Gas Fielding Gordon J. and Martin Wachs Concepts: The Ciao of First-Order
Industry: Evidence from Daniel H. Klein "Responding to Congestion and Traffic Primitives"
Cointrgration Tens" -HOW to Franchise Highways- Growth: Transportation Dentand 1992 I I C I C 211
1993 U C T C 200 1992 U C T C 134 ManagemeM"
1991 U C H . ' 86 Golledge. Reginald G.
De Vany. Arthur and Galling, Tommy. MeiIla Kwan "Place Recognition and Wayfinding:
W. Din-Id Walls and Reginald G. Golledge Gthibtrin, GeneVieNe a n d Making Sense al Space"
"When 'larders to Markets Fait "Computational-Process Modelling of Thomas F. Guard) 1992 l i n t 212
Pipeline Deregulation. Spot Markets. Household Activity Scheduling" "Using Longitudinal Methods tor
and the Topology of the Natural 1919 U C I C 217 Analysis of a ShomTerm Gulledge, Reginald G.
Gas Markel" Transportation Demonstration Project- l i m e and Space in Route Preference'
1992 U C T C Glisling. Tommy, Me4-11n kwan 1990 U C T C 28 1993 l i C T I C 213
and Reginald G. Golledge
Deakin. Elizabeth -Computational-Process Modelling of Giuliano, Genevieve, Keith Hwang Gulledge. Reginald G.,
"Land Use Mid Transportation Travel Decisions, Review and and Martin Wachs Mei-Po Kwan and Tommy Galling
Planning la Response to Congestion: Conceptual Analysis" 'Employer Trip Reduction in Southern "t'omputational Process M[41-fling of
The California Experience' 091 U C T C 200 California: First Year Results' Travel Deentionsl Empirical Tests"
1989 I I C I C 54 1993 U C T C 164 19)1 u r r c
Garrison, William 1- and
Reginald R. Souleyreite I I Giuliano, Genevieve, Keith Hwang tiolledge. Reginald t;.,
Deakin. Elizabeth "Relations between Transportation and Martin Wachs Mei-Po Krim and Tommy Gairling
"Suburban Traffic Congestion, land and Production" -Mandatary Trip Reduction in Computational'Process Modelling al
Use and Transportation Planning 1990 U C T C 45 Southern California: First Year Household Travel Decisions Using a
Imes: Public PolicY flations. Results" Geogniphical Infomation System"
1990 I I C I C 57 11412 w i t ge 1994 I I C T C 2111

mod, 0mv*O.m.r . . r f m T

A C C E S S
FAIL 1 9 9 1
 P A P E R S I N P R I N T

GoHedge, Reginald G., Valerie Goulista, Kineitadinoo G. and Handy, Susan J Mani*. Paul P.. Telauysi Kaneko
Dougherty and Scott Hell Ryuichi Kitamura -A Cycle of Dependence: Automobiles, and Truoo-Din Lin
-Slu-vey Versos Route-liased -Recursive Model System for Trip Accessibility and the Evolution of the -Exploratory Analysis of Moira'
lA'ayfinding in Unfamiliar Generation and Trip Chaining" Transportation and Retail Hierarchies- Carrier Accident Risk and Daily
Environments" 1991 I T T ( ' 411 1993 1 1 1 - 1 - C 233 Driving Patterns'
1993 u c r c 211 1991 U C T C TJ
Goulian. Konstadintia G., Handy. Susan
Graph. Worms F. Ram M. Pendyain and -Reginald versus Local Accessibifitr Kaneko, Tetiouya anti
-Structural Equation Modeling of Ryuichi Kittanning hnplications for Ninivaak Traver Paul P. Jovitnist
Iravel Choice Ifynamies- "A Practical Method for thr Estimation 1993 U C T C 231 -Multiday Driving Patterns and
1988 u c r c of Trip Generation and Trip Chaining' Motor Carrier Accident Risk:
1991 1 ICTC Ce2 Handy, Susan L. A Disaggregale AttalYsil'"
Gollob. Thomas F. *Regional versus Local Accessibility: 1991 u c r c 59
-rhe Dynamics of HousehoM Travel Goullaa, Konatadinos G., Neo-Traditional Development and ha
Time Earenditures and Car Ownership Rem M. Pendyala and Implications for Non-Work Travel- Keekr, Theodore E.
Decisions" Ryuichi Kinsman 1993 1 CTC 235 ights-ay Safety, Economic Behavior,
1990 I 'cric 26 'Updating a Panel Survey and liriving Environment'
QueNionnaire I Bunten. Mark and Jacob Sutter 1993 U C T C 65
T h o m a s F. and 1991 u c r c 'The Shake with Freight The Impact
Jacqueline M. Golds of the Emilia Marta Earthquake on Ray Seynung
-Practical Considerations in the Guensler. Randall find Area 'Truckers,' Studies on the 11/M2 -After the Resolution: Excess
Development of it Transit Users Miner Daniel Sperling Priela Earthquake, No, 1 Commuting fur Two-Worker
1929 I 7CTC 17 -Congestion Pricing and Nlotur 19911 I C I C 151 Households in the Los Angeles
Vehicle Emissions: An Initial Review" Metnipolitan Area"
T h o m a s F. and 1993 U C T C 229 Hansen, Mark and 1993 U C T C 144
len VIII %Nissen Sharon Weinstein
-A Joint Household Travel Dimance Ilan. Peter, Brian Sands -East bay Fern Service and the Loma Kim. Sryoung
Generation and Car Ownership m m k r and %filter Streetrr Priem Earthquake," Studies on the -tkinter I littererices in Commuting-.
1989 1 - C T C 8 -Managing the Suburban Commute: Loma Prieta Earthquake. No. 5 An Empirical Study of the Greater Los
A Cross-National Comparison of Three 1991 U C I t 1112 Angeles Metropolitan arra-
Cada., Themuot IF.. Saluting Kim hiletnasilitaii Areas" 1994 L ; C T C 190
and %Veining Hen 1993 U C I C 177 linesman. N o m and
-A Structural Wald of Vehicle I:sr in John M. QuittlrY Kitarnura. Rystichl
Hall, Peter. Daniel Leavitt and -The Spatial Segregation of Ethnic and "Panel Analysis in Transportation
Twn-Nerhick Households1
2
T
C
U
4
9 Erin Vara Demographic Groups_ Comparative Manning: An Overview-
"High-Speed Trains for California. Evidence from Stockholm and San 11-1-C 68
Goullas Konrandinote (;. Strategic Choice: Comparisons of Francisco--
-A I lymintic M icrosimulator for Travel Technologies and Choice of Route.- 1993 U C T C 149 hitamura. Kinds-hi and
Demand Forecasting- CalSpeed David S. Hunch
1992 D C T C 95 1992 U C T C 104 Hedrick, J.K. and )(autism Yi -Heterogeneity and State Dependence
-The Effect of Alternative heavy Truck in Household Car Ownership:
Goulias. Konatatliniat G. Hall, Peter, Daniel la-us-in hind Suspenainal on Flexible Pavement A Panel Analysis Using Ordered-
-Forecasting the Impati Erin Vaea Response' Response Prabit Models aith
Sociodemographk Changes un Travel 'High-Spred Trains for California. 1991 U C T C 46 Error Components-
Demand Experiments with ii 1 Jytiatnic Volume Ii. I hialled Segment 1990 U C T C 52
Itcscriptions. Cost Estimates. Hwang, Keith and
Microsimulation Model System1
T
'C
1
2
9 and Travel Time Cakallations,- Genevieve t;iulismo Khanna's. Ryttichi. Jock M. Nines,
CalSpeed Series 'The Determinants of Ridesharinke Patrick Conroy. and David M.
GOVI144%. Kmstadinos C., 1992 I ICIC 105 ljleratune Review' Fleming
and Ram Pendyala 1990 t a L T C 38 eiecommuting as a 1 ransportation
-Innovations in Transponatinn Kali. Randolph W. Planning Measure: Initial Results of
The Case of Telecnnunuting" 'Design tor Local Area Freight Jaynkripthmtn. Cal:Banda Pilot Proleer
1991 u c r c 72 Networks" Prilehm-1 G. McNally and 1991 U C T C 58
1991 D C I C 63 Michael I, Cohen
Gotdials. Krimaadino% G. -Simulation of Advanced Traveller laburnum R'yuichl. Patricia L.
and Rynichi Kitamura Hall. Randolph W. Information Systems (NUS) Strategies Mokinarian. Ram M. Pendy-ala.
"Analysis ol Binary Choke "Pkium and Delivery Systems tor to Reduce Non-Recurring Congestion and Konatictinos G. Gonna'
Frequencies with Limit Cases: Overnight Carriers' from Special EVenle "An Evaluation of 'Telecommuting
Comparison of Alternative Estimation 1992 I I C I C 106 1993 U C T C 173 as a Trip Reduction Measure"
Methods ;Ind Application Iii Weekly 1991 U C T C 5
Household Mode Choice" Hall, Randolph W. and Jayakrishrum. R., W e l l . Tsai.
1991 U C T C 91; Wei Huts Lin Joseph N. Prrishker, and Klein. Daniel H.
-1.11. Trucking in Los Angeles: Stibodh itakiadhyaksha -The Voluntary Provision of Public
Congestion Relief through Faster Path-Based Algorithm fur Gnosis? The Turnpike Cumpanati of
Terminal Siting" Traffic Amign mime' Early America'
1990 I I C T C 43 1994 U C T C 191 1990 U C T C 18

A C C 1 5 5
 P A P E R S I N P R I N T

Klein, Daniel K. and Chi Yin Ijinclis. John Leinitt, Daniel, Peter Cheng. Molduarian. Patricia L
"The Private Provision of Frontier Subhraiit Guliathakuria and Erin It'isen, and Peter Hall "An Empirical Analy..is of the
infrastructure: Toll Roads in California. Ming /Jiang 'Potential for Improved Intercity Transportation Impacts of
1850-190e" "Capitaluation of Transportation Passenger Rail Service in California: Teleeormitutine
1994 L I C T C 238 I nVeStriteritS into Single Family Study of Corridors." Calspeed Series 1991 U C T C 134
Hume Prices: A Comparative 199-1 U C T C 222
Klein, Daniel K. and Analysis of California Transit Mokbtarian, Patricia L
Gordon J. Fielding Systems and Highways' Lem, tewison Lee. JiainiAng 'An Empirical Evaluation of the
"Privaie TnIll Roads. Learning from the 1994 U C T C 246 and Martin Wachs Travel Impacts of Teleconferencing'
19th Century" -Comprehensive Transit Performance 19101 1 1 C T C 132
1992 t i C T C 118 Linden', David Indicators"
Russell D. Hamer, Robert Disler. Peal U C T C 225 Mokluarian, Patricia L
Klein, Daniel K. and and Theodore E. Cohn "Defining Teleeorinnotine
John Majewaild Postural Stability and Stereo- Loultaitou-Sideria. Anastasia 1992 t i c r t : sit
"Economy, Community and Lave Ambiguity in Man-Designed Visual "Retrofit of Urban Corridors- Land Use
The Turnpike Movement in Environments" Policies and Design Guidelines for Moithearian. Patricia L
New York. 17971845" 1991 I I T C 157 TransilEriendly Environments" -Trirommiuting ;mil I r a n + Stair
1991 t r o t 76 1993 U C T C 100 at the Practice. State of the Art"
Line. Charles 1991 1 VIC 79
Klein, Daniel B. And "Federal Subsidies and the Ruinous Majewksi John, Christopher
John Milewski Decline In Transil Productivity; M i n e r and ihaniel R. Klein Makhinelam. Patricia L
"Ilank Road Fever in Antebellum It Wasn't Suplanied to Turn Out "Nlarket and Community in and Han Salomon
America; New York State Origins" Like This" Antebellum America: The Plank Roads "Modeling the Choice tit
1994 U C I C 243 1991 I I C T C 74 of New York- Tick-commuting: Setting the Context'
1991 u e r e 47 1993 U C T C 147
Klein, Daniel H. and Lave. Charles
John Majewski "Measuring the Incline in Transit McNally. Michael G. Monismith. C.11.-, J. Lyamer,
"Priminters and Investors in Productivity in the U_S." "Regii mill Impacts id Neatratlitinual J. Siouan, anti JAC. Hedrick
Ankle-Hutu America:111e Spread 1991 U C T C 159 Neighborhood Development" "Truck Pavement InierActions:
of Plank Road Fever- lucrc172 Requisite Research"
1091 1 1 ( . . - I C 75 Lavv. Chariest 1988 u c r c
"State and National VMT Estimates: McNally, Michael G. and
Kroll. Cynthia A., Jahn D. landia. It Ain't Necessarily So" Sherry Ryan K R I Va l l a n d

Qing Shen, and Sean Stryker
"FA:onotnic hutiatis of the Lima Priela
Earthquake: A Focus an Small
Husiness."Studies cm the tinna Meta
Earthquake. No. 3
1991 ' , I T C 154
Kurani. Kenneth S., Thomas
Turrendne and Daniel Sperling
-Demand for Electric Vehicles in
ilybrid Householde An Exploratory
Analysis.'
1991 1 7 C I C 232
Kwan. Mei-Pa and
Reginald G. Gulledge
"t:ontrihotions of GIS to AT1S"
1994 I I T C 2 1 5
Landis, John
"The California Urban Futures Model:
A New Generation of Metropolitan
Simidation Models"
1894 u c r c 244
lAndis. John D. and Ming Zhno
"Pilot Study of Sulam) and Siintirita
Land Use and Development Policy
Aliernatives"
1994 U C T C 245
1994 t 7(TC 231
Lave, Charles
"The Demand Curve Under Road-
Pricing and the Problem of Political
Feasibility"
1992 I S C I C 136
Lime. Charles
"Things Won't Get a Lot Worse: The
Future of U.S. Traffic Cungestion.
1990 U C T C
Lave, Charles and Patrick Elias
"Did the ti5 Mph Speed Limit Save
lives." (revised)
1990 i r a t
lannitt. Dan, Sean Ennis and
Pat McGovern
"The Cost Escalation of Rail Projects:
Using Previous Experience to Re,
Evaluate the CalSpeed Esti:flutes,"
CalSpeed Series
1993 I , c r c 150
Leasirt, Daniel, Erin Vaasa and
Peter Ilan
"Revenue and Rideraltip Potential for a
Illigh-Speed Rail Service In the San
Francisco / Sacramento - Los Angeles
Corridor" Calvert/ Series
1994 U C T C 185
'A Comparative 411014./614111,1111 of Travel Ednard C. Sullivan
Characierisiics for Neotraditional 'A m i g h t Network Mt airl for Wale
Developments' and Route Choice'
1902 U C T C 142 19,44 U C T C 25
McNally , Michael I.. and NOVIICO, Raymond W.
Sherry Ryan "Aggression on Roadways
"Accesaibility of Neotraditional 1989 U C T C If;
Neighborhoods: A Review of liesign
Concepts, Policies. and Recent Novae, Raymond W.
Literature- "Automobik Driving and Aggressive
1992 U C T C 141 Behavior'
1990 1 V I C 42
Menne. Heinle Leo van %Instil
and Jacqueline Visser Novae. Raymond W. and
'Measurement Biases in Panel Data- Cheryl Collier
1989 I I V I C 'Commuting Stress. Milesharing and
Gender Analyses from the 1993 State
Stiller, Vincent P. and of the Commute Study in Southern
John M. Quigley California'
"Segregation by Racial and 19I4 U C T C 200
Demographic Group: Evidence from
the San Fran-ken Huy Area' Novacli. Raymond W. Onniel
1989 I I C I C 14 Stokniti and [Antis Milariesi
1 dip-dive and Imikirci is e Dimensions
Moklitariati. Patricia L of Travel Impedance as Detennhuttits
"A 'Typology of Relationships of Commuting Stress"
Between Telecomniunicatians 1990 U C T C 30
and Transportation"
1990 t ! L C I C Novae. Raymund W.. Wendy
Khmer and Alexander liroquei
Environimrni Clinsequences
of Commute Travel !tont-dance"
1991 l ' C T C 77

m i d .11Mematty

A C I C t S
1111011(1 I I I 1994
 P A P E R S I N P R I N T

O'Reg,m, Katherine M. Sands. B a l m D. Shoup. lionald C. Song. Shunfeng

-Space and Poverty. The Effect of -InterCity Express: A Technical "Cashing Out Employer-Paid Parking: "Munocentric and Polyeentrie Density
Concentrated Poverty" and Commercial Assessment: A Precedent for Congestion Prit-ingr Functions and Their Required
1992 U C T C 150 CalSpeed Series 1993 u c r i c 205 Commutes"
1992 U C T C IOU 1992 U C T C 198
O'Regan. Katherine M. mid Shoup. Donald C.
John M. Quigley Sands, Brian D. -Cashing Out Employerfaid Parking: Song, Shunfeng
"Fiunily Netwurks and Youth 'The Development Effects of High. An it opportunity to Reduce Minimum "Spatial Structure and Urban
ALVOIS10Jobs" Speed Rail Stations and Implications Parking Requirements" Commuting"
199'2 I 1CTC 128 for California" 1994 I V I C 204 1992 U C T C 117
Calspeed Series
O'lleg,,an, Katherine M. and 1993 U C T C 115 Shoup. Donald C. and Song, Shunfeng
John M. Quigley Richard W. Willson "The Distnbution of Population in a
-Labor Market Access and Labor Sends. Brian D. -Commuting, Congestion and Contemporary Meirripolitim Area:
Market thhonmes he Urban N'outh" 'The Trinsrapid Magnetic Polution: The Empluyer-Pairl The Case of Orange County
1991 u c r c 84 Levitation lit.siteiru A Technical Parking Connection" IA Replication r
and CommercialAs.sessmenr 1992 U C T C 120 1991 l ' C ' T C 44
Parker, John IL Calspeed Series
"Mvoing land Transportation 1992 t r r c 183 Shoup. Donald C. and Southworth. Michael and
Needs of the Ports of Long Beach Richard W. Wilisuin Raymond Isnata
and Los Angeles- Schipper, -Entployer-Paid Parking: .1-he Problem -SmartMaps for Advanced Traveler
1990 1 1 C T C 35 Maria Jusefina Figueroa. and Proposed Sulutitins- Information Systems Based U s e r
Lynn Price. and Molly &slimy 1992 l i C I C 119 Characteristics- Final Report
Parker. John IL "Mind the Gapc The Vicious Circle of 1994 U C T C 236
"The Consolidated Transportation Measuring Automobile Fuel Use" Small, Kenneth A.
Corridor Surface Access to the 1993 U C T C "Economics and I rhan Transportation Sperling. 'Tank! and
- Mark A. Delaiciti
Ports of Long Beach and los Angeles Policy in the Uniteti SLatt-5-
Final Report Scott, Allen J. (editor) 1993 ' W I C 219 "Is Nlethanol the 'lransportation
1991.1 I '1E-rc 137 "Electric Vehicle Manufacturing in Fuel Or the Filture)-
Southern California: Cummi Small, Kenneth A. 1989 U C T C
Pendynta, Ram M., Developments. Future Prospects" "Real Costs of Transportation and
iistaditios G. Goulias and 1903 l 7 C T C 170 Influence of Pricing Policies- Sperling. Daniel and
Ityuichi Kitamtira 1993 I l L i C 187 Mark A. Detain-hi
"Impact ui I el-commuting on Slunk, Peter "transportation Energy Futures"
Spatial and Temporal Patterns of "SeapunSurface Transportation Smell. Kenneth A. and 1989 U C T C 11
Household Travel" Access anti Air Quality" Camffla Kazimi
1992 u c r c 1993 U C T I C 181 "On the Costs of Air Pollution hum Streeter, Walter C.
Motor Vehicles" -The French Train a Grande Vilesse7
Prosser. Neil A. and Shins, Peter L. 199-1 l i c - r c 237 Focusing on the TGVAtiant 'nue.,"
Stephen G. Ritchie 'New Federal Transportation Cal-Speed Series
'Real-Time Knowledge-Rased Financing and Legislative Directions: Small. Kenneth A. and 1992 u c r c
Integration of Freeway No New Taxes rue 931 Billion a Year!" Shunfeng Song
Surveillance Dala- 1990 C O T 36 "Puptilat ion and Employment Taniguchi. Mamoru
1990 I l C I C 89 Densities: Structure and Change" -11 igh Speed Rail in Japan:
Shim, Peter L 1993 U C T C A Review and Evaluation of
Ritchie, Stephen t;. "Seaport Surface Transpurtation Magnetic levitation Trains.-
-A Knostkrigeliased Itecision Access and Urban Transportation Smith Kenneth A. nod Calspeed Series
Support Architecture for Artvancerl Congestion" Shunfeng Song 1992 u t . - r c 102
Traffic Management' 1992 U C T C 116 -Wasteful Commuting: A Resolution"
1990 1 - C I C 31 1992 L V I C 87 Taniguchi, Mamoru
Shaw. Peter 1- "High Speed Rail in Japan:
Ritchie. Stephen G. and "Setting the State for National Song, Shunteng A Review and Evaluation of the
Neil A. Prosser Transportation Policy to the Veer "Does Generalizing Density Shinkansen Train:
-A E x p e r t System Approach 2020: The Surface Transportation Functions Bent-r Explain trrban CalSpeed Series
to Freeway Incident Management' and Uniform Relocatinn Assistance Commuting? Seine Evidence front 1992 u r r e tin
1990 u n - c Act of 196r the Los Angeles Region"
19149 U C T C 13 1994 U C T C 197 Taylor. Brian D.
Sampath. Srilumth. S'ornirra Simeon -I roam Equity Ati Examinatison of
and Patricia L Mrokhtarian Slimy. Peter Song. S'hunfeng California's Transportation
-The Ellextiveness 01 leluLiimmuting 'Surface Transportation Policy and "Modelling Worker Residence Development Act"
as a Transportation Control Measure" Seaports" Final Report Distribution in the 1991 C C M fel
1991 U C T C 7$ 1990 u c - r c 138 Los Angelesitegion"
1993 U C T C 196
Shoup. Donald C.
"Cashing Out Employer-Paid Parking"
1992 U M - 140

A C C E S S
 P A P E R S I N P R I N T

Taylor, Brian D. and '.aflWissen. Leo J., Wang, Quaniu and Willson. Richard VW.
Paul M. Ong Thurman F. Goinh and Mark A. Dellatchi "Estimating the lravel and Parking
"Racial and Ethnic Variations in Hank J. Meurs Impacts of Eiretric Vehicles on Demand Effects of Employer-Paid
Employment Access: An Examination -A Simultaneous Dyrounic Travel and Primary Energy Consumption and Parking"
of Residential Location and Activities lime Allocation M odel" Petroleum Displacement" 1992 U M 139
Commuting In Metropolitan Areas' 1991 U C T C 21 1991 U C T C 6
1993 U C T C 175 Willson, Richard W. and
Wachs, Martin Wang. Quanin, Catherine Kling Donald Shoup
Tatichithe Pamela and "Learning from Los Angeles; and Daniel Sperling "Parking Subsidies and Travel
Linda Wilshumm Transport. Urban Frain. and "Light-Duty i'ehicle Exhaust Emission Chuices: Assessing the Evidence'
"Conimule Behavior in Santa Cniz Air Quality" Control Coat Estimates Using a Part- 1990 u c - r c 34
County,' Studies on the Lorna Prieta 1993 l i C I C 166 Pricing Approach"
Earthquake, No, 4 1993 U C T C 206 Kyonou and J.K. Hedrick
1991 1 1 C T C 155 Wachs'. Martin "Active and Serniactive Heavy Thick
"PolicY huntications of Recent Wang, Quanlu, Catherine Kling Suspensions to Reduce Pavement
Turn-nil:tie, Thomas and Behavioral Research in Transporiatinn and Daniel Sperling I /arnage"
Daniel Sperling Demand Management' "Marketable Credits lin Light-Iluty 1989 U C T C
11114ilieS of New Technoloo 1991 L : C T C 165 EntiSSiall Control in California"
Purchase th9:1111411nC The Case of 1932 l ' C I C 109 11, Kyongsm Margaret Wargelin
Alternative Fuel Vehicles' Wachs. Martin and L K . Hedrick
1992 U C T C 129 'Regulating Traffic. by Controlling Wang, (antral% Daniel Sprrting -Dymunic Tire Force Control by
Land Lac: The Southern California and Janis Olmstead Semi-As-live Suspensions"
Turrentine, Thomas. Experience" -Emission Contind CosEElltsmvearos 1992 L I C T C 97
Martin Lee-Goaselin. 1990 U C T C 12 of Alternative-Fuel Vehicles"
Kenneth Kurnni. and 1993 t r C I C 227 Youngbin
Dank-1 Sperling Wachs. Martin "Shopping Trips and Spatial
"A Si udy of Adaptive and Optimizing --Ennsportalion Demand Wang, Quaniu, Mark A. lielawhi Distribution of Food Storrs"
Behavior for Electric VehicleI Management Policy imPlicallonb and Daniel Sperling 1993 L i c i t 125
Based on Interactive Simulation of Recent liehaviciral Research" 'Emission Impacts of Electric
Gainew and Revealed Behavior of 1990 L I C T C Vehicles" run. YounOiln
Electric Vehicle themenc" 1990 U C T C 41 - I l k Effects of Transportation Service*
1992 t C T C 130 War-ha. Martin and on the Scale of Food Retailing'
Genevieve Giuliano Webber. Melvin M. 1992 I -c-rc 112
lihlaner, Carole J. and 'Empicoyee Transportation "The Joys of Autocambility"
Seyourkg Kim Coordinators: A New Profession in 1991 U C T C 110 Vim. Youngbin
"Designing and Implementing a Panel Southern California' -Travel Distance and Market Size in
Study of Commuter Ikhavior lLeasons 1992 U C T C 99 Willitam, Richard and Food Retailing'
fur Future lerseareh" Elham Shirazi 1992 U C T C 121
1993 u c r c 145 Wadi*, Martin, Brian D. Taylor, 'Transportation Demand
Ned Levine. and Paul Ong Management Polky Implications
Vat-a. Erin -The Changing Cummute: A Casc of Recent Behavioral Research'
' W e r t * Rail Ridership Forecasting study of the Jobs! Housing Symposium Sununm)
and the Implementation uf Ifigh-Speed Relationship over Time" 1991 L I C T C 29
Rail In California." Caispeed Series 1993 P C T C 167
1993 L I C I C
Walla, W. David
VatCa Erin, Thomas Bordeaux, "A Cointewration Rank Test Lit Market
Daniel Leavitt. and Peter Han linkages with an Applicatinn in the
'Revenue and Ridership Putential for a V S Natural Gas Industry'
High-Speed Rail Service in the San 1993 I I C T C 201
Francisco / Sacramento IAA Angeles
t'urrideor Treholical App. stthe Walls, W. David
Calspeed Series "Ceempetition and Prices in the
1994 L I C I C Deregulated Gas Pipeline Network
A Multivariate Cointegnitiun Analyaiii"
van Whitten. Leo J. 1993 r r c 2113
"A Model of Household Interactions in
Walls, W. David
Activity Patterns1
UCTC15
1
9 'Competition in a Network of Markets:
The Natural Gas Industry"
vim Wiamen. Leo J. and 1992 U C T C 122
Thomas F. Golub
-Simultaneous Equation Systems
Involving Binary Choke Variables' Boom in Jakarta
1990 u c r c 21)

A C C E S S
110111111I
 Ph. D. D I S S E R T A T I O N S

Ditsrtations kis.. not been reprinted, Owing to !heir length However, copies son he mode on tocial order

Adler, Jeffrey Lewis Goofier,. Konstadinos D'Regnin Katherine M. Taylor. Brian D.

An Interactive Simulation Approach
to Systematically Evaluate the
Impacts of Reatlime Traffic
Condition Information on Driver
Behavioral Choice'
1993 D i s s 18
Blank:son. Charles
'cliStilfly la the lain Angeles Coastal
Transportation Corridor Specific Plan'
1989 i t i s s 10
Cholla, Karim
I tynarnic Aitalysis at jointril
Concrete Pavements Subjected to
Moving Transient Loads"
1992 D I N A 9
Chu, 1(nel-too
'flip Scheduling and Economic
Analysis of Transportation Policies"
1993 D i s s Ili
Delaschl. %lark A..
"Emissions 01 Greenhouse Gases
from the 1.!%e of Transponation
Fuels and Electricity"
1991 D i s s 8
Du. Yates*
"fleet S n g and Empty Equipment
Redistribution for Transportation
Networks"
1993 D i s s 11
"Long Term Forecasting with
Dynamic Idicrosimulation"
1991 D i s t 21
Guender Randall
'Vehicle Emission Rates and Average
Vehkle (Meriting Speeds'
1991 D i s s 19
Handy-, Susan Leigh
-Regional versus local Accessiibility:
Variatiuns in Suburban Form and the
Effects on Non-Work Travel"
1992 I Manufacturers and Fuel Suppliers'
Kim. Seyoung
"Commuting Behavior of Two-Worker
Households in the los. Aageles
Metropolitan Area'
1993 D i e s 22
Kunini, Kenneth Stuart
'Application of a Behavioral Market
Segmentation Theory to New
Transportation Rads in New Zealand'
1992 D i s s 1S
Kwan. Mel-Pa
'CISICAS: A GIS- Interfaced
Computational-Process Model for
Activity Scheduling in Advanced
Traveler Intormation Systems-
1994 D i n t 24
Irvine, Jonathan Charles
'Social Networks and 1..tisw Wage "When Fitiallcr Leads Planning- The
labor Markets- Influence of Public Finance on
1990 D i s s 3 Transportation Planning and Policy in
California"
Pendyals, Rani Mohan 1992 I l k ' s 1
'Causal Modeling of Travel Behavior
Using Simultaneous Equations Walls, David William
Systems A Critical Examination' *Open Access Transportation.
1993 D i s t 14 Network Competition. and Market
Integration in the Natural Gas Pipeline
Rubin, Jonathan David Industry'
-Marketable Emission Permit Trading 1992 D i s s 17
and Banking for LightOuty Vehicle
Wang. Quanio
1993 D i a s 13 -The Use a s Marketable Permit
System for LightDiny Vehicle
Smith, James E. Emission Contror
"A Comparative Study of 1992 r i b i e 2
Entrepreneurial Strategies among
African-American and Latino Willson, Richard W.
Truckers In the Las Angeles and *Employer Parking Subsidies, Mode
Long Beach Palle Choke, and Public Policy'
1993 I tiss 23 1991 D i s s
Song. Shunfeng Yim, Youngbin Lee
"Spatial Suwon- and -The Relationship between
Urban Conunuting" Transportation Services and Urban
1992 D i s s 8 Activities. The Food Retail
Distributicin Case"
Souleyrette, Reginald R. 11 1990 I l i s s 20
-Transportation Services
and Innovation in the Housing
Industry A Study of the
Relations Between Transportation and
Priiduction' e pnrwicaulay emt lad

"Employment Su burbanization and 1989 D i a s 7

1st-Journey to Work"
1990 D i m 12

A C C E S S B A C K I S S U E S

Access No. I , Fall 1 9 9 2 Attest No. 3, till 1993

Cars and Demographics, Charies love
Compulsory Ridesharing in Los Angeles, Martin Wachs and Genevieve Giubono
Redundancy-. The Lesson from the Loma Prieto Earthquake, Arhus M Webber
Environmenially Benign Automobiles, Daniel Spading. et ctl
Pavement friendly Buses and Trucks). Karl Hectoci a t al.
Commuter Stress. Raymond W Novoco
Clean tor a Day: California Venus the EPA's Smog Check Allanatoo, Chortes lave
Southern California: The Detroit of Electric Can?, Aden S c a n
The Promi-se of Fuel Cell Vehkles, Mark Detuchi and David Swart
Great *sets: Monument Avenue, Richmond, Virginia, Allan 8 Jacobs
Why California Stopped Building Freeways, Brion 0 Taylor
Access Almanac: Trends in Our Times

Access No. 2, Spring 1193 (Oct el Point) Access No. 4, Spring 1994
Coshing Out Employer-Paid Parking, Door:MC. Shoup Time Again tor Reif?, Paw Nail
Congestion Pricing: New life for on Old Idea?, Kenneth A. Small No Rusts To Cokh the Train, Acial Konoioni
Private Toll Roads in AnstwicaThe First Time Around, Daniel 8 Klein Will Congestion Pricing Ever Be Adopted?, Moran Wochr
Invelligoting Toll Roods in California, Gordon .1 Fielding Coshing in an Curb Parking, Dona.'d C Shoup
Telecommuting: What's the Payoff?, Potricio I My/testi:tikes Reviving Transit Corridors oriel Transit Riding, Al10110100 LOtafhlar Sideris
Surviving in the Suburbs: Transit's Untapped Frontier, Rakiert Cervero Access Almanac: Love, Lies, and Transportation in LA,

A C C E S S
 O R D E R F O R M
AC C I S S N U N D E D 3
fail 1 9 9 4
UM A AUTHOR TITLE Q U A N T I T Y
-

teliseri Ly d i a Chen

Designs Seth Leiselenberg

m e n g t s Smogs m i l l e t

University o f C a l i f o r n i a
Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n Ctsntor

Prited an recycled p a p r t

UCTC Papers and Access bock I r e free, but please Ionia yoot request
to 'Alves at genuine interest Pa you
PH.0 Dissettotiont ore ovolloble on special order
It you would like to be added la out mailing list to reCtims Ilutute issues al
Access, please ( h e t i here U

NAME

ORGANIZATION

AODRESS

PHONE _

Send t o :
Publications. University of California Transportation Center
Photo C r s i l i s
1 0 8 N a v a l Architecture Building, University a l California, Berkeley, CA 9 4 7 2 0
Telephone (510) 6 4 3 . 3 4 5 4 F a x 1310) 6 4 3 . 3 4 5 6
E - m a i l : A C C E S S 6 U C L I N B A R I B I L E Y, 11 0 0 Front Case, bacligtottna Cahtont. P tont Cover
insets Sean McCrary !Sop. c r a w l , Vol Menotti

!bottom). pg 2 U.S Deportment oh transportaiion

A D D R E S S C O R R E C T I O N Federal Highway Adoetnistration;

pg 6 . S.$isLoudenberg p g 8 Vo l Menotti.
pg 1 2 Tod Schroder Aerial Phatogrophy,
pg I 4 U .3 Deportment of Conservation
pgs 2 4 .21. 29. Sean McCrary.'
Please attach your moiling lobel here.
pg 2 7 Repainted .nth permission of the American
Then mod or fox us this pope- natonusisi le Manulachmers Association

pg 3 0 Melvin Webber p g 3 1 Jahn Courtney,

pg 37 RoEnto Covent

U D e l e t e this name front the Accost mailing

U New address is provided on the order form above.

A C C E S S
11111111(11 1411 1 9 9 4
 The Access A l m a n a c :

The CAFE Standards Worked

Cars manufactured in the United States have become

increasingly fuel efficient in the past two decades, and

many people attribute that to rising gasoline prices.

From 1975 to 1985. following the 1973 oil embargo,

the fuel efficiency of new cars increased by more than

80 percent. What's surprising, however, is that fuel effi-

ciency continued to remain high even when gasoline FIGURE I

prices declined, even falling below prices in 1970. USFool foamy

Why didn't we see a return of the gas guzzlers?

It seems that the Energy Policy and Conservation

Act worked, just as Congress intended. It mandated

minimum corporate average fuel economy (CAFE)
standards for all new cars sold in the United States.

Each automobile manufacturer was essentially required

to double the fuel efficiency of its cars. Despite

vehement industry opposition, the standards were

largely met. (See Figure 1.)

With that dramatic improvement, American cars

are almost as fuel efficient as cars sold in Japan and 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1930 1987 1984 1986 1983 1990

Europe, where fuel efficiency has always been higher.

Fuel efficiency is improving abroad, too, but at a slower

FUELECONOMY OF NEW CARS
rate. (See Table 1.) American car owners can be happy
CAFESTANDARDS
that the price of gasoline here is considerably lower
PRICE OF GASOLINE (1994 S US)
than elsewhere, lower than it was before ihe oil

embargo, and taxes are a small proportion of the price.

(See Table 2.)
- A m a m i Glazer

A C C E S S
 TABLE 1
FUEL E C O N O M Y 1 RR I L E S P E R 0 A 1 I 0 1 1
Note: Each country may use different
UNITEDSTATES JAPAN FRANCE WESTGERMANY I t A t Y U N I T E D KINGDOM
YEAR methods for calculating new car
ISMCon N e w Cam MI Carl N e t . Altw Cm A l Cora N o w (Ars A l l Col R o w Cus All (An
-- hrel economy Only opproxirnase
1970 12.6 211 27.8 23.1 23.5 comparison can be mode across
1971 12.6 20.7 27.8 22.1 23.4 countries Doia wale generated for
1972 21.9 27,8 21.5 22.0 onternationol comparison and are 1101
1973 12.4 13.1 11.3 22.6 27.0 22.0 2 3 . 0 27.9 - 21.11 COMpOtable with other domestic fuel
1974 12.6 13.9 21.0 22.1 27.8 22.3 - 21.9 economymeasures
1975 12.7 15.4 21.4 21.2 27.4 2 7 - 7 22.0 CO 22.6
1976 12.7 16.8 21.2 22.6 26.4 2 8 . 2 21.9 22.7 Source: Tronsponloncin Energy Data
1977 12.9 17.8 21.0 24.9 26.6 2 8 . 5 21.7 22.5 Book, 14th Edilion, Stacy C Davis,
1978 13.1 18.7 20.8 26.6 26.2 2 8 . 7 71.5 H A 22.1 Oak Ridge National laboratory,
1979 13.4 18.8 20,4 27.3 26.6 2 9 - 1 21.8 2 5 . 4 27.9 - 21.6
May 1994. Tables 1 S and 1.6
1980 14.3 22.6 20.4 28.2 25.8 3 0 . 4 21.6 2 6 . 1 27.9 2 8 . 4 77.7
1981 14.7 24.2 20.8 28.9 25.6 3 1 . 9 21.7 28.2 28.1 2118 23.6
1982 15.3 24.8 21.1 3 0 . 6 25.4 3 3 . 1 21.7 29.1 28.1 2 9 . 6 23.8
1983 15.7 24.1 21.1 3 0 . 1 25.4 3 3 . 7 21.7 29.3 28.4 3 1 . 9 23.8
1984 16.2 24.7 21.5 30.1 25.7 3 4 . 5 21.7 31.4 28.9 3 2 . 9 73.8
1985 16.5 2 5 . 1 21.9 29.2 25.9 3 5 . 1 21.7 3 2 . 0 29.1 3 2 . 9 74.2
1986 16.5 M I 22.0 28.2 26.0 3 5 . 3 21.7 3 2 . 1 29.6 3 3 . 8 24.2
1987 17.1 2 6 . 0 22.4 27.8 26.3 3 5 . 7 21.9 3 1 . 1 30.0 3 4 . 3 24.5
1988 17.8 25.9 22.5 27.3 26.2 3 6 . 1 22.1 3 0 . 5 30.3 3 4 . 3 25,0
1989 18.2 25.6 22.5 26.8 26.6 3 6 . 3 22.5 3 0 . 0 30.1 25.8
1990 18.6 25.3 22.3 27.1 26.7 3 6 . 3 22.7 3 0 . 0 30.1 25.6

Gee, 4 8 % 9 3 % 3 % 20% - 4 % 31% -2% 3 0 % 8 % 21% 9 %

(1910 90
TAKE 2
SciSNrtsl yetti)
Note: Prices for the United States
GAS 0 1.1- R I C t S P I P GALEON
imovebeen adiusteclAOreflect 1994
UNITEDSTATES JAPAN FIANCE WESTGERMANY UNITED KINGDOM price levels For foreign prices, we
TEAR
Pike T a x Price T a x P i k . T a x Prka t a x Pike T e l FIN* T e a use the exchange rote which in 1980

1970 1.36 0.42 1.16 0.71 2.99 2.22 2.24 1.66 3-81 3.02 3.13 2.26 would hove made the price level in
1971 1.36 1.36 2.86 2.24 3.60 - 3.06 - the foreign country equal the price
1972 1.36 0.39 1.36 0.69 2.79 2.01 2 . 1 8 1.60 4.01 3.14 2.86 1.96 level in the United Stales then we
1973 1.36 0.41 1.36 0.69 2.65 2.05 2.11 1.29 3.60 2.71 2.72 1.,741 oditist for Inflation Therefore. the
1974 1.70 0.33 1.70 0.56 3.33 2.04 2 . 4 5 1.25 311 2.41 2.72 1.42 price in a foreign country is not the
1975 1.63 0.33 1.63 0.54 3.13 1.88 2 . 5 2 1.31 4.89 3.35 3.94 245 price expressed at current exclsonge
1976 1.56 0.31 3.13 1.31 2.99 1.73 2.58 1.71 4,35 - 3.60
- rates, it is roughlywhatthe price of
1977 1.56 0.30 3.33 1.25 3,76 2.11 2.45 1.24 5.91 3.26 i
gasoline in the foreign country would
1978 1.50 0,31 2.86 1.24 3.60 2.18 2.52 1.21 5.51 2.92 ni
1979 1.84 0.28 3.33 1.39 3.67 2.52 2.65 1.15 5.17 - 3.40 - be were average paces the same as
1980 7.24 3.74 3.81 2.18 2.92 1.46 5.51 3.38 3.67 1.75 in the United States in 1994
19411 2.24 0,23 3.74 1.39 3.88 1.78 3.33 1.59 5.85 3.58 3.94 LIS
Sources: Gasoline prices ore from
1982 1.97 0.24 3.88 1.27 3.94 2.08 3.13 LSO 5.85 3.48 3.94 2.14
1983 3.54 0.84 3.88 2.05 1.19 5.78 3.78 4.01 lee Schipper, at ciE. 'Mind the Gap
1.70 0,26 2.99
1984 1.63 0.39 3.26 1.21 3.94 2.26 2.99 1.46 5,78 3.79 3.14 2.16 TheViciousCircle of Meoliuring
1985 1.63 0.29 3.20 14.01 2.99 1.1$ 5.37 3.65 3.94 Automobile Fuel Use, Endegy Poky,
1986 1.22 0.40 2.79 1.22 3.33 2.46 2.24 1.38 4.96 1.88 3.33 2.13 December 1993, 2113): 1173.1190.
1987 1.22 - 2.72 3.26 2.11 4.76 - 3.26 Table 1 111CTIC No 2281 These retail
1988 1.16 0,36 2.51 1.20 3.20 2.46 2 . 1 1 1.36 4.76 3.75 3.06 2.05 prices include boxes
1989 1.27 0.36 2.511 1.22 3.33 2.49 2 . 4 5 1.59 5.91 4.49 3.06 1.95
1990 1.29 0.34 2.65 1.21 3.26 2.41 2.45 1.54 - - 3.06 1.110 Gasoline in-Re are From Siotissical
Abstract oi the &MoodStates, various
Change -5% -19% 95% SS% 9% 9% 9% -7% $5% 49% -2% -16% years, and from Energy Prices and
1197090 Taxes. Fourth Quarter, 1992, OECD,
atnewestviers] p 282.
 - ' ;I

U.SP
.O
S
A
T
GE
A
P
ID

U
NV
IE
RS
T
IY
O
F
C
AO
IF
L
R
NIA N
ON
P
-R
OF
T
IO
R
G
AN
A
IZ
O
T
N