Three Things (I think I know) about the Land Use / Transportation Connection Jon D. Fricker 21 June 2007

Transportation and Land Use Issues

A.

D.

“Urban Sprawl” B. Euclidean zoning C. Gasoline prices 21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 2

What the travel model says:

1. Changing Land Use patterns will affect the amount of travel (vehicle-miles traveled) – at least a little.

21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 3

What economic analysis says:

2. A neighborhood can support only so much retail activity.

21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 4

What people say:

3. A New Urbanist neighborhood design is not for everyone.

21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 5

1. Changing LU patterns

• Move non-residential LUs into one neighborhood.

• LUs that fit travel behavior, rather than the opposite • Provide LUs that satisfy the most common trip making purposes.

21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 6

1. Reverse Engineered N’hood

A. LU Categories by trip frequency: >1 trip/week, >1 trip/month, <1 trip/month:  Grocery, Gas Station, School, et al. B. Nr of each LU/100 HHs:  Trip rates per 100 HH (NPTS and ITE) for each LU  Average size of each LU C. Scale up to 1 sq mi 21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 7

1. REN example calc (1)

• 901.58 trips/week/1000 sq. ft. GFA in supermarket • 1.327 trips/week/HH to supermarket • Store area = (1.327/901.58)* 1000 *100 = 147 sq. ft./100 HHs • Avg supermarket size 34K sq ft  supermarkets per 100 HH 0.004 • Repeat for all other “frequent” LUs 21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 8

1. REN example calc (2)

• Repeat for all other “frequent” LUs land area needed to serve 100 HHs  total • Assumed HHs/acre  land needed • Scale up to fill one square mile  “attractions” in REN 21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 9

1. REN travel model

• Let residents work and shop anywhere.

• TAZ size  one city block • Subarea analysis • VMT or Trip Length 21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 10

21 June 2007

1. Changes in Travel

Avg. TL (miles) HBW HBNW NHB Avg. TL (miles) HBW HBNW NHB

Trips in/out of REN

2.292

Trips in and out of EUCLID 2.407

% change w.r.t. EUCLID

-4.8

0.909

1.012

-10.2

0.763

1.278

-40.3

REN+5 zones

4.601

EUCLID+ 5 zones % change w.r.t. EUCLID 4.712

2.933

3.790

3.233

3.949

-2.4

-9.3

-4.0

3 Things ... LU/Tp 11

1. Lessons

• Introducing non-residential LUs gives residents a choice of destinations that are closer.

• The resulting reductions in trip lengths are noticeable, but not dramatic, at the neighborhood level.

• The trip length reductions are barely noticeable at the system level.

21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 12

2. Neighborhood businesses

• How many retail establishments can a New Urbanist neighborhood support?

21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 13

2. Neighborhood businesses

• Shift analysis from trips and GFA to $/HH and $/LU type • Nhood area one sq mi • 5(?) HHs/sq mi • Do “Market Analysis” (next two slides) 21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 14

2. Consumer Expenditure Based Market Analysis

An average household spends $3000 a year on grocery-store related items.

• An average grocery store has sales of $600,000 a year.

• Then, the number of grocery stores that can be supported by 100 HHs = $3000 * 100 / ($ 600,000) = 0.5 grocery stores 21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 15

2. Household-Based Market Analysis

• There are 1000 banks in a state with a population of 100,000 (i.e., 0.01 banks per person).

• The average income at the state level is $12,000 a year.

• The average income at the county level is $10,000 a year.

• Then, the number of banks that can be supported by 100 HHs = 0.01 * 100 * ($10,000/ $12,000) = 0.83 banks 21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 16

2. Lessons

At “normal” urban densities for single family dwellings (4-6 HH/acre), a one square-mile neighborhood cannot support enough stores to cover even one edge.

  Density must be increased dramatically, probably by high-rise apartment buildings, or The “neighborhood” stores must rely on customers from other neighborhoods.

21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 17

3. Preference Surveys

• Two-part survey at a monthly meeting of a neighborhood association.

(1) Rate the desirability of twenty-four types of non-residential land uses if they were located within walking distance of your residence. (2) Three hypothetical New Urbanist-like neighborhood revitalization case studies, differing by location and scale, were presented.

21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 18

3. LU Preferences (1)

• Churches were most preferred, while liquor stores were ranked lowest. (figure next page) • Land uses visited frequently (e.g. grocery store or restaurant) rated higher than less-frequented ‘benign’ LUs, such as an insurance sales office.

• A positive relationship between the frequency of trips taken and the desirability of a particular land use within a neighborhood.

21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 19

21 June 2007

3. LU preferences (2)

5.0

Church Gro cery Sto re P harmacy Do cto r Restauraunt B ank P ublic Library Dentist B o o ksto re Department Sto re Hair and B eauty Salo n Hardware Sto re Dry Cleaner Theatre Fitness Center P ro fessio nal Services Office Electric A ppliance Sto re Furniture Sto re Jewelry Sto re Video Rental Sto re Office Supplies Sto re Insurance Sales Office A uto Repair Sho p Liquo r Sto re 1.6

2.9

2.9

2.8

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

2.7

3.4

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.6

3.6

3.5

4.0

3.9

4.3

4.2

4.5

0 1 2 3

Land Use Type

4 5 6 3 Things ... LU/Tp 20

3. New Urbanist Cases

21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 21

3. Residents’ Opinions

• Opposed proposed developments in center of neighborhood -- would increase traffic.

• Development on perimeter acceptable, but few residents would not walk/bicycle to the proposed developments, despite their proximity. • People would still go to more distant stores for longer hours, lower prices, greater variety.

21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 22

• Not this:

In other words, …

• But this: 21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 23

Review of Results

1. Land use changes can help reduce VMT, but this is a long-term solution.

2. High densities needed to support “frequent” LUs, but other LUs need a larger market shed.

3. A minority like New Urbanist design now, but this market niche needs to be nurtured.

21 June 2007 3 Things ... LU/Tp 24