-
Title
-
Eng
If You Build It, Will They Come? The Future of Light-Rail in the Central Puget Sound Region
-
Date
-
2007
-
Creator
-
Eng
Buschmann, Whitney Katherine
-
Subject
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text
-
IF YOU BUILD IT, WILL THEY COME?
The Future of Light-Rail in the Central Puget Sound Region
by
Whitney Katherine Buschmann
A Thesis: Essay of Distinction
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2007
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Whitney K. Buschmann
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Edward A, Whitesell, Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty
June 15, 2007
ii
ABSTRACT
If You Build It, Will They Come?
The Future of Light-Rail in the Central Puget Sound Region
Whitney Katherine Buschmann
The transportation sector has significant environmental impacts seen at local, regional
and global levels. These include air and water pollution, habitat degradation, and human
health effects. Many of these problems can be ameliorated simply by providing
convenient alternatives to the automobile.
The purpose of this thesis is to contribute to the examination of the proposal by Sound
Transit, the designated Regional Transit Authority for the central Puget Sound region in
Washington State, to implement a second phase of light-rail in the area. Despite the
environmental benefits of mass transit, it is not reasonable to build a transit system under
the assumption that “if you build it, they will come.” For one thing, failed mass transit
efforts in the past have led to a regional culture dominated by the automobile.
Numerous studies attest to links between travel behavior, on the one hand, and population
and employment density, land use patterns, activity location, and transit infrastructure, on
the other. This thesis focuses primarily on density. It incorporates a literature review and
uses a Geographic Information System (GIS) to analyze population and employment
density in central Puget Sound. Based upon this analysis, there is a great deal of evidence
to suggest that current conditions in the vicinity of the light-rail create an environment
that is not conducive to facilitating the levels of ridership Sound Transit has projected.
An integrated set of policies aimed at the improvement, expansion, and encouragement of
more efficient forms of transportation and the discouragement of less efficient modes can
make significant headway towards the establishment of a successful urban transit
network including light-rail and other modes of public transportation.
Although this thesis has a specific focus - the examination of regional transportation
issues that are present today in central Puget Sound, many of the issues and the themes
discussed herein will be relevant for years to come.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................1
The Sound Transit Proposal..........................................................................................................................1
Undesirable Effects of Automobile Use and Automobile Congestion........................................................1
Moving Forward: The Role of Public Transit..............................................................................................9
Evaluating the Potential for Success...........................................................................................................10
Organization of Paper..................................................................................................................................13
CHAPTER 2: VARIABLES IN THE SUCCESS OF MASS TRANSIT.................15
Land Use .......................................................................................................................................................16
Urban Design.................................................................................................................................................25
Demographics................................................................................................................................................27
Existing Transit Infrastructure...................................................................................................................27
Public Policy..................................................................................................................................................28
CHAPTER 3: RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT DENSITY IN THE LIGHTRAIL AREA.........................................................................................................31
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................................................31
Results............................................................................................................................................................33
CHAPTER 4: OTHER CITIES WITH SUCCESSFUL MASS TRANSIT SYSTEMS
............................................................................................................................39
Toronto, Canada...........................................................................................................................................39
San Diego, California....................................................................................................................................41
Portland, Oregon .........................................................................................................................................41
CHAPTER 5: SOUND TRANSIT IN THE PUGET SOUND REGION.................47
Growth in Central Puget Sound..................................................................................................................47
Existing Transportation Policies in Central Puget Sound .......................................................................47
Link Light-rail in the Puget Sound Region................................................................................................49
Land Use in Central Puget Sound...............................................................................................................50
iv
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................54
Regional, integrated planning approach....................................................................................................54
The Effect of Rail Transit on Surrounding Areas......................................................................................58
So… Will They Come?................................................................................................................................59
REFERENCES....................................................................................................61
v
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: CENTRAL PUGET SOUND, WASHINGTON STATE.........................3
FIGURE 2: TOTAL ENERGY-RELATED CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) EMISSIONS
BY END-USE SECTOR (1949-2005)....................................................................5
FIGURE 3: SOURCES OF CO2 EMISSIONS IN THE TRANSPORTATION
SECTOR................................................................................................................5
FIGURE 4: TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE.............................................16
FIGURE 5: ARCHETYPES OF URBAN FORM..................................................18
FIGURE 6: SOUND TRANSIT DISTRICT...........................................................34
FIGURE 7: RESIDENTIAL POPULATION DENSITY IN THE SOUND TRANSIT
DISTRICT ...........................................................................................................35
FIGURE 8: RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT DENSITY IN THE SOUND
TRANSIT DISTRICT ..........................................................................................36
FIGURE 9: RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT DENSITY IN THE SOUND
TRANSIT DISTRICT; PHASE 1 OF LIGHT-RAIL...............................................37
FIGURE 10: RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT DENSITY IN THE SOUND
TRANSIT DISTRICT; PHASE 1 AND 2 OF LIGHT-RAIL....................................38
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Luke Bowerman
Simply said - thank you, for everything.
Priscilla Bowerman
Thank you for your guidance, insight, and literary talents.
Edward A, Whitesell, Ph.D. The Evergreen State College
To my faculty reader, thank you for your insightful conversations during the development
of ideas for this thesis, and for helpful comments on the text.
Julieanne Fogde Washington State Department of Transportation
To my friend and colleague, thank you for your GIS wisdom, consultation, and moral
support.
Ron Cihon Washington State Department of Transportation
Thank you for providing the idea for this thesis and for your support, encouragement, and
flexibility.
Jeff Anderson Community Transit
Thank you for your consultation on how to approach the spatial analysis portion of this
thesis.
Kristina Evanoff Sound Transit
Thank you for graciously providing me the Sound Transit data used in the GIS analysis
portion of this thesis.
Peter Rasch and Sarah Vye
To my parents, thank you for instilling in me the discipline, work ethic and tenacity to
accomplish whatever I set out to do. Without that, this, and many other things in my life,
would not have been possible. I am eternally grateful for your efforts.
vii
I. INTRODUCTION
Multiple environmental problems can be ameliorated simply by providing convenient
alternatives to the automobile. Because of insufficient progress in this regard, automobile
use continues to increase, along with average auto trip length. For the environment this
has meant an increase in air and water pollution, habitat degradation, and a host of other
problems.
The Sound Transit Proposal
A solution for the central Puget Sound Region of Washington State is currently under
consideration, the installation of an extensive public light-rail system. Sound Transit, the
designated Regional Transit Authority for central Puget Sound, has begun construction on
the first phase of light-rail that will link downtown Seattle to the Seattle-Tacoma
International airport. The first phase also includes expanding the light-rail north through
Seattle’s Capitol Hill and University District neighborhoods, though funding for this
portion of the project has been only partially secured. In November 2007 voters in the
urbanized areas of King, Pierce and Snohomish counties will decide if the light-rail will
be expanded south to Tacoma, north to Lynwood, and east to Bellevue.
Undesirable Effects of Automobile Use and Automobile Congestion
Travel in congested areas has a variety of direct and indirect costs. These include lost
time for personal travel, increased vehicle operating expenses, and increased vehicle fuel.
The economy struggles with lost productivity due to increased time for business travel,
difficulty in attracting new businesses, and increased travel time for truckers and
shippers, which in turn leads to higher prices for customers. A study of 85 urban and
urbanized areas in the United States determined that, in the areas studied, the cost of
congestion amounted to $63.1 billion in 2003 (3.7 billion hours of wasted time and 2.3
billion gallons of wasted fuel). This was up from $61.5 billion in 2002. The average
annual cost per traveler was $794 – ranging from $1038 per traveler in the largest urban
areas to $222 in the smallest urban areas. Areas with populations over 3 million
accounted for about two-thirds of the congestion cost . Traffic
congestion costs the Puget Sound Region an estimated $844 million annually, or $465 per
traveler each year in wasted time and fuel .
1
The Puget Sound region has some of the worst traffic congestion in the United States.
The primary cause of the escalating congestion is an increase in traffic with a fixed
capacity of roads. The Washington State Department of Transportation tracks
performance data for 35 important commutes in the Central Puget Sound region. In
2005, 34 of these routes experienced increased travel times during peak periods, slower
speeds, longer peak periods and more unreliable travel times than in 2003 (Washington
State Department of Transportation 2006).
It can also not be ignored that the geography of the Central Puget Sound region presents a
variety of challenges for transportation (see Figure 1). Due to the hourglass shape of
Seattle, sandwiched between Lake Washington and Puget Sound, and the concentration of
residences and jobs in certain parts of the city, much traffic moves through the narrow
land-mass on Interstate 5. Beyond Seattle, significant water bodies, namely Puget Sound
and Lake Washington, present more challenges for transportation: east-west
transportation relies significantly on bridges on State Route 520 and Interstate 90.
The region’s current population of 3.8 million people is expected to grow by 1.4 million,
almost 40%, by 2020 , adding 800,000 new jobs . The region will need to accommodate
over 60% more travel, putting increasing stress on a transportation system that may
already be at or beyond capacity . In addition to the negative effects this population
growth will have on travel, increasing pressure will also be placed on the environment.
2
Figure 1: Central Puget Sound, Washington State
The geography of the Central Puget Sound region presents a variety of challenges for
transportation.
3
The Environmental Effects of Automobile Use
The transportation sector has significant environmental impacts seen at local, regional
and global levels. The entire cycle of fuel production, conversion and use leaves
undesirable by-products in the environment - from unburned or altered fuel components
to products of combustion to heavy metals. Fuel combustion produces carbon monoxide
and carbon dioxide, as well as nitrogen oxides, largely responsible for global climate
change and smog, respectively. Additional effects of automobile use include noise
pollution, congestion, solid wastes, stormwater discharges to waterways, habitat
disruption and destruction, and injuries.
Emissions
Anthropogenic (human-caused) changes in the earth’s climate are due primarily to the
greenhouse gases that are produced by the combustion of fossil fuels for energy. This is
especially true in central Puget Sound, where changes in land cover are less of a factor
than in some other regions. Greenhouse gases trap more ultraviolet radiation from the
sun in the earth’s atmosphere, resulting in a warming effect in many areas, which is a
major part of global climate change. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions constitute about
84% of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States – 98% of this is the result of
burning fossil fuels. In the United States the annual growth rate in CO2 emissions for all
energy sectors has closely tracked the annual population growth (1.2% annually for each,
since 1990) .
According to the US Government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2001
50% (42.2 million metric tons) of US carbon dioxide emissions came from the
transportation sector, making transportation the largest contributing end-use sector to
total emissions (see Figure 2).
4
Figure 2: Total Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions by End-Use Sector
(1949-2005)
Measured in million metric tons of CO2 (“P” indicates preliminary data)
Data source: US Energy Information Administration, 2005
Figure 3: Sources of CO2 Emissions in the Transportation Sector
Data source: US Energy Information Administration, 2005
5
Estimates for 2005 indicate that carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector
increased by 1%, though between 1990 and 2004 the average growth in transportation
emissions has been 1.5%. The EIA asserts that the slower growth in emissions between
2004 and 2005 can be attributed primarily to higher energy prices as well as weatherrelated disruptions along the Gulf Coast of the United States. Consumption of petroleum
products accounted for 98% of transportation sector emissions: motor gasoline at 60%,
diesel fuel at 22%, jet fuel at 12%, and heavy oil (largely for maritime use) at 3.3% (see
Figure 3) .
The burning of fossil fuels also produces sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides
(NOX). These two air pollutants have serious health and environmental impacts. Sulphur
dioxide can cause impairment of respiratory function, aggravation of existing respiratory
diseases, cardiovascular disease, and increased mortality. Individuals with existing
respiratory diseases like asthma, bronchitis, or emphysema, and those with cardiovascular
disease, as well as children and the elderly are the most sensitive. Such individuals may
experience symptoms including wheezing, shortness of breath, and coughing. Nitrogen
oxide (NO) is the main nitrogen oxide gas emitted during combustion and can be
converted to nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a corrosive and highly oxidizing gas that, in the
presence of sunlight, contributes to ozone formation, or “smog,” and particulate matter.
Small particulates are able to deposit deep in the lung, aggravating existing respiratory
diseases and damaging lung tissues. Individuals with chronic lung or heart disease,
influenza, or asthma, as well as children and the elderly are particularly sensitive and may
exhibit symptoms similar to those caused by sulphur dioxide. In the Puget Sound Region
automobiles and buses produce 76% of the NO and 57% of the volatile organic
compounds that combine with NO to form NO2 and ozone. In King County almost 10%
of children and 7% of adults have asthma . In many areas emissions from industrial
sources have stabilized or decreased, while those from automobiles continue to rise .
Greenhouse gas emissions are a function of three key variables: vehicle miles traveled
(VMT), fuel economy, and fuel carbon content. Achieving significant reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions from transportation requires a comprehensive set of
complementary measures including slowing VMT growth, reducing vehicle greenhouse
6
gas (GHG) emission rates, increasing the use of low-GHG emission fuels, and improving
freight efficiency . Results of a household-based study indicate that households in the
most interconnected areas of Seattle generated less than one-half the VMT of households
located in the least connected areas of the region, and these findings hold true after
controlling for household size, income, and vehicle ownership . On a regional level
research has shown that sprawl is the strongest influence on VMT per person – exceeding
the influence of metropolitan population and per capita income .
Runoff
Stormwater runoff is difficult to control, owing to its geographical spread and the variety
of pollutants it carries. The most common pollutants in runoff from roads and highways
are heavy metals, inorganic salts, aromatic hydrocarbons, and suspended solids that
accumulate on the road surface as a result of regular highway operation and maintenance
activities. Salting and sanding practice, for example, may leave concentrations of
chloride, sodium, and calcium on the roadway surface. Wear and tear of vehicles results
in the dropping of oil, grease, rust, hydrocarbons, rubber particles, and calcium on the
highway surface. These materials are washed off the highway by precipitation.
Runoff from highways is one of the primary avenues by which toxins can reach fresh and
marine waters. Surface waters (streams, rivers, ponds, lakes) are exposed to
contaminants released directly into the air as well as those released through highway
runoff. Contamination of groundwater occurs gradually as contaminants slowly percolate
downward though the soil. Certain contaminants, such as, dissolved forms of copper and
zinc are toxic to fish and are difficult to remove using most conventional, passive
stormwater treatment systems. Improperly managed stormwater also contributes to
erosion, flooding and habitat destruction.
In December 2005 Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire unveiled an initiative
to clean up Puget Sound by the year 2020 and formed the Puget Sound Partnership, a
public/private union, to head the effort. Nearly $9 billion is expected to be spent between
now and 2020 on Puget Sound-wide protection and restoration. A focal point for the
Partnership is stormwater management, which the group has identified as the most
7
widespread of environmental challenges in the Puget Sound Region. Of the money the
State of Washington plans to spend on cleaning up Puget Sound, stormwater
management, especially from state highways, ranks second from the top. Additional
funding is provided by the federal government and by county and local governments .
Habitat
Habitat protection and restoration in the Puget Sound Region has been outpaced by
population growth and development and the resulting changes to land cover and
shorelands. More than 40 species in the Puget Sound region are on the federal and
Washington State lists of threatened, endangered, or candidate species that require special
protection. This list includes Chinook (King) salmon, Orca (Killer) whales, and other
species of fish, marine mammals, birds, and wildlife. One of the primary threats to these
species is loss and degradation of habitat. Other threats include changes in water quality
and quantity, over-harvest, disease, and competition or predation from non-native species
(Manning 2006).
Forest cover has been replaced in many areas by cities, roads, business, parking lots, and
homes. The resulting increase in impervious surfaces leads to reduced absorption of
rainwater. As a result, high winter stormwater flows damage habitat in rivers and
streams. The loss of water retention in the soil from impervious surfaces also further
reduces streamflows during the dry season that are necessary to support fish and wildlife
(Manning 2006).
8
Moving Forward: The Role of Public Transit
At times in the Puget Sound region, as elsewhere, there appears to be a conflict between
the goals of the citizens, regional economic growth, and the needs of the natural
environment. But this is an illusion. In fact, health of the natural environment is
important to the state’s economy. Some benefits of the natural environment are directly
measurable. Annual values for recreational fisheries, commercial shellfish, and
recreational shellfish are $10 million, $59 million, and $19.2 million respectively. In
addition, the Puget Sound Region provides $5.2 billion in tourism revenue, with nearly
400,000 people engaging in recreational activities around Puget Sound at least once each
year (Manning 2006). Given the observed downward trends in ecosystem health and the
predicted increase in regional population, steps need to be taken to protect, restore and
ensure the health of the natural environment and key sectors of the state’s economy.
Debates occur in the literature and in the popular press over whether public transit is the
key to reducing emissions and other negative environmental consequences of dependence
on the automobile. Some argue that, particularly in North America, public transit is used
for only a small percentage of actual trips. This is due in large part to suburbanization,
which has led to people traveling further between origins and destinations. Employment
that was historically concentrated in the downtown core has spread outward, forcing
public transit to juggle maintaining a minimum level of service to the central city with
demand for new routes to dispersed employment locations in the suburbs, which are more
costly to provide . Of the 20 largest urban mass transit systems in the United States, 15
saw ridership decline in the 1990s, about half by 10% or more . In 1998, 1 in 20
commuters used public transit. This figure reached 1 in 5 in 15 US cities and 1 in 3 in
only 5 US cities . Loss of riders leads to funding issues where public transit systems are
forced to decide what they can and can’t offer. As urban sprawl continues many cities are
forced to make decisions about the fate of public transit. This can mean increasing
subsidies in order to accommodate the increasing inefficiency of transit at suburban
densities or disposing of seldom-used routes in order to shuffle funding to more dominant
routes . This has implications not only for the future of mass transit but for the cities
themselves.
9
Where land use patterns can support it, public transit trips can take up a significant
portion of total transportation. The highest shares of riders are found in cities like New
York and Toronto where urban land development has been influenced by existing rail
infrastructure. A question then arises over whether existing patterns of land use can be
reformed for the improved support of an expanded public transport system. Debates
continue to occur in the transportation planning literature over whether the link between
urban design and travel behavior are causal or merely associative.
Policies to decrease environmental damage associated with automobile use have, until
recently, focused on automobile technology and the design and management of roads. In
the long run transportation must be considered not only in terms of technology but also
with regard to land use patterns and population growth. In order for light-rail to be
successful in central Puget Sound these factors need to be addressed.
Evaluating the Potential for Success
Light-Rail Ridership
Considering the complexity and expense of this undertaking, it is essential that the
likelihood of success of the proposed light-rail system be carefully examined. The
success of public transit is typically defined in terms of ridership numbers. A critical
mass of riders is required for transit service to be made practical and accessible for the
users while still being financially sustainable for the operator. Sound Transit has
estimated that by 2020 the initial light-rail segment between downtown Seattle and
Tukwila will carry more than 42,500 riders daily. By connecting the urban centers of
downtown Seattle, Capitol Hill, and the University District, the north link extension, also
part of the first phase, is expected to add 107,500 riders daily when it is completed in
2030. Sound Transit expects the second phase, up for vote in November 2007, to put an
additional 174,200 riders on the light-rail system (Sound Transit 2007).1
To achieve high ridership transit riders must share origins (where they live, for example)
and destinations (where they work, shop, recreate and so on). One of the primary
1
The first phase of the light-rail is being funded through a 0.3% motor vehicle excise tax and a 0.4% retail
sales tax, approved by voters in 1996, in addition to federal grants, bonding and, once operation begins,
fares from riders. The second phase would be funded by a sales tax increase of 0.5% in addition to existing
taxes and bonding (Sound Transit 2007).
10
indicators of ridership or transit success is population density, both in terms of residence
and employment. An apartment building, for example, will generate greater transit
ridership than a rural housing development. Likewise, a suburban office park will
generate fewer riders than a high-rise office building in a city’s downtown core. Whether
an area supports high residential or employment density depends in large part on land use
patterns. Land that is zoned for low-density residential living, for example, does not
allow for the population density necessary to support transit. Also of significance is
urban design, which concerns the arrangement, appearance and functionality of towns
and cities.
There are still many other factors that can affect transit success. People with disabilities,
people of different cultures, people traveling by different modes of transportation,
experience their surroundings in different ways, and these daily experiences have some
bearing on the likelihood that they will take public transit. Likewise, demographics,
including age, gender and income levels, play a role, as does the existing transit
infrastructure, vehicle taxation rates, and whether or not the political culture values
transit.
Likelihood of Success of Sound Transit, Phase 2: If You Build it, Will They Come?
The purpose of this thesis is to contribute to the examination of the Sound Transit
proposal for the second phase of light-rail. It is not reasonable to build a transit system
under the assumption that “if you build it, they will come.” For one thing, failed mass
transit efforts in the past have led to a regional culture dominated by the automobile.
Giuliano concluded that transportation improvements play a limited role in shaping the
urban form of major metropolitan areas in the United States: it is only part of the
extensive infrastructure that has shaped urban and regional form in these areas for
decades . Transportation improvements may shape land use patterns only if the costs to
residents are significant (such as a very congested downtown) or if development
decisions seriously affect accessibility (such as rapidly growing suburban areas).
Numerous studies at both the household and regional level attest to links between travel
behavior, on the one hand, and population and employment density, land use patterns,
11
activity location, and transit infrastructure, on the other. This thesis focuses primarily on
density, examining the relationship between residential and employment population
densities and transit ridership in the central Puget Sound Region. The study incorporates
a literature review and uses a Geographic Information System (GIS) to analyze
population and employment density in the region. Based upon this analysis, there is a
great deal of evidence to suggest that current conditions in the vicinity of the light-rail,
namely existing population and employment densities, create an environment that is not
conducive to facilitating the levels of ridership Sound Transit has projected.
That said, achieving significant use of light-rail and other public transit service, as well as
walking and bicycling, does not require that Central Puget Sound achieve a New York
City-level of density or infrastructure. An integrated set of policies aimed at the
improvement, expansion, and encouragement of more efficient forms of transportation
and the discouragement of less efficient modes can make significant headway towards the
establishment of a successful urban transit network including light-rail and other modes
of public transportation. Improvements in land use planning, such as clustering
development, can support multi-modal transportation choices.
This thesis provides evidence to support these assertions. It is intended to serve as a
snapshot in time – an examination of regional transportation issues that are present today
in central Puget Sound. Six months from the writing of this document the fate of the
current light-rail proposal will have been determined; however, many of the issues and
themes discussed herein will be relevant for years to come.
12
Organization of Paper
This paper includes a review of literature on successful transit systems. The literature
review is followed by a GIS analysis of residential and employment population densities
in areas to be served by Sound Transit. The paper also includes a study of successful
transit efforts in other cities as a means of finding similarities which may account for
their success. These similarities are then applied to the central Puget Sound region.
This introductory chapter has provided an overview of the consequences of automobile
use, particularly as they relate to the natural environment. These consequences include
anthropogenic climate change and impaired respiratory function in humans, both of
which result from the emission of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and
nitrogen oxides), pollution of surface (freshwater lakes and rivers) and marine waters
from highway runoff, and habitat degradation. Clearly, the natural environment could
benefit from reduction in auto use in central Puget Sound.
However, people may not choose to use public transit even if built. Chapter 2 identifies
the variables that contribute to whether or not mass transit succeeds in a given area, that
is, whether people choose to use it instead of automobiles. Of chief importance is
population density, both in terms of where people live (residential density) and where
people work (employment density). For example, a dense urban area can facilitate a
higher level of public transit ridership than a sprawling, sparsely populated suburban one.
Also important are land use mix and urban design. A mix of high-density residential and
commercial development helps to facilitate the development of population centers that
are able to provide high levels of ridership on public transit. Urban design concerns the
shaping of urban public space as a method by which to encourage people to walk, bike or
take public transit. Demographic factors, including age, race, and income, as well as
existing transportation infrastructure and public policy, also play a role.
Chapter 3 outlines the methodology that was employed to develop this thesis. A review
of the literature identified population density thresholds, below which public transit
becomes impractical for the user and financially unsustainable for the operator. A
Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to analyze population and employment
13
data from the 2000 US Decennial Census.
Chapter 4 provides case studies of several cities that have been recognized for their
comprehensive public transportation systems: Toronto, Canada; Portland, Oregon, and
San Diego, California. Toronto has a regional government that provides all major public
services including public transit and has significant influence on land development,
taxation and other factors with the potential to influence public transit. San Diego has a
regional government with growth-management and development strategies that help to
facilitate transit. Portland’s regional government also allows for the creation of effective
land use planning policies. The political climate also bears similarities to Seattle’s.
Chapter 5 introduces the reader to Sound Transit’s proposal for light-rail in the Central
Puget Sound region. Chapter 5 takes the issues addressed and lessons learned in
Chapters 2, 3, and 4 and systematically applies them to the Sound Transit project as a
means of addressing what might be done in order to improve its effectiveness.
14
Chapter 2: VARIABLES IN THE SUCCESS OF MASS TRANSIT
The first phase of Sound Transit light-rail runs through a number of areas in Seattle with
dense population that already generate many riders on King County’s Metro Bus System.
This phase of the light-rail will have a built-in ridership from neighborhoods such as
Rainier Valley, Beacon Hill, Capitol Hill, and the University District. The second phase
of the light-rail, however, extends out of the dense urban core of Seattle through areas
that exhibit much lower population densities. Additionally, this light-rail extension will
require coordination among a number of different transit agencies because each county
has its own public transit system, as do some municipalities.
Current conditions in the vicinity of the Sound Transit light-rail line, particularly the
proposed second phase, are not wholly conducive to supporting high levels of ridership.
Land surrounding transit corridors and stations needs to support a critical mass of transit
users. There is a certain population density below which transit becomes impractical for
users and financially unsustainable for operators without heavy subsidies. In other
words, the lower the population density the more difficult it is for transit to operate. Land
that is zoned for low-density residential living, for example, does not allow for the
population density necessary to support transit.
Population density is affected by a variety of factors including land development patterns
(such as mixed-use, typically achieved through municipal zoning regulations),
neighborhood and street design, availability of parking, demographics, existing transit
infrastructure, vehicle taxation rates, and political culture. The purpose of this chapter is
to provide an overview of these various factors that have been identified in the literature.
15
Land Use
Figure 4: Transportation and Land Use
Changes to transportation technology and infrastructure can lead to effects on
accessibility. Changes to land use can have an effect on activity patterns particularly in
terms of the number and timing of trips which in turn affects the demand for
transportation infrastructure and services (adapted from Giuliano (Hanson 2004)).
Causes of Urban Sprawl
In Western Europe land has traditionally been regulated to serve the public. This is not
the case in the United States, which, along with Australia, is one of two industrialized
countries with weak planning traditions . Here the goals of developers and particular
groups of landowners are often favored over the needs of the general public, and
problems in land use planning go unaddressed. Within this context, there are two
principal courses of urban sprawl, land markets and zoning.
Land Markets
A widely accepted notion is the idea that urban sprawl results primarily from free markets
in land development (Levine 2006). According to this idea, market disinterest has
resulted in a lack of compact, mixed-use, walkable and transit-oriented urban
environments in areas developed or redeveloped after World War II. Underpinning this
notion is the idea that most Americans prefer low-density living; thus, the free market
16
offers little profit to those who might build compact, mixed-use, transit-friendly
environments. Stemming from these assumptions are urban planning tactics that attempt
to constrain the market’s sprawling tendencies by employing a variety of regulatory tools
aimed at encouraging development forms that the market is incapable of providing . In
Puget Sound sprawl is exacerbated now by housing prices in areas such as Seattle which
have out-priced many buyers, forcing them to move further from the city center.
Zoning
Empirical social science research into the impact of land use regulation on development
patterns in metropolitan areas suggests that zoning and other interventions by the
municipality tend to increase sprawl, leading to development that is lower in density and
to communities that are more exclusive than would have arisen in the absence of such
regulation . The reasons for this become apparent when one considers that municipal
zoning ordinances typically limit building heights and lot coverage, set minimum parking
space requirements for a development, and specify engineering standards to determine
minimum roadway widths. In some areas municipal zoning codes specify single-family
homes in order to preserve the homogeneity of a neighborhood. More affordable housing
types, including multifamily housing, manufactured housing, apartments, and singleroom-occupancy dwellings are cited as having incompatible uses and are pushed out .
Urban Form
Urban form refers to the shape of cities and towns: the design, type and location of
development, protected areas, and how these areas are connected to and supported by
each other. Urban structure is defined by the relationships that arise from urban form and
the associated interactions of people, freight and information. Together they define the
large-scale spatial network of towns and cities. Existing city structures affect the potential
for new transit infrastructure.
17
Archetypes of Urban Form
Figure 5: Archetypes of Urban Form
There are three common archetypes of urban form in the United States: the concentric
zone model, the sector model, and the multiple nuclei model (adapted from Anderson
1996).
Urban form differs significantly around the world. The study of urban land use in the
United States generally draws from three traditional archetypes that were developed to
generalize about the patterns of urban land use found in early industrial cities in the US:
the concentric zone model, the radial or sector model, and the multinucleated model (see
Figure 5). The concentric city is the traditional urban form, the first model developed to
explain the spatial distribution of social groups in urban areas. According to this model,
the city grows outward from a central point in a series of rings, with the central ring
representing the Central Business District (CBD). Contemporary CBDs tend to feature
high employment density, high residential and commercial rent, the most trip ends and a
dense transportation network. The CBD is surrounded by a second ring, the transition
zone, or Inner City, that contains industry and lower-income housing. The third and
fourth rings, zones for better residences, contain housing for working-class and middleclass respectively. The outermost ring is known as the commuter’s zone, representing
18
suburbs with residents who commute into the CBD to work. Ernest Burgess, the
sociologist who developed the concentric model, observed a correlation between the
distance from the CBD and the socio-economic status of the residents. Wealthier families
tended to live further away from the CBD. The city would expand outwards as it grew,
thus pushing the outer rings further from the CBD .
The dominance of the concentric city waned as the growth of suburbs along major road
corridors throughout the US in the 1940s and 1950s led to the emergence of sub-centers
that competed with the central business district for economic activities. Other urban
forms such as the radial or sector city and the multinucleated city developed. In 1939,
Homer Hoyt modified the concentric zone model to account for major transportation
routes. The radial city features a number of smaller major routes that extend from the
central business district, with heavy land use along these transportation lines . Developed
in the mid 1940s by two geographers, C.D. Harris and E.L. Ullman, the multinucleated
city model features several city centers, around which activities revolve. A city that
started with a central business district may develop into a multinucleated city as
complementary activities, for example a university, bookstores and coffee shops, cluster
together. Each has high employment density, a high volume of trip ends, and high rent .
Debate continues over what urban form is most efficient for transit. In actuality, probably
none of them is ideal because all are static, not allowing for a description of the process
of how land use changes over time. Historically, the compact, centralized, concentric
form was thought to be ideal. A number of studies have demonstrated that CBDs are very
supportive of transit, whereas the job decentralization that is characteristic of a
multinucleated or dispersed pattern results in less use of transit for both work and nonwork trips . Recent research, however, has indicated a preference for the multinucleated
form, in part because it may provide a more realistic alternative, especially for the United
States. It is unlikely that many US cities would be able to revert from urban sprawl back
to a concentric city model for a number of reasons including the fact that, although
downtown areas have historically played a significant role in transit’s success, downtown
jobs have fallen in recent decades as sub-regional employment hubs have developed . If
transit is to be expanded it will likely be necessary to create transit corridors that link a
19
limited number of sub-regional centers that can support ridership, although not typically
to the same extent as the CBDs .
Urban Form, Urban Structure and Transit
The growing size and complexity of cities and towns has created new challenges for
urban form and structure, with the capacity of the transportation system tending to shape
demographic and mobility growth. Travel behavior differs dramatically around the world
depending largely on the spatial structure, and transportation network as well as the
cultural values of the area .
Urban structure affects transit in two primary ways. First, the location of residential and
employment centers affects the likelihood that people will choose transit as their mode of
transportation. Second, people’s willingness to walk or drive allows for the definition of
transit corridors within which transit can be expected to perform satisfactorily. In
planning for transit, it is important to consider not only the transit trip itself but also the
trip to and from the transit station.
Interrelation of Land Use and Transportation
Transportation systems, transportation policy, and land use are intertwined, each
influencing the development of the other. The precise nature of the interaction, however,
is not clear.
Urban form encompasses both the development that results from land use regulations as
well as the physical connections that are created by the transportation infrastructure.
How exactly urban form and transportation policy one another is debated. It has long
been argued that past transportation policies such as the federal-aid highway program and
energy pricing have contributed to the decentralization of urban activities in cities
throughout the United States and that the resulting redistribution of population and jobs
between central cities and suburbs has contributed to congestion, traffic hazards, and
pollution . Others contend that urban land use reflects location decisions made by
individual households and employers, and that transportation is simply one of the many
factors that influence these decisions.
20
Anderson (1996) suggests that transportation and land use are by nature difficult to
reconcile due to their distinctly different motives. Whereas transportation concerns
publicly owned infrastructure and services, in more laissez-faire forms of capitalism such
as that in the United States, land use services are dictated largely by the private sector.
Different and perhaps conflicting goals make it a challenge to coordinate them in order to
regulate urban form.
Despite the difficulty in devising policies that incorporate the needs of both sectors,
decisions about the location and capacity of transportation infrastructure have longlasting implications for urban form. Policies intended to decrease urban sprawl will have
little effect, at least for some time, if the infrastructure already in place was designed to
support decentralization: there, sprawl is a built-in component of urban areas and, once
present, is difficult to reverse.
Population and Employment Density
Research has identified residential population and employment density as the aspects of
land use that are most strongly correlated with travel behavior. A decline in density is
associated with decreased transit use because dispersed origins and destinations cannot be
effectively served with conventional transit service. In order for transit to be feasible,
riders need to share both origins and destinations. Concentrating on only one end of the
trip, for example housing or the workplace, in the absence of substantial clusters at the
other end, will most likely not produce high rates of commuting .
There are well-documented empirical threshold densities below which transit becomes
impractical for users and financially unsustainable for operators without substantial
subsidies. The literature review conducted by Holtzclaw (1994) on transit and density
suggests density thresholds of about 12.14 people per gross acre2 for intermediary bus
service, 14 for light-rail, and 20 for metro. Newman and Kenworthy (1990) concluded
that below 8 people per gross acre and 8 to 10 residential units per gross acre there is a
noticeable increase in automobile use, and below 12 people per acre bus service becomes
2
A gross acre is a measure of land area (43560 square feet), as distinguished from a “net acre” or the usable
of cultivatable portion of an acre of land.
21
poor. They recommended densities above 12 to 16 persons per acre for a transit-oriented
urban lifestyle. Pushkarev and Zupan (1982) indicated that a minimum of 9 dwelling
units per acre was necessary for light-rail. Lowe also recommends 9 dwelling units per
acre for light-rail (1992). In a study of the relationship between land use patterns and
travel behavior in the Seattle metropolitan area, Frank and Pivo (1994) concluded that
certain land use patterns, including greater employment and population density, land use
mix, and jobs-housing balance are associated with less automobile use. They determined
that, at a threshold of 50 to 75 employees per acre, and 9 to 13 persons per gross acre,
transit work trips showed a significant increase. The same phenomenon occurred for
shopping trips at a threshold of 75 employees per acre or 18 persons per gross acre .
Density in station areas and along transit corridors is an essential component of making
the system successful. This “clustering” of residences and workplaces near rail stations
has the most significant influence on travel behavior within a one-quarter to one-half mile
radius of the station. In an examination of residential, office and shopping developments
in the vicinity of five rail transit systems in California, Cervero (1993) concluded that
residents living within one-quarter mile of a rail station were 5 to 7 times more likely to
travel by rail than residents elsewhere in the same community. A national sample
indicated that a doubling of station-area residential densities is associated with a 60
percent increase in light-rail boardings . When both trip ends are clustered around a rail
station, transit use increases significantly.
Many of these studies assume that the primary mode of access to transit is walking and
that people’s willingness to walk to transit is limited. Untermann concluded that in urban
areas most people are willing to walk 500 feet, with 40 percent willing to walk 1,000 feet
and only 10 percent willing to walk a half-mile . Similarly, Cervero (1993) found that,
with every 100-foot increment of distance from a rail station, ridership decreased. Other
studies have indicated that the distance a person is willing to walk is strongly affected by
the walking environment. Minimizing delays and inconveniences like lack of sidewalks,
inadequate signage, dangerous walkways, or poor appearance may encourage riders to
opt for transit. Commuters will generally walk further to reach light-rail stations than to
reach a bus stop .
22
A number of cities have established walking distance guidelines to use in their transit
forecasting models. Both Denver and San Diego use 1758 feet (approximately one-third
mile) as the maximum walking distance to light-rail stations. In Newark, models for
planning studies of new light-rail lines are generally based on the assumption that all
zones within 2641 feet (approximately one-half mile) of a proposed station can be
reached by walking. The Sacramento Regional Transit District has established walking
distance and land use guidelines that recommend that development within 1500 feet (0.28
miles) of transit corridors and 2001 feet (0.38 miles) of light-rail stations provide or
ensure direct pedestrian access to the transit system, and that pedestrian paths should be
designed with adequate lighting, visibility and smooth walking surfaces, and protection
from weather to increase the safety and attractiveness of walking to transit (O’Sullivan
1996).
Although both residential and employment centers generate transit ridership, high-density
residential areas generate greater transit ridership than high-density employment centers.
The proportion of light-rail station area workers who use transit is approximately one-half
the number of station area residents. Additionally, the proportion of transit ridership rises
as density increases. A doubling of residential densities can more than double transit use
.
In their study of the Central Puget Sound region Frank and Pivo (1994) determined that
the strongest relationship between land use and transit demand was that the percentage of
workers who take the bus to work is higher when the workers begin and end their trips in
areas with high employment density. In the case of the central business district (CBD),
both employment density and the size of the CBD influence light-rail ridership.
Ridership impacts of concentrating more employment in the CBD are greater for larger
CBDs. Small CBDs under 100,000 workers see a 15 percent increase in ridership given a
doubling of employment. Medium CBDs of 100,000 see a 42 percent increase in
ridership given a 50 percent increase in employment. Large CBDs of 150,000 see a 50
percent increase in ridership given a one-third increase in employment .
Dense areas also allow for less parking and a wider mix of land uses, both of which
23
facilitate a reduction in automobile usage. In a study of the San Francisco Bay Area,
density and walking quality were found to be strong predictors of non-automobile travel
for non-work trips . Higher population densities near transit corridors for subsidized
transit were also found to increase the transit share of work trips .
Land Use Mix
Some land use mixes allow for origins and destinations to be close together, helping to
facilitate walking, cycling or transit use. It is not necessary for centers to contain both
jobs and housing to reduce auto use although the greatest reductions are seen in areas that
have dense housing, shopping and employment. The placement of grocery stores in
neighborhoods can reduce the need to drive to obtain basic goods and also allows
residents to shop on the way home from the transit station. Prevedouros and Schofer
found that while in the morning peak hours the vast majority of trips were between home
and work, a lesser percentage of evening trips was from work to home due to trip
chaining, i.e. going to a secondary destination such as running errands . Mixed-use also
allows for trips to be spread more evenly throughout the day and week and creates
opportunities to share resources, such as parking. For example, a parking lot used by
office staff during the weekdays could serve restaurant goers in the evening and on
weekends.
However, greater access does not always decrease car use. Handy found that
neighborhoods close to shopping destinations generated more automobile trips. Handy’s
results also suggested that the effects of neighborhood design are greater than those of
household characteristics when considering time, frequency and variety of trip
destinations between suburban and traditional neighborhoods . Still, presence of mixeduse neighborhoods was linked to commuting via transit and non-motorized modes .
Land use mix relates primarily to work trip and mid-day travel mode choice decisions in
urban and suburban employment centers. The type of businesses present in transit station
areas affects transit ridership. Businesses that provide services to riders, such as retail
and personal or professional services, attract more people to stations. Station areas with a
significant proportion of jobs in sectors such as construction and manufacturing see lower
24
transit shares . Likewise, employment centers with on-site or nearby retail services result
in higher rates of midday pedestrian travel and low rates of single-occupant vehicle use .
The Bellevue, Washington Transit Center displayed some of the highest transit mode
shares, as well as the greatest proportion of non-office uses and employment densities .
These and similar studies have resulted in the idea that the jobs/housing balance can be a
tool to manage automobile congestion and increase use of transit. Several studies have
indicated that, over time, jobs and housing tend to co-locate, thus preventing jobs/housing
imbalances from becoming too severe. Most studies seem to concur that this is a natural
evolutionary process . Job-housing imbalances are associated with longer commutes and
increased dependency on the automobile. In their 1989 study of the Puget Sound region
Frank and Pivo found travel distances and times to be shorter for commutes to areas with
balanced jobs and housing . In sum, trip distances in areas with land use mixing, jobshousing balance and population and employment density are typically shorter because
there is not the same need to travel between different activity centers as there is with
sprawling development.
Urban Design
Urban design refers to the characteristics and arrangement of land use on a small scale.
Research suggests that design is relevant to travel behavior. A pedestrian-friendly
downtown area is more likely to encourage transit use than a sprawling, automobileoriented suburban one. A grid street layout, especially with higher densities and mixed
land uses, typically serves to move origins and destinations closer together, thus
decreasing trip distance or the need to drive at all . Design can increase the accessibility
of destinations by foot as well as provide amenities to pedestrians, cyclists and transit
riders. Neighborhood characteristics and walking quality have a moderate effect on
transit demand, particularly for non-work trips, and neighborhoods with wider sidewalks,
four-way intersections and limited on-street parking adjacent to commercial buildings
tend to average less single-occupant vehicle travel for non-work purposes .
In general, the effect of urban design on travel demand is difficult to measure. Whereas
residential population density is easy to measure on a precise scale, urban design relies on
25
dummy scales or applying such estimates as low, medium and high value. Urban design
features include street and sidewalk connectivity, use of street crossings on principal
arterials, the absence of topographic constraints to pedestrian mobility, improved bicycle
and transit access, and landscaping that helps to improve the aesthetic appeal of the
environment. There is significantly less information about urban design available at the
census tract level, the scale at which population is often assessed. Likewise, there are
large disparities in the quality of data available for transportation as opposed to land use
and urban design. Trip records for thousands of households in a region provide detailed
information whereas details on building characteristics, setbacks, parking supplies, length
of sidewalks and general urban design are often not available. Part of the gap between
the quality and quantity of transportation data versus that of urban design lies in the
availability of funding for research. The result is that, in most areas, a rich database with
which to study the impact of actual land use and urban design, as opposed to prescribed
zoning ordinances, does not exist .
In a study of several hundred worksites in Southern California, certain aspects of land use
mix and urban design at worksites were shown to increase transit use by 3 to 4 percent.
The study indicated that the presence of shade trees and sidewalks, and the absence of
graffiti and other factors do contribute to mode choice decisions. However, when these
factors were examined independently from the presence of travel demand management
programs at the worksites, 4 out of 5 land use characteristics were no longer statistically
significant in explaining observed variations of transit use. Only the aesthetic urban
settings remained statistically significant in the absence of travel demand management
programs .
Also woven into design is the issue of parking. The parking environment at the
workplace can have a significant effect on transit ridership. If people living and working
near rail stations have free parking at work, the odds of commuting via rail drop sharply.
If an employee works in a major urban center fed by rail transit and faces daily parking
expenses, the probability of commuting via rail increases by as much as 90 to 98 percent,
depending on whether incentives such as employer-funded transit allowances are offered
. Within neighborhoods, parking fees can encourage people to walk to shops and other
26
non-work destinations .
Demographics
In a study exploring trip characteristics of individuals living in selected Chicago suburbs
Prevedouros and Schofer identified four factors having a significant association with
traffic congestion: residential location, population age, gender, and work hours. The
automobile was the primary mode of transit in suburbs, with larger, younger households
tending to have higher vehicle ownership. Residents in older, more established suburbs
tended to work in the central city and commute via public transport. The total number of
trips in a day was highest at age 40, which can likely be explained by the fact that many
people are in a stage of their life where they have young, dependent children whose needs
result in a larger number of trips among the adults in the household. Those in older age
brackets traveled more during non-peak times such as the middle of the day. Females
made more trips than their male counterparts, with females employed part-time having
the highest number of automobile trips, though these trips were often shorter in duration.
Females also made more trips to serve passengers, for example driving children to school
or husbands to work. Suburban females used automobiles more than males, whereas
females living in the central city had a greater tendency to use public transportation.
Workers employed part-time generally worked closer to home than those employed full
time. Unemployed people made more trips per day than employed people. The authors
of the study suggest that, as the baby boom generation ages, the roads may see some
relief as traffic is equalized more throughout the day. The significance of household
characteristics in trip choice indicates that trends in urban form cannot be addressed in
isolation from social and economic trends .
Existing Transit Infrastructure
Existing transit infrastructure, such as feeder bus service to and from light-rail stations
can have a significant effect on success of transit. In the case of suburban rail stations,
park-and-ride lots are often essential to capturing ridership. At the same time, compact
development around station areas is important for capturing walk-on riders. This creates
somewhat of a policy dilemma because park-and-ride lots typically include expansive
parking lots intended to serve a large geographical area and preclude the compact
27
development that defines a station area.
Public Policy
Municipal Zoning
Zoning policies excluding high-density development in suburban areas have contributed
to the expansion of the metropolitan boundary in order to accommodate housing demand
. Roads have been pushed farther out encouraging more expansion . Urban sprawl of this
nature is characteristic of many of the areas surrounding the city of Seattle.
Integrating Transportation Policy and Land Use Policy
A number of movements have focused on reversing sprawl, including new urbanism, neotraditional design and smart growth. With an eye towards creating sustainable
communities, these movements share a core belief that automobile travel demand can be
minimized by altering the built environment. Portland, Oregon has focused on
encouraging development that supports increased mobility, particularly via transit,
walking, and bicycling, through what is termed “transit-oriented development” (TOD).
This term applies broadly to numerous elements of the built environment, including
buildings, site developments, street improvements, and transportation facilities. Transitoriented development is dense, mixed-use development, designed for pedestrians and
multiple modes of transportation. This method has a number of benefits, including
increased economic vitality in urban centers and corridors, higher quality transit service,
increased neighborhood livability, and a more efficient use of public funds. From a
transportation perspective the value of transit-oriented design is based on the idea that
TODs result in shorter trips, less traffic, higher transit rates, and a better balance of jobs
and housing (Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon 1995).
Smart Growth is a set of principles that stem from a belief that current development
patterns are no longer in the long-term interest of communities and that time, attention
and resources should be devoted to restoring community to city centers and older suburbs
(Sustainable Communities Network 2007). Resources are conserved by investment in
existing infrastructure and buildings, and designing neighborhoods with a mixture of uses
that facilitate multimodal transportation. The idea has existed since the 1970s but has
28
become more prominent in recent years. In 1996, in response to concerns from
communities regarding the need for environmental protection, along with economic and
community vitality, the United States Environmental Protection Agency joined several
non-profit and government organizations in establishing the Smart Growth Network
(SGN). The SGN developed a set of ten guiding principles for using smart growth
approaches: mixed land use, compact building design, range of housing opportunities,
walkable neighborhoods, community focus, preservation of open space and critical areas,
development of existing communities, transportation choices, fair and cost-effective
development decisions, and community and stakeholder collaboration in development .
Internalizing the Cost of Automobile Use
Debate revolves around whether land use in and of itself can influence mobility or if it is
also necessary to internalize the costs of travel in order to reduce dependence on
automobiles . Some urban planning policies stem from a belief that growth can not be
managed via market pricing of transportation but that it must instead be managed by
creating an urban form with relatively high population and employment density, mixeduse, and alternatives to driving an automobile. An opposing idea is that the way to
remedy problems with transportation is through economic means such as road pricing or
general taxation. This approach is rooted in the idea that the decreasing real cost of
travel, transportation systems already in existence, and the shift to an information-based
economy in developed nations like the United States has weakened the relationship
between land use and transportation .
Policies on Home Ownership
In the United States, migration out of the central urban area accelerated after the Second
World War. Suburban areas provided houses that were inexpensive compared to those in
town and often on larger tracts of land. The construction of major roads connecting
central areas with suburbs, and of local roads providing easy access to new housing areas,
helped to promote suburbanization. Policies promoting home ownership also helped to
facilitate moving away from urban areas. Direct subsidization of mortgages or mortgage
insurance and tax policies allowing homeowners to deduct mortgage interest or exempt
capital gains made home ownership out of town more financially beneficial than renting
29
in town . Suburbs tend to have a low population density, high population growth rate,
and high automobile ownership .
Promoting a Transit-Oriented Culture
It is important that people believe transit is an important component of urban areas and a
reliable alternative to the automobile. In Ottawa, Canada, most residents prefer to live in
low-density, single-family settings, and the city does not attempt to alter these
preferences. The region’s transit system, however, has high levels of ridership because
transit service is considered an essential neighborhood service, like roads and water. City
planners ensure that transit is available within a 5-minute walk of every household .
WMATA, the transit operator in Washington, D.C., initiated a program to encourage
development at its light-rail stations, building people’s expectations that transit would be
available for their use. Integration of transit plans with local and community land use
plans was done prior to the construction of the rail system and has led to several
successful station area plans .
30
Chapter 3: RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT DENSITY IN THE
LIGHT-RAIL AREA
This thesis focuses primarily on residential and employment population density as a
means of analyzing the potential effectiveness of Sound Transit’s existing (Phase 1) and
proposed (Phase 2) light-rail lines. A Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to
display and analyze the spatial distribution of where people live and work in the central
Puget Sound region.
Data Analysis
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
A GIS is an integrated set of computer hardware and software that is used to collect,
analyze and display geographically referenced information, that is, information, or data,
that has a defined location on the face of the earth (ESRI 2007). At the simplest level a
GIS can be thought of as a high-tech map. However, a GIS also allows for the storing,
integration, analysis and editing of geographic data. The technology is used across many
disciplines for problems ranging from environmental impact analysis to determining real
estate locations for new businesses.
Data Selection
This investigation employed data from the year 2000 decennial census. The official US
census, which calls for an actual enumeration of the people every ten years as a method
to determine the number of seats each state receives in the House of Representatives,
contains a considerable amount of information . The information is displayed at a variety
of different levels including the census tract and the census block, both of which are
addressed below.
In measuring population and employment density it is important to consider issues of
scale in order to develop appropriate modeling techniques. One of these is the extent of
the area considered, and the other is the level of resolution of the data used in data
collection and analysis. In analyzing an urban area researchers can select from a variety
of extents including states, regions, cities, and neighborhoods. The corresponding units
31
of spatial analysis can range from individual land parcels to the regional level. GIS
technology allows for the analysis of very small spatial units for data collection and
analysis over very large geographical areas .
The extent chosen for this study was King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties as this is the
area through which the light-rail runs. Two units of analysis were chosen – the tract and
its subset, the census block. The census block level would be a more ideal level for this
analysis but employment data were available only at the tract level. The tract, a
frequently used scale of analysis, is a small, somewhat permanent statistical subdivision
of a county, containing an average of 4,000 people. It is designed to be homogenous in
terms of population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions. A subdivision
of the census tract, the census block is the smallest geographic unit for which the census
bureau collects extensive data. Blocks frequently follow individual city blocks bounded
by streets. In rural areas, however, blocks may include many square miles and may have
some boundaries that are not streets.
Analyzing the census tract and the census block can yield different information. For
example, the use of these different geographic units of analysis will show different
proportions of populations living above certain densities. Hess, et all (2001) posed the
example of King County, Washington – 1990 census tract-level data show that 40,000
people are living at densities of 25 people/hectare (10 people/acre) or above. This data
also indicated that most of these higher-density tracts are located near the center of the
city of Seattle. An analysis of the same area (extent) at the census block-level shows
more than 400,000 people are living at 25 people/hectare and above. Additionally, blocklevel analysis shows that these higher-density blocks are not only near Seattle, but are
spread throughout the urbanized part of the county. This example demonstrates that both
the total number and the spatial distribution of people living at specific densities are
sensitive to the size and boundaries of the spatial unit of data analysis.
For the purpose of analyzing light-rail, where density within ¼ mile of the station area is
important, it is necessary to use as fine-scale analysis as possible. Whenever possible,
block-level data is used.
32
Results
Residential Population Density
The residential population density thresholds identified by Holtzclaw (12 to 14
people/acre), Frank and Pivo (9 to 13 people/acre), and Newman and Kenworthy (12 to
16 people/acre) were used to determine whether the central Puget Sound region is likely
to generate the levels of ridership needed to make regional light-rail service feasible . An
analysis of residential population density at the Census Block level indicates that the
requisite density for supporting public transit exists in the vicinity of the first phase of
light-rail lines and stations (see Figure 7). As the light-rail extends north, east and south
in the proposed Phase 2, however, residential population density decreases significantly.
The data demonstrate that there may not be the necessary density to support the light-rail
extension, particularly east of Seattle.
Employment Population Density
The employment population density thresholds identified by Frank and Pivo (50 to 75
employees/acre) were used to determine the feasibility of public transit in central Puget
Sound . An analysis of employment population density at the Census Tract level
indicates that the requisite employment density is present in the downtown centers of
Seattle, Tacoma, and Bellevue (see Figure 8). Had this data been analyzed at the Census
Block data (which was not available) I would have expected to see the requisite
employment density present in other employment centers, perhaps the University of
Washington and Northgate Mall in Seattle, and Microsoft in Redmond.
In looking at employment and residential population combined, it is clear that ample
light-rail ridership is available along the Interstate 5 corridor in Seattle, in downtown
Bellevue, and in downtown Tacoma (see Figure 9). As the light-rail extends further from
these areas density decreases and the success of public transit becomes more questionable
(see Figure 10).
33
Figure 6: Sound Transit District
The Sound Transit District extends from north of Everett south to the Pierce/Thurston
County line, and east through Bellevue and Sammamish. Voters within the district pay a
0.3% motor vehicle excise tax and a 0.4% retail sales tax, part of which goes towards
funding the first phase of light-rail. The second phase would be funded by a sales tax
increase of 0.5% in addition to existing taxes and bonding.
34
Figure 7: Residential Population Density in the Sound Transit District
At the Census Block level residential population density figures indicate transitsupportive density along the Interstate 5 corridor in Seattle and downtown Tacoma.
35
Figure 8: Residential and Employment Density in the Sound Transit District
At the Census Tract level employment population density figures indicate transitsupportive density in the downtowns of Seattle, Bellevue, and Tacoma.
36
Figure 9: Residential and Employment Density in the Sound Transit District; Phase
1 of Light-Rail
Phase 1 of the light-rail runs through the highest density areas of Seattle and Tacoma.
37
Figure 10: Residential and Employment Density in the Sound Transit District;
Phase 1 and 2 of light-rail
Phase 2 of the light-rail goes through many areas that do not meet the requisite
population to support density, particularly east of Seattle.
38
Chapter 4: OTHER CITIES WITH SUCCESSFUL MASS TRANSIT
SYSTEMS
Around the country and around the world are cities that have been successful to one
degree or another at implementing mass transit systems. Transit system success can
typically be attributed to a number of factors including regional policies to encourage
residential and commercial growth along transit corridors and in urban centers, local
policies to support development around transit stations, the proper selection of transit
station sites with market opportunities for development, high-quality transit service, and
political support and commitment to the multimodal planning process.
Toronto, Canada
The mass transit system in Toronto is considered one of the best in North America, which
is generally attributed to large investments in public transit and effective means of
managing growth. The transit system has successfully expanded transit service and
ridership and appears to have a major impact on land use. Transit ridership is high,
resulting in close to an 80 percent recovery of operating costs .
Dense, Transit-Oriented Development
The central city is dense, livable, and pedestrian-oriented. Neighborhoods near transit
centers experience faster growth, higher densities, and higher land values. In the midtwentieth century Toronto expanded its subway system while other cities were building
expressways . At that time the city also marketed air rights and available land parcels
near subway stations and designed stations to accommodate developers who wanted
access for office and retail space as well as apartments. The city adjusted floor area ratios
and other regulations to allow higher intensity development in areas served by transit.
Regional Governance
In 1953 Toronto established a regional government, the Municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto, or Metro . Metro is governed by an elected council and has centralized land use
and transportation decision-making powers. The six municipalities under its jurisdiction
must adhere to Metro’s regional plan, which seeks to create an urban structure that can
39
accommodate future growth and change while minimizing adverse social and
environmental impacts. The local municipalities have control over the building-permit
process, but Metro must approve all developments. Metro also provides all major public
services including fire, police, sewer, mass transit, and roads .
Multiple City Centers
To achieve the goals of its regional plan, Metro has identified 86 sub-centers in which
development is to be concentrated. Municipal governments are required to develop plans
that coordinate public services to promote and reinforce concentrations of development in
these areas. The regional plan focuses on the capacity of the transportation system, with
an emphasis on transit. Once this has been established, Metro addresses employment and
population levels for each center. The plan also attempts to match the number and types
of jobs with similar number and types of housing within centers .
Taxation
Metro has also made a number of financial decisions that have used transit as a strategic
tool to lead land development. In 1964 Metro obtained public approval for a referendum
to earmark a specified component of realty taxes for rapid transit construction and in
1972 altered funding and subsidy programs to favor public transit over roads .
These efforts appear to have contributed measurably to the high-density corridors and
nodal concentrations of employment and population. Toronto is one of few cities that can
claim to have plausibly influenced high-density corridors and nodal concentrations of
employment and population by implementing comprehensive growth management
strategies over a long period of time.
40
San Diego, California
Regional Governance
A Regional Growth Management Strategy was developed by the region’s cities and
approved by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). It calls for
increased development in “transit focused areas” and decreased development in areas not
served by transit . SANDAG has taken a number of steps toward implementing the
growth strategy including a 2020 region-wide growth forecast, public outreach efforts,
providing funding for transit-oriented development, and promoting fiscal reform in local
governments.
The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) is the agency responsible for
coordinating the bulk of metropolitan San Diego’s transit service, including the light-rail
transit system, the San Diego Trolley. A key element of the Board’s approach has been
incorporating joint development projects that benefit the transit system as well as the
communities in which they are located. Benefits of the system are measured through
increased ridership potential and generation of an income stream. MTDB has capitalized
on development opportunities that arose from market forces, political leadership and
private investment, rather than planning development for light-rail station areas, as many
transit agencies do.
Joint Development
Joint development involves the use of property for more than one purpose, including
surface and airspace development, at a transit station right-of-way or on another property
owned or under the control of the MTD Board of Directors . A joint development may
consist of any use that is compatible with public transportation use. Benefits include the
integration of transit into developments to meet community needs, promotion and
enhancement of public transit, recovery of public capital costs and increase of return on
public investment, and enhancement of the transportation corridor . The underlying
philosophy behind MTDB’s approach to land use integration is a belief that transit can
help create livable neighborhoods and that livable neighborhoods support transit.
Portland, Oregon
The Portland metropolitan area is nationally recognized for its efforts to decrease urban
41
sprawl through effective land use planning policies. An organized approach toward
integrating transit, parking and development has contributed to the revitalization of
downtown Portland, now replete with green spaces, free light-rail service in some areas,
and a transit mall downtown with covered transit stops, trip-planning kiosks and gardens.
Portland serves as a good example for Seattle to draw from, due to similarities in the
political culture.
Regional Governance
The area has the only elected regional government in the United States, Metro, whose
goal is to ensure the compatibility of land use and transportation plans throughout the
Portland metropolitan area (Seattle Department of Transportation 2007). A key
component of this is that Metro can require municipalities to accept development they
might otherwise choose to exclude if it is deemed that such development is consistent
with the regional plan. This has resulted in significant increases in density in new
development and a quadrupling of land zoned for multifamily housing, to more than 25
percent of buildable acreage .
Urban Growth Boundary
In 1973 the Oregon state legislature enacted a set of land use planning laws, which
emphasize multimodal planning and require local jurisdictions to incorporate walking,
bicycling, and transit use. Of chief importance was the requirement that each city or
metropolitan area must have an urban growth boundary (UGB) separating urban land
from rural land, the purpose of which is to control urban expansion onto farm and forest
lands. The planning process for Portland’s urban growth boundary began in 1977 and
was approved in 1980. Since its inception the boundary has moved about three dozen
times with all but three of those moves being small, about 20 acres or less. The current
boundary encompasses about 400 square miles and, as of February 2000, about 1.3
million people lived within the UGB.
Oregon's planning approach reduces property rights of the property owner outside of its
urban growth boundaries, and increases owners’ property rights within the UGB
boundaries. As a result, development and rezoning proposals to build higher-density
42
housing and mixed-use development in the Portland metropolitan area take significantly
less time to work their way through the system than such proposals would in most other
US cities. Land inside the boundary supports urban services such as roads, water and
sewer systems, parks, and schools. The UGB promotes efficient uses of land, public
facilities and services inside the boundary. It encourages development and redevelopment of land and buildings in the urban core and provides assurance for business
and local government about where to place infrastructure services needed for future
development. Additionally, efficiencies are created in the construction of infrastructure
and services. Instead of building roads further and further out, money can be spent to
make existing roads, transit services and other services more efficient. State law requires
Metro to have a 20-year supply of land for future residential development inside the
boundary. The boundary is reassessed every five years and expanded if necessary based
on a review of land supply .
Between 1980 and 1994 the metropolitan population grew by 25 percent but the
urbanized area increased by only 16 percent. Average new lot sizes in 1998 were 6,200
square feet, less than half the size of new lots in 1978. Some of this effect would have
occurred regardless: other cities along the West Coast of the United States became denser
over this period of time as well. To the extent that this effect was associated with Metro’s
planning policies it was likely due to a combination of the presence of the boundary itself
and the relaxation of the restrictions within it .
In 1995 Metro adopted the Region 2040 Growth Concept, a process to evaluate different
growth management strategies with a transit emphasis. Region 2040 focuses largely on
increasing density along major transportation and light-rail corridors as a way of avoiding
sprawl into farmlands (Oregon, 2007). The plan identifies regional centers, town centers,
station communities, main streets, corridors, urban reserves and an urban growth
boundary. It also includes targets for population distribution among the centers
(Transportation 2007).
Region 2040 has been strongly influenced by a planning analysis which was spearheaded
by the land use watchdog group 1000 Friends of Oregon. One of the chief goals of the
43
analysis known as the Land use Transportation Air Quality (LUTRAQ) is the reduction of
the use of single-occupancy vehicles. At its core is growth management based on
neotraditional design, supplemented with various degrees of reliance on transportation
demand management, including transportation pricing (Dueker 1999).
Regional Transportation Plan
In addition to managing the UGB, Metro develops the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP). The plan is updated every four years and dictates the direction for regional
investments in a variety of transportation options including roads, light-rail, freight,
transit, pedestrian access and bicycles. Transportation projects must be in the RTP in
order to receive federal and some state funding .
Pro-active Light-rail Station Area Planning
In 1980, six years before the start of light-rail service, Tri-met, Metro, the City of
Portland, the City of Gresham, and Multnomah County began their Transit Station Area
Planning Program, the first of its kind in the United States. In 1984 the City of Portland
adopted a transit station area planning ordinance (Seattle Department of Transportation
2007). The goal was to build support for transit-oriented development along light-rail
corridors and to promote opportunities that would increase ridership. The program
includes market studies, coordination with regional planning efforts, station area plans
and design guidelines. Tri-met has worked in cooperation with local government to
ensure that zoning around the light-rail supports transit-oriented development.
In accordance with Metro’s 2040 Growth Concept, the City of Portland works with the
community to find solutions for improving the development of MAX light-rail stations as
transit-oriented communities. The comprehensive planning process works with the needs
of the surrounding community to address zoning, transportation, urban design, and
development. The goal is for station areas to provide places to work, shop and live close
to transit. Overly restrictive strategies result in a lack of transit-oriented development.
Tri-Met and municipalities have initiated public-private partnerships for the development
of master plans in the communities surrounding station areas.
44
Parking
Parking is used as a land use strategy to enhance transit use as well as a pricing strategy
to reduce automobile driving. In 1970 the “parking lid” was put in place, limiting the
supply of parking in downtown with the objective of revitalizing the area and reducing
congestion . The number of parking spaces permitted in new buildings is limited and less
parking is available closer to MAX (Seattle Department of Transportation 2007). The
city has also adopted a policy of discouraging the construction of large parking garages
and surface parking lots by imposing conditional use permits and by requiring periodic
reviews .
Zoning
Municipalities rezoned lands around many station areas for higher density land uses and
transit-oriented development, and some adopted temporary development controls to
prevent undesirable land uses. Zoning changes have included restrictions on street
configuration, parking ratios, sidewalk widths, building orientation, and minimum and
maximum densities. Some municipalities incorporated these requirements into their
municipal zoning codes while others established transit overlay zones around the lightrail lines and stations. (Seattle Department of Transportation 2007)
Public facilities including the Rose Garden sports arena and the Oregon Convention
Center are both located at Max stations. Tri-Met has tried with limited success engaging
in joint development of right-of-way parcels in combination with private property.
Portland zoned for higher densities and transit-oriented development but then established
interim development standards to prevent development of undesirable land uses before
station area plans were completed (Seattle Department of Transportation 2007).
Taxation
Local Improvement Districts focus on improvements for pedestrians, bicyclists and
transit users. They generate tax funds to be used for pedestrian walkways, plantings, bike
racks and public art. Transit station development guidelines also include requirements
for the pedestrian environment including the notion that buildings must locate their front
door on the main street and they are required to provide pedestrian amenities in station
areas. Tri-Met also established a public art program aimed at making new station areas
45
more attractive (Seattle Department of Transportation 2007).
46
Chapter 5: SOUND TRANSIT IN THE PUGET SOUND REGION
Growth in Central Puget Sound
Significant growth in employment has helped to facilitate growth in Central Puget Sound.
Between 1965 and 1990 Puget Sound employment grew on average 1.4% faster than
average national employment, the bulk of which has been largely attributed to expansions
by the Boeing Corporation . Other major players include Weyerhauser in Federal Way,
the United States Navy in Everett and Bremerton, the Microsoft Corporation in
Redmond, and a variety of other business and professional services clustered in
downtown Seattle. The influx of big business has also allowed for spinoffs of new
businesses. The location of Central Puget Sound with respect to Pacific Rim trade and
major markets in the western United States make it an ideal location for many businesses
. Additionally, the University of Washington contributes to the presence of a highly
skilled labor force. Other factors that have contributed to making Central Puget Sound a
desirable place to live include the aesthetics of the natural environment and general
quality of life.
Although the influx of population and businesses has provided an economic boom for the
region, it has tended to push growth out to the edges of the metropolitan areas, facilitating
rapid suburban development in outlying areas. Rising housing and land prices,
particularly for housing proximate to urban centers, tend to exclude most buyers. This in
turn has resulted in a rise in traffic congestion and negative effects on the quality of the
natural environment, one of the Central Puget Sound region’s greatest assets.
Existing Transportation Policies in Central Puget Sound
Growth Management Act
The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) was adopted by the state
legislature in 1990 in an effort to curb urban sprawl by encouraging development in
designated urban growth areas, providing efficient transportation, protecting the
environment and otherwise improving the quality of life in Washington. The GMA
requires each of Washington’s thirty-nine counties to designate and protect critical natural
resource areas and farm and forest lands and to ensure that new residential subdivisions
47
are equipped with the necessary public services and facilities. The twenty-nine fastest
growing counties have additional requirements. These counties must agree on countywide planning policies to guide regional development, identify lands for public purposes
such as transportation corridors, establish urban growth areas based on population
forecasts, and adopt and implement comprehensive plans. The comprehensive plans must
provide for 20 years of growth and be approved by a Regional Transportation Planning
Organization (RTPO) .
Regional Transportation Planning
The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) serves as the RTPO for Central Puget Sound,
which consists of Snohomish, King, Pierce and Kitsap counties. It is also designated
under federal law as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the four-county area,
allowing it to receive federal transportation funds. The Council assists in policy and
decision-making about regional growth management and economic and transportation
issues and provides planning and advocacy to local and state agencies as well as serving
as a center for collection, analysis and dissemination of information .
The PSRC has a joint memorandum of understanding with the seven transit agencies in
the region, Sound Transit included, as well as an MOU with the Washington State
Department of Transportation . These documents delineate organizational roles for
policy and project planning (Sound Transit 2006).
Vision 2020
Vision 2020, implemented in 1990 and updated in 1995, serves as the Central Puget
Sound region’s integrated long-range growth management strategy. It seeks to promote
the development of a coordinated transportation system that is integrated with and
supported by the growth management strategy, maintaining a balance of employment,
housing and community activities in urban areas, thereby preserving forests and other
natural resources. Other goals include creating a more comprehensive network of streets
that encourage walking, biking and transit use coupled with the development of a
regional high-capacity transit system .
48
Destination 2030
Destination 2030 updates the region’s 1995 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and serves
as the transportation element of Vision 2020. The plan is intended to identify and address
the region’s long-range transportation needs that will arise from increasing growth in the
Central Puget Sound region as well as to satisfy federal and state metropolitan planning
requirements. It includes both short and long-term activities, encompassing city, county,
port and transit agency growth management transportation plans, and the Washington
State Department of Transportation’s Multimodal and Transportation System plans.
Link Light-rail in the Puget Sound Region
An integral part of the Destination 2030 plan is Sound Transit’s regional high-capacity
transit system. Sound Transit is the Central Puget Sound’s Regional Transit Authority.
Formed in 1993 by Snohomish, King, and Pierce County Councils, it operates in
cooperation with Community Transit, Metro Transit and Pierce Transit. It provides
express bus service to all three counties, commuter rail between Everett and Tacoma,
light-rail in Tacoma, and is spearheading the effort to implement light-rail in the
remainder of Central Puget Sound.
Phase I (Sound Move)
The first phase of Sound Transit’s Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan, commonly
referred to as the Sound Move, represents a mix of transit technologies (bus, commuter
rail, light-rail) that are used based on needs of specific corridors . In 2003 a 1.6-mile link
light-rail line opened between the Tacoma Dome Station and the Theater District in
downtown Tacoma. The line offers free rides and connects to a regional transportation
center that includes service on the Sounder commuter train as well as local and regional
buses . Commuter rail runs between Everett and Tacoma.
Construction began in November 2003 on the initial 14-mile segment of light-rail in the
Seattle area. This segment will extend from the Westlake Station in downtown Seattle to
the Tukwila/International Boulevard Station just north of the Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport, stopping at twelve stations in Seattle’s SODO industrial area,
Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley. The line is expected to open in 2009 with trains leaving
49
every six minutes during rush hour and every ten to fifteen minutes during midday and
evening hours. By 2020 Sound Transit estimates this segment will carry almost 43,000
riders daily. A 1.7-mile extension from Tukwila to Sea-Tac airport has also been
approved. Service on this segment of the line is scheduled to begin in late 2009. Phase I
plans to extend the line north to Capitol Hill and the University District are in the works.
The estimated cost for the initial 14-mile segment is $2.4 billion (based on year-ofexpenditure dollars). Funding for link light-rail comes from local taxes (0.3% motor
vehicle excise tax and a 0.4% retail sales tax), federal grants, bonding, and, once
operation begins, fares from riders .
Phase 2 (Sound Transit 2)
On January 11, 2007, the Sound Transit Board adopted a draft package known as Sound
Transit 2 that will be voted on by residents of King, Pierce and Snohomish counties in
November 2007. It is the transit half of a Roads and Transit pair of initiatives that would
create an integrated set of highway, bridge, and transit improvements in Snohomish, King
and Pierce counties. Both initiatives must pass in order for either to take effect. The new
transit effort would build on Sound Transit’s current light-rail, commuter rail and regional
bus system between 2008 and 2027. It includes 40 miles of light-rail and would extend
the existing light-rail north from the University District to Lynwood, south from Sea-Tac
to the Port of Tacoma, and east through Bellevue to the Overlake Transit Center. Sound
Transit estimates that these investments would expand daily regional transit ridership to
more than 350,000 by 2030. Between 2008 and 2027 the total program costs would be
funded by an estimated $7.4 billion (2006 dollars) in new tax collection from a fivetenths of one percent sales tax increase (about $125 annually per household, in 2007
dollars), in addition to existing taxes and bonding .
Land Use in Central Puget Sound
Density
According to Puget Sound Regional Council, over 70% of the growth in the region up to
2030 is forecasted to be located within urban growth areas but outside currently
designated urban centers. In order to promote development in designated urban centers
and high-capacity transit station areas, PSRC is considering a variety of tools including
regulatory reforms, financial incentives and development strategies that would allow
50
local planning to focus on growth but also support compact communities. These tools
include streamlining and expediting the permitting process for development in these
areas, allowing for the transfer of development rights that would permit rural or open
space land owners to sell their right to build to landowners in urban areas, and inter-local
agreements or memorandums of understanding between jurisdictions that delineate how
to address mutually agreed-upon topics such as capacity and design standards. Also
under consideration are financial incentives such as tax breaks for mixed-use
development in targeted locations, tax abatement for multi-family housing (to encourage
multi-family housing by removing property tax for a period of time), and location
efficient mortgages (to provide consumers with higher mortgages based on potential
lower automobile use arising from living in a dense area with transit service). Finding
revenues to provide the necessary services and infrastructure to serve new development
remains a missing link in growth management planning. Revenue sharing, which would
allow communities to contribute a percentage of taxes to a regional pool for community
projects and local goals that coincide with supporting a high-capacity transit
infrastructure have been suggested .
Design
Part of the purpose of Destination 2030 was to provide more specifics on the relationship
between land use and transportation planning than was addressed in Vision 2020.
Analysis of urban form and basic infrastructure in urban centers in the region suggests
that many areas are not well suited currently to the successful adoption and performance
of both local and metropolitan transportation systems. Research has shown that block
sizes within much of the region’s urban growth area are often large and more suited to
cars than pedestrians. Many residential and commercial areas lack physical connections,
and high fences surrounding properties block direct transit routes .
Puget Sound Regional Council encourages local jurisdictions to use incentives as a means
of recognizing areas that are incorporating compact development and pedestrian and
transit-oriented development . PSRC has established design guidelines that can be
included in site planning and development in designated urban centers and high-capacity
transit station areas. The guidelines involve encouraging a mix of complementary land
51
uses, particularly uses that generate pedestrian activity and transit ridership, and
encouraging compact growth by addressing planned density. The Council promotes
elements that design for pedestrians and bicyclists by linking neighborhoods and
integrating activity areas with surrounding neighborhoods, in addition to connecting
streets, sidewalks, and trails. Public and semi-public uses near high-capacity transit
stations in designated urban centers and activity centers are encouraged.
Seattle
Between 1998 and 2001 the Seattle Department of Transportation’s Strategic Planning
Office partnered with Sound Transit on planning and development work for the 1/4 –mile
area around proposed light-rail stations. The city commissioned a report to identify needs
and considerations for transit-oriented development in these areas. The report includes
case studies of transit-oriented development in other cities and a review of existing
conditions in Seattle’s potential station areas including current market conditions, and
neighborhood plan reviews. Also addressed are the perspectives of stakeholders, the city
council, and the development community on potential development strategies for station
areas (Seattle Department of Transportation 2007).
Planning for specific station areas has been built on the city’s comprehensive plan,
adopted in 1994, which required thirty-eight Seattle neighborhoods to develop twentyyear plans. Based on the neighborhood plans, the City Council adopted 10 station area
concept-level recommendation packages in September 2000. In July 2001 the council
passed station area overlay legislation to establish station area overlay districts and
rezones around eight future light-rail stations with the goal of providing flexibility for
current businesses, allowing new development and prohibiting certain automobileoriented land uses near stations. The city also co-sponsored three regional transitoriented (TOD) forums in partnership with King County, Sound Transit, and Puget Sound
Regional Council .
Bellevue
Bellevue is the second largest city in King County, and is now considered a major
regional employment hub. An overhaul of the city’s 1981 master plan has incorporated
52
planning efforts aimed at developing a more transit-oriented downtown with a pedestrian
friendly environment. Previously uncapped parking policies have been amended with
minimums and maximums declining over a 10-year period. The Floor-Area Ratio (FAR)
Amenity Incentive Program allows developers to increase building densities by 10 to 25
percent in return for providing public amenities, a technique that has been widely used
throughout Bellevue .
In 1999 Bellevue adopted a Regional Transportation Vision in an effort to create a policy
framework by which to advocate for comprehensive, multimodal regional transportation
solutions that would help to support the city’s economic and land use visions. In July
2006, the Bellevue City Council joined Kirkland, Redmond and Issaquah in
recommending to the Sound Transit Board that light-rail is preferable to bus as a form of
high-capacity transit between the Eastside and downtown Seattle. In December 2006, the
city council requested Sound Transit reject a number of proposed rail alignments and
station locations based on urban design and noise issues and environmental concerns
(Degginger 2006).
53
Chapter 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
From an environmental perspective, continued sprawl in central Puget Sound is not an
option. The Puget Sound region does, however, have many options for combating
sprawl.
Regional, integrated planning approach
A regional, integrated planning approach that incorporates reforms to land use,
transportation and taxation is essential to making mass transit feasible in the Puget Sound
region. Although the Puget Sound Regional Council is designated as the regional
governing body, it does not have the authority necessary to implement the land use
controls that have been successful in the cities described in Chapter 4.
The region needs to shift from enacting programs at the local level to doing so regionwide. Historically, much of the literature regarding growth management has focused on
programs enacted at the local level ; however growth management issues do not confine
themselves to municipal boundaries. As is evidenced by cities like Toronto, San Diego,
and Portland, controls addressing the rate and location of growth at the regional level
tend to be much more effective. The effects of local growth management programs are
often seen at the regional level.
Development tends to decentralize away from jurisdictions with rigorous development
controls and towards outlying jurisdictions that accept and even encourage new
development. A set of transportation investments designed to encourage centralized
development in one or a few regions may actually have the opposite effect. Unintended
consequences include higher prices for housing and land that is subject to growth
management regulations, and the displacement of economic growth to adjacent
jurisdictions due in part to caps on commercial development and the subsequent effect on
commercial rent . Rapid residential growth can result in higher taxes to pay for necessary
services and infrastructure and commercial growth can lead to traffic congestion and
related needs for road improvements .
54
A program of regional tax-base sharing can alter the distribution of economic activity as a
result of changing the dependence of certain jurisdictions on property tax revenues. A
policy of urban and regional containment could affect both the price and supply of land
for a variety of development purposes, and could affect the mix of uses occurring within
the region. Transferrable development rights may furnish excellent price incentives to
the market place. Ordinances that require adequate public facilities prior to development
would affect the timing and cost of future development .
Land Use Policies
Regional governments in the United States tend to lack control over land use and instead
are organized around providing public services such as sanitation, water, parks,
highways, airports, and public transit. This does not have to mean, however, that regional
governments are incapable of influencing land use. Incentive-based policies can help to
convey a regional interest in local land use, moving municipalities toward reducing
regulations that exclude transit-oriented development. The Georgia Regional
Transportation Authority, for example, is permitted to withhold funds from noncooperative local governments . In other cases metropolitan transit organizations
condition transit extensions on transit-friendly land use planning, as the Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART) District has begun to do. Bay area communities opting for low-density
zoning find their priority for BART extensions reduced under this policy; those
committing to transit-oriented development in station areas become better candidates .
Incentives can also come in the form of payments to communities. The Metropolitan
Transportation Commission in the San Francisco Bay Area offers payments to local
governments building housing near transit stops .
Some regional governments have systems in place to deny projects but few have systems
in place to require municipalities to accept development. Both the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Council in Minneapolis-St. Paul and the Georgia Regional Transportation
Authority have the power to deny certain projects that are inconsistent with regional
environmental quality and transportation goals .
Redesigning the region’s residential and commercial height, bulk and setback
55
requirements, its restrictive building and housing codes and residential zoning, and its
mixed-use restrictions throughout Vision 2020’s hierarchy of central places to serve the
centering goal would signal the region’s real estate developers, architects, engineers and
developers to favor high-density over low-density development. This could also facilitate
the job-generation forces and, at the same time, help concentrate growth .
If it is the case that municipal zoning, as it is typically utilized across the United States,
creates metropolitan areas that are more spread out than they would be in the absence of
such regulation, then it is feasible that land development markets are capable of
producing more compact development than is generally observed .
Internalizing the Cost of Automobile Transportation
In considering how to best focus growth many look first to land use or transportation
planning. Although they are a key part of the equation these factors alone will not solve
the problem. The success of growth management plans depends also on the effectiveness
of the region’s underlying regulatory, pricing, taxing and expenditure practices. For
example, shifting the incidence of property tax from improvements (i.e. structures) to
land would encourage residential or nonresidential development to save on land, thus
discouraging sprawl .
One of the difficulties with public transit is the fact that costs and benefits are not
reflected in market valuations. When a commuter decides whether to drive or take public
transit, the cost of the additional pollution created by driving will not be suffered by the
individual commuter but instead will be spread over large numbers of people who breathe
the marginally more polluted air. If the commuter decides to not drive they will receive
only a small portion of the environmental benefit. While communities need to be
responsible for some level of community public works improvements, a tax levied on the
public at large may not be as useful as fees or charges for those using a given service.
Developers need to be responsible for the demands their new projects impose on
infrastructure. Methods by which commuters could be encouraged to take public transit
in lieu of driving include toll roads, parking fees, shifting subsidies to mass transit, lowercost mass transit during peak house, and credits or tax breaks to individuals or employers
56
for the use of mass transit.
Infrastructure Considerations
A major issue in the affordability of housing is the ability to afford adequate housing
proximate to one’s work and non-work destinations, an issue that incorporates the
transportation and land use problem. Affordability is measured not by housing costs
alone but by the combination of housing and transportation costs, along with the costs of
inaccessibility of a particular residential location. In areas where municipal regulatory
policies serve to impede a resident’s ability to get what they prefer in terms of
transportation and land use, or prevent low- to moderate-income households from finding
affordable housing close to their work an non-work destinations, their reform becomes a
central concern of transportation policy. Additionally, attention to the quality of primary
and secondary schools is significant. People will live in areas with good schools, which
in turn has an effect on housing and transportation.
The Micro Level
People’s attitudes towards growth and their environment in general result from their
routine interaction with the land directly around them. The way a building relates to the
street or the amount of green space they experience daily dramatically affects residents’
satisfaction with the built environment. Planners need to pay attention to these fine
details, considering residents’ daily experience of their immediate surroundings, if they
are to address the kinds of fundamental dissatisfactions that are behind today’s public
pressure for land use regulations. Portland’s use of transit-oriented development does
just this.
Marketing / Automobile Culture
Providing quality transit service is not a simple task. As with any other service, transit
must be marketed and sold to the public, a factor that is particularly important given the
automobile culture of the United States. Transit service must be made attractive to the
public from one end of the trip to the other. Maximizing the attractiveness of transit
service requires cooperation between local, regional and state governments, private
developers, and the community.
57
The Effect of Rail Transit on Surrounding Areas
Property Values
The presence of an established rail system tends to contribute to higher property values
and rents for residential and commercial properties near station areas . In a study of
Portland, being within walking distance from a light-rail station resulted in a rent
premium of 10.6 percent . Residential property value benefits typically occur in desirable
neighborhoods where light-rail systems and stations are well developed and well
integrated into the pattern of development. The impact of rail on property values is
typically seen earlier for commercial properties than for residential properties – often in
advance of construction . This may be due to developers’ perceptions of market
preferences.
The most significant impacts are seen in areas where rail provides greater accessibility
via fast, reliable, and frequent service to riders in large catchment areas. The effect on
property values is diminished where rail systems operate at slower speeds and serve a
limited number of destinations or are located in areas less oriented to transit. If it is to
induce an increase in property values transit must have support of both the public and
private sectors and be well planned and integrated into existing metropolitan areas .
58
Intensity of Development
Studies of major rail systems suggest that rail transit impacts the intensity of development
along the transit corridor and around the station areas but the increased accessibility the
system provides is only one of a number of factors that influence land development.
Supply of land to be developed, local values and preferences, existing zoning ordinances
and other public policies may discourage development.
The impact of rail on land use is most significant in very accessible, non-residential areas.
In these areas, rail can dramatically increase accessibility and provide locations for office
development with integrated transit service. The area impacted by rail transit is close to
the station – typically ¼ of a mile. In station areas surrounded primarily by residential
properties, rail transit does not have as significant an effect on development. This may be
due in part to residents’ resistance to zoning changes that would allow for commercial
growth .
Station area development appears to have a positive effect on both CBDs and subregional
centers. Large, well-developed rail systems allowed growth in the CBDs of Boston,
Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. that would otherwise not have been possible given the
number of workers who need to be transported each day. These cities have also seen
successful employment centers served by transit spring up outside of the CBD. This may
be good news for the United States given the realities caused by urban sprawl .
Governments can help to encourage station area development via zoning regulations and
infrastructure improvements. Major investments in rail transit and related infrastructure
often accelerate development in station areas. Rail provides developers with increased
accessibility and a permanent fixture.
So… Will They Come?
Sound Transit and the other transit entities in central Puget Sound have a long road ahead
of them but it is by no means impassible. Many of the issues facing the region have been
encountered and overcome by other regions; hence, there are numerous lessons and
examples to draw from. Prior to the establishment of the Tri-County Metropolitan
59
Transportation District of Oregon (Tri-Met) in the late 1960s, Portland’s transit ridership
was in decline with the city’s primary transit agency, Rose City Transit, facing
bankruptcy and threatening to increase fares (Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation
District of Oregon 2007). Now, Portland is one of the premier examples of successful
public transit in the US.
The central Puget Sound region will need to shift from imposing transit and land use
controls at the local level to doing so regionally. The seven different transit agencies
within the Sound Transit District will need to ensure coordination between the location
and schedule for the light-rail and that of the bus systems if the light-rail is to be
successful. Puget Sound Regional Council will need to work with the municipal and
county governments to enact land use planning laws and regulations that are supportive
of transit.
Some of these shifts have begun to happen. The state legislature expressed the need for
transit by pairing the Sound Transit 2 package with the roads package on the November
2007 ballot, the idea being that if the region is to build additional roads and maintain
existing roads that it also needs to invest in transit infrastructure. The legislature has also
approved significant funding for cleaning up Puget Sound, as described in Chapter 1.
Likely one of the biggest and most challenging obstacles to overcome is the car culture
that defines the region. Perhaps efforts to make transit convenient, efficient and attractive
will by themselves significantly, if slowly, loosen the hold of that culture.
60
REFERENCES
Al-Mosaind, M.A.; Dueker, K.J.; Strathman, J.G. . 1993. Light-rail Transit Stations and
Property Values: A Hedonic Price Approach. Transportation Research Record
1400:90-94.
Anderson, William; Kanaroglou, Pavlos; Miller, Eric. 1996. Urban Form, Energy and the
Environment: A Review of Issues, Evidence and Policy. Urban Studies 33 (1):
7-35.
Bauer, Leonard. 2007. Growth Management. Olympia: Washington State Department of
Community, Trade and Economic Development.
Bragado, Nancy S. 1999. Transit Joint Development in San Diego. Transportation
Research Record (1699):22-29.
Cambridge Systematics. 1990. The Relationship Between Transportation, Land Use
Planning and Economic Growth in the Puget Sound Region, edited by Puget
Sound Council of Governments. Seattle.
Cambridge Systematics. 1994. The Effects of Land Uses and Travel Demand Strategies
on Commuting Behavior. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
Campbell, Harrison S. . 2007. Three Models of Urban Land Use 2002 [cited 24 May
2007 2007]. Available from http://www.uncc.edu/hscampbe/landuse/b-models/
B-3mods.html
Cervero, Robert 1993. Ridership Impacts of Transit-Focused Development in California.
Berkeley, CA: Insitute of Urban and Regional Development, The University of
California Transportation Center.
Cervero, Robert; Kockelman, Kara. 1997. Travel Demand and the Three D's: Density,
Diversity, and Design. Transportation Research Record Part D 2 (3):199-219.
Crane, Randall 2000. The Influence of Urban Form on Travel. Journal of Planning
Literature 15:3-23.
ECO Northwest with Conway and Associates. 1990. Distributing Puget Sound's Growth:
An Analysis of Opportunities and Policy Options, edited by Puget Sound Council
of Governments. Seattle.
Frank, Lawrence; Pivo, Gary. 1994. Relationships Between Land Use and Travel
Behavior in the Puget Sound Region. In Urban Form Aspects of Travel Behavior,
edited by W. S. D. o. Transportation. Seattle, WA: Washington State
Transportation Center (TRAC).
Hess, Paul Mitchell; Moudon, Anne Vernez; Logsdon, Miles 2001. Measuring Land Use
Patterns for Transportation Research. Transportation Research Record (1780):
17-24.
Holtzclaw, John. 1994. Using Residential Patterns and Transit to Decrease Auto
Dependence and Costs, edited by Natural Resources Defense Council. San
Francisco, CA.
61
Khasnabis, Snehamay. 1998. Land Use and Transit Integration and Transit Use
Incentives. Transportation Research Record (1618):39-47.
Levine, Jonathan. 2006. Zoned Out: Regulation, Markets and Choices in Transportation.
Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.
Lowe, Marcia D. . 1992. Alternatives to Sprawl: Shaping Tomorrow's Cities. The Futurist
26 (4):28-34.
Manning, Jay; Ruckelshaus, Bill; Frank, Billy Jr. . 2006. Sound Health, Sound Future:
Puget Sound Partnership Recommendations, edited by Puget Sound Partnership.
Mason, JW 1998. The Buses Don't Stop Here Anymore: Sick Transit and How to Fix It.
The American Prospect 37:56-62.
O'Sullivan, Sean; Morral, John. 1996. Walking Distances to and from Light-Rail Stations.
Transportation Research Record (1538):19-26.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. . 1996. TCRP Report 16: Transit and Urban
Form. In TCRP Report 16: Transit and Urban Form, edited by Transit
Cooperative Research Program. Portland, OR: National Research Council:
Transportation Research Board, .
Portland Metro. 2007. Land Use Planning: Urban Growth Boundary, January 28, 2006
2006 [cited February 20, 2007 2007]. Available from http://www.metroregion.org/article.cfm?articleid=277.
Prevedouros, Panos; Schofer, Joseph. 1991. Trip Characteristics and Travel Patterns of
Suburban Residents. Transportation Research Record 1328:49-57.
Puget Sound Regional Council. 2001. Destination 2030: Metropolitan Transportation
Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region. Seattle.
Sanchez, Thomas. 1999. The Connection Between Public Transit and Employment: The
Cases for Portland and Atlanta. Journal of the American Planning Association 65
(3):284-296.
Schrank, David; Lomax, Tim. 2005. The 2005 Urban Mobility Report: The Texas A & M
University.
Seattle Department of Transportation. 2007. Station Area Plannign Background Report.
Seattle: Seattle Department of Transportation.
Soberman, Richard M. 1997. Rethinking Urban Transportation: Lessons from Toronto.
Transportation Research Record 1606 (Paper No. 970128):33-39.
Sound Transit. 2006. Link Light-rail Fact Sheet.
Sound Transit. 2007. Sound Transit 2 Draft Package, edited by Sound Transit. Seattle
US Census Bureau. 2007. Decennial Census. US Census Bureau 2007 [cited 19 May
2007 2007]. Available from http://factfinder.census.gov/jsp/saff/SAFFInfo.jsp?
_pageId=sp4_decennial.
US Energy Information Administration. 2007. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the
United States, 2004 - State Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Energy Sector,
December 2005 2005 [cited February 11, 2007 2007]. Available from http://
www.eia.doe.gov/environment.html.
62
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Smart Growth [web page], 19 January 2007
2007 [cited 21 April 2007 2007]. Available from http://www.epa.gov/
smartgrowth.
Washington Public Interest Research Group. 2007. Transportation Accountability 2007
[cited 18 May 2007 2007]. Available from http://washpirg.org/WA.asp?
id2=13967&id3=WA&id4=WAFS&.
Winkelman, Steven; Dierkers, Greg. 2003. Reducing the Impacts of Transportation on
Global Warming: Summary of New York Greenhouse Gas Task Force
Recommendations. Transportation Research Record 1842 (Paper No. 03-4053):
83-90.
Zhang, Ming 2004. The Role of Land Use in Travel Mode Choice: Evidence from Boston
and Hong Kong. Journal of the American Planning Association 70 (3):344-361.
63
buschmann_wkMES2007.pdf