Integrated Land Use And Transport Policy

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

An integrated lane use and transport policy develop to encourage compact mixed use development with existing urban and sub urban areas, improve walkability, and transit service quality supported with limiting disperse automobile development at city outskirts and along major arterials (Network 2002). This will help in creating more livable cities with land use pattern most accessible and improved sustainable transport options.

INTEGRATED LAND USE and TRANSPORT POLICY

Set objectives cannot be achieved by creating one or two single changes in the land use pattern and transport services provision but needs coherent number of integrated changes or measures (Holian and Kahn 2012). For example, compact development in itself would not be effective until and unless supported by improved walking and transit services. First, core of this strategy is to improve accessibility through land use planning (urban design, spatial development or community design) which contradicts conventional mobility paradigm meaning that activities daily performed should be located closer together. So, basic planning unit would be local community or neighborhood, a mixed use walkable area within one mile of diameter with common public services like shops, schools, etc. grouped in to central commercial area. Second, providing adequate automobile mobility with good alternative options (opposed to automobile) supported by mixed use resource efficient lane use patterns for both residential and commercial users.

So, improving accessibility and provision of alternatives sustainable modes in an integrated fashion will be the way forward to meet the policy objectives. This is critical to mention here, that accessibility and transport options cannot be explained in complete isolation as in one way or other they affect each other, and their background and effectiveness is discussed in the following sections based on the available evidence.

EFFECTIVENESS of the POLICY

Accessibility

Various factors contribute to accessibility like mobility modes and their substitutes, transport system connectivity and lane use pattern. The most critical one is the land use as dispersion of activities results in more mobility needs, therefore location is core of accessibility as machine is the core for mobility (Levinson and Krizek 2005). Regardless of the above mentioned few major factors, there are many other important aspects which effects accessibility some of them listed and briefly described by Litman (2007) as shown in Table 2.1.1.

Accessibility usually measured through generalized cost like time, money, discomfort, risk; where marginal money cost has low importance compare to time which is most dominant component and major focus of the different measures. Therefore improving accessibility which leads toward compact development pattern is a major challenge which needs to develop and integrate measures that should support all these contributing factors mentioned below. Paramount importance of each component will vary according to situation applied for and area type. This is very clear now, that those measures that only effect the location of activities will not be sufficient enough for sustainable development but needs other ancillary measures like mobility management, network connectivity, user information etc.

Table 2.1.1: Factors effects accessibility directly or indirectly (Litman 2007)

However, we will design a package of strategies to improve accessibility by applying only those factors which affects spatial development or urban design of a community or city (land use) from our above discussion.

Key factors which affect land use are listed in Table 2.1.2, where transport options are highlighted which will be elaborated in the next sub section. All factors mentioned directly or indirectly contribute toward sustainable land use development however, the most critical one is the transport demand management which was ignored in last many decades in most of the world especially in UK which followed Buchanan (1963) philosophy of segregating the traffic functions (Plowden 1972). So measures should be designed based on the factors mentioned in the following table by changing the paradigm of traffic segregation to mix the traffic functions through effective traffic demand management (Newman and Kenworthy 1988,89,92,2000,06; Goodwin 1999).

These factors mentioned below affect the travel behavior of the individuals to minimize the distance travel and relatively improving the efficiency of the different modes. However, some traffic demand management strategies change the land use pattern directly like access management, transit oriented development, location efficient development, parking management, road network connectivity and road space reallocation but most of them effect on travel behavior indirectly (Litman 2007; Sadek et al. 2011; CARB 2010-2011).

Table 2.1.2: Factors that affects Land Use (Litman 2007; CARB 2010-2011;Sadek et al. 2011)

Numerous schemes could be designed based on area type to affect any of the above mentioned factors to achieve sustainable land use development pattern. One scheme might affect couple of factors directly or indirectly therefore, a complete integrated package of the schemes should be designed which could produce cumulative impact.

Evaluation of Impacts

The effect of individual factor is cumulative, and areas that contain a combination of land use density, mix, centeredness, connectivity, walkability tend to have lower overall per capital vehicle ownership and miles travelled, and use alternatives modes more than average (Ewing, Pendall and Chen 2003). Allen and Benfield (2003) established that one urban town in Tennessee with higher density, mix, and connectivity has 25% less per capita vehicle miles travelled than other nearby neighborhoods. Likewise, Khattak and Rodriguez (2005) found the similar evidence in North Carolina with 22.1% less automobile trips.

Ewing and Cervero (2002) computed the per capital vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled ("VMT") elasticity with respect to various land use factors which supports regional accessibility most predominantly for VMT followed by local density and mix as given in Table 3.1.1.1.

Various other studies evaluated that community land use design factors (density and mix, sidewalk supply, street connectivity, street widths, block lengths etc.) essentially affect walking and biking activities, and people living in such neighborhood tends to walk more (Tomalty and Haider 2009).

Table 3.1.1.1: Elasticities of travel with respect to various land use factors (Ewing and Cervero 2002)

Nelson/Nygaard (2005) conducted meta-analysis on various studies to develop a model which predicts impact of various land use design factors on vehicle trip generation and miles travelled. These results are summarized and presented in the Table 3.1.1.2.

Table 3.1.1.2: Land Use Factors Impact on Travel (Litman 2006)

Several studies has been also conducted to examine the ability of land use factors on travel behavior, and these studies indicated that land use design factors have significant effect on travel patterns (Cambridge Systematics, 1994; Rosenbaum and Koenig, 1997; Frank and Pivo, 1995; Hunt and Brownlee, 2001; USEPA, 2001; OTREC 2009).

Hence overall this fact is established from the above findings that community design is not affected by one land use factor or other separately but a multifaceted mix of factors. Therefore at this level, it cannot be recommended to use one factor or other but overall evaluation of these are summarized which could be used as guideline before formulating any policy for any specific area type accordingly, and cumulative measures should be designed in an integrated fashion.

Sustainable Transport Modes

People needs to travel from one place to another to access certain activities due to geographical/ or spatial separation, therefore, appropriate quantity and quality of accessible options should be available to individual users according to their basic needs and abilities in any sustainable environment. Those modes of travel classified as sustainable which needs overall less time, resources, and energy. Usually these modes tend to affect the following factors shown in Figure 3.2.1 in one way or another.

Figure 3.2.1: Sustainable transport modes value

Performance and impact of walkability & cycling, and transit are highlighted briefly in the previous section. There are several other modes available with varied uses and limitations as one mode cannot serve all the purposes. Brief performance of the various transport modes are shown in Table 3.2.1 which should be used as guidelines when designing any land use and transport policy for any particular area.

Because travel demand is diverse (different people & travel conditions has varied needs and preferences), therefore, there should be diversified travel options available to each user type like it is inefficient to walk for long distance trip but motor vehicle mode will be the choice here. Mostly the developed world is automobile dependent with scattered land use which is mostly accessible by the motorized modes but difficult to reach by other modes. Public transport service often inconvenient and inaccessible

Table 3.2.1: Transport modes performance profile

Evaluation of Impacts

Conventional transport planning consider transport program as linear phenomenon with newer and faster modes replacing the slower modes, however, paradigm of integrate land use and transport need a parallel mode which assumes that each mode has a role to play in an efficient transport system environment. Transport progress should focus on improving the useful modes according to requirement, not just the latest advanced modes. Therefore in many situations our policy objectives could be met by improving walking and cycling condition, public transit service, prioritize certain travel or restrict automobile travel. Even if our established approach doesn’t increase the speed of travel but it can improve the affordability, comfort and convenience of transport.

Transport options viability is often measured on vehicle traffic or number of trips but the movement is not an ultimate objective but accessibility is the main goal of transport. This approach will focus on wider options to solve the transport problems which should encompass land use management strategies (mentioned in the last section) and mobility & its substitutes (such as delivery service, electronic access).

Hence, a fact could be established here that instead of focusing on one single mode and promoting it, we need to change our approach and set it on paradigm of accessibility which will open more diversified options to us for solving transport problems and this will leads toward most sustainable development pattern which is not a static state but a continuous process. The impact and evaluation of this approach is calculated through various studies which is summarized and given in the Table 3.2.1.1 for further reference.

Table 3.2.1.1: Evaluation of Integrated transport and land use factors

0 = no support; 1 = normal; 2 = average; 3 = most suitable

AARP (2010); DfT (2003); A. Hay and E. Trinder (1991); Chellman, C. (2000); William Lennertz and Laurence Qamar (1995); Todd Litman (2002); Todd Litman (2008); Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy (1999); K.H. Schaeffer and Elliot Sclar (1980)

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

How the transportation is measured can affect the selection of solutions, for example conventional planning often reflects; transport means motor vehicle traffic so anything which improves its speed will be considered effective. But a more comprehensive approach which we have established above is that transport is actually accessibility. This is the major issue in the current system of planning which is the key issue in implementing the any integrated policy.

Therefore, policy objectives established above cannot be achieved by following the conventional transport planning approach. This requires completely a new paradigm follows the integration of three essentials disciplines as shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: New paradigm for sustainable planning

Integrated Policy Making

Integrated policy making is the keystone in making of new paradigm. In current practice various policy efforts are made in transport, environment, health, and social wellbeing but in a highly uncoordinated way. This results in destructive interference in the policy outcomes where some of the policies support each other. For example, sustainable development has different definitions under different disciplines which leads them toward different directions and stretch the development in their own perspective, which is the first fundamental step to be taken before implementing any measure to achieve coherent policy results.

This is only possible by bringing all the institutions under one umbrella of planning which is the big challenge for the current planning agencies. Current efforts are made in many countries to integrate the policy objectives of various disciplines but they are not proved to very much effective (Sager 2002). One matrix is given in the Figure 4.1 showing different policy objectives in different environments which need to be integrated to get sustainable development. Integration of different fields is the second step, presently; even the transport related institutions are working in uncoordinated way which is the major obstacle in the way toward sustainable development especially in developing countries.

Figure 4.1: Different visions and objectives for the same purpose of sustainable

development

http://www.uitp.org/Public-Transport/sustainabledevelopment/3bulles.gif

Mobility Management

This approach is famous with Transport Demand Management (TDM) also, and key to this approach is to better manage and maximize the benefits of present transport programmes, services, and infrastructures. This clearly contradicts the conventional planning approach which is mostly affected by Buchanan (1963) famous report "Traffic in Towns". However, TDM tends to develop such planning policies, programmes, and strategies toward most efficient use of existing resources to increase the accessibility.

It has variety of strategies which usually falls into following three major categories;

Improve transport options

Encourage efficient mode use and reduce driving

land use management and parking

Implementation of TDM programmes is not as simple as doing some road development projects which doesn’t not need multifaceted resources and skills however; this requires huge combination of resources and professionals skills including "planning & evaluation, programme management, appreciation of facility and community design principles, understanding of transit planning and marketing skills" (Schiller, Bruun and Kenworthy 2010). Other big challenge will be the same as mentioned above the institutional coordination in the transport and other sectors.

Integrated Planning

Conventional transport planning approach treats the modes and facilities in isolation rather than in an integrated manner which is the prime requirement for sustainable transportation (Schiller, Bruun and Kenworthy 2010). The emphasis needs to be changed enormously on the following points;

Emphasizing accessibility over mobility;

Social equity representing societal and cultural issues;

Land use impacts needs to be evaluated for all planning processes;

Market and pricing distortions

The new paradigm of sustainable transport planning is the intersection of the three main domains as shown in Figure 4.3.1.

Figure 4.3.1: Sustainable transport planning domains

Each of these areas is made of numerous components representing questions or different issues which policy makers, planners, and citizens should address. Factors affecting these domains are derived from the many studies experiences and are listed in the following Table 4.3.1 (Schiller, Bruun and Kenworthy 2010).

Table 4.3.1: Major factors for integrated transport planning implementation

This is clear from the above table that implementing integrated policies is the most difficult task and objective to achieve. This is the major challenge for all transport planning agencies or institutions to come up with institutional reforms in the near future to cross these major obstacles in the way of implementing the integrated policies to achieve sustainable transport. Each of these factors could be further elaborated but bound to the contents only due to word limit.

The implication of this new planning paradigms and mobility management are vast, they have within themselves not only the potential to stop the bad transport and planning practices to avoid further damage but the capacity to begin a process of regeneration, repair, and renewal.

Measuring Policy Success

The main aim of the above discussion so far was to change the mind set of conventional transport planning by shifting the focus to accessibility from mobility paradigm which is itself a major challenge. Secondly, shifting the focus from individualistic isolated approach of dealing the modes and facilities separately, and bringing them under one umbrella in an integrated fashion is the next major milestone to be achieved in the course of implementation. Third, challenge is to integrate the transport modes options with land use to achieve our accessibility objective. Finally, support all three challenges through effective and efficient institutional coordination in different stakeholders/ sectors with one set objective or goal.

However, on both theoretical and practical base policy is practical and derived from the past experiences and learnt lessons so far but achieving these objectives on real ground cannot be promised 100% due to issues mentioned previous sections.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Conventional transport planning models evaluate transport related projects using direction financial costs with project saving cost in terms of travel time, crash cost etc. but more comprehensive approach needed in case of integrated land use and transport policy evaluation. This should consider TDM strategies because such measures have broader range of impacts directly or indirectly. Following current approach we implement solutions to one problem which worsen the other problems and completely failed to consider the integrated benefits. For example, some traffic agencies set minimum parking standards to prevent parking problem but this measure tends to worsen traffic congestion, sprawl, and housing unaffordability.

Policy Implementation

To successfully implement any integrated land use and transport policy following points needs to be incorporated in to conventional transport planning process and practices.

Cumulative Impacts: when apply the land use and TDM measures separately they tend to have minimal effect but if applied together in an integration will result more positive impacts;

Selection of Alternatives: when developing alternative solutions to any problem consider, wide variety of modes and TDM measures;

Investment Practices: priority should be given to maintenance and operation over capacity expansion, and should follow the incremental projects implementation approach;

Underpricing: this should properly consider the market distortions and correction value of money should be used for evaluation;

Modeling Practices: use modeling techniques sensitive to pricing, diverse range of mode choice, micro level land use factors, but if such model is not available then planner should be aware of the limitation of the outcomes;

Measuring Transport: ways should be develop to measure and evaluate accessibility, and suitable performance indicators should be used;

Generated Traffic Impacts: traffic models should be upgraded to predict the traffic generation not only the traffic diversions;

Downstream Congestion: transport projects should be evaluated using comprehensive traffic modes to incorporate generated and induced traffic effects,

Consumer Impact Analysis: this should be evaluated using consumer surplus analysis especially when evaluating land use management policies, alternative modes, and pricing policies.

Parking Expenses: parking costs should be considered and its cost should be associated from alternative modes and TDM strategies which reduce vehicle trips

Vehicle Costs: cost benefit analysis should include more comprehensive estimates of the vehicle costs like distance base depreciation, opportunity cost, increased vehicle ownership cost etc.

Construction Impacts: evaluation of the projects should include delays and crash risk to both vehicles, and pedestrians, community impacts, business loses, and environmental impacts;

Non-Motorized Transport Planning and Evaluation: multi modal level of service should be determined for the traffic projects;

Strategic Land Use Objectives: transport project should support any set land use objectives like if it is clustered infill development then any transport related project should support this objective;

Uncoordinated Decisions: establish regional and local level strategic goals, objectives, and visions, and prioritize transport planning options in different jurisdictions and agencies.

CARB. 2010-2011. Research on Impacts of Transportation and Land Use-Related Policies.

EWING, R., R. PENDALL and D. CHEN. 2003. Measuring sprawl and its transportation impacts. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1831(-1), pp.175-183.

HOLIAN, M. J. and M. E. KAHN. 2012. The Impact of Center City Economic and Cultural Vibrancy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation.

LEVINSON, D. M. and K. J. KRIZEK. 2005. Access to destinations.

LITMAN, T. 2007. Land Use Impacts on Transport: How Land Use Factors Affect Travel Behavior. Available from: www.vtipi.org/landtravel.pdf.

NETWORK, S. G. 2002. Getting to smart growth: 100 policies for implementation. Smart Growth Network.

PLOWDEN, S. 1972. Towns against traffic. Deutsch.

SADEK, A. W., Q. WANG, P. SU and A. TRACY. 2011. Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled Through Smart Land-Use Design.

SAGER, T. 2002. Democratic Planning and Social Choice Dilemmas: Prelude to Institutional Planning Theory Urban and Regional Planning and Development. Aldershot, Hampshire, England. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

SCHILLER, P. L. L., E. BRUUN and J. R. KENWORTHY. 2010. An Introduction to Sustainable Transportation: "Policy, Planning and Implementation". Taylor & Francis.

TOMALTY, R. and M. HAIDER. 2009. Walkability and Health; BC Sprawl Report 2009. Smart Growth BC (www. smartgrowth. bc. ca).