Notes on Robert Cervero, The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry [20]

This was a fantastic book, and very optimistic. It really opened my eyes up to the full gamut of possibilities for transit service provision.

Transit and the Metropolis: Finding Harmony

[T]he transit metropolis represents a built form and a mobility environment where transit is a far more respectable alternative to traveling than currently is the case in much of the industrialized world. [...] [W]hile automobile travel might still predominate, a transit metropolis is one where enough travelers opt for transit riding, by virtue of the workable transit-land use nexus, to place a region on a sustainable course.

[p. 4]

He divides the twelve case studies into four classes: adaptive cities that have invested in rail to guide urban growth; adaptive transit in places that have accepted sprawl and tried to fit transit to that pattern; strong-core cities; and hybrids.
As an example of adaptive transit, he describes service reforms aimed at dramatically reducing waiting times and transfers, and uses Edmonton and Calgary's pioneering 1970s timed-transfer system as an example (later imitated by Ottawa and others). All connections are synchronized at transit centres, with 5-10 buses arriving simultaneously, and wait as their riders make connections. (I'm not sure how well that actually works in practice, mind you—I've rarely heard anything positive about Edmonton's transit system otherwise.) [p. 10]
He believes in building transport to serve land use goals. [p. 12]
He carefully uses the North American term transit rather than the international term public transport, to avoid the U.S. connotation of "public sector provision" rather than "available to the public" [p. 15].
Jitneys do exist in the U.S. New York City has 3,000-5,000 vehicles providing a higher quality service than transit, and Miami has a thriving sector targeting immigrants. Airports also often have substantial van-based jitney service [p. 16].
The Moscow and Tokyo metro systems each carry 2.6-2.8 billion customers per year, more than twice as many as London or Paris, even though their systems are half the size [p. 20]. "On a riders per track kilometer basis, the most intensively used metros are, in order, São Paulo, Moscow, Tokyo, St. Petersburg, Osaka, Hong Kong, and Mexico City. Most Western European, Canadian, and U.S. metros have one-third to one-quarter the passenger throughput per track kilometer of these cities, in large part because more of their residents own cars and the cost of driving is relatively low."
The World Bank lending for metro systems ceased completely in 1980 and has resumed again only recently [p. 20].
He discusses the pros and cons of his narrative case study approach [p. 22]

Transit and the Changing World

Many motorcycles in Asia are powered by two-stroke engines (largely phased out in other parts of the world), which emit as much as ten times more hydrocarbons and smoke per kilometer as four-stroke motorcycles and even cars. According to one estimate, the South (i.e., the Southern Hemisphere, including the poor countries of Africa Southeast Asia, and Latin America) is responsible for 45 percent of the annual increase in fuel emissions that are causing global warming, and much of this is attributed to rapid increases in motorization, including two-wheelers.

[p. 32]

As a result of both factors—declining real prices and improved fuel economy—the real price of gasoline paid by America's motoring public for each kilometer traveled fell by almost 50 percent [between 1980 and 1993]. Yet over the same period, inflation-adjusted transit fares rose by nearly the same magnitude, 47 percent.

[p. 34]

A study of hundreds of parking facilities across ten U.S. cities found that peak parking demand absorbed, on average, only 56 percent of capacity [111].

[p. 35]

America's direct motoring subsidies contrast sharply with European experiences, where the ratio of roadway taxes to expenditures range from 1.3 in Switzerland to 5.1 in the Netherlands [compared to 0.6 for the U.S.]. [90].

[p. 35]

Studies of hidden subsidies to motorists in Europe similarly place the monetary figure at about 5 percent of the continent's total GDP [68,76,50]. While (as discussed later in this chapter) subsidies for transit riding in the United States are probably comparable to those for motoring on a per passenger kilometer basis, motoring subsidies are so huge in the aggregate (again, as much as $2,400 billion annually [in the U.S.]) that they probably swamp the impacts of some $15 billion in annual subsidies to U.S. transit riders.

[p. 36]

Studies show that a large share of government subsidies to transit get consumed by higher labor costs and fewer kilometers of service per worker [97,11,83].

[p. 37]

Even fiscal conservatives have chimed in about favoritism [of road over transit projects] in government programs. Paul Weyrich and William Lind of the Free Congress Foundation in Washington, D.C., remark: "The current division of market share between the automobile and mass transit is in no way the product of a free market. On the contrary, it reflects massive and sustained government intervention on behalf of automobiles... Massive government intervention has so skewed the market toward the automobile that many consumers do not have the option of a high-quality transit system ."

[p. 38]

Efforts to expand the role of the private sector in delivering transit services has probably, on balance, been a positive institutional trend. With the onset of federal subsidy cuts under the Reagan administration, many U.S. transit properties began competitively contracting out services in the 1980s to the lowest bidder that could meet minimal service standards. Studies show private operators of fixed-route bus services brought cost savings of between 22 and 54 percent (mainly from hiring nonunionized, lower-waged employees), along with higher labor productivity (more vehicle kilometers per driver) [104,81].

[p. 39]

A recent panel study of California metropolitan areas found new road capacity induced travel: between 1973 and 1990, every 10 percent increase in highway lane-kilometers led to a 9 percent increase in vehicle kilometers traveled (VKT) within a four-year period, controlling for the influences of other factors [47].

[p. 41]

One study of bus-only cities in the United States and Europe estimated that it is generally twice as fast to travel by car as by bus [61]. Even in larger rail-based cities in Japan and Europe, the study found point-to-point travel times by car to be 3 to 23 percent shorter than by transit. The central premise of this book is that transit will only become time-competitive with the car by improving the match between how services are configured and cities are designed.

[p. 43]

A study of Bangkok police officers regularly exposed to road traffic found they had blood lead levels significantly above World Health Organization (WHO) standards [71].

[p. 44]

The United States, with just 4.6 percent of the world's population, produces nearly one-quarter of all energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. However, it is the rapidly developing and motorizing countries of the Southern Hemisphere that pose the greatest threat to global climate change. Walter Hook and Michael Replogle estimate that the South is responsible for 45 percent of the annual increases in greenhouse gas emissions [53].

[p. 45]

In 1995, the average commute by private automobiles in the United States consumed 6,500 BTUs per passenger kilometer, compared to 5,940 BTUs per passenger kilometer if the trip was by bus transit and 5,440 per passenger kilometer if the trip was by rail transit [2,40]. Transit's energy advantages are even higher elsewhere. In German cities, bus transit is estimated to be four times more energy-efficient than the car, and tram and metro services 2.5 times more efficient [110]. Some critics charge, however, that when the energy expenditures for constructing rail systems are counted, rail investments can be net energy losers. One study estimated that, because of the high energy outlays in building the transbay tube, San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system uses 3.6 percent more energy annually than would an exclusive busway along the Bay Bridge [65]. Clearly, unless trains attract large numbers of former motorists, the energy conservation benefits of new metros will remain questionable.

[pp. 46-47]

Of course, those are per-kilometer stats. If rail can successfully encourage shorter trips than bus rapid transit, then a real energy benefit can be seen.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), three-quarters of all traffic accidents occur in the Southern Hemisphere, even though there are many more motorized vehicles north of the equator [113]. In 1990, traffic accidents ranked ninth among causes of death and disability worldwide. By 2020, WHO expects the road-traffic toll to jump to third place worldwide (second place in developing countries). Part of the problem is the poor enforcement of traffic laws in developing countries, but the more serious problem is pedestrians, cyclists, carts, and scooters competing against cars, trucks, and buses for limited road space. In New Delhi, three-quarters of people killed on the road are pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists [99]. Shanghai averages ten times as many traffic fatalities per capita as Tokyo, partly because of the high exposure of pedestrians and cyclists to fast-moving traffic, but also because of delays, caused by traffic congestion, in providing first aid to accident victims [71].

[...] In wealthy countries, most citizens indemnify themselves against the risk of traffic accidents through insurance payments, thus absorbing costs and, should they require it, receiving compensation. Of course, in the developing world, where insurance is often a luxury, the losses, pain, and suffering experienced by victims and their families, who often are among society's poorest, can be catastrophic.

[pp. 48-49]

A study of commuting in Philadelphia, Chicago, and Los Angeles found that unequal accessibility to jobs explained nearly half of the difference in employment rates between black and white teenagers [56,59].

[p. 49]

In contrast to the Western world, many poor households in developing countries have been displaced to the periphery of metropolitan areas. Living on the outskirts away from central city jobs, often imposes significant financial hardships. In large cities with poor public transit connections, low-income households spend as much as a quarter of their earnings on transportation, and those living on the fringe can spend more than three to four hours a day getting to and from work [112].

[p. 50]

In what is perhaps the most complete and rigorous evaluation conducted to date, Mark DeLucchi of the University of California at Davis placed the hidden subsidies to U.S. motorists as high as slightly more than $1,000 billion each year [28,75,66].

[p. 51]

There is simply no credible way to get at the full social benefits of automobility. Many analysis maintain that unborne costs are more than offset by the benefits conferred by private motor vehicles, including higher economic productivity and freedom to live and travel as one chooses. Even Mark DeLucchi, who has assigned higher social costs to automobile travel than anyone, writes: "motor-vehicle use provides enormous social benefits and, in our view, probably greatly exceeds the social cost." While for some this is no doubt true, for many who are too poor to own a car, the social costs of an auto-oriented world could very well exceed the purported benefits. This is an area where disparities abound.

[p. 52]

Other refs: [9,23,85,42,43,29,64,94,89,39,34,100,86,62,58,77,69]

Public Policies and the Sustainable Transit Metropolis

He sees four demand-side approaches: TDM, restraints on automotive use, regulation of automobile performance, and pricing.

Any public policy whose compliance is gauged in terms of inputs (i.e., effort) instead of outcomes (i.e., performance) is wrongheaded and destined to please few. The programs that most effectively modify travel behavior pass on clear and unmistakable price signals, such as by underwriting carpools and vanpools, charging for parking, and providing free or heavily subsidized transit passes (thus partly offsetting the parking subsidies).

[p. 64]

Berlin's area-wide traffic-calming measures have been credited with removing traffic out of residential neighborhoods and onto commercial streets and reducing citywide accidents involving pedestrians by 43 percent [77].

[p. 65]

It is widely agreed that higher urban densities will do more than any single change to our cityscapes in attracting people to trains and buses. A cumulative body of empirical studies over the past half-century convincingly show this to be the case. Statistical comparisons between cities and across corridors within cities suggest that every 10 percent increase in population and employment densities yields anywhere between a 5 and 8 percent increase in transit ridership, controlling for other factors (such as the lower incomes, restricted parking, and better transit services generally associated with more compact settings) [72,67,91,80]. Studies also consistently show that transit demand rises most sharply when going from very low to modest densities—say, from 4 dwelling units per net residential acre to 10 to 15 units per acre—that is, from settings with quarter-acre spacious home sites to ones with mixes of small-lot detached units and duplexes/triplexes [52,36,15].

[pp. 72-73]

Australian cities are less dense than their American counterparts and have more road capacity per capita, yet still average 44 percent more transit trips per capita, mainly due to substantially higher quality transit services (see the Melbourne and Adelaide cases in this book).

[p. 74]

He has a good discussion of the Newman and Kenworthy (1989) debate (pp. 74-75).

A recent analysis of work trips across eleven large U.S. metropolitan areas showed that having stores between a transit stop and one's residence increased the share of work trips via transit by several percentage points. [18]. Conveniently sited retail outlets meant transit riders could do their shopping en route home in the evening, thus linking work and shop trips in a single tour.

[p. 77]

He notes that San Diego apparently uses performance-based development guidelines instead of zoning (p. 77)

One can find many examples of compact, mixed-use cities with active street life—Bangkok, Jakarta, and São Paulo come to mind—that are hardly paragons of sustainable development. What is often missing is good-quality urban design.

[p. 78]

Research in New South Wales concluded that TDM policies coupled with jobs-housing balance and mixed-use development will have a greater effect on reducing greenhouse gas emissions than urban consolidation policies that might have to wait a half-century or so for significant payoff [49].

[p. 80]

John Holtzclaw [52] gets the credit for the location-efficient mortgage idea (pp. 80,103)

[In Bremen, Germany] a new complex of 200 apartments and homes, Bremen-Hollerland, accepts only tenants and homeowners who renounce car ownership. [...] The program has been legally challenged by land developers who fear that forbidding car possession through restrictive covenants could significantly affect the market value of affected housing. [106, p. 131].

[pp. 80, 103]

Several dozen studies have investigated the land-use and urban-form impacts of new-generation rail systems built since the early 1950s in Toronto, Montreal, San Francisco, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, and other cities, generally reaching similar conclusions: rail investments can induce meaningful changes in urban landscapes, though only when the public sector is committed to closely working with the private sector to bring this about [6,25,31,27,30,32,37,46,95,109].

[p. 83]

One study claimed that the [Toronto Yonge St.] subway brought about a US$12 billion appreciation in citywide land values during its first decade of service [48].

[p. 83]

When Cervero describes the Toronto transit system, he praises the fact that "at some stations, trams and trolley buses penetrate directly into enclosed areas, enabling transferring patrons to step directly onto subway concourses without passing through turnstiles." [p. 84] I'd never thought of that as a distinctive or advantageous feature, but I guess it is pretty distinctive in a North American context, actually. And convenient, especially at some stations (Spadina, St. Clair West, and the Harbourfront streetcar at Union Station).
He cites 65 percent of all trips to Toronto's CBD by transit.
He lists Hans Blumenfeld as another major personality in the Spadina Expressway fights
He lists four steps taken to maximize development potential around TTC stations: density bonuses, park-and-ride constraints [103], transferable development rights, and supplemental land acquisitions.

Canadian cities are granted considerable latitude in exercising their police powers to seize private properties, with due compensation, when doing so is in the broader public interest. During the mid-1950s, the city of Toronto obtained twenty-two city blocks over and beyond what was necessary to build the Yonge Street subway line. Some parcels were sold to selected developers for large-scale commercial projects (which attracted high-quality development since land had already been assembled). Most publicly acquired properties, however, were leased according to terms that were at least as favorable to public interests as private ones. By controlling much of the land around stations, the city could target activities with the highest potential to generate ridership to station areas, while also recapturing much of the value added by the subway investment.

[pp. 88-89]

He attributes the "Vienna surrounded by Phoenix" description of Toronto to Juri Pill, in a Toronto Star article from Feb. 15, 1990 p. B1.
His postscript on Toronto is valuable, and more realistic than some other observers (like Newman and Kenworthy, who continue to ignore the now-massive outer suburbs of Toronto in their analyses) [p. 89].
One good news story in San Francisco: the Pleasant Hill suburb put more effort into attracting development to their station, as opposed to Lafayette and Orinda who openly welcomed park-and-ride lots in the hope of retaining their sprawling suburban character [p. 94]. Pleasant Hill is now developing their parking lot, a clever way of dodging normal U.S. restrictions on land acquisition surrounding a transit station.
Drawing lessons [63,10,60,22,55]: transit redistributes rather than creates growth; a prerequisite is a healthy regional economy; land-use impacts are greatest when transit investments occur just prior to an upswing in regional growth; radial rail systems can strengthen downtown cores; regional transit investments generally reinforce decentralization trends; pro-active planning is necessary if decentralized growth is to take the form of subcenters; transit can spur central-city redevelopment under the right conditions; other pro-development measures must accompany transit investments; auto equalizers help in inducing station-area land-use changes [pp. 95-98].

Noted urban sociologist Homer Hoyt observed more than a half century ago that urban form is largely a product of the dominant transportation technology during a city's prevailing period of growth [54]. This tenet is certainly borne out by the experiences of metropolitan Toronto and San Francisco. As illustrated in Figure 3.2, the growth of cities usually follows an attenuated S-shaped curve. Toronto timed its opening of the TTC subway perfectly. In the case of BART, new rail services were generally "too little, too late" to exert a big influence on urban form. With most of the region's freeway system and settlement pattern already in place, BART's incremental additions to regional accessibility were too small to substantially sway development decisions. The lesson: the biggest potential payoffs from pro-active planning around transit stations in coming years will be in the fastest growing areas—in general, the Jakartas, Bangkoks, and Shanghais of the world, cities that are now implementing or seriously contemplating major new regional transit investments.

[p. 96]

Other refs: [102,14,108,105,35,98,70,84,107,78,87,61,41,38,7,8,44,96,93,57,73,1,82,92,3,4,19,16,26,51,33,12,13,79,17,21]

Orbiting the City with Rail-Served Satellites: Stockholm, Sweden

[B]eginning in 1904, the Stockholm city council began purchasing land for future expansion decades in advance of need. By 1980, it owned 70 percent of the 188 square kilometers of land within its boundaries and 600 square kilometers of land beyond the city limits.

[p. 112]

Despite surveys that showed Swedes preferred low- to mid-rise suburban homes, Markelius set about building fairly dense satellite centers so that most residents could be within walking distance of a rail stop. He hoped that by doing so, many households would feel it unnecessary to own or use a car to reach downtown Stockholm.

[p. 112]

Markelius devised the rule of halves: half the working inhabitants would commute out of new towns and half of the work force were to be drawn in from elsewhere. [...] Stockholm's satellites were not intended to be fully self-contained—more like "half contained"—even though they were planned for a balance of jobs and housing units.

[p. 113]

Under the regoinal plan, satellite subcenters would function as countermagnets to central Stockholm, inducing efficient, bidirectional traffic flows. This meant building Tunnelbana in advance of demand and incurring huge operating deficits at the outset, but with the expectation that the investment would begin to pay off as the new settlement pattern took form.

[p. 113]

Stockholm's first generation of new towns, called ABC towns (A=housing, B=jobs, and C=services), were designed using a common formula: [...] Separation of pedestrian and bicycle paths from automobile traffic, including grade separation at intersections.

[p. 116]

Rather than stressing the internalization of trips within satellite communities, the new focus was on encouraging balanced flows of travel among communities via electric trains. In a way, a jobs-housing balance was supplanted by a transit-flow balance as a normative planning doctrine.

[...] All of Stockholm's new towns, regardless of generation, have very low indices of independence—below 0.15. That is, more than six times as many work trips are external as internal.

[pp. 122, 124]

One of Stockholm's most noteworthy transit achievements is its incredibly balanced two-way traffic flows. During peak hours, directional splits of 45:55 percent are not uncommon on some rail lines. Workers reverse-commuting to jobs in rail-served suburbs have produced this remarkable balance.

[p. 126]

He calls the normal pattern with empty outbound trains (or cars) "tidal" as workers are sucked in to the city centre for work and then return home. It's a good metaphor.
He describes a 50/38/12 modal split (transit/auto/ped-bike) for employees in the new towns. It's a bit more car-centred for residents of the new towns: 40/45/15, roughly. When I look at Figures 4.3 and 4.4, I see another trend: the rail-served satellites have cemented the city centre's transit modeshare. Figure 4.4 shows a 76% transit modeshare for those working in Stockholm and living in a new town, and 61% for the reverse commute. In most cities, that reverse commute would definitely require a car—but by ensuring that the suburbs are accessible by transit, they may really enable carfree living for those in the centre.

Greater Stockholm's transit achievements are impressive given that it is a prosperous region where most households own cars. Stockholmers enjoy high levels of automobility. Many simply choose to leave their cars at home for the daily routine of traveling to and from work, preferring transit instead. Cars have a more specialized role. They are used for hauling groceries, going out in the evening, or taking weekend excursions to the countryside, where many Swedes own second homes.

[p. 127]

He notes that the linear alignment of activities along radial corridors leads to highly efficient travel [p. 127]
Fares are low due to discounting: US$1 to US$1.50 depending on distance, and cheap multitrip strips.
"Near Tunnelbana stations, parking standards have been significantly reduced, to as few as one space per ten office workers." [p. 127]

The region continues to add major roads, however. Plans for an underground expressway that will enable motorists to bypass the central city are moving forward. The only way backers could win approval for the project was to support the introduction of road pricing in the city center [...] with revenues going to finance both road and transit improvements. Planners hope that higher motoring fees will reduce the number of cars entering the city center by 25 percent.

[p. 128]

The typical Bay Area resident was found to log 2.4 times more vehicle kilometers per weekday as his or her counterpart from greater Stockholm—44.3 versus 18.4. [...] On average, Bay Area residents travel 60 percent farther, in terms of distance, for convenience shopping and 40 percent farther to eat, yet the amount of time devoted to both trip purposes is about the same in the two regions. The average Bay Area resident ends up traveling considerably farther, consuming more finite resources, but without reaping any time-savings benefit [45].

[p. 129]

Tunnelbana's radial orientation was partly dictated by the region's fragmented landscape of rivers and inlets, which have created wedge-shaped land masses.

[p. 130]

Other refs: [74,101,24,5,87,88]

The Hand-Shaped Metropolis: Copenhagen, Denmark

Bibliography

1: Alan Altshuler.
The Urban Transportation System.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1980.
2: American Public Transit Association.
The transit fact book, 1996-97.
Technical report, American Public Transit Association, Washington, D.C., USA, 1997.
3: J. Bergdall and R. Williams.
Perception of density.
Berkeley Planning Journal, 5:15-38, 1990.
4: L. Bookout and J. Wentling.
Density by design.
Urban Land, 47:10-15, 1988.
5: P. Bovy, J. Orfeuil, and D. Zumkeller.
Europe: A heterogenous single market.
In I. Salomon et al., editor, A Billion Trips a Day. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993.
6: D. Boyce.
Impact of rapid transit on residential property sales prices.
In M. Chatterjee, editor, Space Location and Regional Development, pages 145-153. Pion, London, UK, 1976.
7: Michael J. Breheney.
Sustainable Development and Urban Form.
Pion, London, UK, 1992.
8: Michael J. Breheney.
Centrists, decentrists and compromisers: Views on the future of urban form.
In Mike Jenks, Elizabeth Burton, and Katie Williams, editors, The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form?, pages 13-35. E&FN Spon, London, UK, 1996.
9: Michael J. Breheney.
Counterurbanisation and sustainable urban forms.
In J. Brotchie, M. Batty, P. Hall, and P. Newton, editors, Cities in Competition: The Emergence of Productive and Sustainable Cities for the 21st Century, pages 402-429. Longman Cheshire, Melbourne, Australia, 1996.
10: Robert Cervero.
Light rail transit and urban development.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 50(2):133-147, 1984.
11: Robert Cervero.
The anatomy of transit operating deficits.
Urban Law and Policy, 6(3):281-298, 1985.
12: Robert Cervero.
Suburban gridlock.
Technical report, Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 1986.
13: Robert Cervero.
Urban transit in Canada: Integration and innovation at its best.
Transportation Quarterly, 40(3):293-316, 1986.
14: Robert Cervero.
Suburban employment centers: Probing the influence of site features on the journey-to-work.
Journal of Planning Education and Research, pages 75-85, 1989. http://www.uctc.net/scripts/countdown.pl?049.pdf
15: Robert Cervero.
Ridership impacts of transit-focused development in California.
Monograph 45, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1993.
16: Robert Cervero.
Transit supportive development in the United States: Experiences and prospects.
Technical report, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., USA, 1993.
17: Robert Cervero.
BART @ 20: Land use and development impacts.
Monograph 49, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1995.
18: Robert Cervero.
Mixed land-uses and commuting: Evidence from the American housing survey.
Transportation Research A, 30(5):361-377, 1996.
19: Robert Cervero.
Traditional neighborhoods and commuting in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Transportation, 23:373-394, 1996.
20: Robert Cervero.
The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry.
Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA, 1998.
21: Robert Cervero and John Landis.
Twenty years of the Bay Area Rapid Transit system: Land use and development impacts.
Transportation Research A, 31(4):309-333, July 1997.
22: Robert Cervero and Samuel Seskin.
The relationship between transit and urban form.
Research Results Digest 7, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., USA, 1995.
23: Robert Cervero and K.L. Wu.
Polycentrism, commuting, and residential location in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Environment and Planning A, 29:865-886, 1997.
24: W. Cox, J. Love, and N. Newton.
Competition in public transport: International state of the art.
In Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Competition and Ownership in Passenger Transport, Leeds, UK, May 1997.
25: D. Damm and A. Lerman.
Response of urban real estate values in anticipation of the Washington Metro.
Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 1(3):315-335, 1980.
26: M. Dasgupta and F. Webster.
Land use/transport interaction: Policy relevance of the ISGLUTI study.
In Proceedings of the Sixth World Conference on Transport Research, Lyon, France, 1992. World Congress on Transport Research.
27: M. Dear.
Rapid transit and suburban residential land uses.
Traffic Quarterly, 29(2):223-242, 1975.
28: Marc DeLucchi.
Total cost of motor-vehicle use.
Access Magazine, 8:7-13, 1996.
29: H. Dimitriou.
Transport Planning for Third World Cities.
Routledge, London, UK, 1990.
30: D. Dingemans.
Rapid transit and suburban residential land use.
Traffic Quarterly, 32(2):289-306, 1978.
31: P. Donnelly.
Rail transit impact studies: Atlanta, Washington, and San Diego.
Technical report, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., USA, 1982.
32: D. Dornbush.
BART-induced changes in property values and rents: Land use and urban development projects, phase i, BART impact study.
Technical report, U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C., USA, 1975.
33: R. Dunphy.
Toronto: A pioneering transit model in a suburbanizing future.
In Moving Beyond Gridlock: Traffic and Development, pages 109-124. The Urban Land Institute, 1997.
34: Reid Ewing.
Measuring transportation performance.
Transportation Quarterly, 49(1):91-104, 1995.
35: R. Fogelson.
The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles from 1850 to 1930.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1967.
36: Lawrence D. Frank and Gary Pivo.
Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking.
Transportation Research Record, 1466:44-52, 1994.
37: C. Gannon and M. Dean.
Rapid transit and office development.
Traffic Quarterly, 29(2):223-242, 1972.
38: Jose A. Gomez-Ibañez.
A global view of automobile dependence.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 57(3):376-379, 1991.
39: Jose A. Gomez-Ibañez and J. Meyer.
Privatizing and deregulating local public services: Lessons from Britain's buses.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(1):9-21, 1990.
40: D. Gordon.
Steering a New Course: Transportation, Energy, and the Environment.
Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA, 1991.
41: Peter Gordon and Harry Richardson.
Gasoline consumption and cities: A reply.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 55(3):342-345, 1989.
42: Peter Gordon and Harry Richardson.
Beyond polycentricity: The dispersed metropolis, Los Angeles, 1970-1990.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3):161-173, 1996.
43: Peter Gordon and Harry Richardson.
Where's the sprawl?
Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1):275-278, 1997.
44: Peter Gordon, Harry Richardson, and Myung-Jin Jun.
The commuting paradox: Evidence from the top twenty.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 57(4):416-420, 1991.
45: R. Gorham.
Regional planning and travel behavior: A comparative study of the San Francisco and Stockholm metropolitan regions.
Master's thesis, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1996.
46: R. Green and O. James.
Rail Transit Station Area Development: Small Area Modeling in Washington, D.C.
M.E. Sharpe Publishers, Armonk, NY, USA, 1993.
47: M. Hansen.
Do new highways generate traffic?
Access Magazine, 7(2):16-22, 1995.
48: W. Heenan.
The economic effect of rapid transit on real estate development.
The Appraisal Journal, 36:212-224, 1968.
49: David A. Hensher.
Selective but important challenges facing the transport sector.
In J. Richmond, editor, Designing Transport & Urban Forms for the Australia of the 21st Century. Institute of Transport Studies, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 1996.
50: V. Himanen, P. Nijkamp, and J. Padjen.
Environmental quality and transport policy in Europe.
Transportation Research A, 26(2):147-157, 1992.
51: K. Hoeveler.
Accessibility vs. mobility: The location efficient mortgage.
Public Investment, pages 1-2, September 1997.
52: John Holtzclaw.
Using residential patterns and transit to decrease auto dependence and costs.
Technical report, Natural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, CA, USA, 1994.
53: Walter Hook and Michael Replogle.
Motorization and non-motorized transport in Asia.
Land Use Policy, 13(1):69-84, 1996.
54: Homer Hoyt.
Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in American Cities.
Federal Housing Administration, Washington, D.C., USA, 1939.
55: Herman Huang.
The land-use impacts of urban rail transit systems.
Journal of Planning Literature, 11(1):17-30, 1996.
56: K. Ihlandfeldt and D. Sjoquist.
The impact of job decentralization on the economic welfare of central city blacks.
Journal of Urban Economics, 26:110-130, 1989.
57: J. Kain.
Housing segregation, negro employment, and metropolitan decentralization.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 82:175-197, 1972.
58: J. Kain.
Choosing the wrong technology: Or how to spend billions and reduce transit use.
Journal of Advanced Transportation, 21(3):197-213, 1988.
59: J. Kain.
The spatial mismatch hypothesis: Three decades later.
Housing Policy Debate, 3:371-460, 1993.
60: Eric Kelley.
The transportation-land use link.
Journal of Planning Literature, 9(2):128-145, 1994.
61: Jeffrey R. Kenworthy, Felix B. Laube, Peter W.G. Newman, and Paul Barter.
Indicators of transport efficiency in 37 cities.
Technical report, World Bank and Institute for Science and Technology Policy, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia, 1997.
62: Jeffrey R. Kenworthy, Peter W.G. Newman, Paul Barter, and Chamlong Poboon.
Is increasing automobile dependence inevitable in booming economies? Asian cities in an international context.
IATSS Research, 19(2):58-67, 1995.
63: Robert L. Knight and Lisa L. Trygg.
Land use impacts of rapid transit.
Technical Report DOT-TPI-10-77-29, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., USA, August 1977.
64: H. Kubota.
Traffic congestion: A tale of three cities, impressions of Bangkok, Jakarta, and Manila.
The Wheel Extended (Toyota Quarterly Review), 96, 1996.
65: C. Lave.
Rail rapid transit and energy: The adverse effects.
Transportation Research Record, 648:14-30, 1977.
66: D. Lee.
Full cost of pricing highways.
Technical report, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995.
67: H. Levinson and F. Wynne.
Effects of density on urban transportation requirements.
Highway Research Record, 2:38-64, 1963.
68: J.J. MacKenzie, R.C. Dower, and D.T. Chen.
The Going Rate: What it Really Costs to Drive.
World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., USA, 1992.
69: D. Massey and N. Denton.
American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1993.
70: W. Middleton.
The Time of the Trolley.
Kalmbach Publishing, Milwaukee, WI, USA, 1967.
71: P. Midgeley.
Urban transport in Asia: An operational agenda for the 1990s.
World Bank Technical Paper 224, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA, 1993.
72: R. Mitchell and C. Rapkin.
Urban Traffic: A Function of Land Use.
Columbia University Press, New York City, NY, USA, 1954.
73: T. Muller.
Fiscal impacts of land development.
Technical report, The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C., USA, 1975.
74: Lewis Mumford.
The Culture of Cities.
Harcourt, Brace, and Company, New York City, NY, USA, 1938.
75: J. Murphy and Marc DeLucchi.
A review of the literature on the social cost of motor vehicle use in the United States.
Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 1(1):16-42, 1998.
76: National Resources Defense Council.
Uncovering hidden costs in transportation.
Technical report, National Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C., USA, 1993.
77: Peter W.G. Newman.
Reducing automobile dependence.
Environment and Urbanization, 8(1):67-92, 1996.
78: Peter W.G. Newman.
Transport.
In UNCHS, editor, An urbanising world: Global report on human settlements. UNCHS, Habitat and UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya, 1996.
79: D.M. Nowlan and G. Stewart.
The effect of downtown population growth on commuting trips: some recent Toronto experience.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 57(2):165-182, 1992.
80: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., Robert Cervero, Howard/Stein Hudson Associates, Inc., and Jeffrey Zupan.
Transit and urban form: Commuter and light rail transit corridors: The land use connection.
Report 16 Volume 1 Part II, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., USA, March 1996. http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_16-2.pdf
81: J. Perry and T. Babitsky.
Comparative performance of urban bus transit: Assessing privatization strategies.
Public Administration Review, 46:45-59, 1986.
82: G. Peterson and H. Yampolsky.
Urban development and the protection of metropolitan farmland.
Technical report, The Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C., USA, 1975.
83: Donald Pickrell.
Federal operating assistance for urban mass transit: Assessing a decade of experience.
Transportation Research Record, 1078:1-10, 1985.
84: Juri Pill.
Planning and Politics: The Metropolitan Toronto Transportation Review.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1979.
85: Gary Pivo.
The net of beads: Suburban office development in six metropolitan areas.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(4):457-469, 1990.
86: Chamlong Poboon.
Anatomy of a traffic disaster: Towards sustainable solutions to Bangkok's transportation problems.
PhD thesis, Murdoch University, Institute for Science and Technology Policy, Perth, Australia, 1997.
87: John Pucher.
Urban travel behavior as the outcome of public policy: The example of modal-split in Western Europe and North America.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 54(3):509-520, 1988.
88: John Pucher.
Urban passenger transport in the United States and Europe: A comparative analysis of public policies, part 1.
Transport Reviews, 15(2):99-117, 1995.
89: John Pucher and I. Hirschman.
Urban public transport in the United States: Recent development and policy perspective.
Public Transport International, 3:12-25, 1993.
90: John Pucher and C. Lefèvre.
The urban transport crisis in Europe and North America.
MacMillan, New York City, NY, USA, 1996.
91: Boris S. Pushkarev and Jeffrey M. Zupan.
Public Transportation and Land Use Policy.
Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, USA, 1977.
92: A. Rappaport.
Toward a redefinition of density.
Environment and Behavior, 7(2):25-36, 1975.
93: Real Estate Research Corporation.
The costs of urban sprawl.
Technical report, Real Estate Research Corporation, Washington, D.C., USA, 1974.
94: Michael Replogle and Walter Hook.
Improving access for the poor in urban areas.
Race, Poverty & the Environment, 6(1):48-50, 1993.
95: Rice Center for Urban Mobility Research.
Assessment of changes in property values in transit areas.
Technical report, Rice Center for Urban Mobility Research, Houston, TX, USA, 1987.
96: M. Rosetti and B. Eversole.
Journey to work trends in the United States and its major metropolitan areas.
Technical report, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1993.
97: J. Sale and B. Green.
Operating costs and performance of American public transit systems.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 4(2):22-27, 1978.
98: K. Schaeffer and E. Sclar.
Access for All: Transportation and Urban Growth.
Columbia University Press, New York City, NY, USA, 1980.
99: J. Seymour.
A new epidemic of accidents.
World Press Review, 43(12):8-9, 1996.
100: J. Shibata.
Traffic management in rapidly growing Asian metropolises: Escape from vicious circle of car-oriented societies.
The Wheel Extended (Toyota Quarterly Review), 98:17-21, 1998.
101: G. Sidenbladh.
Planning problems in Stockholm.
In Regional and City Planning: Seven Articles on Planning Problems in Greater Stockholm. Planning Commission of the City of Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden, 1964.
102: W. Smith.
Mass transit for high-rise, high-density living.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, 110(6):521-535, 1984.
103: M. Stringham.
Travel behavior associated with land uses adjacent to rapid transit stations.
Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, 52(4):18-22, 1982.
104: R. Teal.
Transit service contracting: Experiences and issues.
Transportation Research Record, 1036:28-36, 1985.
105: J. Vance.
Geography and urban evolution in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Technical report, Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1964.
106: E. von Weisäcker, A. Lovins, and L. Lovins.
Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use.
Earthscan Publications, London, UK, 1997.
107: Martin Wachs.
Learning from Los Angeles: Transport, urban form, and air quality.
Transportation, 20(14):329-359, 1993.
108: S.B. Warner.
Streetcar Suburbs.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1962.
109: M. Webber.
The BART experience: What have we learned?
Public Interest, 12(3):76-108, 1976.
110: J. Whitelegg.
Transport for a Sustainable Future: The Case for Europe.
Belhaven Press, London, UK, 1993.
111: Richard W. Willson.
Suburban parking requirements: a tacit policy for automobile use and sprawl.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(1):29-42, 1995.
112: World Bank.
Urban transport: A World Bank policy study.
Technical report, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA, 1996.
113: World Health Organization.
The world health report: Bridging the gaps.
Technical report, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1995.

david pritchard. bibliography.