SB 375 Challenges and Opportunities for the Inland Empire: A Research View

Greener California: Impacts of SB 375 and Winning Strategies for Southern California

Dr. Richard Willson, FAICPDepartment of Urban and Regional Planning

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

Leonard Transportation Center

Challenges

►Dominance of the automobile►Local government

fragmentation and competition►Development shaped by

regional economy, not local economics

►“Locked in” built form

Opportunities

►Complement existing density w/ mixed, walkable uses

►Develop around improved transit► Intensify and diversify suburban

activity centers►Use infrastructure network

differently► Pricing/TDM policy►High IE growth share ► Population ready for change

Resident perceptions (2007)

► Driving conditions degraded, ► Commutes take 2x as long as ideal

conditions, expect further worsening► Most have transit w/in walking distance

(84%) – but do not use it► Responses to higher transportation cost:

carpool, reduce car ownership, fuel efficient cars, transit

► Climate change affects choice of new car (47%)

Compact development

►Higher average densities►Mixed land uses► Strong centers, linked by transit► Interconnection of streets►Human scale design►Research summary provided in Growing Cooler

(Ewing et al)►VMT growth may swamp vehicle efficiency and low carbon fuels►20-40% VMT reduction possible with compact development►Compact development + more transit service + road pricing =

stronger results

Transit-oriented development as a form of compact development

►Moderate to higher density development cluster around high frequency transit

►Mixed uses-residential, employment, shopping

►Walking distance to transit stop► Less car use, ownership► Ideally, a network of TODs

California TOD Study

► Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California (2004)

Comprehensive study of TOD sites throughout CaliforniaLund, Cervero and WillsonReport available on line at http://www.csupomona.edu/~rwwillson/

► Sites studied:Light rail: San Diego Trolley, Los Angeles Blue Line, San Jose VTA, SacramentoHeavy rail: Los Angeles Red Line, BARTCommuter rail: San Diego Coaster, LA Metrolink, Caltrain

► No Inland Empire sites, no BTOD

►Transit shares among TOD residents exceed surrounding city by a factor of 4.9

TOD residents

Transit Commute Mode Share (Rail and Bus)

26.5

44.937.8

3.313 17.4

5.413.8

5.8 6.6 4.2 4.80

102030405060708090

100

All ResidentialSites

BART: PleasantHill

BART: S.Alameda Cnty

LA Metro: LongBeach

SD Trolley:Mission Valley

CaltrainCommuter

Total

trips

(%)

Surveyed Sites Surrounding City

TOD residents: commute ridership higher than “non-work”

Non-Work Travel Modes (n=486)

Drove alone62%

Drove Carpool

20%

Walked4%

Rode Bus3%

Rode Rail5%

Rode in Carpool

6%

Work Trip Travel Modes (n=877)

Rode in Carpool

1%

Rode Rail24%

Rode Bus2%Bicycled

1%

Drove Carpool

4%Drove Alone67%

Walked1%

26% total for work 8% total for non-work

►Transit shares among TOD workers exceed surrounding region by a factor of 3.7

Office workers

Transit Commute Mode Share (Rail and Transit)

18.8

38.5

17.27.8 2.9

29

65.1 9.5 9.5 4.7 3.4 2.7 4.70

102030405060708090

100

All Office Sites BART:Berkeley

BART: WlntCrk/Fremont

LA Red Line:Hollywood

SD Trolley:Missn Valley

SacramentoLRT

Metrolink:Anaheim

Total

Trip

s (%

)

Surveyed SitesSurrounding Region

Other factors affecting transit ridership

►Parking supply and pricing►Feeder buses►Retail shop density►Street connectivity►Pedestrian characteristics –

sidewalk density, street tree density, street light density, block face density

►Distance from station to office

CA TOD study conclusions

►TOD sites have higher transit shares; variation related to:

Characteristics of usersMaturity and connectivity of systemCharacteristics of trip destination

►Impacts in lower density areas are smaller, less studied

Regional VMT versus local traffic

Turning around a container ship….

► Land use patterns change slowly…Difficult to meet targets with land use, transportation, and housing planning for new development

► Local attitudes toward density► Policy and operational changes

required (change the base):Peak period road pricing, revenues directed to transitParking pricingConvert roadway space to HOV, transitwaysTelecommunication substitutionResidential mobility (for jobs/housing balancing)

Land use authority

►SCS is “not a land use plan”►Local issues in responding to SCS land use

strategies:Opposition to densityMitigating traffic impactsResident reaction

►Regional – subregional – local partnership is essential

Potential partnerships: local roles in GHG mitigation

►Governments can team with large local institutions

Coordinate built form investmentTransportation partnerships (capital and management)Public awareness/education

Cal Poly Pomona (CPP)► One of 526 signatories of the Presidents Climate Commitment

Inventory, early actions, GHG reduction plan for carbon neutrality, monitoring, educationWork is a collaboration with Dr. Kyle Brown ASLA, Co-Chair, CPP Climate Action Team

►CPP setting:1,400 acres, 20,000 studentsSeparated land usesComplex trip chainsPhysical barriers (roads, topography)Favorable solar insolation zone

Inventory Results• Role of

transportation

• CA energy efficiency requirements

• Sequestration < 1%

Capital versus Operating Strategies

►Tendency to capital strategiesRibbon-cuttingDistrust of behavioral approaches► Experience with incentives only

Consumer sovereignty

versus…

► Flexible, inexpensive, (tricky)(ongoing), operating programs

CPP 2030 Draft GHG Plan

► Transportation related measures:Reduce emissions associated with travel► 40% use alternatives to SOV (transit/carpool)► Zero emissions university fleet► Offset air travel (100%)

Reduce trips and/or vehicle miles traveled (VMT)► Reduce commuters to 73% of campus population

(on/near campus housing)► Reduce campus trips by 30-40% (online/hybrid

courses, alternative work schedule)

► Other measures: education, renewable energy, reduced energy consumption, scope 3 consumables

Lessons and Suggestions► Regional – subregional – local

cooperation essential► Compact development must

be tailored to IE conditions► GHG from existing VMT must

be reduced► Government and large

institutions can partner to support SB 375 goals

► Research needed to assess impacts of new land use forms in IE

► CPP Inventory:http://www.csupomona.edu/~climate/reports.shtml

► Paper: JAPA, 74: 497-504

Regional and local initiatives

Non-profits/ private companies

State mandates