Dense Form and Rail Transit Use - Literature review Example

Literature Review: Dense form and rail Transit use Public transit is viewed as one of the best transportation solutions that will ease the challenges of congestion, traffic control and air pollution experienced in Charlotte urban area in the United States (Cox, 2002). The introduction of a public transit such as a light rail transit seeks to eliminate the high dependency on automobiles among urban dwellers in this area. According to Newman and Kenworthy (2006) changes in transportation in an urban area influences the urban design of a place due to the contributing factors of culture, climate, politics, income, prices, and education. Giuliano (1995) affirms that accessibility as a link between urban planning and urban transportation determines the urban design adopted by a city. Accessibility and proximity are the key indicators to determine impacts (Transit Cooperative Research Program 2002). The urban design of a location is key determiner of the choice of public transportation to be adopted in an area. According to Williams (2005) urban form is defined as the shape, density and configuration of an urban area. This definition provides broader insight in understanding the relationship between urban form and mode of transportation. This will also contribute in understanding how light rail transit will influence the high dependency of automobiles by city dwellers in Charlotte. The changing patterns in relation to urban form directly influence the transport mode choice by inhabitants. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) (1994) defines Light rail as: “An electric railway with a ‘light volume’ traffic capacity compared to heavy rail. Light rail may use shared or exclusive rights-of-way, high or low platform loading and multi-car trains or single cars.” Therefore streetcars, trolleys, and trams are all forms of light rail. Therefore the use of this mode of transportation is referred to light rail transit. Accessibility plays a significant role in determining which mode of transportation an individual will adopt. Giuliano (1995) argues that mass transportation as in this case light rail transit, improves a population’s mobility in terms of accessibility. Further Boarnet and Crane (2001) affirm that urban form and mode of transportation are closely intertwined. Therefore the relationship between transport and urban form is accessibility. This is because an individual will choose an area of residence solely depending on how easy one can access their place of work and other potential destinations (Boarnet & Crane, 2001). Additionally a population chooses its mode of transportation depending on the available choice of transportation and the easy to access their preferred destinations. Thus the introduction of a modified single link in the transport network gives rise to an overall impedance nature (Giuliano, 1995). This explains the importance of public transportation and the integration of light rail transit in the transport network in light of accessibility. Urban dense form promotes rail transit use A number of pro-density planning recommendations are in most instances based on the relationship between high density and less use of automobiles and energy consumption. A research conducted by Newman and Kenworthy (1989) on 32 cities globally, revealed that high density cities had less dependence on automobiles which contributed to less energy consumptions in these cities. A similar study by Dunphy and Fisher (1996) supported the assumption that low density cities consume high energy. The study also concluded that there are less tendencies of car driving in high density metropolitan areas. The two researches reveal that there is a significant correlation between density and the use of automobiles in metropolitan regions, therefore affirming that the levels of reduced gas consumption in high dense regions were as a result of the reduced car use in the urban settings. Notably a recent research relevant to this topic also revealed the already revelation which is based on the relationship between energy consumption and density forms. Levine et al (2012) carried out a study on 50 largest cities in the United States which concluded that there is a negative correlation between urban density forms and the prevalence use of automobiles. The figure below from the study provides data on the revelations. Figure 1: Daily vehicle miles traveled and urban density of the 50 largest urbanized areas in U.S., 2008 (Reprint of Figure 8 in Levine et al. 2012) The literature above on the relationship between density form and use of automobiles is relative to this dissertation research topic. This will be discussed in the context of how density contributes to transit use as well as the impacts of reduced car travel use on transit use. From the above researches it is evident that density affects driving patterns in an area (Wright and Hook 2007). This is due to the financial implications whereby high populations cause driving to be quiet costly which encourages people to lean on other alternative modes of transportation. In other words the success of rail transit projects depends on high density population of an area. Over the decades urban traffic and congestion has increased significantly which has lead to the introduction of a number of light rail transits in the United States (Cox, 2002). Additionally, data collected by Texas Transportation Institute (2010) showed that high levels of transit services are being adopted in high density areas as a result low density cities within the U.S. are being encouraged to adopt the use of light rail transit in order to ease congestion and reduce air pollution. The correlation between the higher levels of transit services and high density areas in the United States is relative to the economy of scale as witnessed from the concentration of residences in dense neighborhoods (Schimek, 1996a). Cox (2002) further argues that the city will be more successful when 15 to 20 percent of the city dwellers use light rail transit and further pointing out some of the examples of light rail transit in the U.S. which include: the St. Louis Metrolink, Portland’s Max and the Los Angeles “Blue Line.” Baum-Snow and Kahn (2005) provided empirical literature and argued that the introduction of light rail transit in densely populated and centralized cities have contributed to the cities development and growth. Pushkarev and Zupan (1977) previously investigated the correlation between density and transit use. In their book, they discuss the positive correlation that exists between urban density and the share of transit travel. Nonetheless, Pushkarev and Zupan (1977) predicted that residential density is one of the determinant factors that will contribute to transit use. Therefore this theoretical tool can be applied in low density areas in order to encourage residents to adopt the use of light rail transit. An additional study by Schimek (1996b) among six U.S metropolitan regions, also confirmed the vital role that residential density has on transit use. Moreover, a time-series data by Schimek (1996b) argued that the difference between the levels of transit use in Boston and Toronto was attributed to higher residential density in Toronto as opposed to that of Boston. Cervero (1989) argued otherwise claiming that high levels of employment density encouraged residents to opt for alternative modes of transportation such as transit. However the impacts of density on transit use changes from one location to another. In a recent study by Ewing and Cervero (2010) from the year 2001 affirmed that doubling the level of residential transit would contribute at least 7% increase to transit use. The arguments by each of the scholars above reveal that the mechanism of density has a significant impact on transit use. Therefore without high density and concentration of population in urban areas, light rail transit can hardly become popular among the transportation trends in city dwellers. High employment density trends close to light rail transit on the other hand is likely to promote more transport destinations in proximity to transit and as a result increasing the number of commuters likely to use the transit. Consequently density has shown a significant influence of automobile whereby the costs associated with cars use such as parking and driving costs suggests that there is a likelihood that more people will be inclined to switch from automobile use to transit. This literature review makes one question on the amount of density capacity that could possibly sustain a feasible transit system. Research on transit agencies planning criteria, argue that density areas with lower than 7 dwellers on each acre contribute to poor outcomes of public transportation or rail transit (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004). Pushkarev and Zupan (1977) argue that density areas with dwellers of between seven to thirty people in every acre, results to an enormous increase in transit use and a significant reduction in car travel. The Institute for Metropolitan Studies (1994) conducted another study which revealed that there is a considerable increase in transit use in a region that has ten people occupying one unit per acre. However from the above studies on density criteria it is evident that the density criteria discussed are generally applicable to public transport, which includes both rail and bus. Literature on rail transit concludes that this form of transportation requires higher densities as opposed to bus transit in order to increase ridership among users and also make up for the higher costs of maintenance when it comes to rail transit. Summary on Literature Review It is clear that density has a significant impact on transit use for a number of valuable reasons. Nonetheless, research has also revealed that residents of high density regions tend to avoid car travel due to the financial implications associated with it. The financial implications range from increased costs of driving, parking fees and automobile maintenance costs. In addition to this people in these areas are defying automobile dependence due to the benefits related to alternative transit options such as; improved accessibility and reduced travel needs. Consequently, density encourages the viability of rail transit. This is due to the fact that it influences transportation mechanisms by bringing in more potential transit patronage. This in return is appealing to users in that it encourages transit trips to various destinations in and outside an urban centre that are close to transit stations. On the other end, previous research studies have also revealed that transit use influences density. In that proximity to transit stations increases residential demands leading to potential densification within the station-area surroundings. Additionally, development and growth of an urban area is also a key player in transit use. Urban areas that have extensive resources with major investments have potential of attracting dwellers in that areas thus leading to high density and therefore contributing to the increased number of rail transit users. Urban amenities and density of a region are closely related in that rich urban amenities attract a big population in an urban centre while density on the other hand is one of the main aspects that contribute to resourceful urban amenities. As a result they both play an important role as internal and external factors that promote or prohibit the growth or increased use of rail transit in a region. Therefore to increase light rail transit use it is important to focus on reducing automobile dependence by increasing potential urban amenities and urban density. References American Public Transportation Association. (2012). 2012 Public Transportation Fact Book. Washington, D.C.: American Public Transportation Association. Baum-Snow, N., Kahn, M. E., & Voith, R. (2005). Effects of Urban Rail Transit Expansions: Evidence from Sixteen Cities, 1970-2000 [with Comment]. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 147-206. Boarnet, G. M., & Crane, R. (2001). Travel by Design: The Influence of Urban Form on Travel. Oxford: Oxford University Press Cervero, R. (1989). America's Suburban Centers: The Land Use-Transportation Link. Boston: Unwin Hyman. Cox, W. (2002). Breach of Faith: Light Rail and Smart Growth in Charlotte. Urban Transport Fact Book. [Online]. Available from: www.publicpurpose.com/charlotte.htm. (Accessed on 21st April 2015) Dittmar, H., & Ohland, G. (Eds.). (2004). The new transit town: best practices in transit-oriented development. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Dunphy, R. T., & Fisher, K. (1996). Transportation, Congestion, and Density: New Insights. Transportation Research Record, 1996(1552): 89-96. Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American planning association, 76(3): 265-294. Giuliano, G. (1995). Land use impacts of transportation investments: Highway and transit. In S. Hanson, ed., The Geography of Urban Transportation. New York and London: The Guilford Press.pp. 305–341. Institute for Metropolitan Studies. (1994). Effects of Residential Density on Transit Usage and Residential Trip Generation: San Jose State University. Levine, J., Grengs, J., Shen, Q., & Shen, Q. (2012). Does accessibility require density or speed? A comparison of fast versus close in getting where you want to go in U.S. metropolitan areas. Journal of American Planning Association, 78(2): 157-172. Newman, P. & Kenworthy, J. (2000) Sustainable urban form: The big picture. In: Williams, K., Burton, E. and Jenks, M. Achieving Sustainable Urban Form. London: E and FN Spon, pp-109-120. Newman, P. W., & Kenworthy, J. R. (1989). Gasoline Consumption and Cities -- A Comparison of U.S. Cities with a Global Survey. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55(1): 24-37. Pushkarev, B. S., & Zupan, J. M. (1977). Public Transportation and Land Use Policy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Schimek, P. (1996). Household motor vehicle ownership and use: How much does residential density matter? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1552(1): 120-125. Schimek, P. (1996b). Land-use, Transit, and Mode Split in Boston and Toronto. Paper presented at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning and Association of European Schools of Planning Joint International Congress. Texas Transportation Institute. (2010). 2010 Urban Mobility Report. [Online]. Available from: http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/. (Accessed on 21st April 2015) Transit Cooperative Research Program. (2002). Transit-oriented development and joint development in the United States: A literature review. Research Results Digest, pp, 52. Williams, K. (2005). Spatial Planning, Urban Form and Sustainable Transport. Oxford: Brookes University Press. Wright, L. & W. Hook. (2007). Bus Rapid Transit – Planning Guide (3rd ed). New York: Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. Read More