Like many large US metropolitan areas, the San Francisco Bay Area has experienced rapid suburban employment growth since 1980, much of it concentrated in sub-centres. This paper shows that, contrary to the co-location hypothesis, employment decentralisation has not been associated with shorter average commute distances or durations in the Bay Area. Combining statistics on shifts in modal splits and average vehicle occupancy levels reveals that parallelling the region's sub-centring trend has been a substantial increase in average commute vehicle miles travelled (VMT) per employee between 1980 and 1990. The largest increases occurred in the fastest-growing and most remote suburban centres. Using decomposition analysis, we found that increasing commute distances contributed the most to rising commute VMT per employee, and the distance factor had proportionately the greatest effect on rising commute VMT rates in the most peripheral work centres. Since shifts in commute VMT per employee are thought to be strongly associated with transport externalities, we conclude that the social and environmental implications of the Bay Area's regional growth trends deserve more public policy attention than given to date.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Banister, D. (1992) Energy use, transportation and settlement patterns , in: M. Breheney (Ed.) Sustainable Development and Urban Form, pp. 160-181. London: Pion.
2.
Bernick, M. and Cervero, R. (1997) Transit Villages in the 21st Century. New York: McGraw-Hill.
3.
Cervero, R. (1986) Suburban Gridlock. New Brunswick : Center for Urban Policy Research.
4.
Cervero, R. and Landis, J. (1992) Suburbanization of jobs and the journey to work: a submarket analysis of commuting in the San Francisco Bay area, Journal of AdvancedTransportation, 26, pp. 275-297.
5.
Cervero, R. and Landis, J. (1997) Twenty years of the Bay Area Rapid Transit System: land use and development impacts, Transportation Research A, 31, pp. 309-333.
6.
Cervero, R. and Wu, K. (1997) Polycentrism, commuting, and residential location in the San Francisco Bay area, Environment and Planning A , 29, pp. 865-886.
7.
Chinitz, B. (1991) A framework for speculating about future urban growth patterns in the US, UrbanStudies, 28, pp. 936-959.
8.
Dittmar, H. (1995) A broader context for transportation planning: not just an end in itself, Journal of the American Planning Association, 61, pp. 7-13.
9.
Downs, A. (1992) Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak-hour Traffic Congestion. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
10.
Ewing, R. (1995) Measuring transportation performance, Transportation Quarterly, 49(1), pp. 91-104.
11.
Frank, L. and Pivo, G. (1994) The impacts of mixed use and density on the utilization of three modes of travel: the single occupant vehicle, transit, and walking , Transportation Research Record, 1466, pp. 44-52.
12.
Giuliano, G. (1995) Land use impacts of transportation investments: highway and transit, in: S. Hanson (Ed.) The Geography of Urban Transportation, pp. 305-341. New York: Guilford Press.
13.
Giuliano, G. and Small, K. (1991) Subcenters in the Los Angeles Region, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 21, pp. 163-182.
14.
Gordon, P. and Richardson, H. (1996) Beyond polycentricity: the dispersed metropolis, Los Angeles, 1970-1990, Journal of the American Planning Association , 62, pp. 289-295.
15.
Gordon, P., Richardson, H. and Jun, M. (1991) The commuting paradox: evidence from the top twenty , Journal of the American Planning Association, 57, pp. 416-420.
16.
Gordon, P., Richardson, H. and Wong,H. (1986) The distribution of population and employment in a polycentric city: the case of Los Angeles, Environment and Planning A, 18, pp. 161-173.
17.
Grubler, A. (1990) The Rise and Fall of Infrastructure. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
18.
Hall, P. (1995) A European perspective on the spatial links between land use, development and transport, in: D. Banister (Ed.) Transport and Urban Development, pp. 65-88. London: Chapman & Hall.
19.
Hamilton, B. (1982) Wasteful commuting, Journal of Political Economy, 90, pp. 1035-1053.
20.
Holtzclaw, J. (1994) Residential Patterns and Transit, Auto Dependence and Costs. San Francisco: Resources Defense Council.
21.
Jhk And Associates (1995) CTPP Handbook: An Instructional Guide to the 1990 Census Transportation Planning Package. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
22.
Levinson, D. and Kumar, A. (1994) The rational locator: why travel times have remained stable, Journal of the American Planning Association, 60, pp. 319-332.
23.
Lowry, I. (1988) Planning for urban sprawl, in: Transportation Research Board Special Report 220: A Look Ahead, Year 2000, pp. 275-312. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
24.
McDonald, J. and Prather, P. (1994) Suburban employment centres: the case of Chicago , Urban Studies, 31, pp. 201-218.
25.
Næss, P. and Sandberg, S. (1996) Workplace location, modal split and energy use for commuting trips, UrbanStudies, 33, pp. 557-580.
26.
Pivo, G. (1990) The net of mixed beads: suburban office development in six metropolitan regions, Journal of the American Planning Association, 56, pp. 457-469.
27.
Purvis, C. (1992) Bay area travel and mobility characteristics. Working Paper No.2, 1990 Census, Metropolitan Transportation Commission , Oakland.
28.
Rosetti, M. and Eversole, B. (1993) Journey to Work Trends in the United States and its Metropolitan Areas. Cambridge, MA: John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.
29.
Small, K. and Song, S. (1992) 'Wasteful' commuting: a resolution, Journal of Political Economy, 100, pp. 888-898.
30.
Wachs, M., Taylor, B., Levine, N. and Ong, P. (1993) The changing commute: a case-study of the jobs-housing relationship over time, Urban Studies, 30, pp. 1711-1729.
31.
Wu, K. (1994) A study of the relationship between jobs and housing in the San Francisco Bay area in 1990: improving jobs-housing balance to improve regional mobility. MA thesis, University of California , Berkeley.
