Land use and transportation are linked by complex, yet identifiable, relationships. Tools are needed to formalize this relationship and to take it into account when decisions are made about urban and suburban transportation systems. This paper reviews foundational concepts of performance measures of metropolitan transportation systems. It offers a rationale for the types of tools needed to measure and assess land use and transportation system efficiency. One tool being developed by the Washington State Department of Transportation–-the Transportation-Efficient Land Use Mapping Index (TELUMI)–-illustrates how research findings can be applied in metropolitan transportation planning. TELUMI uses cartographic modeling (CM) techniques and parcel-level geographic information system data. The fine resolution of the data measures microscaled land use conditions associated with travel patterns in built-up areas. CM generates maps of zones in a region that match land use conditions with travel behaviors. Zones are defined by land use variables, such as density of activities, presence and agglomeration of destinations, block size, and transportation infrastructure attributes. CM also performs advanced quantitative analyses of map attributes, and it is effective with lay and professional audiences. TELUMI's use of individual land use variables makes it possible to target intervention strategies, such as augmenting density or building sidewalks, and to evaluate their effectiveness in improving transportation efficiency. TELUMI assists transportation and local planning authorities in allocating transportation investments appropriate to multimodal travel.
Highway Capacity Manual.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.
3.
GarberN., and HoelL.. Traffic and Highway Engineering.Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, Calif.,2002.
4.
Strategies and Tools for Transportation-Efficient Land Use and Development Practices: A Reference Manual.Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, 2003.
5.
Implementing Transportation-Efficient Development: A Local Interview, Phase I of Integrating Land Use and Transportation Investment Decision-Making.Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, 2002.
6.
PisarskiA. E.Testimony for “Mobility, Congestion and Intermodalism.”U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, D.C., 2002. epw.senate.gov/107th/Pisarski_031902.htm.
7.
PucherJ.Renaissance of Public Transportation in the United States.Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2002, pp. 33–49.
8.
JacksonK. T.Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States.Oxford University Press, New York, 1985.
9.
LandisB. W., VattikutiV. R., OttenbergR. M., McLeodD. S., and GuttenplanM.. Modeling the Roadside Walking Environment: Pedestrian Level of Service. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1773, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 81–88.
10.
HallenbeckM., CarlsonD., and JillS.. The Possibilities of Transportation Concurrency: Proposal and Evaluation of Measurement Alternatives.Washington State Transportation Research Center, Seattle, 2003. depts.washington.edu/trac/concurrency/.
11.
Implementing Destination 2030: Monitoring Regional Progress. Assessing the Effectiveness of Concurrency. Final Report—Project Summary and Recommendations.Puget Sound Regional Council, Seattle, Wash., 2002.
GuttenplanM., LandisB. W., CriderL., and McLeodD. S.. Multimodal Level-of-Service Analysis at Planning Level. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1776, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 151–158.
14.
EwingR.Roadway Levels of Service in an Area of Growth Management. In Transportation Research Record 1364, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1992, pp. 63–70.
15.
MoudonA. V., HessP. M., MatlickJ. M., and PergakesN.. Pedestrian Location Identification Tools: Identifying Suburban Areas with Potentially High Latent Demand for Pedestrian Travel. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1818, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 94–101.
16.
GuttenplanM., DavisB., SteinerR., and MillerD.. Planning-Level Areawide Multimodal Level-of-Service Analysis: Performance Measures for Congestion Management. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1858, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 61–68.
17.
MoudonA. V., and LeeC.. Walking and Biking: An Evaluation of Environmental Audit Instruments.American Journal of Health Promotion, Vol. 18, Sept.–Oct. (Special Issue on Health Promoting Community Design), 2003.
18.
EwingR. R.Transportation Service Standards—As If People Matter. In Transportation Research Record 1400, TRB, National Research Council, 1993, pp. 10–17.
19.
SteinerR., BondA., MillerD., and ShadP.. Future Directions for Multimodal Areawide Level of Service Handbook Research and Development.Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, 2004.
20.
CerveroR., and KockelmanK.. Travel Demand and the Three Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design.Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley,1996.
21.
Traffic Engineering for Neo-Traditional Neighborhood Design.ITE, Washington, D.C., 1994.
Traditional Neighborhood Development: Street Design Guidelines.ITE, Washington, D.C., 1999.
24.
RossC. L., and DunningA. E.. Land Use and Transportation Interaction: An Examination of the 1995 NPTS Data.FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation,1997.
25.
McCoyD.Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Guidelines.Division of Highways North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh,2000.
26.
DunphyR.Making for Better Neighbors.Urban Land, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2003, pp. 34–37.
27.
LitmanT.An Economic Evaluation of Smart Growth and TDM: Social Welfare and Equity Impacts of Efforts to Reduce Sprawl and Automobile Dependency.Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada,2000.
28.
Smart Growth: Myth and Fact.Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C., 1999.
29.
PorterD. R.Smart Growth Guide.Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C., 2001.
EwingR. R., and CerveroR.. Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1780, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 2002, pp. 87–114.
32.
DunphyR., and FisherK.. Transportation, Congestion, and Density: New Insights. In Transportation Research Record 1552, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 89–96.
33.
SteinerR. L.Residential Density and Travel Patterns: Review of the Literature. In Transportation Research Record 1466, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 37–43.
34.
KulashW. M.Residential Streets.Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C., 2001.
35.
KlosterT., DaisaJ., and LedbetterR.. Linking Land Use and Transportation Through Street Design. In Transportation Research Circular E-C019: Proc., Urban Street Symposium, 2000, gulliver.trb.org/publications/circulars/ec019/Ec019_b4.pdf.
FrankL. D., StoneB., and BachmanW. A.. Land Use Impacts on Household Travel Choice and Vehicle Emissions: Lessons Learned from a Study of the Atlanta Region.The Turner Foundation, Atlanta, Ga.,1999.
38.
DunphyR., andM. BakeParking Requirementsr.. Urban Land, June 2000, p. 60.
39.
DunphyR.Parking Strategies.Urban Land, Oct. 2000, p. 78.
40.
ShoupD. C.An Opportunity to Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements.Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 61, No. 1, 1995, pp. 14–28.
41.
ShoupD. C.In Lieu of Required Parking.Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 18, No. 4, 1999, pp. 307–320.
42.
CerveroR., and KockelmanK.. Travel Demand and the 3 Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design.Transportation Research D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1997, pp. 199–219.
43.
SteinerR. L.Traditional Shopping Centers.Access: Research at the University of California Transportation Center, Vol. 12, Spring 1998, pp. 8–13.
44.
HessP. M., MoudonA. V., SnyderM. C., and StanilovK.. Site Design and Pedestrian Travel. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1674, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 9–19.
45.
HirshornJ. S., and SouzaP.. New Community Design to the Rescue. Fulfilling Another American Dream.NGA Center for Best Practices, Washington, D.C., 2001. www.nga.org/cda/files/072001NCDFull.pdf.
CerveroR.Built Environments and Mode Choice: Toward a Normative Framework.Transportation Research D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2002, pp. 265–284.
48.
Guidebook on Methods to Estimate Non-Motorized Travel: Supporting Documentation.FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1999.
49.
MoudonA. V., and HubnerM., ed. Monitoring Urban Land Supply with GIS: Theory, Practice, and Parcel-Based Applications.John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2000.
50.
TomlinC. D.Geographic Information Systems and Cartographic Modeling.Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,1990.
51.
BeerS.Management Science.Doubleday, New York, 1968.
52.
HartshornT. A.Interpreting the City: An Urban Geography.John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1980.
53.
GladwellM.The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference.Little, Brown and Company, New York, 2000.
54.
GranovetterM.Threshold Models of Collective Behavior.American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, 1978, pp. 1420–1443.
55.
GranovetterM., and SoongR.. Threshold Models of Diffusion and Collective Behavior.Journal of Mathematical Sociology, Vol. 9, 1983, pp. 165–179.
56.
WintersP. L.Transportation Demand Management. In Transportation in the New Millennium: State of the Art and Future Directions, Perspectives from Transportation Research Board Standing Committees.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.
57.
GiulianoG., and WachsM.. An Employer Panel For Evaluating the Effectiveness of Trip Reduction Incentives.Panels For Transportation Planning, 1997, pp. 129–151.
58.
SohmerR.Downtown Housing as an Urban Redevelopment Tool: Hype or Hope?Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1999, pp. 477–505.
59.
BurroughP. A., and McDonnellR. A.. Principles of Geographical Information Systems.Oxford University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom,1998.
60.
King County Buildable Lands, Evaluation Report 2002, Recent Growth and Land Capacity in King County and Its Cities.King County, Seattle, Wash., 2002.
