The need for innovative regional transportation planning has grown as metropolitan areas consider the impact of congestion reduction efforts on induced demand, public health, and fossil fuel use and climate change. Although conventional practice among metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) is to simply expand roadway capacity to relieve congestion, many MPOs have also developed new solutions. This study qualitatively analyzes a national sample of 38 regional transportation plans to identify best practices among MPOs for increasing the capacity of regional transportation networks without inducing additional traffic or unnecessary emissions. It focuses on real-world examples of innovative practices such as the use of high-occupancy toll lanes on major freeways, regulations and ordinances designed to improve the connectivity of minor streets, management of transit corridors, and the best locations for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SchrankD., LomaxT., and TurnerS.. Urban Mobility Report. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, 2009.
2.
DownsA.Still Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak-Hour Traffic Congestion. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 2004.
3.
LitmanT. A.Smart Congestion Reductions: Re-evaluating the Role of Highway Expansion for Improving Urban Transportation. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 2010.
4.
NolandR. B.Traffic Fatalities and Injuries: Are Reductions the Result of “Improvements” in Highway Design Standards?Presented at 80th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2001.
5.
HansenM., and HuangY.. Road Supply and Traffic in California Urban Areas. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 31, No. 3, 1997, pp. 205–218.
6.
HandyS., DegarmoA., and CliftonK.. Understanding the Growth in Non-Work VMT. Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, 2002.
7.
DurantonG., and TurnerM. A.. The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion. American Economic Review, Vol. 101, 2011, pp. 2616–2652.
8.
CerveroR.The Built Environment and Travel: Evidence from the United States. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2003, pp. 119–137.
9.
MorrisJ. M., DumbleP. L., and WiganM. R.. Accessibility Indicators for Transport Planning. Transportation Research Part A: General, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1979, pp. 91–109.
10.
CraneR., and CrepeauR.. Does Neighborhood Design Influence Travel? A Behavioral Analysis of Travel Diary and GIS Data. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1998, pp. 225–238.
11.
CerveroR.Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced Travel. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 69, No. 2, 2003, pp. 145–163.
12.
EwingR.Highway-Induced Development: Research Results for Metropolitan Areas. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2067, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 101–109.
13.
EwingR., BartholomewK., WinkelmanS., WaltersJ., ChenD., McCannB., and GoldbergD.. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C., 2007.
14.
EwingR., and CerveroR.. Travel and the Built Environment. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 76, No. 3, 2010, pp. 265–294.
15.
LevineJ., GrengsJ., ShenQ., and ShenQ.. Does Accessibility Require Density or Speed?Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 78, No. 2, 2012, pp. 157–172.
16.
LitmanT. A.Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 2009.
Change in Motion: Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, San Francisco, Calif., 2009.
28.
Plan 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. Atlanta Regional Commission, Atlanta, Ga., 2014.
29.
Regional Transportation Plan 2012–2035 Sustainable Communities Strategy Towards a Sustainable Future. Southern California Association of Governments, Los Angeles, 2012.
30.
HandyS., PatersonR. G., and ButlerK. S.. Planning for Street Connectivity. American Planning Association, Chicago, Ill., 2003.
31.
Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments. 2040 OKI Regional Transportation Plan. Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2012.
PhillipsR., KaracheponeJ., and LandisB.. Multi-Modal Quality of Service Project. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, 2001.
34.
TurnbullK. F., EvansJ. E., and LevinsonH. S.. TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes: Chapter 3—Park-and-Ride/Pool. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004.
35.
HendricksS., and OutwaterM.. Demand Forecasting Model for Park-and-Ride Lots in King County, Washington. In Transportation Research Record 1623, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 80–87.
36.
DekaD.The Impacts of Non-Resident Parking Restrictions at Commuter Rail Stations. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 24, 2012, pp. 451–461.
37.
EwingR.Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable?Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 1, 1997, pp. 107–126.
38.
EvansJ. E.TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes: Chapter 9—Transit Scheduling and Frequency. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004.
39.
TurnbullK. F., and PrattR. H.. TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes: Chapter 11—Transit Information and Promotion. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003.
40.
The 2011 Community Preference Survey: What Americans Are Looking for When Deciding Where to Live. Belden Russonello & Stewart LLC, Washington, D.C., 2011.
41.
SongY., and KnaapG. J.. New Urbanism and Housing Values: A Disaggregate Assessment. Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 54, No. 2, 2003, pp. 218–238.
42.
SohnD. W., MoudonA. V., and LeeJ.. The Economic Value of Walkable Neighborhoods. Urban Design International, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2012, pp. 115–128.
43.
Journey to 2030. Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, Boston, Mass., 2007.
44.
2035 Regional Transportation Plan Update. Portland Metro Regional Government, Portland, Ore., 2010.
45.
2040 Regional Transportation Plan. Pima Association of Governments, Tucson, Ariz., 2010.
46.
NelsonA. C., and AllenD.. If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them: Association Between Bicycle Facilities and Bicycle Commuting. In Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 79–83.
DillJ., and CarrT.. Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities: If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1828, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 116–123.
49.
PucherJ., and BuehlerR.. Walking and Cycling for Healthy Cities. Built Environment, Vol. 36, No. 4, 2010, pp. 391–414.
50.
ParkerK. M., RiceJ., GustatJ., RuleyJ., SpriggsA., and JohnsonC.. Effect of Bike Lane Infrastructure Improvements on Ridership in One New Orleans Neighborhood. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 45 (Suppl. 1), 2013, S101–S107.
51.
BuehlerR., HamreA., SonenklarD., and GogerP.. Trends and Determinants of Cycling in the Washington, DC Region. Final report. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2011.
52.
DuthieJ., BradyJ. F., MillsA. F., and MachemehlR. B.. Effects of On-Street Bicycle Facility Configuration on Bicyclist and Motorist Behavior. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2190, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 37–44.
53.
Bicycle Mode Share to CBD and CBD Fringe 1986 to 2006. Queensland Transport, Queensland, Australia, 2007.
54.
BarnesG., ThompsonK., and BethanyK.. Longitudinal Analysis of Effect of Bicycle Facilities on Commute Mode Share. Presented at 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006.
55.
MoudonA. V., LeeC., CheadleA. D., CollierC. W., JohnsonD., SchmidT. L., and WeatherR. D.. Cycling and the Built Environment, a US Perspective. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2005, pp. 245–261.
56.
KrizekK. J., El-GeneidyA., and ThompsonK.. A Detailed Analysis of How an Urban Trail System Affects Cyclists’ Travel. Transportation, Vol. 34, No. 5, 2007, pp. 611–624.
57.
DillJ.Bicycling for Transportation and Health: The Role of Infrastructure. Journal of Public Health Policy, Vol. 30 (Suppl. 1), No. 1, 2009, pp. S95–S110.
58.
LuskA. C., FurthP. G., MorencyP., Miranda-MorenoL. F., WillettW. C., and DennerleinJ. T.. Risk of Injury for Bicycling on Cycle Tracks Versus in the Street. Injury Prevention: Journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2011, pp. 131–135.
59.
WintersM., BrauerM., SettonE. M., and TeschkeK.. Built Environment Influences on Healthy Transportation Choices: Bicycling Versus Driving. Journal of Urban Health, Vol. 87, No. 6, 2010, pp. 969–993.
60.
HandyS. L., and XingY.. Factors Correlated with Bicycle Commuting: A Study in Six Small U.S. Cities. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2011, pp. 91–110.
61.
GellerR.Four Types of Cyclists. Portland Office of Transportation, Portland, Ore., 2009.
62.
DillJ., and McNeilN.. Four Types of Cyclists? Examination of Typology for Better Understanding of Bicycling Behavior and Potential. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2387, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 129–138.
63.
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide. National Association of City Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2012.
64.
Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Bicycle Facilities. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2012.
65.
Transportation Outlook 2035. Baltimore Regional Transportation Board, Baltimore, Md., 2007.
66.
2010–2035 NYMTC Region Transportation Plan. New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, New York, 2010.
67.
Legacy 2035: The Transportation Plan for the Gateway Region. East-West Gateway Council of Governments, St. Louis, Mo., 2007.
68.
Regional Transportation Plan: 2008–2030. Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, Reno, Nev., 2008.
69.
Sacramento Region Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 2035. Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Sacramento, Calif., 2008.
