• Human Impact Partners
  • Human Impact Partners
  • Human Impact Partners
  • Human Impact Partners
  • Human Impact Partners

Human Impact Partners Evidence Base

Evidence Base Home » Transportation » Alternative transit options increase the economic options for those surrounding the project-Locally available jobs decrease vehicle travel

Articles in Alternative transit options increase the economic options for those surrounding the project. Locally available jobs decrease vehicle travel.

  • To afford housing, many people move further away from their jobs and commute. The percentage of families that have to pay more than half of their income increases from 8.3% of families to 44.3%, when factoring in the cost of commuting to the cost of housing.

    Lipman BJ. Something's gotta give: working families and the cost of housing. Washington, DC: Center for Housing Policy; 2005.

  • Residents of automobile dependent suburban areas such as San Bernardino County tend to experience greater per capita congestion delay than dense cities such as New York and Chicago. U.S. automobile commute travel times are lowest for residents of communities with moderate to high densities (11-16 residents per acre), while transit commute times decrease with density.

    Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Congestion reduction strategies: identifying and evaluating strategies to reduce traffic congestion. 2007. Available at: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm96.htm. Accessed on January 10, 2008.

  • People who live within a ½ mile of a rail or ferry station are 4 times more likely to use transit than people living farther than a ½ mile. People who live within a ½ mile of a rail/ferry stop are twice as likely to walk and three times as likely to bike as residents living more than a ½ mile. People who live and work within ½ mile of rail/ferry stop use transit for 42% of their work commute trips. Those that live and work farther than ½ mile use public transit for 4% of their trips. Even those urban residents who were farther than one mile from rail/ferry stops are still twice as likely as suburban residents and four times as likely as rural residents to use transit. People living close to rail/ferry transit are twice as likely to walk for short trips.

    Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Characteristics of rail and ferry station area residents in the San Francisco Bay Area: evidence from the 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey, volume 1. 2006. Available at: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/stars/_BATS2000_Station_Area_Residents_Study_Vol_I.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2009.

     

  • The Metropolitan Transit Commission found that individuals living and working within ½ a mile of public transit use transit for 42% of their work commute trips, while only 4% of those that do not live within ½ a mile use public transit. Households living in dense areas and near public transit produce about half the weekday daily vehicle miles traveled as compared to people in more suburban and rural areas.

    Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Characteristics of rail and ferry station area residents in the San Francisco Bay Area: evidence from the 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey, volume 1. 2006. Available at: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/stars/_BATS2000_Station_Area_Residents_Study_Vol_I.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2009.

  • Balance in a neighborhood between jobs and housing reduces vehicle travel and associated environmental and health costs.

    Cervero R, Duncan M. Which reduces vehicle travel more: jobs-housing balance or retail-housing mixing? J Am Plan Assoc. 2006;72(4):475-490.

  • In California, about 20% of those working in office buildings near rail stations regularly commute by transit, nearly three times transit's modal share among those working away from rail stations. Mode choice models reveal that office workers are most likely to rail-commute if frequent feeder bus services are available, employers help cover the cost of taking transit, and parking is in short supply.

    Cervero R. Office development, rail transit, and commuting choices. J Public Transp. 2006; 9(5):41-55.

  • Single women receiving public assistance without access to a car experience employment benefits from increased transit access.

    Ong P, Houson D. Transit, employment, and women on welfare. Urban Geogr. 2002;23:344-64.

  • Public transportation serves only about 60% of counties nationwide, and 28% of those counties have limited service.

    Brown D. Rural governments face public transportation challenges and opportunities. US Department of Agriculture. Available at: www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Transport. Accessed on August 29, 2009.

  • There are significant employment effects from increased bus access and improved accessibility to employment hubs.

    Sanchez T. The connection between public transit and employment: the cases of Portland and Atlanta. J Amer Plan Assoc. 1999;65:284-96.
    Kawabata M. Job accessibility by travel mode in US metropolitan areas. Papers and Proceedings of the Geographic Information Systems Association. 2002;11:115-120.

  • Non-drivers face a relative lack of mobility options when it comes to jobs, housing, education, social services, and activities. This impact is accelerated by auto-oriented land use patterns.

    Litman T. Transportation costs & benefits: resources for measuring transportation costs and benefits. Victoria, BC: Victoria Transport Policy Institute; 2009. Available at: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm66.htm. Accessed July 22, 2009.