Impacts of Development Patterns on Travel Patterns

• 
  Trip frequency is lower in traditional communities (typical conventional neighborhoods) and higher than average in planned unit developments (San Diego Association of Governments, 1993)
  
• 
  Trip times are shorter than average in the traditional city and longer than average in large-lot sprawl (Ewing et al., 1994)
  
• 
  Trips are shorter in mixed use neighborhoods, PMT (Person Miles Traveled) is lower in mixed-use neighborhoods (McCormack et al., 2001)
  
• 
  Average vehicle occupancy is higher in mixed-use buildings (Cervero, 1991)
  
• 
  Shopping trips are shorter at locations with high local or regional accessibility (Handy, 1993)
  
• 
  Person-miles-traveled for shopping is lower at locations with local or regional accessibility (Handy, 1993)
  
• 
  Vehicle-hours-traveled (VHT) is lower at more regionally accessible locations (Ewing, 1995)
  
• 
  Work trips are shorter where commercial uses are nearby (Cervero, 1996)
  
• 
  Vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) is lower at higher densities (Dunphy and Fisher, 1996)
  
• 
  Vehicle trips are less frequent at higher densities (Dunphy and Fisher, 1996)
  
• 
  VMT for nonwork trips is lower where the intensity factor or amount of vertical mixing is greater (Cervero and Kockelman, 1997)
  
• 
  Trips are shorter at locations of higher population and residential density (Ross and Dunning, 1997)
  
• 
  Nonwork auto trip frequency is lower in locations with higher retail employment densities (Boarnet and Greenwald, 2000)
  

• 
  Walk and bike shares are higher in traditional communities (San Diego Association of Governments, 1993)
  
• 
  Transit share is lower in traditional communities (San Diego Association of Governments, 1993)
  
• 
  Frequency of transit trips is higher in traditional neighborhoods (Kulkarni et al., 1995)
  
• 
  Frequency of walk/bike trips is lower in planned unit developments (Kulkarni et al., 1995)
  
• 
  Modes other than auto are more likely to be used for nonwork trips in traditional neighborhoods (Cervero and Radisch, 1996)
  
• 
  Walk shares are higher in mixed-use neighborhoods (McCormack et al., 2001)
  
• 
  Transit share of commute trips is higher for the urban and suburban downtowns (Douglas and Evans, 1997)
  
• 
  Transit trip rates rise with densities; transit trips are more frequent at higher densities (Spillar and Rutherford, 1990)
  
• 
  Rail transit commute share is greater for higher density residential settings (Cervero, 1994)
  
• 
  Higher densities induce more walk access trips to rail (Cervero, 1994)
  
• 
  Use of transit and walk/bike is more likely where commercial uses are nearby (Cervero, 1996)
  
• 
  Rail ridership is higher at higher densities (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade Douglas, 1996)
  
• 
  Land use mix at work sites boosts transit ridership by 120% (Pushkarev and Zupan, 1977)
  
• 
  Aesthetic urban settings has the greatest influence on transit mode choice (Cambridge Systematics Inc., 1994)
  
• 
  Use of modes other than auto is more likely in neighborhoods with more intense development (Cervero and Kockelman, 1997)
  
• 
  A combination of land use mix and compact urban design can reduce automobile trips by 7% after controlling for density and income (1000 Friends of Oregon, 1995)
  
• 
  Use of walk/bike is more likely at locations of higher regional accessibility or a more balanced mix of land uses (Kockelman, 1997)
  
• 
  Walk mode shares are greater at higher population and residential densities (Ross and Dunning, 1997)
  
• 
  Transit mode shares are greatest at the highest population and residential densities (Ross and Dunning, 1997)
  
• 
  Transit ridership is higher in areas of high employment density (Buch and Hickman, 1999)
  

The smart growth goals of the most active state DOTs can be summarized as follows:

1. 
   Ensure mobility (build and maintain transportation systems and mitigate traffic congestion) to support existing and planned growth areas.
   
2. 
   Support access to existing and planned land uses to greater multi-modal transportation choices (public transportation and non-motorized transportation facilities).
   
3. 
   Emphasize environmental stewardship (open space preservation and air quality) in any transportation planning stage.
   
4. 
   Emphasize urban issues related to quality of life through transportation investments and policies (safety; old town revitalization; ensuring benefits to underserved groups; livability of communities).
   
5. 
   Strengthen state-local partnership relationship in transportation and land use planning process.
   

2. 
   SURVEY OF STATE DOTS
   

To explore the efforts of State DOTs in managing urban growth, transportation professionals in transportation planning divisions within 49 State DOTs were surveyed via email questionnaires. They were asked to provide details of any sprawl mitigation or growth management efforts that are underway or in place, administered and/or led by their agencies. The first survey was conducted between 11/27/2001 and 12/27/2001. The participants were given opportunities to revise or update their information six months later after the first survey in the second survey, which was conducted between 6/9/02 and 7/9/02. Out of the 49 state DOTs that were surveyed, 39 state DOTs responded and provided valuable information, including comprehensive packets and attached word documents as well as email responses. The respondents are listed in Table 3. The list of efforts identified through this survey is not necessarily comprehensive, but it is indicative of the kinds of efforts undertaken by state DOTs.

1. 
   Statewide Transportation Plans to Manage Growth