HighLight Heading
June 2001
Transportational and Regional Growth Study: Half-day workshop is part of CTS annual research conference
Ed Ward
The role systems and structures play in shaping the metropolitan area was addressed in a workshop of the Transportation and Regional Growth (TRG) Study, titled "Transportation and Land Use in 2050," held May 24.
Moderator Ed Ward, Ward and Company, began by discussing the study from a "systems thinking perspective," which involves looking at a complex transportation system in terms of events, patterns of behavior, interrelationships of the patterns (the structure), and the purpose of the structure. According to this perspective, "structure drives behavior...and therefore if you want to influence behavior, then you have to influence structure," Ward said.
To explore this idea, two possible scenarios were posed to the audience to illustrate how transportation and land use choices and policies can interact to shape different outcomes—in this case, the Twin Cities metropolitan area in the year 2050.
The first scenario featured compact, mixed-use land development, constrained road investments, and extensive transit investments, in keeping with its philosophy that higher-density development and mixed use engenders broader economic vitality, environmental responsibility, and structured opportunity for equity across social lines. The other scenario offered dispersed development, extensive road investments, and constrained transit investments, the rationale being that most people prefer to travel by auto and live in low-density suburbs; in this scenario, the government does what it can to meet these preferences, including providing access to cars for as many people as possible. Session panelists—TRG Study researchers—were asked what would need to happen in order to realize these scenarios.
John Adams, Department of Geography, said that in order for the first scenario to work, it would require changes to the current status quo, including caps on the level of public subsidy and tax expenditures attached to new housing units added to the existing stock; modification of zoning law to promote mixed-uses and higher densities at and near major transit hubs and to limit excessive land development and highway access at major highway intersections; a greater share of the cost of general government assumed by the state, thus relieving local units of government from excessive reliance on commercial and industrial property taxes; and greater use of development impact fees.
The alternate scenario, with a heavy reliance on private cars and highways, would mean people could have the mode of transportation they prefer, along with the new housing and residential densities they want, "but they would be obliged to pay upfront for what they get,"Adams said—a major departure from the present situation. In this scenario, the market would drive the system to a significant degree, but costs would be more visible and people would respond rationally to what they prefer and their ability to pay, he said. Additionally, "local voters would be more aware of what they're getting for what they pay," Adams said.
Next, Gary Barnes of the Humphrey Center said that although people do have a travel time budget (meaning everyone spends about the same amount of time traveling), how much time people spend in cars varies. Since "cars are in almost every case faster than transit," people in the Twin Cities use transit when driving has costs—for example, when they have to pay to park, he said. Road pricing (charging people for the use of the roads they drive) is a critical element for both scenarios, Barnes said. While he doubts that more transit and high-density development would reduce car travel, more people might use transit if it cost them to use roads, he said. In the second scenario, pricing roads might eliminate some political fighting over where new roads should be built.
David Anderson, Department of Applied Economics, said both scenarios would be expensive in terms of governmental costs and would therefore require large changes in finance and new sources of revenue, such as user fees for roads. According to Anderson, changes in transportation infrastructure alone won't bring about the major changes in land use suggested in either scenario. User fees may, but they would have to be significant and "hit people hard," he said. Regulation and direct control over land use would also be required, especially in the first scenario, Anderson added. For either scenario, it would be difficult to change the total costs of housing or transportation, since these costs are stable and rise roughly in proportion to income. "The basic economic rule is that if you make things cheaper, people will buy more of them," he said.
Next, Barry Ryan, also of Applied Economics, offered comments on the finance-related and tax implications of the two scenarios. For more transit and mixed-use development to be effective, Ryan said, the gas tax must be increased—an option that is unpopular with the general public. Additionally, the state constitution would need to be altered to allow this resource to be used for transit, Ryan said (currently, it can be used only for roads). In Scenario Two, the use of property taxes and continued reliance on general-purpose aids (which are funded by income and sales tax contributions) raise some equity issues, Ryan added.
Both scenarios would require good design, said Lance Neckar of the Department of Landscape Architecture. "Ideally [design] proceeds policy, rather than being used after the fact to decorate or mitigate the effects of policy," Neckar said. Although the scenarios might be plausible, they're a bit bipolar, he said. "A lot of our work suggests a 'Scenario Three' that sits in the middle...In a sense, we're looking for a balance between production versus consumption, diversity versus homogeneity...free market investment strategies versus more planned and controlled ones." As part of his research for the TRG study, Neckar said he would also be looking at whether existing ideas of "smart growth" and new urbanism can be predictably used to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Finally, Tom Scott, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, is examining the governmental, legal, and political changes in processes that have developed over the last 50 years with respect to transportation and land use. "The premise is that legal and governmental processes that affect transportation and land use are not unrelated to important political issues," he said.
Commenting on the scenarios, Scott said he was "struck by the fact that we had Scenario One about 50 years ago," with the compact, mixed-use development and extensive transit system of that era. But the last 50 years have seen radical changes in such things as retailing and manufacturing that have subsequently influenced development patterns. Scott predicts that over the next 50 years, the growth rate, vehicle miles traveled, and transportation infrastructure will not see the increases they previously have. While it's impossible to predict what kind of changes the political system will need to respond to in the next 50 years, Scott said, "we do know...that what's on the map or in the governmental system often doesn't go away...so what we do will simply be added on to what we already have."