A DEEMED?! OF MOE!LETY~HAND§£AP EN LSRBAN WANSPORTAYEGN Thesis ‘60? the game. a? Ph. D. mwm STATE fiféi‘a‘Efism’ mm L. LEOEfiRDSQN 1972 I... .. WAY. thi’ s. :gan. State University 4: _ -..—.n --0_-v , ._: w -:'.._ w 1.. ’1 ct; This is to certify that the thesis entitled 'A Definition of Mobility-Handicap in Urban Transportation presented by John L. Leonardson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for pfiméfl WWW I We: professor Date November 10, 1972 0-7639 ABSTRACT A DEFINITION OF MOBILITY-HANDICAP IN URBAN TRANSPORTATION BY John L. Leonardson The purpose of the study was to define general mobility and accessibility on an urban level and to develop the methodology necessary for the performance of the following functions: 1. The identification of travel mobility and accessibility within the current urban structure. The identification of factors affecting travel mobility and accessibility. The measurement of travel mobility and accessi- bility levels within the current urban structure. The development of a travel mobility and accessibility index. The identification of those who are travel mobility and accessibility handicapped. It was discovered that the measurement of mobility is, at best, a difficult and vague process. An aggregate ranking of Opportunities can be achieved by using the Sign Test to John L. Leonardson determine the aggregate preference between the two Opportunities included in all combinations of pairs of opportunities. A quasi-value, using the mean or median of personal valuations, could be determined and applied. Within each group a ration scale exists, while between groups an interval scale exists. This problem can be dealt with if a relationship between the ratio scales can be defined. Through comparative analysis of cross tabulations of such factors as age, purpose, mode of travel, sex, income and automobiles available, a good measure of mobility should be available, allowing planners to identify groups who are travel mobility and accessibility handicapped. A DEFINITION OF MOBILITY-HANDICAP IN URBAN TRANSPORTATION BY 1 John LC Leonardson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Marketing and Transportation 1972 Copyright JOHN L. LEONARDSON 1972 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . iii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Chapter I. URBAN GROWTH . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. URBAN TRANSIT TRENDS AND URBAN GROWTH . . . 17 III. THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM . . . . 34 IV. GOVERNMENT ROLE . . . . . . . . . . 57 V. CONSTRUCTION OF AN URBAN TRANSIT MODEL . . 68 VI. USEFUL FACTORS IN A TRAVEL MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY STUDY . . . . . . . . 88 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 ii II-lo II-2. II-3. II-4. LIST OF TABLES Page Urban and Rural Population of the United States: 1790 to 1970 . . . . . . . 3 Population and Land Area of Urbanized Areas UoSo TOtal, 1950-1970 0 o o o o o o 7 Population Inside and Outside Central Cities Of selected SMSA'S 1950-1970 a o o o o 9 Population and Land Area of Urbanized Areas in 1960-1970 e o o o o o o o o o 10 Comparison of Work Trips by Auto in Large Cities 1960 vs 1900 . . . . . . . . 12 Transit Ridership Trends, 1935-1968 . . . 22 Transit Operating and Revenue Trends, 1935- 1968 O O O O O O O O C O O O 23 Operating and Financial Information from Selected Michigan Transit Systems . . . 24 Ridership and Financial Trends Selected Transit Operations 1960-1968 . . . . . 25 Automobile Ownership Related to Total Person, Transit Trips and Percent by Transit for Milwaukee and Puget Sound . . . . . . 75 Variation in Transit Usage by Trip Purpose for Puget Sound . . . . . . . . . 76 System Possibilities for Local Area Travel . 84 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page I-l. Urban Proportion of Total U.S. Population (1790-1970) a o o o o o o o o o 4 V-l. Automobile Ownership Related to Percent by Transit for Home—based Work Trips-- Milwaukee . . . . . . . . . . . 74 iv CHAPTER I URBAN GROWTH The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, defines the urban population as comprising all persons living in urbanized areas and in places of 2,500 inhabitants or more outside urbanized areas. More specifically, the urban population consists of all persons living in (a) places of 25,000 inhabitants or more incorporated as cities, villages, boroughs, and towns, but excluding those persons living in the rural portions of extended cities; (b) unincorporated places of 2,500 inhabitants or more; and (c) other terri- tory, incorporated or unincorporated, included in urbanized areas.1 A distinction is made between an "urban area" and an "urbanized area" by the Bureau of the Census. Note that "urban" inhabitants consist of "urbanized area" inhabitants and also those people living in places of 2,500 inhabitants or more outside urbanized areas. An urbanized area contains at least one city which had 50,000 or more inhabitants . . . , as well as certain surrounding closely settled incorporated places and unincorporated areas. These contiguous incorporated places and unincorporated areas . . . constitute the urban fringe.2 It will be helpful in reviewing some of the census figures to keep in mind the distinction between the "urban area" and the "urbanized area." Even without the definitional change, the urban population trend is very strong and evident. Using the 1950 definition of urban, urban population has increased from 30.2 million in 1900 to 149.3 million in 1970. From these figures a computed increase of approximately 25 per- cent decade occurred. In the same time period, the U.S. rural population has increased from 50 million to just 53.9 million. Although affected by the urban area defini- tion change, the rural population consistently has fallen for the past two decades (using the current urban defini- tion, the rural population fell from 54.5 million in 1950 to the present 1970 figure of 53.9 million (see Table I-l). The trends which have been exhibited in the past are expected to continue for some time into the future. "By the turn of the century, about 11 percent of the land within our continental boundaries will be involved in three great population belts and 19 large urban areas that will be home for an estimated 239 million of us."3 Some interesting observations can be ascertained from the Figures in Table I-l. Figure I-l has been developed from Table I-l, showing the proportion of the .A.Fnoa .moawwo mcaucaum unassum>ow .m.s ".o.o eoumcasmms. .>Hmeasm .m.c .aal3om uuommm amcam .mUGMUanmnca mo umbfidz .chma .mCOHumasmom uo momcou .m.c .msmcou no common .m.D ”condom m.¢m a.m ... ... cmm.hmn.m ... ... mmc.acm ... ... vam.mmc.m cmha m.mm a.c m.mm mmm.mmm.a Naa.cmm.¢ m.mm cah.cma arm.~mm a.mm www.mnm.a mmv.mcm.m coma h.mm m.n n.vm cam.th.a mmv.va>.c c.mc mmc.mcm www.mmm v.cm mom.amm.a amm.mmm.h cama m.mm «.5 «.mm www.cm~.~ mma.mvm.m m.am och.nca www.mmc a.mm th.mcm.m mmv.mmc.m cmma N.am m.m m.am mpm.mmn.m mnh.mmh.aa c.mc www.mmv www.5ma.a m.mm hcm.nmm.m cmc.ccm.~a cmma ~.mm m.ca h.mm www.mmv.m mom.v~m.ma n.mc mom.han mmc.mvm.a n.mm mmv.mcm.v mmv.mcc.ha cvma h.vm m.ma a.mm www.mmv.v cca.mvc.ma a.mm acc.mmc.a cah.mvm.m m.mm mmv.-a.c chm.aca.m~ cmma m.cm m.ma v.m~ mvc.mnm.m mom.cmm.mm «.mb mom.m>c.m mam.cam.c c.mm mvv.amm.m amm.mvv.am coma m.vh h.mm c.ma hcm.cmv.m cac.cmc.mm m.cm new.mmc.m acm.mcm.c c.mm cmc.maa.h anm.mmm.mm chca m.ah ~.m~ m.m~ www.mcv.n www.0mc.cm n.mv vnm.h~m.v mmn.cma.va m.cm mmm.cmc.aa mc~.mma.cm cmma m.vc a.mm v.ma hmc.Vam.¢ acm.mnm.cv m.cm cmm.cnm.b www.cca.mm m.mm 5mm.0m>.Na www.mhc.mc cmma v.00 c.mm m.ma mmm.mma.m cmm.hmc.mv n.cm www.mca.m mmm.Vam.cm c.am mcv.~m~.ma mca.Nam.cn coma v.vm c.m¢ a.m mma.nca.v mmv.vca.cm N.mm mca.mvm.aa acc.vcc.mv c.am mmm.cac.ca cmv.m-.mc cama m.mv N.am N.m och.mcc.a mmm.mch.am c.m~ amm.mma.~a www.mmm.wm c.ma avc.mcn.ma nmm.amc.cca cmma m.mv a.cm v.v chh.mn~.m mmc.mvc.vm m.>m ham.ncm.va www.cca.cc m.ca nmc.amasna vmc.mc~.mma cmma m.mv m.cm m.c com.hav.m amm.mmv.nm c.m mmn.vvm.m mmm.mcn.v> m.h mvm.acm.m mcm.vca.mma cvma v.ov c.mm m.c mnm.mm5.m vcc.nma.ac c.c~ www.mmv.ma vma.mma.cc m.¢a cmm.aca.ma www.mmm.ama cmma c.5m c.mc m.m mam.mcc.m www.ccm.cc «.mm mma.m~m.~m .mcm.cmc.maa m.ma hum.hmm.nm mha.mmm.m>a ccma .‘HCOauacaMoQ :mnuc m50a>oum c.cm c.vc ... ... amm.mhv.¢m ... ... ham.cvm.cm ... ... mcn.mmm.ama cmma a.cm m.mc m.c| cmm.vmv| mmv.vmc.vm m.om mmc.amv.mm cmh.mcm.mma m.ma hnm.hmc.nm mna.mmm.m>a coca m.cm m.mh m.cl www.mcal www.cmm.mm N.oa cma.cmc.vm cmm.va.mva m.ma amn.mmm.mm cmm.aa~.mcm chca “c0auaCawoc cmnuc ucouusu amuom can»: a Honsdz COaumasmom m Honssz acauMascom w “onsoz c0aumasmom msmcoo maca>oum msmcou maca>oum momcou m50a>mum amuoe Eoum omcocu scum omcmnu Eoum omcmsu moumum pouacc mo unmouom amusm Genus acuoe .onma 0» omha "moumum cowacc ecu wo GOaumasmom amuom can :mnHDII.aIH mqmca 100% a 90% “ 80% ‘ 70% 7 60% c 50% ‘ 40% - 30% - 20% .7 10% a - C q q d u: q q 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 d q q d d 1860 T 1870 1880 1890 1910 1900 q .1 u: .1 1920 J 1930 j 1940 1950 1960 1970 Figure I-l.--Urban prOportion of total U.S. population (1790-1970). This graph is developed from Table I-1 and is similar to that in I—4. total U.S. population living in urban residence. Since 1900, this proportion has increased from 39.6 percent to 73.5 percent. As can be seen in Figure I-l, the change in this proportion has been rather constant for more than a century. What is most outstanding about this fact is that as the base population (that of the previous census) increases in actual magnitude, it takes an ever increasing, actual population change to bring about a constant percent- age change. This can be substantiated by Table I-l, which shows the actual urban population increase for the 1950- 1960 and 1960-1970 periods to be 28.4 million and 24.1 million respectively, while for 1900-1910 and 1910-1920 the actual increase was 11.8 million and 12.1 million respectively. That the rural population actually fell in the periods from 1950-1960 and from 1960-1970 means that more than 100 percent of the total U.S. population change is accounted for by changes between urban-rural residence. This raises a question concerning the physical size and structure of the urban area: as the urban population increases at such astounding rates, where can all of the additional people be housed? To give an indication of they physical size changes in the urban area, several references can be cited. Davis states that "to accommodate the increase of . . . urban dwellers, we are urbanizing land at rates that have been variously estimated at up to 1 million acres annually."4 Table I-2 shows the U.S. population and land area of "urbanized areas." Notice that over the years, "urbanized" land area has increased substantially from 12,805 mi2 in 1950 to 35,081 mi2 in 1970. Perhaps the most important factors to be observed in Table I—2, however, are the changing patterns of population and density (population/miz) "within-central- cities" (WCC) vs. "outside—central-cities" (OCC). The WCC population has increased approximately 15 percent over a 20-year period (from 48.4 million in 1950 to 63.9 million in 1970). Over the same time period, WCC land area has more than doubled, resulting in a drastic decline in WCC density (from 7,786 persons/mi2 in 1950 to 4,463 persons/mi2 in 1970). These changes have taken place relatively gradually. Quite different are the changes which have taken place outside-central-cities. While the population has increased more than 160 percent (from 20.9 million in 1950 to 54.5 million in 1970), the land area has increased by just over 200 percent, resulting in a rather small decrease in OCC density (from 3,167 persons/mi2 in 1950 to 2,627 persons/mi2 in 1970). .mosam> cmma map mcafiuopmc on com: mmB mocmnmmou coma manmnmmfioo one .mw mocoummmn mom .mmusmam msmcmo coma cam chma Scum pmcampno onB mmusoam ommcfi amm.m mmv.a msm.m mas\mom ~.ama.om m.mmm.aa m.omo.mm Amasc mmum cams me am ooa coausnauumae w Nmm.¢~m.am smm.ama.mm mom.maa.maa coaumasmom opaa ANNG.N Nom.m amm.m masxmom m.maa.aa m.qmm.oa m.mhm.v~ imasv mmnm eams m.mm m.oe ooa coausnauumae w mma.mmm.am mao.mma.hm amm.emm.mm coaomasmom coma aoa.m mma.h moa.m as\aom a.amm.m m.ma~.m m.eom.ma Amasv mmmm cams a.om m.am ooa coauanau0mae w sam.aam.om osm.shm.mv amm.~m~.am coanmasmom omma mmauao mmauao mend amuucmo mcamuso aoupcoo Gaaaaz comacmgus amuoa .onmalomma .amuoa .m.D moons Umnasmnuo mo pond coma cam coaumasmomll.mla mamaa Most important is the fact that all of the changes in OCC density took place from 1950 to 1960, meaning that the major portion of urbanized area growth has been suburban in nature, while the WCC growth has been of little consequence: Nearly all growth since 1950 has taken place in urban or urbanizing areas, most of it horizontally. Although high-rise apartments and office buildings are coming to the suburbs, the major growth is outward in the form of strip cities, fingers or suburbanization, satellite communities, and mushrooming outward growth. Lower densities, longer commuting trips, leapfrogging subdivisions, aimless land-use patterns are character- istic of much of our metropolitan areas. Too often, such rapid suburban growth accompanies stagnation in the central city. Moving from a national scale to three Michigan areas, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, and Lansing, Table I-3 shows for each of these areas, the population within and outside central cities of the SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area). The trend which we saw on a national scale is very similar to the changes taking place in these three cities. In each case, for the past 20 years, the greater relative proportion of total area population growth has occurred outside the central city. Table I-4 shows the population density for Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, and Lansing by including for each urbanized area both population and land area figures. It is again apparent, as was shown in the national urbanized area figures in Table I-2, that as population TABLE I—3.--Population Inside and Outside Central Cities of Selected SMSA's 1950-1970. 1970 1960 1950 % 60-70 % 50-60 Grand Rapids SMSA 539,225 461,906 362,043 16.7 27.6 W.C.C. 197,649 177,313 176,515 11.5 0.5 O.C.C. 341,576 284,593 185,528 20.0 53.4 Kalamazoo SMSA 201,550 169,712 126,707 18.8 33.9 W.C.C. 85,555 82,089 57,704 4.2 42.3 O.C.C. 115,995 87,623 69,003 32.4 27.0 Lansing SMSA 378,423 289,949 244,159 26.6 22.4 W.C.C. 131,546 107,807 92,129 22.0 17.0 O.C.C. 246,877 191,142 152,030 29.2 25.7 Table 34, reference #2. increases land area also increases, but at disproportionate rates. This is especially true when WCC and OCC figures are differentiated. Total SMSA density has dropped for each of the three areas, WCC density has dropped drastically in two of the three areas (the WCC land area for Kalamazoo was virtually unchanged as was the population, consequently the density was "constant"); and OCC density dropped in two areas (with Lansing's OCC density actually increasing a small amount). What we are seeing is growth in urban areas, but with most of it occurring in the suburban sections, which are growing and are also filling in with people. Early 10 .14 .m* mocmummon .om magma comm c.cm m.cm mam.ac mvvm o.ov h.mw mnm.nm OOO mmom N.am m.mc mom.nca mmmm v.mm m.>m cvm.ama 003 nmmm N.hv ooa mmm.mca nNam m.mn ooa mam.mm~ amDOB mcamcma mmma o.ma c.om mma.mm mcma m.mv h.mv www.mm OOO mmvm m.mm 0.05 mmo.mm mmwm m.¢m m.mm www.mm 003 mmmm m.a¢ ooa www.maa mnom m.m>, ooa mmo.mma amboa oonEmamM omha m.mc n.mm mam.caa amma m.aoa o.v¢ vmo.mma UOO chmc o.>m m.oc mam.b>a Nova m.vv o.mm mvm.>ma 003 nmam m.mm ooa omm.vmm mavm m.m¢a ooa mon.mmm amuoe mcammm pcmuw aE\mom ANHEV umaow .mom aE\mom Amafiv pmacw .mom mend N mmum coma onma .onmalomma mmwud Umnacmnno mo mmu< ccma cam soaumasmomll.vla mamme ll suburban growth was marked by very low density areas and partially developed subdivisions, oftentimes with undeveloped farmland remaining between these areas and the central city. The suburban growth of the immediate past and present is focused toward the filling in of any gaps existing close to the central city, and the urbaniza- tion of some of these areas as offices, shopping centers, and other facilities follow the trend to the suburbs. The density factor in the newly developed areas, however, will rarely equal that of the original central city. This is especially true of the older cities, which experienced their greatest growth before the large-scale expansion of the use of automobiles. Table I-5, a comparison of work trips by auto in large cities, 1960 vs 1900, supports this fact. Davis states that "the automobile requires space--lots of it. As much as 60 percent of the area in some metropolitan regions is given over to serving it--roads, highways and freeways, parking lots, garages, and driveways."6 Because it requires much more room to operate and park automobiles than it does to operate a transit system for the same number of people, we would expect that newer cities would develop in anticipation of the required additional space. Since it is cheaper to build out than up, we could then expect to find that newer cities are not as densely populated as 12 .mm mocmumwmu .aN magma am mmamond moa hm muofiapamm ms .o.o .eoumeanmms mp memam>mao mm uaouuon mp .o.o .eoumeaammz mm oomaocmum cmm am mason .um ma memam>mao on nmnsnmuuam ma nmnsnmuuam op eoumom mm ouofiauamm mm oomaocmum :mm op eoomom Gm naouumo am mason .nm as mandammmaaem so mandamemaaga mm ommoaao mm oomoago am moammca moq on snow 302 on snow 302 coma coma coma coma .JI .ousm >2 xuos ou mcaom mmmudooumm .auao psmo mo mom >3 mmapao ummmuma .ousm mo xuo3 on .coapmasmom amuou mcaoo momucmoumm mg moHMao umooumq .ooma m> coma mmauau mmnma Ga Quad an mmaHB MACE mo comanmmfioull.mla mamda 13 are the older cities. Since there is an implied inverse relationship between density and auto usage, we could use a measure of auto usage to show how age relates to density. We can see this relationship in Table I-5. In the first column of Table I-5 cities are ranked by their population in 1960. The percent who went to work by auto in 1960 is given in the second column. The rank order correlation is poor. New York is largest in population and has the lowest proportion of automobile users, but Los Angeles, the second largest city, has the highest propor- tion going to work by auto. In the second part of Table I-5 the same cities are ranked by population of the central city in 1900, before the advent of the automobile. The rank order correlation with the percent going to work by auto in 1960 is much better. Los Angeles, for example, drops to the end of the list. The percent going to work by auto does rise, with occasional exceptions, as one reads down the column. These relationships may emphasize the general proposition that people's preferences as they exist at present are not the only deter- minants of their behavior. Their choices must be made in urban environments created by past decisions whose consequences will continue to be felt in the future.7 This last statement supports the hypothesis that available transportation is not always the result of transportation demands, but that transportation demands are sometimes affected by available transportation. This phenomenon, which I shall refer to as "conditioning," will be discussed in a later section. The sprawling pattern of today's urban growth is the direct result of the increasing use of the automobile: 14 The impact of the auto on the physique of the city has been as pervasive as its consequences for urban people. The major physical effect has been to rend apart the structure of the compact city. Separation and distance now are the rule-- bosses from jobs, production from consumption, schools from pupils, physicians from hospitals, and both from patients—-each function and type 8f activity has become increasingly separated. Perle has made some interesting observations con- cerning the structure of cities. He writes: The spatial structuring of American cities is the result, essentially, of two market processes operating independently side by side in both the time and space dimensions. One process can be represented by the development and investment decisions of business firms, while the other process is represented by both residential land developers and private households. The outcome of locational decisions by business firms results in a highly organized set of activities which derive substantial external economies by locating in agglomerated units. One can thus observe, in all cities, the phenomena of districts such as financial, theatrical, shopping, entertainment, restaurant, garment, printing, wholesaling, office, etc. Not unlike the agglomeration behavior of business firms is the process of residential agglomeration, where similar ethnic, socioeconomic, or racial groups locate.9 He continues: Activity agglomeration, whether by business firms or residential households, necessarily precludes the use of such areas for alternate activities or uses. The resulting configuration of our cities is a large—scale, locationally segregated urban system, affecting three types of linkages: (1) people to people, (2) activities to activities, and (3) people to activities. The implication of locational segregation is an increasing spatial separation between people and activities and, in many cases, a resulting decrease in activity accessibility and the quality of environment. 15 In order to counteract the increasing spatial separation resulting from suburban development and activity agglomeration, we must have at our disposal an efficient and practical transportation system--both for the movement of goods and people. FOOTNOTES--CHAPTER I lU.S., Bureau of the Census, Census of Popula- tion, 1971, Number of Inhabitants (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1971), p. ix. 2U.S., Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Transportation Planning Data for Urbanized Areas (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970), p. v. 3Arthur A. Davis, "Urban Design and Mass Trans- portation," Archives of Environmental Health, XVIII (February, 1969), 272. 4 Ibid. 5Ibid. 6Ibid., p. 273. 7John B. Lansing and Eva Mueller, "Residential Location and Urban Mobility," Highway Research Record, No. 106 (1966), 95. 8Davis, op. cit., p. 273. 9Eugene D. Perle, "Urban Mobility Needs of the Handicapped: An Exploration," Geographic Studies of Urban Transportation and Network Analysis (Evanston: Northwestern University, 1968), p. 21. For discussion of the business-districting phenomenon, see E. M. Hoover and R. Vernon, Anatomy of a Metropolis (New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1962); and Cities (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965). For the soc1a1-districting phenomenon, see E. Shevky and W. Bell, Social Area Analysis (Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1955). 10 Perle, op. cit., p. 21. 16 CHAPTER II URBAN TRANSIT TRENDS AND URBAN GROWTH When concurrently considering the development Of the urban area and the development Of an urban transporta-' tion system, we must clarify, if possible, the direction Of the cause-and-effect relationship. Did transportation cause urban development, or vice versa? There are sound arguments supporting both Viewpoints. TO try to prove one viewpoint correct at the expense Of the other would be quite fruitless, and virtually impossible in the long run. This exercise in logic would be similar to the economic exercise Of proving Say's Law (supply creates its own demand) at the expense of the more traditional view (demand creates supply). Both are correct, in varying degrees, at different times. Hecker supports the importance Of urban trans- portation in urban development. He states: One Of the predominant characteristics Of modern life in the United States has been the increasing prOportion Of the pOpulation concentrated in metropolitan areas. This growth of large urban centers within relatively narrow geographic areas would have been almost impossible economically without the development of urban transit systems. The movement Of millions of peOple within a metropolitan area is a normal function Of every- day business Operations in the job of the transit 17 18 Operation. Although the first efforts Of the industry were relatively crude, technology has advanced in a coordinate sense with the demands which the public has placed upon the urban transit companies. In a very interesting article relating economic growth and the demand for transportation services, Charles Zwick acknowledges the validity Of the importance Of tranSportation in economic development, but argues that in our present age, the situation is reversed. He states: The important role Of transportation in the growth Of an economy has been frequently documented. During the first stage of our country's development, for example, water transportation was clearly a major force. There was the early clustering Of economic activity around seaports; later, canals were dug to link sources Of vital raw materials with industrial areas and the seaports. And, of course, the building Of the trans- continental railroads ushered in a major expansion for the U.S. economy during the nineteenth century. More recently, the development Of our highway system, pipelines, and air transport has given us easier access to all parts Of the United States. Again, significant economic develOpment can be linked to this change in tranSportation technology. In short, transportation has played a significant role in stimulating the economic development of the United States and shaping the particular form it has taken . . . . The major theme Of this paper, however, is that in an advanced economy like that of the United States, this causal relationship has changed, and this change in the interaction between economic development and transportation has great significance for the transportation industries. More specifically, I will argue that we have reached in the United States, a level Of development where causation is reversed. . . . As a result, we should expect that most Of our future economic growth will be rooted in focus exogenous to the transporta- tion industry.2 19 It is quite easy to relate economic development with urban development on a national or local scale. Clusters have been developing ever since peOple moved their shOps from their homes to a central location, but the large-scale urbanization which is taking place today is the result Of sophisticated and extremely large manu- facturing processes which can function economically only where there is a large supply of labor and accessibility to other markets. The result is the spatial structuring referred to earlier. The industry can trace its origins, in this country, back to 1827 when Abraham Brower com- missioned the coach-making firm of Wade & Leverich to build a vehicle with a seating capacity Of twelve. He Operated his horse-drawn "Accommoda- tion" up and down Broadway in New York City, charging a flat fare Of "one chilling a head" regardless Of the distance traveled.3 Early in its history transit companies came under regulation. As the standard Of living of the nation improved, the people found that they could afford to pay the price of transportation in order to secure better residential locations or travel to more distant jobs, the primitive horsecar lines began to thrive. More entre- preneurs entered the field, and cities soon began to recognize that excessive competition was wasteful. In return for exclusive franchises to Operate over certain routes, the early street railway companies had to submit to regulation over policies such as fares and equipment. Thus, early in its history, mass transportation became an industry serving two masters: private enter- prise supplying the capital and expecting adequate returns on this capital; and the public interest, as vested in the municipal government.4 20 This statement, with several minor changes, could just as easily be taken from a present-day diary. Except for the technological advancements which have been made, urban transit is basically the same as it was at its inception. The next development in urban transit was the horse-car. It ran on steel tracks, thus allowing more passengers a smoother, faster ride. The cable cars Of San Francisco were developed by 1873 to overcome the problem created by that city's steep hills. By 1890, the cable-car had reached its zenith, and its use has gradually declined to the point where, again, San Francisco has the only cable-cars in Operation. The cable-car was replaced by the trolley car. On February 2, 1888, Frank Sprague Opened his first car line in Richmond, and from that time until the development and perfection of the motor bus in the 19305, the urban transit industry was identified with the electric railway car. Although Sprague Operated at a terrific loss, his initial enter- prise won for him the contract to supply 113 of the 200 electric railways in existence in 1889. SO complete was the takeover by the trolley car that in 1890 only 1,262 miles out of a total Of 22,577 miles Of urban track were ESE electric.5 These developments were all accompanied by a continuing decentralization of the urban area as people found they could be a considerable distance from 21 their destinations (work) and still have available a transit system upon which they could rely. (This is also a case of transit development causing urban development.) In many instances, the transit companies themselves purchased land and sponsored develop- ment in areas which were adjacent to their lines. The individual transit companies had a virtual monOpOly on the intracity transportation business and they were Often able to make large profits while Offering a high level Of service at relatively low fares.6 This Optimism seemed justified by the traffic. In 1905 local urban mass transit carried 5 billion passengers.7 By 1926—1927 this figure had climbed to 17.2 billion annual passengers. Although the auto- mobile had begun to appear on the streets, it was dismissed as a rich man's toy until . . . by 1933 the combined effects of the depression and the growing importance Of the automobile slashed annual transit patronage to 11.3 billion riders. Thus it was the automobile that spelled doom for urban mass transit. By the late 19103 the automobile had reached a stage Of development whereby it could provide a rather efficient form of transportation. Further, it could be mass produced and made available at a price that was within reach Of the average family. The auto- mobile served to decentralize the city to an even greater extent than did the street car system. People were no longer required to live adjacent to the transit lines nor were they so completely dependent on the downtown area as a place to shOp or work. As the automobile increased in pOpulatiry, and as a street system was constructed to accommodate it, the transit system began a commensurate decline.9 As patronage declined, so did the hopes for the transit industry's modernization.10 22 Table II-l shows transit ridership trends from 1935-1968 for the total United States and for cities within the 100,000 to 250,000 population range. For the total United States, ridership decreased from a war- inflated total of 19.0 billion in 1945 to 6.5 billion in 1968. This represents a loss of 65.6 percent of the revenue passengers. For cities the size Of Grand Rapids and Lansing, ridership decreased from 2.4 billion in 1945 to .5 billion in 1968, or a loss Of nearly 80 percent of its revenue passengers. TABLE II-1.--Transit Ridership Trends, 1935-1968. Total U.S. 2 Cities Year Revenue Index loo-250,000 1 Index Passengers Passengers 1935 9,782 70.7 840 53.0 1940 10,504 75.9 1,020 64.4 1945 18,982 137.1 2,359 148.8 1950 13,845 100.0 1,585 100.0 1955 9,189 66.4 953 60.1 1960 7,521 54.3 911 57.5 1965 6,798 49.1 521 32.9 1966 6,671 48.2 518 32.7 1967 6,616 47.8 506 31.9 1968 6,491 46.9 490 30.9 1In millions. 21950 = 100.0 Areas having a central city with a population between 100,000 and 250,000. Source: Transit Fact Book, 1971 Edition (New York: American Transit Association, 1971), p. 8. 23 Equated with revenue passengers is that which keeps a business viable--money. Table II-2 shows Operating and revenue trends for U.S. transit companies from 1935- 1968. From the peak year in 1945, when vehicle miles and Operating income were 3.3 billion and +$148.7 million, respectively, these figures have dropped consistently until in 1968, vehicle miles were 2.0 billion and Operating income was represented by a loss Of $130 million. Con- sidering these revenue and income characteristics, it is not surprising that most transit companies are transform- ing to public-owned companies. TABLE II-2.-—Transit Operating and Revenue Trends, 1935- 1968. Year VehiiIgnHIles ngszfiigg Opiizgigg 1935 2,312 681.4 96.0 1940 2,596 737.0 76.3 1945 3,254 1,380.4 148.7 1950 3,008 1,452.1 66.4 1955 2,448 1,426.4 55.7 1960 2,143 1,407.2 30.7 1965 2,008 1,443.8 -16.6 1966 1,984 1,487.5 -37.1 1967 1,997 1,556.0 -66.6 1968 1,989 1,578.3 -130.0 1In millions. Source: Transit Fact Book, 1969 Edition (New York: American Transit Association, 1969), p. 10. 24 Table II-3 shows Operating and financial informa- tion of the transit systems in Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, 11 and Lansing. Table II-4 shows the ridership and financial trends for these three areas from 1960-1968. Notice that in Lansing, while ridership actually increased, net Operating income decreased to the point where a loss has been incurred. This could be the result Of the vicious circular effect of the transit system-automobile relationship. TABLE II-3.--Operating and Financial Information from Selected Michigan Transit Systems. Grand Rapids Lansing Kalamazoo Fare 35¢ 35¢ 25¢ Busses 83 24 61 Annual Vehicle ' Mileage (000's) 1,843 1,069 1,092 Revenue Passengers (000's) 3,488 1,780 1,118 Operating Income (000's) $1,199 $521 $503 Operating Expenses (000's) $1,311 $537 $650 Net Operating Income (Loss) $111,890 $15,907 $147,459 [pg-31:115." TABLE II-4.--Ridership and Financial Trends Selected Transit Operations 1960-1968. Year Lansing Grand Rapids Kalamazoo Ridership 1960 1,532,288 2,319,889 1,465,045 1961 1,702,251 5,925,513 1,598,296 1962 2,256,995 5,652,256 1,566,675 1963 1,941,572 5,344,142 1,437,866 1964 1,677,100 4,599,151 1,212,267 1965 1,684,300 4,144,119 916,082 1966 1,810,500 4,074,589 NA 1967 1,620,900 3,835,521 977,936 1968 1,780,300 3,488,492 1,117,626 % Change 1960-68 +16.18 -55.20 -23.71 Net Operating Income 1960 + 2,512 + 59,057 + 32,592 1961 - 9,377 - 3,096 + 25,867 1962 -29,447 + 34,852 + 179 1963 - 30 + 20,927 + 929 1964 + 3,488 — 30,197 + 12,365 1965 + 77 - 31,778 + 19,797 1966 + 1,839 - 51,624 NA 1967 +15,766 - 62,898 - 66,598 1968 -15,907 -111,890 -147,460 Source: Various reports obtained from the Michigan Department Of Commerce. , mam-1' t 26 Longer distances and lower densities make it increasingly difficult to achieve profitable, efficient mass transit. In a self-defeating cycle, fewer passengers mean higher fares, less frequent service, Older and less comfortable vehicles, and finally, even social disapprobation Of public transit. At the same time, the auto- mobile has become more reliable and comfortable; a great network of roads makes possible a flexi- bility and penetration unmatched by any other mode of transportation.12 This circular effect is also stated by Oi and Shuldiner: Suppose that a city adOpts a policy of con- ; structing an urban highway system. The improved street system with its higher road speeds encourages more auto travel relative to mass transit trips. The ensuing diversion of traffic away from transit means a reduction in transit patronage and, in all likelihood, a deterioration Of transit service. Finally, the last link in the chain argues that the poorer transit service should lead to even higher car ownership rates, which, in turn, generate even greater demands for urban freeway systems. V1214. .. _ (The reasons that many cities would consistently choose highway construction over transit system improvement are shown in several articles. Mantell states that factors which bias the choice of transportation planners in favor Of highways . . . consist Of the improper accounting of the costs, some of which are nonmonetary, in the planning process. This improper accounting makes the costs Of a highway expansion project seem smaller than they really are and thus spuriously magnifies the difference between total benefits and total costs resulting from highway expansion.l4 He also argues, "clearly an enormous disparity exists between those moneys available to states for highway construction projects and those moneys available in order - . - - "l to fund nonhighway construction transportation prOjects. 5 27 Another one of the basic inherent weaknesses Of the usual benefit-cost analysis is that all benefits and costs are assumed to be shared equally by all people in an urban area, irrespective of their location relative to the prOpOSed project.16 No matter what the cause, the urban scene has changed. Fifty years ago, most of our cities were small with distinct boundaries. All were compact by today's standards. Most urban residents lived close to their jobs. Rail rapid transit and trolley cars provided adequate public transporta- tion; the personal automobile was a rarity. Many public transportation systems in use today were built during this period. They were adequate then, but are inadequate now . . . the routes of major mass transit systems have tended to remain constant. Many central city systems still stop at city limits, despite suburban growth.l Although the automobile is the instrument behind the decline in urban transit, the motivator has been man. "The fact that the American is a politically and economically 'free' individual is the underlying reason behind the problem."18 Our problems stem primarily from the choices we have always been able to make as a free people. However, these problems have been accentuated during the last two decades because Of a tre- mendous increase in the purchasing power Of the average American wage earner. In an attempt to understand the plight of mass urban transit-- which almost nationwide is withering away amid pleas for increased subsidy--we must appreciate the value Americans have placed on personal ' mobility. . . . The decline in patronage Of transit has resulted from choices made by a free people with resources capable Of providing these choices. (Some advocate that peOple have not 28 been given a choice when it comes to selecting alternative modes Of travel.) Nothing could be further from the truth . . . the transit industry enjoyed a captive audience, but as soon as people were actually given the choice we have experi- enced a steady decline in transit patronage.l9 Many feel that the mass transit system must be saved. Many planners and public Officials have now concluded that our urban areas must possess a strong, balanced private and public transportation system, and have therefore recommended improve- ments in mass transportation facilities together with continued highway construction.20 Mass tranSportation received a good deal of attention from President John F. Kennedy in his 1962 Transportation Message to Congress: To conserve and enhance values in existing urban areas is essential. But at least as important are steps to promote economic efficiency and livability in areas Of future development. In less than 20 years we can expect well over half Of our expanded pOpulation to be living in 40 great urban complexes. Many smaller places will also experience phenomenal growth. The ways that people and goods can be moved in these areas will have a major influence on their structure, on the efficiency of their economy, and on the availa- bility for social and cultural Opportunities they can Offer their citizens. Our national welfare therefore requires the provision of good urban transportation with the prOperly balanced use Of private vehicles and modern mass tranSport to help shape as well as serve urban growth.21 President Lyndon B. Johnson also spoke out in favor Of mass urban transportation. "We must help Obtain more modern mass transit within our communities as well n22 as low cost transportation between them. He also ~ —& SEQ-Ki . "A 1. i If,“ . 29 requested "the proper mixture of good highways and mass transit facilities . . . to permit safe, efficient move- ment Of people and goods in our metropolitan centers."23 Perhaps all the time and effort expended in attempting to revive the mass transit industry is to no avail. Meyer, Kain and Wokl feel that any effort will be a futile. They feel that the fact that urbanites have ‘14 displayed a great desire to travel by car has occurred 7 and will continue to do 50.24 .: pi Wilfred Owen also feels this way when he says, "neither economic analysis nor transportation history suggest a return to public tranSportation on a scale 25 Bello also writes, which would be decisive." The automobile has exploded the metropolis Open, and no amount of public transit will jam it back together again. The automobile looked like an unbeatable invention for circulating people from low-density communities to low- density activities Of all kinds.26 Frederick H. Freesh writes: If mass transportation is to be successful as it once was in America . . . service will have to be as quick, reliable, convenient, and as comfortable as the public now Obtains from its costly alternative--the automobile. . . . Americas' love affair with the private car has resulted at least in part because practically nowhere has mass transit been good enough to Offer a real choice.27 Regardless of their Opinions on the future Of mass transit, all writers have agreed that it has been playing a diminishing role in the movement Of people in urban areas. All 3O statistical indicators seem to have established the industry as distressed; characterized by declining demand, rising costs, low return on investment, and an inability to raise capital from private sources for modernization.28 :qu ‘54 FOOTNOTE S --CHAPTE R I I lGuy C. Hecker, "The History Of Urban Transpor- tation," in Principles of Urban Transportation, ed. by Frank H. Mossman (Cleveland: Press OfIWestern Reserve University, 1951), p. 1. , 2Charles J. Zwick, "The Demand for Transpor- tation Services in a Growing Economy" (presented at the Annual Meeting of Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., January 9, 1965), pp. 1-2. Also see Herbert S. Levinson and F. Houston Wynn, "Some Aspects Of Future Transportation in Urban Areas," Highway Research Board Record, NO. 326 7 (1962), 1-4. 3Lewis M. Schneider, Marketing Urban Mass Transit: A Comparative Study Of Management Strategies (Boston: Harvard University, 1965), p. 12. Also see John Anderson Miller, Fares Please (New York: Dover, 1960), p. 1. 4Schneider, Op. cit., pp. 12—13. Also see Norman Ashford, "The Developing Role of State Government in Transportation," Traffic Quarterly, XXII, NO. 4 (October, 1968), 458. 5Hecker, Op. cit., pp. 1-4; and Schneider, op. cit., pp. 13-14. Also see Joel Smith, Some Social Aspects of Mass Transit in Selected American Cities (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1959). 6R. J. Lilly, Chairman, Report Of the Lansing Metropolitan Area Transportation Study Committee (Lansing: 1970), p. 8. 7See Wilfred Owen, The Metropolitan TranSpor- tation Problem (Washington, D.C.: The BrOOEing Institu- tion, 1956), p. 282. 8 Schneider, Op. cit., pp. 14-15. 9Lilly, Op. cit., p. 8. loSchneider, Op. cit., p. 15. 31 32 llLilly, Op. cit., Tables 1 through 4. 12Davis, op. cit., p. 272. 13Walter Y. Oi and Paul W. Shuldiner, An Analysis of Urban Travel Demands (Evanston: Northwestern Uni? versity Press, 1962), pp. 21-22. 14Edmund H. Mantell, "Economic Biases in Urban Transportation Planning and Implementation," Traffic Quarterly, XXV, NO. 1 (January, 1970), 127. 15 ’ Irfd‘fiffl" Ibid., p. 119. l6Eleanor B. Steinberg, "Benefit-Cost Analysis and the Location Of Urban Highways," Highway Research Record, NO. 348 (1971), 37. Also see Oi and Shuldiner, OB. Clto, pa 7. : l7Davis, Op. cit., pp. 272-273. Also see Martin Wohl, "Urban Transport We Could Really Use," Technglogy Review, LXXII (June, 1970), 31; William Seifert, "The Status of Transportation," Proceedings of the IEEE, LVI, NO. 4 (April, 1968), 386-388; and Mossman and Morton, Logistics Of Distribution Systems (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1965), p. 135. 18John L. Leonardson, The Necessity for the Measurement Of Rider and Non-rider Needs in a Transit S stem (unpublished paper, East Lansing, Michigan, 1970 , p. 3. l9 Lilly, Op. cit., p. iii. 20Schneider, Op. cit., p. 2. Also see Davis, Op. cit., p. 274; Angelo Patrassi, "Balancing Road and Transit Systems," Traffic Quarterly, XXI, NO. 3 (July, 1969), 441-460; William H. Avery, "An Integrated Trans- portation Concept," Traffic Quarterly, XXIII, NO. 3 (April, 1970), 285-311; and Robert L. Morris, "Social Considerations of Urban Transportation Systems," Trans— portation Engineering Journa1--A.S.C.E. (August, 1970), 3. 21U.S. Congress, House, Committee Of the Whole House on the State Of the Union, The Transportation System Of Our Nation; Message from the President of the United States, 87th Congress, 2nd Session, 1962, House Document 384, p. 9. 33 22Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, XXII (Week ending January 10, 1964), p. 47. 23Coggressional Quarterly Weekly Report, XXII (Week ending January 31, 1964), p. 237. Also see Edward Weiner, "Modal Split Revisited," Traffic Quarterly, XXIII, NO. 1 (January, 1969), 5. 24John R. Meyer, John F. Kain, and Martin Wohl, Technology and Urban Transportation--A Report Prepared for the White House Panel on Civilian Technolgoy (Cambridge: By the authors, 1962), pp. i-x. TMimeO- graphed.) 25 Owen, Op. cit., p. 253. 26Francis Bello, "The City and the Car," in The Exploding MetrOpolis, ed. by the Editors Of Fortune (Garden City: DouEIeday, 1957), p. 56. 27Frederick H. Treesh, "Rapid Transit Systems Given New Priorityfl Lansing State Journal, May 21, 1970. 28 Schneider, op. cit., p. 3. CHAPTER III THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM There exists, as a result Of this conflict between mass transit and the automobile, what is normally referred to as the Urban Transportation Problem. As seen previously, in most cases where there was a choice between mass transit and the automobile, there really was no choice. For a while peOple like to minimize costs; they also like to maximize comfort and convenience (or ser- vice).1 Of these two Objectives, it is quite clear from the flight from mass transit to the automobile that people consider the service factor to be the more important. With the automobile at his disposal, "Mr. Public" enjoys a greater amount of mobility, while also enjoying the added benefit of Cotts' Spatial and temporal flexi- bility. These advantages of the automobile have been well developed in the literature: The automobile has freed the urban traveler from the restrictive routes and schedules of public mass transportation and has thus made possible the flight to the suburbs by homeowners, busi- ness, and industry. 34 35 The automobile clearly Offers substantially greater flexibility to the trip maker, both in terms of route selections and times of day at which trips are taken. Without question, private transportation by automobile is the dominant mode Of travel in urban areas today, despite evidence that many drivers would gladly foreswear spending two to three hours daily behind the wheel getting to work and back if improved public transit were available. The lack of choice is unfortunate.4 . #513113" .. _ Automobiles are the predominant choice for travel because they allow the traveler complete freedom Of choice Of starting time and make available transportation at the doorstep (or with apartment dwellers, after a short walk). This convenience is to an increasing extent negated by the inconvenience, loss Of time, and expense of parking the car at the desti- nation. “all; One of the results Of the choice made by people to travel by automobile instead of by mass transit has been described earlier as the vicious circular effect by which the position Of the automobile is continually being strengthened at the expense of mass transit. Because the road networks in most cities (especially Older more develOped, and larger cities) are relatively fixed, and because the employment Opportunities are still relatively concentrated, we have what is commonly called congestion: Traffic congestion is not a new phenomenon. . . . But new methods of transportation have changed the nature Of congestion. . . . Today, in most cities the urban transportation scene is domi- nated by private transportation, and the words "traffic jam" are synonomous with endless lines Of augOmobiles clogging expressways and parking lots. 36 Another problem which results from the present imbalance within the transportation system refers to the mobility Of the individual and society. Notice that this problem presents itself both on a microlevel (the indi- vidual) and on a macrolevel (the society). Since the mobility of society is simply the summation of the mobility Of individuals within the society, we need only look at one side Of the situation in order to have a proper understanding Of the mobility concept; although in order to evaluate fully or measure mobility, both of the individual and Of society, we must have a knowledge Of individual measurements. "Mobility can be defined as access to Opportuni- ties."7 Markovitz continues his discussion Of mobility by saying: A vast and complex transportation system com- prised Of several modes has evolved to make the greatest number Of Opportunities accessible to the greatest number Of people. The system is not perfect. There are certain segments Of the population whose needs are not met by the trans- portation network, either because the transpor- tation available is physically or financially difficult for them to use or because adequate facilities simply do not exist where they live. At the same time, there are certain areas Of the region where activities are located in such proximity to the population that they can be easily reached by walking--a vehicular trip is not necessary. Markovitz also states, "Transportation can be 9 thought of as access to Opportunities." This statement is the same as his definition Of mobility. This being an» , g 37 the case, transportation equals mobility, or vice versa. Of course, a condition which must be interjected concerns the lack Of need for transportation to close-by Oppor- tunities because of their accessibility by walking. If we keep in mind and accept the fact that a person who can walk to a nearby Opportunity is as "mobile" as a person who can use transit to take advantage of a dis— tant Opportunity, we should have no problem in equating transportation (mechanical or pedestrian) with mobility, providing the opportunities are of equal value. It is also important to remember another Of Markovitz's earlier thoughts in order to fully equate transportation with mobility. The "walking vs. transit" example is a case in point. Is the short-distance walker as mobile as the person who has available long- distance transit? Perhaps, but only if that person is physically and/or financially capable of using it. In other words, a person may have available the transit necessary to fulfill his every need, but only if this person can use the transit necessary to fulfill his every heed is he completely mobile. Patrassi's concept of mobility is that "Mobility [is] measured by the annual number Of trips per inhabi- tant."10 This is more appropriate as a measure Of mobility in a macro sense since one individual's trips 38 may vary greatly from another's. It does seen logical that for various categories Of trips (by purpose) this would be a fairly reliable measure Of community mobility. Another term introduced during the discussion of mobility is accessibility. Accessibility, in the sense in which it has been used, is really an effect Of one's level of mobility, and yet is also a measure of one's mobility. I am referring, specifically, to accessibility to Opportunities. Because a person is more or less mobile, he has greater or less accessibility to the i Opportunities which he perceives as necessary. In this sense mobility causes accessibility. Because Of this cause-effect relationship, the measure Of a person's accessibility to Opportunities can also be used as a measure Of his mobility. The statement, "The trouble is that--with the exception of taxis--pub1ic transportation usually does start where they want to start and it Often does not go where they have to go,"11 implies the accessibility of opportunity concept, but also brings to light another possible way of viewing accessibility--accessibility to transit. Accessibility to transit can be two-sided. At the origin, if transit is not accessible, a person's potential mobility may be reduced. If, through the use 39 of transit services, a person does not have access to his destination, his potential mobility may also be reduced. This sense of accessibility to transit, both from the origin and destination, is a characteristic which, for most people, can be measured in terms of distance. The statement "Percentages Of workers living within certain ' distances of public transportation, or not having access to public transportation . . . most important [is] the availability of public transportation,"12 pertains to ; accessibility to transit, as does, "if it is to replace automobiles, it is clear that any new system must be designed to eliminate waiting and to be accessible, with, at most, a short walk to the boarding point."l3 Bostick and Todd, in saying "69.3 percent of all workers living in cities having a population of 100,000 or more had some form Of public transportation available within two blocks of their home. At the other extreme, 8 percent had no available public transportation to work."14 refer to the measurement of accessibility to transit by some sort Of a distance factor. Not measurable in terms of the ratio scale (as the "distance" of accessibility to transit) are mobility and accessibility of Opportunities. These are based on Opportunities, and Opportunities are perceived or felt, and they cannot be ranked in terms of ratios. We cannot 40 say one Opportunity Offers twice as much as another--we can only say that a person thinks that one Opportunity is greater than another. The necessity for this ordinal scaling Of Opportunities results because all people do not consider "a specific opportunity" to hold the same value for them. Consequently, our measurement of an individual's mobility and accessibility Of Opportunities is quite difficult, as well as vague. Although the urban transportation problem was brought on by the peOple, and consequently should be borne by them, there are instances over which the indi- vidual has no control. One of the underlying weaknesses of benefit-cost analysis, as was pointed out earlier, is the fact that all benefits are considered to accrue equally to all people, regardless of age, sex, income, residential location, etc. Costs, both monetary and, more importantly, social, are also considered to be borne by all individuals on an equal basis. In most cases this equality premise is unrealistic.15 Consider the following examples: Seven million families are tOO poor to have cars, and are without adequate alternative transpor- tation. Such families frequently are forced to economic circumstances and housing discrimina- tion to live in areas far removed from job Opportunities. . . . Not only are the poor iso- lated from their jobs, but from health services, recreational Opportunities, and social contacts outside their immediate neighborhoods. For many slum children, the world is marked out by 41 narrow neighborhood boundaries, such as a Chinese wall Of a major freeway. . . . Five million households headed by persons over 65 have no cars. . . . The disabled and handi- capped are effectively immobilized in our car- oriented society. . . . Since there are fewer than one car for each two persons, and many of these are unavailable during the day, the rest of the population is Often stranded and immobile--the housewife with young children, the secondary worker.l6 Those groups who are totally dependent upon others for transportation include: (1) the elderly who cannot or choose not to drive, (2) the young, (3) the secondary worker, (4) housewives, (5) poor persons, and (6) the handicapped. Webber notes about the poor: For some segments Of the lower—income pOpula- tions, locational inaccessibility to employ- ment opportunities . . . erects an additional handicap which acts further to depress earning capacities . . . exclusion from the suburban housing market couples with deficient outbound commuter service to make these growing job Opportunities relatively inaccessible, while Opportunities near their central-city homes are contracting.18 There are other large groups Of people who apparently are neglected by the urban transportation planning process. Wchl writes: Generally, the lines . . . range far into the suburbs and concentrate most stations within the suburbs. Stations are spread far apart and thus provide poor linkages between the station and one's origin or destination. They virtually require travelers to use another mode for the trip between the station and one's origin or destination.19 He goes on to point out that the greatest proportion Of people (and almost all Of those who require public transit) live near the central city core. However, in 42 the process of urbanization, industry is becoming more decentralized, thus the employment Opportunities are becoming more suburban in nature. It would be logical then that an urban transit system should develop the capabilities to transport these central-core people to their suburban Opportunities. This, in fact, is just the Opposite of what is happening in the developing urban transportation systems. Most planning is oriented toward solving the downtown commuter problem; that is, the emphasis is placed on the inbound as Opposed to the out- bound trip. For example, in San Francisco where the famed BART System is located, 8 out of 75 miles of track will be located within the city, and 11 Of the 37 stations will be within the city. Yet 72 percent of the workers live within the city, 80 percent Of the households with- out cars are in the city, as are 60 percent Of the poor and 80 percent of the non-whites.20 Are these people receiving equal benefits? Oftentimes transportation plans have little or no concern for people who must bear the greatest costs, as do those displaced persons living in the paths Of ongoing road networks. The North-Central Freeway in Washington, D.C. is an example. "The basic Objection to the North-Central Freeway is the familiar 'running a white man's road through a black man's bedroom' argu- ment."21 43 Many have written about individual groups who have been placed in a disadvantageous position by the current urban transportation scene, but resulting efforts to solve their problems have been practically nil. About the elderly, Webber states: It is not only the residents of slum and deter- iorating areas whom we seek to serve. Our expanding aged pOpulations, relieved Of their roles as productive members Of the society, must find new ways Of contributing their skills and knowledge for the welfare of others and, more important, for recapturing their own sense Of personal pride and dignity.2 Bracey, Carp, and Markovitz have also dealt specifically with the urban transportation problems Of the elderly. Bracey Observed, "In America, the ability to go places depends so very much on the ability to drive an automobile without which you can be literally . 23 marooned in your own house." Carp notes: Absence of an automobile available for use tends to be reflected in a low mobility rate, rather than in use Of a different form Of transporta- tion, and in dissatisfaction with ability to get about. Drivers were consistently favorable and nondrivers were unfavorable in evaluating their mobility outside the house. Economic status was the most important factor in determining who among these retired people drove automobiles, where and how Often they drove them, and how well this form of trans- portation met their needs. The people who owned automobiles had relatively good incomes. . . . Income was also the most important reason for giving up driving. 44 Markovitz writes: The restricted mobility Of the elderly is evi- denced by the lack of auto availability. Over half (56 percent) of the total aged population are without cars. Auto availability decreases with decreasing income, and we find that 84 percent Of the low-income aged do not have autos. . . . Only 24 percent Of the aged have drivers' licenses, whereas 54 percent of the eligible total population (16 years and Older) do. As income decreases so does the percentage of licensed drivers. Here too is the poorest of the group which is most deficient; only about 13 percent of the low-income elderly are licensed to drive a car. The situation is significantly worse for females than for males. While 41 percent Of the elderly males are licensed, only 10 percent Of elderly females have drivers' licenses. Of low-income females, only 6 percent drive, contrasted with 25 percent of low-income males. Thus, we must conclude that the aged are literally (not just figura- tively) withdrawn from the mainstream Of society. Carp concludes, "Unless transportation is devised to support mobility driving retirement, this increasing segment in the life history Of many persons will be one of loneliness and inactivity rather than one of self- fulfillment and social contribution."27 In an article written about poor people, Myers sums up a major issue of the urban transportation problem: Because public transportation systems do a poor job Of handling decentralized travel, people who do not own automobiles find themselves shut out of Opportunities-—recreationa1 as well as employ- ment. . . . In the case Of employment Opportuni- ties, the problem is particularly serious. A recent United States Labor Department study found that "payroll employment has soared in the sub- urbs compared with downtown areas. . . . Many of 45 the new jobs created by this movement could be filled by poor and unemployed city dwellers if they could get to them. (But) metropolitan tranSportation systems, geared to getting peOple to work downtown, make it even tougher for those in the city to work in the suburbs. By car, almost all jobs in the metrOpolitan area are accessible from its poverty areas." But many poor people do not own usable cars. . . . Wilfred Owen sums up the basic problem: "Because . . . urban growth assumes the availability of private cars, everything becomes increasingly difficult to reach by other means."28 Wohl, continuing with the argument for transport aid to the poor, writes: Turning now to the general proposition of public- transport coverage and usage, let us cite some Of the "conventional wisdom" and describe the overall characteristics Of public vs. private travel. First, it is generally held that the automobile is the symbol Of the "rich" traveling public and public transit the symbol Of the "poor." This View has encouraged massive sup- port for public transportation (including sub- sidization Of private commuter railroad services available to the public) as a means Of helping the poor. However, the little evidence avail- able--p1aced in aggregate form at this stage . . . suggests the fallacy of such a position. For example, the average annual family income Of all U.S. workers was $5,660 in 1960, while that Of workers using transit was $6,466. The problems of the handicapped were dealt with by Perle, and also by a team of researchers (of which Perle was one) at Carnegie-Mellon University. He states, "Urban areas are sufficiently difficult to move about in for the 'average' person that the problem com- mands national attention. How much greater must be the difficulty for the handicapped."30 He goes on to dis- cuss how, in the "vertical" would we live in today, 46 there are few Opportunities for the handicapped, who need "horizontal" Opportunities: The handicapped, like others, have a desire to be productive and self—reliant. If public trans- portation does not serve their mobility needs for working, shopping, socializing, and recreat- ing, they become increasingly dependent upon friends and relatives for assistance. Such dependence is usually not desired; it is neces- sary. Given the availability of urban trans- portation which would be readily usable by the handicapped, one can imagine the vastly increased range of activity Opportunities that become available to them. . . . Urban transportation systems as we know them today, including the newest systems, are designed for people in a state of physical well-being. Those whose physical capacities are below that Of the fully functioning individual, the handicapped, are either completely pre-empted or unreasonably restricted from using existing systems.31 There is a problem, however, in dealing with these handi- capped persons. None Of the existing metropolitan transporta- tion studies provide sufficient detail for examining the mobility behavior of handicapped individuals. Therefore, we know little, if anything, about such behavior. The existing studies are concerned primarily with the macro patterns of travel behavior and, therefore, they utilize analysis zones for data collection. This means that the mobility behavior for special groups is averaged out, or masked, in analysis zone aggregation.3 Perle sums up the important problem Of the urban handicapped by stating: Underlying the mobility problems and needs of the disadvantaged is a much more fundamental issue regarding the range Of public responsibility and action on their behalf. If public transportation does not serve the mobility needs Of the handi- capped, they become increasingly dependent upon other persons and public assistance, reverting to tax consumers instead Of tax producers. Such 47 dependence is usually not desired, but Often required. In many ways the real cost Of a varied urban existence for a disabled person is sub- stantially greater than for others. It is measured in terms Of forgone employment Oppor- tunities, limited choices of residential sites, dependence on others for mobility needs, rela- tive nonaccessibility to cultural activities, difficulty in reaching private homes and public facilities for socializing, and the costlier monetary outlays required for personal trans- portation (e.g., taxi) because public alternatives are either not available or unusable. . . . Obviously, existing systems are not designed to accommodate the nonambulatory or those with walk- ing difficulties. . . . Apparently there is a need to design urban transportation systems such that they account for the broad range of physi- cal capacities actually present in the urban population.33 The younger members of society who are yet unable to drive (those younger than 16 years of age) present a special problem. Because Of their inability to drive on their own, they are completely dependent on others (unless, of course, their destination is within walking distance) for movement. Since most of their travel demand is exhibited during the daytime or work hours, and since during these hours the number of available automobiles and drivers is greatly reduced, and since most are without sufficient funds to make regular use of taxicabs, these young people are a "captive" audience of the mass transportation. Depending upon the accessibility Of the mass transit system, and the accessibility Of their desired destination by the mass transit system; and considering the recent trends Of mass transit systems to reduce service levels, the "young" are usually relatively immobile. Were it not for the fact that a great prOportion of their time is used up in the educational pro- cess, this problem would be much more acute. Consider the normal unrest among young peOple during the summer monthi when they are "pri- soners" Of immobility.3 The transportation problems of the housewife and the secondary worker are very similar to those of the 48 young. Besides the fact that the housewife "should" be at home during the day to care for the home and family, she usually finds herself locked in her residential environment because Of the lack Of adequate transporta- tion facilities. True, most people are unwilling to walk even a short distance to mass transit, but the housewife must be concerned about a time factor. There- fore she chooses tc forgo her travel. The secondary worker also finds himself without adequate transportation capabilities for much the same reason as the housewife. In fact, in many instances, the secondary worker and housewife are synonymous. Con- sequently, unless the incremental income is sufficient to support the additional funds necessary to purchase and maintain another automobile, the secondary worker lacks mobility. As normally stated in the literature, the urban transportation problem is the result of the clash between the automobile and urban mass transportation. As auto- mobile usage has increased, forcing mass transit to retreat, the resultant urban transportation problems have developed. This study advances a point of View in disagree- ment with the literature as to the urban transportation problem. The instances cited throughout this section have been not problems, but symptoms of the "real urban 49 transportation problem." The real urban transportation problem has already occurred in most areas, and it is simply a matter Of time until the vicious circle causes symptoms to appear. The real problem concerns planning, or more specifically, a lack Of planning. Planning is not solely the function of the government, but also must be performed by the populace. After all, it is the free choice Of the populace which has created the situation exhibiting the previously discussed symptoms. Perhaps the populace should accept the task of helping to alleviate the problem and diminish the symptoms. Further- more, if "Mr. Public" would consider his actions in a collective sense, and be concerned about social conse— quences of his actions, instead Of viewing his actions from the individualistic "it won't make any difference what I do" frame of reference, perhaps the symptoms 35 If both people and government could be prevented. accepted the task Of preventing the situations which cause the unhealthy symptoms, government would not have to find itself in the difficult and unpopular position Of trying to cure them. Oi and Shuldiner refer to these ideas as "antici- patory" vs. "corrective." They state: From our perusal Of the literature, it appears to be a maxim that road construction in anticipation of future traffic demands is somehow superior to corrective street construction that remedies Obvious inadequacies and congestion points. 50 Indeed, the appropriation Of funds to aid city planners in designing future transportation systems is itself evidence Of at least partial acceptance of this maxim. If this proposition is granted, then, as a first step, forecasts of future traffic volumes must be developed.36 Davis supports the idea of dealing with the problems by stating: The basic requirement is to turn our energies and technology to the solution of present prob- lems, not merely their amelioration. . . . Within the functional transportation plan, consideration must be given to different require- ments, and the modes best calculated to serve each efficiently. The Objective is the best MIX of transportation modes, not alone the best highway or mass transit system. Another requirement Of Solving the real urban transportation problem is to perform future planning. "Future changes in urban travel patterns and growth in urban travel demand, within 20 years' time, will require substantial innovation and broad expansion in our urban transportation system."38 Morris writes: The system must serve the entire community. It is apparent to even the casual Observer that most communities have built-in structural defects. If future transportation systems follow the patterns of the past, they can only intensity these defects. . . . A review Of the traditional trans- portation planning process is revealing. . . . New facilities are built, or Old facilities are improved, on the basis of demand. . . . Where there is no established pattern or habit, there is no demonstrable future demand. If low income residents in the center city do not make a significant number of trips to employment centers, to medical facilities, to adult education centers, and to cultural facilities, the transportation planner would say there is no demand for 51 improving the accessibility between these activity centers and the low income residential areas.3 Not all authorities are in favor of planning as it is currently being carried out by urban planning groups. Pegrum is somewhat denunciatory of beforehand planning of sorts, calling it the reason for the concentrated and congested areas. Authorities allow buildings to be built, transit systems to be laid out, and then wonder how smart they were to have provided facilities for so many peOple-- after the people have moved in.40 What urban areas need is A more balanced transportation system in which both automobile and transit users are given greater access to Opportunities within the regions. An improved transit system will pro- vide benefits to both the user and nonuser. The user is afforded better service in the forms Of more frequent service to go more places by bus. The nontransit traveller benefits from the shorter travel times facilitated by attracting 41 people out Of their automobiles and into buses. Balanced transportation benefits both transit patrons and automobile users. Among the first are: The commuters who reduce the time and cost of work trips; the young, Old, and handicapped; central city dwellers without cars; residents and tourists in downtown hotels; and all those who want to avoid the loss Of time and the strain of driving and parking in central areas. Among the latter are: The commuters who still choose to drive, but find expressways and streets less congested; doctors and sales- men, who must drive; taxi users, who are trans- ported more rapidly to destinations; executives, who save time spent in traveling; and public service and utility vehicles, which will encounter fewer delays in carrying out urgent and essential tasks.42 52 We must, in order to bring about the proper system, develop a research methodology which will enable us to achieve both the individual and social goal. A phenomenon previously discussed supports the need for anticipatory planning. Recall that there is a high inverse correlation between a city's age and automobile usage. This being the case, the newer cities need not be greatly concerned with the transformation from a mass transit system to a private transit system because the mass transit system was never the dominant factor. Consequently, it is basically the Older cities, which at one time depended on mass transit for the movement of its peOple, which are experiencing the urban trans- portation symptoms previously discussed, and thus are guilty of having brought on the urban transportation problem by not realizing soon enough what possible conse- quences lay ahead. It is in the Older cities that proper transportation research can have the greatest beneficial effect: "The ultimate purpose of all this research is to provide a more rational and scientific basis for planning an urban transportation system."43 Among the most important aSpects to be con- sidered are the following: 1. As we provide subsidized urban tranSport services, who will be using and be helped by them and to what extent? 2. How else than by subsidizing transport services can mobility be increased for certain groups? 53 3. What are the costs, both in aggregate and differential terms, of providing public and private transport choices and different kinds and levels of service? 4. What are the nontransport alternatives (with respect to housing, shopping, business, and employment locations and other conditions) that may increase urban Opportunities and reduce the necessity for providing improved transport services? 5. Is it necessary to make a distinction between public and private transport services and to maintain the availability Of both public and private choices? 6. Must, or should, public support be restricted to public transport systems? A little reflection on these and similar questions reveals that, to date, most of them have yet to be seriously raised, much less answered. 5.! All" ulna—E? FOOTNOTES--CHAPTER I I I 1See Roger L. Creighton, "Transportation Plan- ning-—Community Values, Goals, and Objectives" (paper presented to the American Association of State Highway Officials, New York, October 7, 1965), p. 2; Zwick, Op. cit., p. 5; and Wohl, op. cit., p. 36. 2Schneider, Op. cit., p. 1. 3Oi and Shuldiner, Op. cit., p. 19. 4Davis, Op. cit., p. 273. 5Avery, Op. cit., pp. 287-288. 6Schneider, Op. cit., p. l. ‘ 7Joni K. Markovitz, "TranSportation Needs Of the Elderly," Traffic Quarterly, XXV, No. 2 (April, 1971), 237. 8 Ibid. 9Ibid., p. 244. loPatrassi, Op. cit., p. 443. llSumner Myers, "Personal Transportation for the Poor," Traffic Quarterly, XXIV, NO. 2 (April, 1970), 192. 12Martin Wohl, "Users of Urban Transportation Services and Their Income Circumstances," Traffic Quarterly, XXIV, No. 2 (January, 1970), 29. 13 Avery, op. cit., p. 288. 14T. A. Bostick and T. R. Todd, "Travel Char- acteristics of Persons Living in Inner Cities," Highway Research Record, NO. 106 (1966), 53. 15See Martin Wachs, "A Survey of Citizens' Opinions Of the Effectiveness, Needs, and Techniques of Urban TranSportation Planning," Highway Research Book, NO. 229 (1968), 65-66. 54 1‘7 .\ . . ‘sss .32. . 55 16Davis, Op. cit., p. 273. l7Lester A. Hoel, et a1., Latent Demand for Urban Transportation (Pittsburgh: Carnegie-Mellon Uni- versity, 1968), p. 3. 18M. E. Webber, "Comprehensive Planning and Social Responsibility," in Urban Planning and Social Polic , ed. by B. J. Frieden and R. Morris (New York: 1968), p. 12. 19 Wohl, "Urban Transportation . . .," p. 31. 20Ibid., pp. 31-34. Also see Wohl, "Users of Urban Transportation . . .," pp. 29-30; and Martin Wachs, "Employment, Mobility, and Public Transportation in Chicago: A Survey Of Attitudes and Behavior," High— way Research Record, NO. 348 (1971), 142. 21 Steinberg, op. cit., p. 36. 22Webber, Op. cit., p. 12. 23H. E. Bracey, In Retirement (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1966). 24Frances M. Carp, "Automobile and Public Trans- portation for Retired People," Highwangesearch Record, NO. 348 (1971), 183. 25 Ibid., p. 184. 26Markovitz, op. cit., pp. 241-242. 27Carp, Op. cit., p. 191. 28Myers, Op. cit., pp. 193-194. Also see "People--Transportation--Jobs," Progress Report Number 3--Tri-State Transportation Commission (Connecticut, New Jersey, New York: January, 1969). 29Wohl, "Users of Urban Transportation . . .," pp. 24-25. Also see Louis J. Pignataro and John C. Falcocchio, "TranSportation Needs of Low-Income Fami- lies," Traffic Quarterly, XXIII, No. 4 (October, 1969), 505-525. 3OPerle, Op. cit., p. 22; and Hoel, et a1., Op. cit., p. 40. 56 3lIbid., p. 23. 321bid., p. 41. 33Ibid., pp. 33-34. Also see ABC Associates, Travel Barriers: Transportation Needs Of the Handi- ca ed (Washington, D.C.: Department Of Transportation, Office Of Economics and Systems Analysis, 1969). 34 Also see Hoel, et a1., Op. cit., pp. 91-156. 35Also see Mass Transit Management: A Handbook for Small Cities (Blocmington: Indiana University, 1971), Chapter 2. 36Oi and Shuldiner, O . cit., pp. 7-8. Also see Anthony J. Cantanese, "Commuting Behavior Patterns of Families," Traffic Quarterly, XXIV, NO. 3 (July, 1970), 439. 37Davis, Op. cit., p. 274. 38Alexander Ganz, "Emerging Patterns Of Urban Growth and Travel," Highway Research Record, NO. 229 (1968), 21. 39Morris, Op. cit., p. 334. 40Dudley F. Pegrum, Transportation: Economics and Public Policy (Homewood: Irwin, 1968), p. 631. 41Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, Mass Transportation in the Tri-County Region (Lansing: Tri-County Regional Pianning Commission, 1969), p. 3. 42Patrassi, Op. cit., p. 452. 4301 and Shuldiner, op. cit., p. 7. 44 pp. 22-23. Wohl, "Users Of Urban Transportation . . ., 1.3.. -.-.. , > ‘_-__ Ins-flint ‘ ‘lfl'ula'zflam CHAPTER IV GOVERNMENT ROLE In order to carry out the research necessary for the design and implementation of an urban tran5portation system which will best fit the present and future needs of a region, many areas require both financial and techni- cal aid. The government, both state and national, is the most likely agency to which local planning Officials can turn for this help. "An unstated inference of national tradition views Opportunity for freedom of movement as one of the inalienable rights Of the citizen. Inequity exists where citizens are denied mobility because they are unable to claim it."1 Equality of Opportunity is a basic social goal, and since the government is the agency which has the power to direct actions toward the accomplishment of these goals, there is a certain amount of government responsibility to help deal with and defeat the urban transportation problem. There have been numerous acts and laws dealing with transportation in general: 57 58 Direct formal recognition by the United States Government of the need for a national urban mass transportation program came in 1961, when that year's Housing Act included several transit provisions. These were enacted against a background of national data showing that the total number of transit revenue passengers declined from about 19 billion to 8 billion in the 15 years from 1945 to 1960, while urban growth accelerated. . . . The importance Of transit planning was stressed in the 1961 Act; it also provided for loans, matching grants, and a demonstration program under which more than sixty experimental projects were ini- tiated during the seven-year period from 1961 to 1968.2 President John F. Kennedy urged that more emphasis be placed on urban passenger transportation and its prob- lems, and, as a result, there is new legislation enabling transportation planners to deal more directly with the pertinent areas: The urgent need for and importance Of conduct- ing urban transportation studies was recognized by Congress in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 in which Section 9 reads as follows: "It is declared to be in the national interest to encour- age and promote the develOpment Of transportation systems, embracing various modes Of transport in a manner that will serve the states and local com- munities efficiently and effectively. To accomplish this Objective the Secretary shall cooperate with the States, as authorized in this title, in the development Of long-range highways, plans and pro- grams which are properly coordinated with plans for improvements in other affected forms Of trans— portation and which are formulated with due con- sideration to their probable effect on the future development Of urban areas of more than fifty thousand population. After July 1, 1965, the Secretary shall not approve under Section 105 Of this title any program for projects in any urban area of more than fifty thousand population unless he finds that such projects are based on a continuing comprehensive transportation planning 59 process carried on cooperatively by States and local communities in conformance with the Objec- tives stated in this section.3 Two features Of the Act are worthy of Special emphasis. First, it calls for a continuing compre- hensive transportation planning process but not for a comprehensive plan. Thus, the emphasis is on a process which will ensure that up-to-date planning data will be made available for compre- hensive planning as needed. Second, it calls for the process to be conducted COOperatively by the states and local communities. Thus the Federal Government does not have to be involved in the process although if requested by the states and local communities, it can participate in the process both financially and in providing technical assistance. Currently there are 233 urban areas in the nation to which this act applies. All of these areas have begun a transportation planning pro- cess and almost half of them have completed their first full studies. The ten elements which comprise the process (as stated by the U.S. Bureau Of Public Roads, the agency which enacts the Federal role)5 are as follows: Economic factors affecting develOpment POpulation studies Land use Transportation facilities including those for mass transportation Travel patterns Terminal and transfer facilities Traffic control features Zoning ordinances, subdivision regula- tions, building codes, etc. 9. Financial resources 0. Social and community value factors ooqowm ubLAJNH I .0 O. O l The prOper role Of mass transportation within the context Of the total urban transportation system is one Of many items that must be evalu- ated as part Of the urban transportation planning process. The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 resulted from a joing study by the Department of Commerce and the Housing and Home Finance Agency (predecessor to HUD). This legislation, 60 as subsequently amended in 1966, outlined a strengthened long-range program: development Of improved transportation techniques, the encour- agement of local palnning for area wide systems, and financial assistance to state and local governments. The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 contains additional authorizations for the mass transit program (which since July 1, 1968, has largely become the responsibility of the new Department Of Transportation, except for those concerns relating to comprehensively-planned urban development), and Federal financial support for this program is likely to increase still further in the future.8 2 dates back over 50 years to 1916, to the first federal legislation requiring the creation of ~# state highway department for participation in federal programs. . . . Regulation Of the private transportation sector is Often a state function, as is the licensing Of all motor vehicles for highway use, and licensing Of common carriage by all modes. This economic regulation has grown up from the states' individual needs for reve- nues, and the need to control monOpOlistic Operation. . . . Experience with the problems of properly coordinating the develOpment of the state transportation complex has led to the creation of several state departments Of trans- portation. The success Of such a department depends, to a great extent, on how extensively state government functions are organized to permit efficient functioning Of the various activities. Efficiency of Operation is Obviously enhanced by avoidance and elimination of areas of duplicated effort, overlapping responsibili- ties and divergent policies. Federal encouragement Of state participation E" The functions of a plan which should be developed by every State Transportation Agency are summarized by Ashford as follows:10 1. To supply a transportation infrastructure for the economic development of the whole state 61 2. To promote and protect the state land-use plan when it has been developed 3. TO minimize transportation costs and maximize benefits 4. TO supply a broad framework to which regional, metropolitan, and local transportation plans can be related 5. TO facilitate the supply of federal and state aid to those areas which benefit the state as a whole 6. TO implement the National Transportation Policy as promulgated by federal legislation, by action at the next highest level of governr ment. (The National Transportation Policy states that each mode of transportation should serve that purpose for which it is best suited.) In our research effort, we are most concerned with functions 4 and 5, as these are necessary for aid in developing an accepted plan. Goals Of Society and Transportation We have seen that freedom of movement and equality of Opportunity are basic goals by which society evalu- ates a transportation system. It is quite obvious from the wealth of literature citing Specific components of 62 the supposed urban transportation problem that most urban transportation systems are falling far short of their desired levels of goal fulfillment. A transpor- tation system may serve the society as a whole very well, but Of basic concern in our nation are those people who, for physical or financial reasons, are unable to take advantage Of Opportunities because Of the unavailability Of transportation. The desire to alleviate the immobility conditions Of these "mobility and accessibility handi- capped" individuals is the primary motivating influence behind the trend toward urban transportation planning. In order to develop an urban transportation plan, an initial step is to determine the specific goals which the transportation system is expected to fulfill.11 Among these stated goals are several very basic ones: The present need is to develop an urban transportation system that will best serve the economic and social requirements and the desires of the entire community. . . . There are countless Opportunities for people to achieve happiness. The role of the transpor- tation planner must be to maximize the Oppor- tunities for everyone tO advantage of each of these attractions.l One Of the major Objectives Of urban research and design is to minimize the amount Of nonproductive effort, cost, and time associated with moving about in the urban milieu. A related Objective is to provide a high quality urban environment . . . there is a growing domain for public responsibility to increase and/or improve the overall level of urban mobility . . . the value of urban mobil- ity is measured in terms of activity Opportuni- ties per unit Of time. 63 We assume that individuals, in using trans- portation facilities, want to reduce their direct out-of—pocket costs, to increase their Speed of travel, and to Obtain greater comfort.1 It is clear that rising per capita income is making quality Of service more and more important. Today there is less need for us to seek the minimum cost method Of moving people; rather, we have to anticipate which is the most desirable transportation system given peOple's wants and desires. WOhl states the Objectives as: "Reducing highway traffic congestion; making public transit attractive, con- venient, and competitive with the automobile; and afford- ing increased accessibility and adequate public transpor- tation, especially for the poor, aged, and handicapped."l6 In Fort Lincoln, the primary goal was to assure a socially and economically integrated community. This called for a transportation system that served all incomes and races equally well. Any system that would give priority to one over the other or that would provide greater Opportunities to one over the other would not be acceptable.17 In summing up: Among the many goals and values which might be advanced for cities and urban residents, a set Of three major urban or metropolitan goals appears to represent those that are most basic and urgent in physical urban development. These are increased and more equitable accessibility, greater urban opportunity, and efficiency in the use of resources. Modeling and Forecasts Research must be carried out to determine the societal goals and Objectives of the transportation system, and how the transportation system can fulfill them. One 64 of the major goals is equitable access to Opportunities. In discussing the urban transportation problem, it was shown how some symptoms (e.g., congestion, mobility, accessibility) are related to the total of society, and some symptoms (mobility and accessibility) are related to the needs Of individuals. TO develop plans for a transportation system, a major requirement is a knowledge Of the travel behavior and demands Of various cateogires of people. With such knowledge, planners can develop a model which it is hoped will generate accurate forecasts of transportation needs: The planning process is predicated on the ability to "model" transportation systems.19 Using data from . . . destination survey and an inventory of the transportation system, one may Observe the proportions of total trips made on transit by people Of various social economic groups and with varying conditions of transit service. These data are used to develop geometric or mathematical relations between important factors and travel mode choice. The relationships are generalized and used to esti- mate transit ridership in the base year. The estimate is compared with Observed travel volumes, and the predictive procedure is adjusted to compensate for discrepancies. The process is repeated until the prediction is within tolerable limits Of accuracy. Theil points out that to evaluate the goodness of a forecast, four criteria are used. These include accuracy, simplicity, validity, and sharpness. Accuracy relates to the correctness Of the forecast; simplicity l' L‘I‘L‘i "II [1‘ w.I"T I'm'L 1w ,1 lining}! 65 is a measure of the amount of different inputs necessary to determine the forecast (the fewer, the better); validity refers to whether or not we have found the true causal relationship; and sharpness deals with how easily we can distinguish the unique effects of variables.21 FOOTNOTES --CHAPTER IV lWilfred Owen, Strategy for Mobility (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute, 19647, p. 2. 2Ralph Warburton, "The Federal Role," Journal of the Franklin Research Institute, CCLXXXVi, No. 5 (1968), 379. 3Ralph A. Mayer, "Comprehensive Urban Trans- portation Study Methodology," Journal of the Highway Division—-A.S.C.E. (December, 1965), 58. 4 Ibid., p. 59. 5See Policy and Procedure Memorandum 50-9, "Urban Transportation Planning," U.S. Bureau Of Public Roads, June 21, 1967. 6Weiner, Op. cit., pp. 5-6. 7Warburton, Op. cit., p. 379. 8Mayer, Op. cit., p. 379. 9Ashford, Op. cit., pp. 457-459. lOIbid., pp. 463-467. 11See Alan M.Voorhees, "The Changing Role of Transportation in Urban DevelOpment," Traffic Quarterly, XXIII, NO. 4 (October, 1969), 535. 12Morris, Op. cit., pp. 333-336. l3Perle, Op. cit., pp. 20-22. l4Creighton, Op. cit., p. 2. 15Zwick, O . cit., p. 5. Also see Wohl, "Urban TranSportation . . ., pp. 9-10. l6Wohl, "Urban Transportation . . .," p. 31. 66 67 l7Voorhees, op. cit., p. 530. 18Rodney E. Engelerr and Darwin G. Stuart, "Development Objectives for Urban Transportation Systems," Traffic Quarterly, XXIV, NO. 2 (April, 1970), 249. Also see Hoel, Op. cit., pp. 9-10. 19Weiner, Op. cit., p. 6. 20Gordon A. Shunk and Richard J. Boushard, "An Application of Marginal Utility to Travel Mode Choice," Highway Research Record, NO. 322 (1970), 31. 21 .8? ‘l Jamil“ Oi and Shuldiner, Op. cit., pp. 72-73. ul'nn. CHAPTER V CONSTRUCTION OF AN URBAN TRANSIT MODEL The design Of an urban transportation system model capable of producing useful results, both in terms of correctness and relevancy, is the result of systematic research. There are several basic steps through which all research must pass in order to produce proper (correct and relevant) results. These steps are outlined below and then discussed in some depth. 1. The determination Of EEEE.tO model. This depends on the specified goals for the model. 2. Measurement and assemblage Of data. This step includes both the determination of which characteristics will be measured, and the level (individual or aggregate) at which the defined characteristics will be measured. 3. The determination Of patterns or relationships. From the resulting model it is then possible to project the demands and desired characteristics of the urban transportation system. Given these projections, alternative urban transportation systems can be defined and evaluated in terms Of their capability of fulfilling the predetermined goals set for them. 68 69 The least-cost research technique is that which exhibits as little wasted effort as possible; consequently, each step as outlined, should be considered and completed in the order presented before proceeding further. Looking at the first step, "the determination Of what to model," it is clear that we must understand fully what we are attempting to accomplish before we begin. Much work has been done in the area Of job-related transportation. The reason for the concern with the trip to work, which is shown by numerous studies on the topic, is that a large proportion Of the total trips taken by people are undertaken to arrive at, or depart from, an employment Opportunity. The importance of having a job is readily apparent when comparing level Of income with non- employment Opportunities: Relatively few trips are taken for their own sake. Thus, pure pleasure rides--rides solely for the pleasure they themselves provide--are relatively infrequent. Rather, trips are usually inter- mediate goods, which are jointly demanded with other economic goods . . . . It will be useful to distinguish trips by their ultimate purpose as either production-oriented or consumption- oriented. In the former group fall trips entailed in earning a livelihood and conducting the chores of maintaining a household. The latter group contains those trips concerned with the leisure activities of the household's members.1 If job-related (production-oriented) trips are not under- taken Or if transportation is sufficiently unavailable to keep a person unemployed, virtually no leisure activity (consumption-oriented) trips are undertaken. This 7O situation is in direct conflict with the goal for equality of Opportunities (both production and consumption oriented). The importance Of income is also seen in the following statement by Stutz: A relatively large proportion Of transportation research has been conducted on two types Of trips, the shopping trip and the work trip. These two types of trips are similar in that they are non- discretionary. Individuals must make work and shopping trips to carry on their weekly activity patterns. The destinations for these trips are primarily to those commercial and industrial land uses adapted for the particular trip type, and each deals with a person-to-activity connection. . . . The trip made for social interaction is quite different from the work or shopping trip in several ways. First the social trip is con- cerned entirely with person-to-person connections. Second, the social trip is discretionary in nature. . . . Third, the social trip allows the trip maker a wide degree Of choice in where to travel. . . . The activity that is chosen, whether social or otherwise, depends basically upon an individual's preferences, income, and his leisure time availability.2 In order to be really effective in terms Of the total goals of the total society, it is not enough that we should consider simply the work trip as the dependent variable of our model. Another major consideration in the determination Of wpep aspect of the urban transportation system is to be modeled involves latent demand3 versus exhibited demand.4 This concept is related to an earlier statement which mentioned that future travel patterns now exist. The Carnegie-Mellon study on latent demand states: 71 Analysis procedures, which were developed primarily for purposes of comparing freeway or rapid transit alternatives, have not been sufficiently micro- scopic to uncover the magnitude Of demand or special problems Of urban groups with travel needs which are unmet by existing systems . . . . Physical accessibility is a necessary condition for realizing latent Opportunities. Those groups who are totally dependent upon others for trans- portation include: (1) the elderly who cannot or choose not to drive, (2) the young, (3) the secondary worker, (4) housewives, (5) poor persons, and (6) the handicapped . . . the trip making patterns Of these groups, although relatively simple to identify, do not necessarily reflect.their total needs for personal transportation. . Fl. “ I IV , pi; Aha."- 'i -.efifTHHEWW? TO facilitate a discussion Of latent demand, transportation demand will be characterized by five basic criteria: direction, length, cost, time, and quality Of each trip . . . . A desired trip is made only if the available transportation service is capable of satisfying his "range Of requirements" as to direction, length, time, cost, and quality . . . . Latent demand Of a city resident at E is the sum of trips that: (l) are desired and can be met by existing transportation systems, but are not attempted because Of reasons other than the five basic criteria; (2) are desired at t, but cannot be met by the existing system; (3)—are not now desired but may be desired in the future and can be met by existing systems; and (4) are not now desired and cannot be met by the existing system.6 (Reasons other than the five basic criteria include lack of information and/or promotion, too costly Objectives, and market impediments such as racial discrimination.) We should be aiming our effort toward the develop- ment Of a model which will quantify the total travel demand, both exhibited and latent, both discretionary and nondiscretionary, both consumption-oriented and production-oriented, of the society which the transporta- tion system serves. 72 The second step in the development of the urban transportation system model concerns measurement and assemblage Of data. The major emphasis is: (1) To identify the set Of independent variables that is most highly related to a dependent variable . . . , and (2) TO specify the combina- tion of attributes that best explain the dependent variable . . . .7 TO make any forecast of future trip demand better than an educated guess bounded by personal experience, it is imperative as a first step to isolate the relevant variables.8 The characteristics which are to be measured depend upon the purpose Of the model being developed, and also on the desired level of the model (if just the grand total of travel demand is desired, macro; or if the sub- total demand per category of people is desired, micro, being developed. In any case, a wide range of independent variables has been used in transit-estimating procedures. All of these variables can be classified into the following three types: 1. characteristics Of the tripmaker, 2. characteristics Of the trip, and 3. characteristics of the transportation system. 1. Tripmaker Characteristics.--Severa1 variables have been used to describe tripmaker character- istics. Three variables which appear most Often in modal split (the estimation Of the use of public-transit versus private-transit) models are automobile ownership, income, and net residential density . . . . It is apparent that each variable has a definite relationship with transit usage.9 73 See Figure V-l for the relationship of automobile ownership to transit usage for work trips in Milwaukee. See Table V-l for the relationship between automobile ownership and the model-split Of total person trips in Milwaukee and Puget Sound. "Both income and net residential density display strong relationship with "10 transit usage. These same general relationships hold for most urban areas. Other tripmaker variables which have been intro- duced in urban transportation studies include: dwelling unit type, number of household members, number Of wage earners, occupation states, distance to the central business district, race, marital status, sex, degree of mobility limitation, driver's license, type Of employment, school grade, size of community, etc.11 2. Trip Characteristics.--The proportion of trips using transit varies with the type of trip being made. Table V~2 displays this variation in transit usage by purpose using data from . . . Puget Sound . . . . Other trip variables have been identified which affect transit usage including trip orientation, trip length, and the time Of day that a trip is made. 2 The term purpose of trip is used in its Obvious sense to explain why a person made the trip. However, for every internal trip recorded, the survey data Show not only why the traveler went to his destination (purpose to), but also why he had been at the point Of origin (purpose from). The purposes (both to and from) were originally ten: work, business, medical-dental, school, social-recreational, eat meal, shop, change mode Of travel, serve passenger, and home. However, . . . some of the trip purposes have been combined . . . . Minor trip purposes 74 100 ' Average number Of automobiles available per household. Figure V-l.--Automobile ownership related to percent by transit for home-based work trips-- Milwaukee. Reference 47, page 10. .ea comm the OOCOHOmom 75 N.oa mm.o mo.h mommm>m h.a mm.c ca.ma onoE Ho e m.a nm.o vo.va m.m mm.o mo.ea m o.m mm.o ao.aa m.m No.0 ma.aa m c.v mm.c em.o m.m oc.o mm.n a m.av mm.o mv.a m.nc mm.a oc.m o mmaue moane mmaue mmaua pamcmue . SOmHom pamcmHB . cOmHmm . pamcmne . pamsmue so . Hopes so . Hopes oaoeomeoz ucoouom ucoouom um caozomoom Mom moaue oaooomoom mom moans omaaoaaoc mo quEsz oomum>¢ wo Hmnfisz oomnm>¢ mmaaQOEouom wo Hooaoz ocoom ummom moxsmsaaz .ocoom pooom ocm moxsmBaaz How pamcmue xo poooumm ocm mmaue pamcmue .COmpom amuoe op oopmamm maomnoszo maaooeouodnl.au> mamme 76 .L...P . .. sail}? P .Na comm .mv monouowmm .moaoano> panama» Hmasoou so come mmocu haco mum oopsomoum mm mmauu aoooom on. o.ooa c.coa v.m e.om o.cm o.mm m.ma c.n o.ma a.ca c.c N.ma m.va o.va N.vv h.mm m.m AfiBOE ommmnlmeomlcoz GOmMQImEOS A4909 eaoosom oommnlmEom msooomaaoomaz oommnuofiom SOaumouoom amaoom oommnlmEOm mocm ommmnloeom xuoz oommplmaom mmaue pamcmne mmaue cemuom amuoe mmomuom mane an amuOB mo pooouom mmaHB SOmHom amuoe mo ucmonom m mm pamsmue mmomusm mane .oooom ummsm MOM omoousm mane mp wommo pamcmue ca coaumaum>al.ml> mamme 77 and the percentages of trips accounted for by each were as follows: to serve passenger, 3.4 percent; change mode Of travel, 3.3 percent; school, 2.3 percent; eat meal, 1.7 percent; and medical- dental, 1.1 percent. In addition, since business trips amounted to less than 5 percent of all internal trips and were Often difficult to dissociate from work trips, the two were combined as work and business trips. Thus, the five major trip purposes were work and business, social- 13 recreational, shopping, miscellaneous, and home. Oftentimes, "school" is defined as a trip purpose. Another trip characteristic is trip length. However, there are some difficulties with trip-length of which we should be, and remain, aware. Because trip lengths should not be measured in terms Of "as the crow flies,' and also may vary with type Of mode (auto goes direct, transit is more roundabout), it is a difficult variable to use. One possible way of measuring trip length is in terms Of time, but the major weakness 5 involved in this measurement concerns the usage of "estimated" trip time. In order for time Of day tO be incorporated into the urban transportation system model, a sufficient- sized sample must be drawn for each time period. TO select a random sample which would provide valid data for all time periods would in some instances be a rather expensive process. The trip characteristics used most Often are trip purposes. TW* 1. - ~. in; n. Mir :,_-- . 78 3. Transportation System Characteristics.-- Transportation systems can be analyzed on an aggregate basis in terms of time, cost, or both. As the term is used in these surveys, mode of travel depends upon (1) the type Of vehicle used (automobile, taxi, truck, or mass-transit vehicle), and (2) the status of the user (driver or passenger). The modes of travel recorded in most of the individual surveys were as follows: automobile drivers, automobile passengers, taxi passengers, truck passengers, bus or streetcar passengers, railroad passengers, and passengers in other mass-transit vehicles. For purposes of analysis, some Of these modes have been combined . . . . An examination Of the data for the seven modes of travel indicated that four modes accounted for less than 2 per- cent Of all trips, and not one of the four modes accounted for as much as 1 percent Of the trips. The least important modes of travel were as follows: taxi passengers, 0.8 percent; train passengers, 0.7 percent; truck passengers, 0.2 percent; and other passengers, 0.2 percent. Since these travel modes represented such small prOportions Of the total, they were combined with other modes Of similar character- istics. Taxi and truck passengers were combined with automobile passengers, whereas passengers using trains or other interurban facilities such as subways, ferries, or highway buses were combined with streetcar and bus passengers. Thus, three major modes Of travel appeared to be sufficiently representative: automobile drivers, automobile and taxi passengers, and mass-transit passengers.l4 Although not really a mode Of "travel,' walking is a method Of mobilization, and thus, if significant, Should be considered for use in the model. Turning attention to the level Of the model desired, whether it be for macro-forecasting or micro- forecasting, or both, we see that this aspect is related 79 to the level Of aggregation of our data source (and thus can significantly influence sample Size). Logic suggests that the pertinent unit Of analysis is the household--a collection of individuals who choose to reside together. For certain economic activities, each individual acts independently irrespective of household ties. For others, the household acts as a unit; for example, in the purchase Of housing facili- ties. In the case of urban travel, arguments could be advanced on both sides. Some trips are clearly initiated by individual household members without regard to the rest Of the household. For other trips, such as shopping for groceries or earning a livelihood, the travel decisions probably represent some collective decision. Social-recreation and business trips are probably the outcomes Of joint decisions. Thus, although the household appears to be the pertinent unit Of analysis, cognizance must be taken of the size and composition of its members.1 In recent years increasing attention has been placed on the analysis Of individual urban travel behavior in an attempt to find ordering factors with which urban planners, transportation planners, and others can better understand and forecast travel patterns in the city.16 Consider the impact Of household size and composition on the demand for trips. In all likelihood, a minimum number Of trips will be demanded by each household, as a unit, simply for its maintenance. These would probably be production-oriented trips for work or for the maintenance of the household. In larger house- holds, more than one member may belong to the labor force; the likelihood Of this event would depend on age and sex composition; as well as the income of the household head. The impact Of household size on travel demands would probably be more pronounced for consumption-oriented travel. The demand for leisure activities would depend on the number Of persons in the household with appropriate adjustments for income and the age composition Of the family.17 80 The data used to develop the estimating equations are average values for traffic analysis zones, or districts . . . . An excellent discussion Of the problems involved in corre- lating aggregated data, and an analysis Of house- hold trip generation . . . was written by Oi and Shuldiner . . . . Several problems are inherent in the approach typically used. The first of these problems is what is being measured and eXplained by the model, i.e., the variance between zones, not the variance between the basic units responsible for travel behavior, the household. The between zone variance is small in relation tO the between household variance. The household is the basic Observation unit for most of the data collected. Much information is lost by a real aggregation, and undoubtedly less data would be needed to develop equations with the same statistical reliability . . . . As a general rule, analysis should precede aggregation rather than the reverse; the invariance Of relationships with regard to area size should be verified before the analysis of aggregated data is used for forecast- ing purposes . . . . The strongest argument in favor of analysis at the household level is that behavioral relationships are more likely to remain true over time and, therefore, produce more reliable forecasts.18 The problem of aggregation Of data even filters back to trip purposes and trip modes. In the preceding discussion, several purposes and modes were combined because Of their relative size: Although the trip purposes and travel modes that have lost their identity through summarization are relatively insignificant in the total travel pattern, they may be important under certain conditions and in individual cities.l9 Due to our specific interest in the mobility and accessibility Of handicapped groups of peOple, previously discussed, it is interesting to note just how these peOple have remained inconspicuous throughout the many studies: 81 If a large concentration of "problem cases" reside within a given analysis zone, there a comparative analysis Of zones would indicate differential behavior, if it existed. On the other hand, young children and elderly persons are not concentrated by analysis zones. Their distinctive mobility needs, therefore, would be masked by the overall level Of zone trip-making propensities. The special group effects are averaged away. Although most existing urban transportation studies have been guilty of creating their own system Of analysis areas, which implies noncomparability with any other coordinate system, present studies are moving towards block face designations for Observations. Observational detail is maintained and the researcher is free to aggregate to any other set of areas. This represents a distinct improvement over the existing state Of affairs.20 The statement referring to the noncomparability of analysis areas is especially meaningful. There are several data sources for virtually any region, but very few Of these sources can be combined because each source has a separate and distinct method of zonal demarcation and differentiation. Census data have a set of tracts and zones, highway studies have another set of zones, etc.21 Each zone makes sense tO its designer, but not necessarily to anyone else. In this respect, the "block face" designations for data Observation is very meaningful and would solve this basic dilemma. In summary, urban planners must determine the types and levels of data they require for their efforts, keeping in mind the outgoing study requirements set forth by the federal government, thus designing their data 82 bases in a manner which will be meaningful and relevant for future use. The third research step, the determination of patterns or relationships, is quite straightforward and needs little explanation. However, several possible problem areas should be discussed: "A weakness Of much Of the work on trip generation analysis is that too Often all relationships are assumed to be linear without justification . . . . Such assumptions become most critical when forecast values are likely to fall outside the range of current Observations."22 Perhaps the basic weakness shown by this problem is the assumption that a relationship must exist between two variables. This, in reality, is the exception rather than the rule. For many cases, there exists a pattern Of causation rather than a relationship. A relationship requires that two variables be related in a functional sense, meaning an equation can be develOped showing how the value of the dependent variable is a function of the value Of the independent variable. A "pattern," on the other hand, suggests only that there is a direction in the cause and effect interaction Of two variables. "Mobility increases with income" is the statement of a pattern, not a relationship. 83 For purposes Of modeling, this presents a problem. A model is built on the premise that relationships, not just patterns, can be determined. Perhaps the best solu- tion would be to attempt to define the interaction between two variables in equation form (either rectilinear or curvilinear, whichever is more sensible) and then be careful not to use values too far outside the relevant range Of Observed data sources. If more than two variables are included in the analysis, we would use multiple— regression analysis and follow the same precautionary path. Once a model has been developed and forecasts Of urban transportation demand are available, planners can define a set Of alternative urban transportation systems. As shown by Canty, the range Of possible alterna- tives is somewhat affected by urban scale, which repre— sents "the spatial expanse Of some urban unit."23 Table V-3 shows the possible "system" alternatives for various types Of travel in areas of differing urban scale. As stated by Canty, "These are intended to be suggestive Of possible systems for local area travel and O I 24 are not intended as recommendations." By following suggested guidelines such as these and incorporating specific system components which are reflective of any specific requirements Of their area, planners can develop 7 _ n in ' I! . m.‘._‘.e ’ :g‘bw ' P“ .m comm .ma ooaoummom .mmxan HouoE ocm moaOMOHOPOE moosaosa «e .moaowoao moosaooa .4. 84 AcousonIocmEmc .oOOE ooausoauumao moa>umm woman aoooom o HE \SOauooaaoo Gav moo osmEoc I humpsoanm I oumsow mum mom pamcmua pammm I . . woman moaaQOEOpom I mpomuanmoca I I s l e ooa>nom mom ocmaoc aoocom wumooooom usoEm>oE ccm m ccm ac moaaooeoood I moaaooEOps¢ I cmauummoom I mmnma .Aooofi GOauooaHumao \coapooaaoo sac mom pamcmua caomm I Amazon moo AmsmImxm momMHSm ..o.oc .o.ov mmBoOasm I amcmu 0a moo mommuom I u m o . oumowm mom pamcmue b_.l...moaaooso..o.s.e I muomuanmnoa I a I n oaansm musomIomxam ucmEo>OE «unmEm>oE ccc ca cco mo moaaooeouom I cmauumooom I cmauumooom I aamEm ao>mne ao>mue ao>mne csouImuucH oamom cmouo wuaSDEEOOImeca coonuooomamsImHuoa .ao>mn9 moum amooa How mmauaaanammom EoummmII.MI> mamde 85 a set Of urban transportation system recommendations. From this set, they can determine the "Optimum" systems. There are three basic criteria for the valuation of a proposed transportation system: It must be technically feasible, it must be economically sound, and it must be socially acceptable. The first Of these criteria, technical feasibility, requires extensive engineering designs and analyses . . . . The second criterion is that of socioeconomic attractiveness to the traveling public . . . . The third criterion is social acceptability. We must ask ourselves: "Will the new mode be good or bad for the community?" This requires an assessment of . . . total social cost.25 In assessing total social cost, planners must give enough weight to all citizen's needs, especially to those Of the mobility and accessibility handicapped. Research, when carried out in a systematic fashion such as that prescribed herein, should give results which satisfy the stated criteria. "The key is 'access to opportunities.”26 FOOTNOTES--CHAPTER V lOi and Shuldiner, Op. cit., p. 11. 2Frederich P. Stutz, "Research on Intra-Urban Social Travel: Introduction and Bibliography," Council of Planning Librarians Exchange Bibliography, No. 173 (February, 1971), pp.'I42. 3 See Hoel,et a1., Op. cit. 4See George T. Lathrop, "Characteristics of Urban Activity Patterns," Highway Research Record, NO. 322 (1970), 232. 5 Hoel, et a1., Op. cit., pp. 1-4. 6Ibid., pp. 212-215. 14 7"People--Transportation--Jobs," Op. cit., p. 0 8John R. Walker, "Social Status of Head of Household and Trip Generation from Home," Highway Research Record, NO. 114 (1966), 141. 9Weiner, Op. cit., pp. 8-10. l01bid., p. 10. 11See Oi and Shuldiner, op. cit., pp. 200-202 and 220-221; Mark J. Kasoff, SOCioeconomic Factors Underlying Public Transit Use in the Journey to Work (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University, l970),7-12; Hoel, et a1. Op. cit.; and Wohl, "Urban Transpor- tation . . . I I! 12Weiner, op. cit., p. 12. 13Frank B. Curran and Joseph T. Stegmaier, "Travel Patterns in 50 Cities," Highway Research Board Bulletin, No. 4 (1958), 102-107. 14 Ibid. 1501 and Shuldiner, op. cit., pp. 16-17. 86 87 16Frank E. Horton and William E. Wagner, "A Markovian Analysis of Urban Travel Behavior: Pattern Response by Socioeconomic-0ccupational Groups," Highway Research Record, NO. 283 (1969), l9. l7 Oi and Shuldiner, Op. cit., p. 17. 18Joseph R. Stowers and Edmond L. Kanwit, "The Use of Behavioral Surveys in Forecasting Tran8portation Requirements," Highway Research Record, NO. 106 (1966), 49-50. ' 19Curran and Stegmaier, op. cit., p. 107. 20Hoel, et a1., op. cit., p. 11. 21See Ronald J. Fisher and Arthur B. Sosslan, "Census Data as a Source for Urban Transportation Plan- ning," Highway Research Record, NO. 141 (1966), 67-72. 22 Stowers and Kanwit, op. cit., p. 49. 23Eugene T. Canty, Transportation and Urban Scale (Warren, Mich.: General Motors Corporation, 1969), p. l. 24Ibid., p. 8. 25Eugene T. Canty, "Future Transportation Systems Study," Traffic Quarterly, XXI, NO. 1 (January, 1968), 1-3. 26 Markovitz, Op. cit., p. 252. CHAPTER VI USEFUL FACTORS IN A TRAVEL MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY STUDY The goal Of this study activity is to define general travel mobility and accessibility on an urban level, and develop the methodology necessary for the performance of the following functions: 1. The identification of travel mobility and accessibility within the current urban structure. 2. The identification of factors affecting travel mobility and accessibility. 3. The measurement of travel mobility and accessibility levels within the current urban structure. 4. The develOpment of a travel mobility and accessibility index. 5. The identification of those who are travel mobility and accessibility handicapped. Thus far, items 1 and 2 have been completed. Travel mobility and accessibility have been defined and discussed, using available sources——both man and his literature. Mobility has been defined as accessibility to Opportunities. 88 89 Travel mobility and accessibility are, in this sense, synonymous. Measurement Of travel mobility is complicated by the inability to standardize a value system capable of measuring and ranking Opportunities. At best, many people can rank Opportunities (using an ordinal scale) in showing preference for one over the other. Even if a person were _.-m- a capable of specifying a value for various alternative Opportunities, using a number system with a positive range from zero to infinity (a ratio scale), the measurement of 5} Opportunities would be difficult to incorporate into a model involving more than one person. This is true because of the propensity of individ- uals to differ in their preferences and in their ranking and valuation Of available Opportunities. With no standard- ized system of opportunity evaluation, and since mobility and accessibility to these Opportunities are the same, the measurement of mobility is a difficult and vague process. (It should be pointed out that Opportunities which derive monetary benefits and cost for the individual can be mea— sured, but only in terms of the monetary transactions involved. Where monetary transactions are involved, it can be assumed that a fair exchange for one's spatial and tem- poral disutilities is included in the transaction.) An aggregate ranking of Opportunities could be achieved by using the Sign Test, a nonparametric test, to determine the aggregate preference between the two 90 Opportunities included in all combinations of pairs of Opportunities. A quasi-value, using the mean or median of personal valuations, could be determined and applied. A technique such as this could be followed in evaluating the preferences of people in each socioeconomic classification. When comparing Opportunity values between classifications, the original problem Of conflicting stan- dards again appears. Within each group a ratio scale exists, while between groups an interval scale exists. This problem can be dealt with if a relationship between the ratio scales can be defined. For the present, assuming the factors important to travel mobility and accessibility have been defined, com- parative levels of mobility and accessibility could be derived by using a "norm" set of values in evaluating Oppor- tunities. By this method, a total value or level of Oppor- tunities available could be computed for each individual and each socioeconomic classification. Using comparative analysis methods, a between-group differentiation could be derived and a differentiation in mobility and accessibility could be assumed. Opportunities could be compared in a more concrete fashion by measuring the opportunities in terms of trip purposes, with each purpose receiving a "value" for each socioeconomic group. If trip purposes differ significantly, an assumption concerning "lost" or "gained" opportunities 91 could be made, and a lesser or greater (respectively) degree Of mobility implied. Using trip—mode as a means of measuring mobility can be achieved by the same technique as was used in dealing with trip-purposes. Differences in modal usage signify dif- ferences in mobility levels. Returning to step 2, the identification of factors affecting travel mobility and accessibility, it is possible I from a literature review to make extremely educated infer- ; ences about patterns of causation between various factors ,3 and mobility. If automobile ownership and mobility can be related (they can in aggregate terms) on an individual basis, one possible measure of mobility is related to automobile avail- ability per person. Those factors affecting automobile ownership or availability include: Density-—as density +, auto. own.+ Dwelling units/area--as #d.u./a +, den t, auto. own.+ Type structure-—% single fam. +, den +, auto. own. t Distance from CBD-—CBD dist +, den +, auto. own. + Family income--as fam. +, auto. own. + Family size--as fam. size +, auto. own. I(but levels Off) Race-—as % nonwhites I, auto. own i (this is also related to income, density, and de facto segregarion) 92 Sex--as female % +, auto. own + Number employed--as # employed 1, auto. own. i If Opportunities will be our measure of mobility, automobiles available will be an important factor. --as auto. avail./person t, possible opportunities + Other factors related to transportation are those which are used in the modal split models. A common measure Of the degree Of modal split is the percentage Of transit usage factors which include: Age-—as age changes, transit usage changes, but not in a relative fashion. Young and Old have a greater propensity to use transit. Sex--as % of females in labor force , transit usage (This is a short—run phenomenon, as more females are becoming licensed drivers.) These factors are, as was discussed, tripmaker characteristics. They are the socioeconomic characteristics which are definable for personal or households (wherever applicable). Another group of factors, the trip characteristics, include descriptive classifications of trip-purposes. Also, however, the trip can be described in terms of trip-length. Trip purposes which are normally used are: Work Social-recreational Business Eating meal School Medical-dental Shcpping House 93 The transit system characteristic which will be used is trip-mode. Commonly used trip-modes are: Walkking Taxi passenger Auto driver Truck passenger Auto passenger School bus passenger Bus passenger Much literature is available on the relative impor- tance Of each mode, although city size will affect this to an extent. Three major modes, as pointed out previously, are representative Of trips. These are: Auto driver Auto and taxi passenger Mass transit passenger The analysis before aggregation argument is very logical, and will be adhered to as closely as possible. If, by aggregating, certain trends are "mashed out," the result is a loss of possible knowledge concerning the TRUE patterns or relationship shown by the data. The suggested cross tabulations of TRIPMAKER, TRIP, and TRANSIT SYSTEM characteristics are: AGE X PURPOSE X MODE SEX x PURPOSE X MODE INCOME X PURPOSE X MODE AUTOMOBILES AVAILABLE X PURPOSE x MODE Through comparative analysis of cross tabulations such as these and others, if possible, a good measure Of mobility should be available. By indexing the levels Of mobility, and by defining a minium standard to be met, 94 travel mobility and accessibility handicapped groups can be singled out. These groups most commonly include the young, elderly, poor, housewives, the secondary worker, and handi- capped. Of course in this proposed study, the singling out of all of these groups is impossible due to the unavail- ability Of data. For those groups who are travel mobility and access- ibility handicapped, and are recognied as such by planners, there are solutions which can remedy their Situations. In order that their "symptom" be solved, it must first be discovered. BIBLIOGRAPHY 95 10. BIBLIOGRAPHY Oi, Walter Y., and Shuldiner, Paul W. An Analysis Of Urban Travel Demands. Evanston: Noffhwestern University Press, 1962. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census Of Population, 1970. Number Of Inhabitants. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. U.S. Bureau Of the Census, Census of POpulation, 1970. General Population Characteristics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. Hecker, Guy C. "The History Of Urban Transportation." In Principles Of Urban Transportation. Edited by Frank H. Mossinari. Cleveland: Press Of Western Reserve University, 1951. Davis, Arthur A. "Urban Design and Mass Transportation." Archives of Environmental Health, XVIII (February, 1969), 272-275. Ganz, Alexander. "Emerging Patterns Of Urban Growth and Travel." Highwey Research Record, NO. 229 Creighton, Roger L. "Transportation Planning-- Community Values, Goals, and Objectives." Paper Presented to the American Association Of State Highway Officials. New York, October 7, 1965. Zwick, Charles J. "The Demand for Transportation Services in a Growing Economy." Paper Presented at Annual Meeting Of Highway Research Board. Washington, D.C., January 9, 1965. Vocrhees, Alan M. "The Changing Role Of Transportation in Urban DevelOpment." Traffic Quarterly, XXIII, NO. 4 (October, 1969), 527-535. Wohl, Martin. "Urban Transport We Could Really Use." Technologngeview, LXXII (June, 1970), 31-37. 96 ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 97 Douglas, Walter S. "Public Transportation as Part of Total Urban Transportation." Traffic Quarterly, XXV, NO. 4 (October, 1971), 551-561. Canty, Eugene T. Transportation and Urban Scale. Warren, Mich.: General Motors Corporation, January, 1969. Travel Demands and Transportation Facilities--New Castle County Program. Wilmington, I966. Stowers, Joseph R., and Kenwit, Edmond L. "The Use of Behavioral Surveys in Forecasting Transportation Requirements." Highway Research Record, NO. 106 (1966) I 44-51. Wohl, Martin. "Users Of Urban Transportation Services and Their Income Circumstances." Traffic Quarterly, XXIV, NO. 2 (January, 1970), 21-43. Stutz, Frederich P. "Research on Intra-Urban Social Travel: Introduction and Bibliography." Council of Planning Librarians Exchange Bibliography, NO. 215, February, 1971. Markovitz, Joni K. "Transportation Needs of the Elderly." Traffic Quarterly, XXV, No. 2 (April, Fisher, Ronald J., and Sosslan, Arthur B. "Census Data as a Source for Urban Transportation Planning." Highway Research Record, NO. 141 (1966), 47-72. Smith, Joel. Some Social Aspects of Mass Transit in Selected American Cities. East Lansing: MiEhigan State University, 1959. Moyer, Ralph A. "Comprehensive Urban Transportation Study Methods." Journal Of the Highwanyivision-- A.S.C.E. (December, 1965), 57-63} Curran, Frank B., and Stagmaier, Joseph T. "Travel Patterns in 50 Cities." Highwgy Research Board Bulletin, NO. 2 (1958), 99¥I30. Owings, Nathaniel A. "Urban Transportation Planning Concepts." Traffic Quarterly, XXI, No. 2 (April, 1967?) 179-183. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 98 Wachs, Martin. "Employment, Mobility, and Public Transportation in Chicago: A Survey Of Attitudes and Behavior." Highway Research Record, NO. 348 (1971), 142-151. Steinberg, Eleanor B. "Benefit-Cost Analysis and the Location Of Urban Highways." Highway Research Record, NO. 348 (1971), 35-41. Carp, Frances M. "Automobile and Public Transportation for Retired People." Highwgy Research Record, NO. 348 (1971), 182-191} Warburton, Ralph. "The Federal Role." Journal Of The Franklin Research Institute. Philadelphia: Franklin Institute Research Laboratory, 1968, Vol. 286, NO. 5, pp. 377-380. "U.S. Transportation--Resources, Performance, and Problems." Paper Prepared for the Transportation Research Conference. washington, D.C.: National Academy Of Science, National Research Council, 1961, pp. 15-53. Patrassi, Angelo. "Balancing Road and Transit Systems." Traffic Quarterly, XXI, No. 3 (July, 1969), 441-460. "People-Transportation-Jcbs." Progress Repprt No. 3-- Tri-State Transportation CommisSion. Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, January, 1969. Morris, Robert L. "Social Considerations Of Urban Transportation Systems." Transportation Engineeripg Journal--A.S.C.E. (August, I970), 333-3393 Myers, Sumner. "Personal Transportation for the Poor." Traffic Quarterly, XXIV, NO. 2 (April, 1970), 191-206. Bostick, T. A., and Todd, T. R. "Travel Characteristics of Persons Living in Larger Cities." 'Highway Research Record, NO. 106 (1966), 52-57. Engelen, Rodney E., and Stuart, Darwin H. "Development Objectives for Urban Transportation Systems." Traffic Quarterly, XXIV, No. 2 (April, 1970), 247-264. Pignataro, Louis J., and Falcocchis, John C. "Trans- portation Needs of Low-Income Families." Traffic Qparterly, XXIII, NO. 4 (October, 1969), 505-525. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 99 Cantanese, Anthony J. "Commuting Behavior Patterns Of Families." Traffic Quarterly, XXIV, NO. 3 (July, 1970), 439-457. Mantill, Edmund H. "Economics Biases in Urban Trans- portation Planning and Implementation." Traffic Quarterly, XXV, NO. 1 (January, 1970), 117-130. Ashford, Norman. "The Developing Role of State Government in Transportation." Traffic Quarterly, XXII, NO. 4 (October, 1968), 455:468. Avery, William H. "An Integrated Transportation Concept." Traffic Quarterly, XXIII, NO. 2 (April, 1970), 285-31I} Lansing, John B., and Mueller, Eva. "Residential Location and Urban Mobility." Highway_Research Record, NO. 106 (1966), 77-96. Perle, Eugene D. "Urban Mobility Needs of the Handicapped: An Exploration." Geographic Studies of Urban Tranpportation and Network Analysis. Evanston: Northwestern University, I968, pp. 20-41. Beckman, Martin J., and Wallace, James P. III. "Evaluation of User Benefits Arising from Changes in Transportation Systems." Transportation Science, III, NO. 4 (November, 1969), 344;351. Canty, Eugene T. "Future TranSportation Systems Study." Traffic Quarterly, XXI, NO. 1 (January, 1968). Leonardson, John L. "The Necessity for the Measurement of Rider and Non-rider Needs in a Transit System." Unpublished paper, 1970. Levinson, Herbert S., and Wynn, F. Houston. "Some Aspects Of Future Transportation in Urban Areas." Highway Research Board Record, NO. 326 (1962), 1-31. Walker, John R. "Social Status of Head Of Household and Trip Generation from Home." Highway Research Record, No. 114 (1966), 141-151. Horton, Frank E., and Wagner, William E. "A Markovian Analysis Of Urban Travel Behavior: Pattern Response by Socioeconomic-Occupational Groups." Highway Research Record, NO. 283 (1969), 19-29. ..... 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 100 Weiner, Edward. "Modal Split Revisited." Traffic Quarterly, XXIII, NO. 1 (January, 1969), 5-28. Kasoff, Harold, and Deutschman, Harold D. "Transporta- tion: The Link Between People and Jobs." Highway Research Record, No. 322 (1970), 96-120. Shunk, Gordon A., and Bouchard, Richard J. "An Application of Marginal Utility to Travel Mode Choice." Highway Research Record, NO. 322 (1970), 30-39. Wachs, Martin. "A Survey Of Citizens' Opinions Of the Effectiveness, Needs, and Techniques Of Urban Transportation Planning." Highway Research Record, NO. 229 (1968), 65-76. LathrOp, George T. "Characteristics of Urban Activity Patterns." Highway Research Record, NO. 322 (1970), 232-244. Ratcliff, Richard U. "The Dynamics Of Efficiency in the Locational Distribution of Urban Activities." Reprinted, with changes, from The Metropolis in Modern Life. New York: Doubleday and Co., I955, pp. 125-148. Mass Transit Management: A Handbook for Small Cities. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1971, Chapt. 2. Owen, Wilfred. Strategy for Mobility. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1964. Schneider, Lewis M. Marketing Urban Mass Transit: A Comparative Study of Management Strategies. Boston: Harvard UniversiEy, 1965. Domencich, Thomas A., and Kraft, Gerald. Free Transit. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Co., 1970. Owen, Wilfred. The Metrppolitan Transportation Problem. Washington, D.C. The Brookings Institution, 1956. Kasoff, Mark J. Socioeconomic Factors Underlying Public Transit Use in the Journpy to Wopk. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University, 1970. Hoel, Lester A., et a1. Latent Demand for Urban Transportation. Pittsburgh: Carnegie-Mellon UniverSity, 1968. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 101 U.S. Department Of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Transportation Planning Data for Urbanized Areas. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. Floyd, Thomas H., Jr. "Using Transportation to Alleviate Poverty: A Progress Report on Experi- ments Under The Urban Mass Transportation Act." Transportation and Poverpy Conferences. BrOOinne: American Academy Of Arts and Sciences, June, 1968. Abt Associates, Travel Barriers: Transportation Needs Of the Handicapped. Washington, D.C.: Department Of TransportatiOHT Office Of Economics and Systems Analysis, 1969. Grand Rapids and Environs Transportation Study, Lansing: Michigan Department of State Highways, September, 1971. Vocrhees, Alan M., and Associates, Inc. Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study: Vol. 1. McLean, Vir.: Alan M. Vocrhees and—Associates, Inc., August, 1969. Kent County Planning Department. A Data Profile: Grand Rgpids Metropolitan Area. Grand Rapids: Kent County Planning Commission, 1967. Ladd, William M., Larson, Roy H., and Boka, Karen. A Trip_Generation Model for the Detroit Region: TALUS, December, 1969. Office of Design-Traffic Division, Michigan Department of State Highways. Kalamazoo Area Transportation gtudy: Coding InstructiOns and Master COdes. Lansing: MiEhigan Department Of"Stateinghways, 1966. Lilly, R. J., Chairman. Report Of Thp_Lansing Metropolitan Area Transportation Study Committee. Lansing, 1970. Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Mass TranSportation in the Tri-Countpregion. Lansing: Tri¥County RegiOnal Planning CommisSiOn, April, 1969. Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Socio- economic and Travel Data: 1965 and 1990. Lansing: Tri:County Regional Planning CommisSiOn, December, 1970. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 102 Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. "Format of Home Survey Trip Tape Record." Lansing: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Office of Design-Traffic Division, Michigan Department Of State Highways. Coding Instructions and Master Codes--Metropolitan TGrandwRapids) Area Trans- portation Study. Lansing: Michigan Department of State Highways, 1964. Hoover, E. M., and Vernon, R. Anatopy Of a Metrgpolis. New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1962. Cities. New York: Alfred A. KnOpf, 1965. Shevsky, E., and Bell, W. Social Area Analy§is. Palo Alto, Calif.: StanfOrd University Press, 1955. Miller, John Anderson. Fares Please. New York: Dover Press, 1960. Seifert, William. "The Status Of Transportation." Proceedings Of the IEEE, LVI, NO. 4 (April, 1968). Mossman, F. H., and Morton, Newton. Logistics Of Distribution Systems. Boston: AIlyn and Bacon, 1965. U.S. Congress, House, Committee Of the Whole House on the State Of the Union. The Transportation §ystem Of Our Nation: Message from tpe President of the United States, 87th Congress, 2nd Session, 1962, House Document 384. Congressional Quarterly Weekly_Report, XXII (week ending January 10, 1964). Congressional Quarterly Weeklpreport, XXII (week ending January 31, 1964). Meyer, John R., Kain, John F., and Wohl, Martin. ."Technology and Urban Transportation--A Report Prepared for the White House Panel on Civilian Technology." Cambridge: The Authors, 1962, mimeographed. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 103 Bells, Francis. "The City and the Car." The Exploding MetrOpolis. Edited by the Editors of Fortune. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., 1957. Treesh, Frederick H. "Rapid Transit Systems Given New Priority." The Lansing State Journal, Lansing, Mich., May 21, 1970. Webber, M. E. "Comprehensive Planning and Social Responsibility." Urban Planning and Social Poligy. Edited by B. J. Frieden and R. Morris. New York, 1968. Bracey, H. E. In Retirement. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1966. Pegrum, Dudley F. Transportation: Economics and Public Poligy. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin, 1968. "Urban TranSportation Planning." Policy and Procedure Memorandum 50-9, June 21, 1967, U.S. Bureau Of Public Roads. Lowry, J. S. A Model of Metropolis. RAND Corporation, Memorandum RM-2035-RC, 1964. Jarema, E. E., Pyers, C. E., and Roed, H. A. "Evaluation of Trip Destination and Collection Procedures." Highwgy Research Record, NO. 191 (1967), 106-129. Sohnori, L. The Urban Scene. New York: The Free Press, 1965. Meyer, Karine, and WOhl. The Urban Transportation Problem. Cambridge: Harvard UniVersity Press, 1965. Farmer, R. "What Ever Happened to the Jitney?" Traffic Quarterly, XVIII, NO. 2 (April, 1965), 263-279. Chinitz, B. "Contrasts in Agglomeration: New York and Pittsburgh." American Economic Review, LI (May, 1967), 279-289. Lansing, John B., and Hendricks, G. Automobile Ownership and Residential Development. Ann Arbor: Institute fOr Sodial Research, 1967.