Explore the vast range of titles available.

Based on a comprehensive study review by leading urban planning researchers, this investigative document demonstrates how urban development is both a key contributor to climate change and an essential factor in combating it—by reducing vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.

Explaining how to design spaces for pedestrians while also accommodating transit needs, this book is an excellent reference for students, public sector planners and officials, and private sector designers and developers seeking to make places more pedestrian- and transit-friendly. Written by a noted expert on pedestrian design and planning, this handbook contains examples of zoning codes from different localities.

Transportation-planning researchers have long argued that the end goal of a transportation system is increasing accessibility, or opportunities for individuals to meet their daily needs, but that US practice tends to focus on increasing mobility, or opportunities to travel farther and faster. This study finds evidence that the gap between theory and practice may be closing when it comes to accessibility, but that significant barriers still exist to the wider adoption of the accessibility paradigm among metropolitan planning organisations, the main entities responsible for regional transportation planning in the USA. We measure this gap by creating an accessibility index based on content analysis of a nationally representative sample of 42 US regional transportation plans (RTPs). We then use regression-tree analysis to determine the characteristics of metropolitan areas that are most likely to employ accessibility concepts. Finally, we identify barriers to a wider adoption of the accessibility paradigm. Most RTPs include accessibility-related goals, but few define the term or use accessibility-oriented performance measures. The lack of clarity on accessibility leaves vehicle speed as the fundamental criterion for success in most plans. Our analysis finds that MPOs serving large regions with high per capita income are the most likely to produce plans that focus on accessibility. We argue that such places produce more accessibility-oriented RTPs because they have greater planning capacity and recommend changes to federal planning guidelines that could speed the adoption of the accessibility paradigm in RTPs. 交通规划研究者们一直争论说交通系统的最终目的是增加可达性，或增加满足个体日常需求的机会，但美国的实践倾向于注重增加流动性，或增加更远更快出行的机会。本研究发现了相关证据，表明在可达性问题上，理论与实践之间的缺口可能闭合，但要让美国负责区域交通规划的大都市规划部门更广泛地采用可达性范式，却仍存在重大的障碍。我们基于由美国 42 项区域交通规划 (RTP) 构成的全国代表性样本的内容分析创建了一个可达性指数，由此衡量了这一缺口。然后，我们采用回归树分析来确定最可能采用可达性概念的大都市区之特征。最后，我们识别了更广泛采纳可达性范式所面临的障碍。大多数 RTP 都包含与可达性相关的目标，但极少界定该术语，也极少使用以可达性为导向的绩效指标。可达性概念的不清晰导致了行车速度成为大多数规划方案衡量成功与否的基本标准。我们的分析发现，服务于人均收入高的大型地区的大都市规划部门最可能出具注重可达性的规划方案。我们认为，这些地方会出具更多以可达性为导向的 RTP，原因是它们的规划能力更大，并能建议更改联邦规划指引，从而加快在 RTP 中采纳可达性范式。

Problem: Legal requirements and good planning practice dictate that land development induced by major highway investments be forecasted. Two forecasting methods, the first qualitative and based on expert judgment and the second quantitative and based on formal spatial interaction models, are often presented as equivalent. Purpose: We aim to extract lessons about the strengths and weaknesses of the two methods from a case study of a controversial highway, the Intercounty Connector (ICC), in the suburbs north of Washington, DC. Methods: We compare forecasts of induced development obtained using both methods and judge their reasonableness against the empirical literature. Results and conclusions: The two methods gave dramatically different results. The subjective judgment of experts predicted small impacts, on average, compared to a simple spatial interaction model. Also, subjectively forecasted impacts were limited to lands near the new facility, while modeled impacts rippled out across a much larger area. The subjective method seemed to give too little weight to accessibility effects and too much to zoning constraints, while a simple spatial interaction model seemed to do the opposite. Takeaway for practice: Where time, budget, or data limitations preclude the development of state-of-the-art integrated land use and transportation models, we conclude based on this case study that the best approach is to combine simple models and expert judgment. Expert panels can be used to check model inputs against local knowledge and to adjust outputs in light of factors otherwise unaccounted for. Conversely, model outputs can be used to check expert opinion for inconsistency with known land use-transportation relationships. Research support: None.

Problem: Since the late 1980s, U.S. metropolitan regions have increasingly engaged in a style of land use-transportation scenario planning that merges techniques borrowed from military and business strategic planning with long-range transportation systems planning and project-level alternatives analysis. Aside from occasional anecdotal descriptions, the effectiveness of such approaches in generating compact growth plans has not been evaluated comprehensively. Purpose: We analyzed a wide range of scenario planning studies to determine how far compact growth scenarios are predicted to reduce vehicular travel below existing trends. Methods: Using hierarchical modeling, we developed a regional vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) model based on 85 scenarios in 23 planning studies from 18 metropolitan areas. Results and conclusions: Using coefficients from this model, we conservatively estimate that compact growth scenarios reduce VMT in 2050 by 17% below scenarios assuming a continuation of existing trends. Takeaway for practice: Existing transportation models remain largely insensitive to changes in land use and transportation policy. This must change for scenario planning to achieve its full potential. In the future, scenario planning should incorporate the best current knowledge about how global economic and environmental trends will affect regions. Research support: Collection of the primary data used in this article was funded in part by the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, under Cooperative Agreement No. DTFH61-03-H-00134. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Federal Highway Administration.