Transportation & Development I

Introduction
Urban Form & Transportation
Government & Policy
Transportation and urban form
are fundamentally linked. How
we build our city directly
determines travel needs, viability
of alternative travel modes, etc.

Transportation, in turn, influences

land development and location
choices of people & firms.
 Greenhouse Gas Global Climate
Emissions Change

Air Pollution Respiratory &

Other Diseases

Urban Sprawl Loss of Farmland, Natural

& Urban Habitat

Congestion Loss of Productivity &

Leisure Time; Stress

Accidents Injuries/Deaths
Productivity/Property Loss

Sedentary Obesity, Other

Lifestyle Health Problems

Accessibility to Activities / Mobility -

Participation in Social, Recreational & Economic Activities
+ QUALITY
Economic Productivity OF LIFE
The 3 urban meta-issues of sustainability (environmental, social, economic), efficiency
and equity are all profoundly influenced by urban transportation system design,
especially the relative roles of transit & autos within the system.
The Urban Activity and
Transportation Systems
URBAN ACTIVITY SYSTEM TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

Land Transportation
Development Network

Automobile
Location Choice
Ownership

Activity Travel Demand

Schedules

Activity
Network Flows
Patterns

(Meyer & Miller, 2001, 2013)

System Interactions

LONG-RUN ACCESSIBILITY INTERACTIONS

Land Transportation
Development Network

Location Choice Automobile

Ownership

Activity Travel Demand

Schedules

Activity Patterns Network Flows

SHORT-RUN ACTIVITY/TRAVEL INTERACTIONS

 Another View of Urban Activity &
Transportation Systems
Key System Elements
T – transport system
A – activity system
T A F – flows & transport
system performance
System Interactions/Feedbacks
I I Market demand-supply
interactions determine
flows & system performance
II System performance
(accessibility) influences
III II activity system markets
F III Gov’t, public & private
service providers respond
system demand & performance

Source: Manheim, M.L. (1978) Fundamentals of Transportation Systems Analysis

Volume 1: Basic Concepts, MIT Press
And yet another view

Higgins, et al., (2021)

 Urban Structure
Bourne (in Bourne & Ley, 1993) defines urban structure as the
combination of:
• urban form: the spatial configuration of fixed elements within
the urban region:
• land use, buildings, …
• transportation network
• other infrastructure (water, waste, communications,
energy, …)
• urban interactions: flows of goods/people/information/money
• organising principles: relationships between urban form &
interactions:
• travel cost minimisation
• social status
• segregation
• ….
 Key Themes in the Course
• Organizing principles:
– Basic concepts.
– Dynamics; processes; behaviour.
• Modelling flows & forms:
– Putting the pieces together.
– Policy analysis & decision-support.
• Transportation & Development:
– Empirical evidence.
– Policy issues.
 Organizing Principles
• Spatial competition.
• Spatial economics.
• Spatial interaction.
• Accessibility.
• Urban micro & macro economics.
• Dynamics & Behavioural Processes.
 Modelling Urban Systems
• In the beginning: Lowry Models
• Historical evolution of operational land use
models
• Simulation modelling
• Current state of the art:
– UrbanSim
– PECAS
– ILUTE
• Issues in integrated modelling
 Lecture Schedule
Week Date Topic
1 Jan. 12 Transportation & Development I: Course Overview; Transportation – Land Use Interactions
2 Jan. 15 Concepts I: Spatial Competition; Agglomeration (3:00-5:00pm; NOTE SPECIAL DAY & TIME)
3 Jan. 26 Concepts II: Spatial Economics: Bid Rent, Random Utility & Bid Choice
4 Feb. 2 Concepts III: Spatial Interaction; Accessibility
5 Feb. 9 Concepts IV: Urban/Regional Macroeconimics; Spatial I/O Models
6 Feb. 16 Transportation & Development II: Transport Impacts on Land Use: Empirical Evidence
Feb. 23 NO CLASS: READING WEEK
7 Mar. 1 Modelling I: Introduction to Land Use Models; Lowry Models; Introduction to simulation Modelling
8 Mar. 8 Modelling II: ILUTE 1: Introduction/Overview; Population Synthesis & Evolution
9 Mar. 15 Modelling III: ILIUTE 2: Housing Market Modelling; Demand & Supply
10 Mar. 22 Modelling IV: ILUTE 3: Firmographics & Labour Market Modelling
Mar. 29 NO CLASS: GOOD FRIDAY
11 Apr. 5 Transportation & Development III: Guest Lecture -- Sean Hertel, Integrated Trasnport - Land Use Planning
12 Apr. 12 Transportation & Development IV: Guest Lecture -- Iain Dobson, Transit Planning & Land Use in the GTA
 Assignments
Due Date Topic Grade
Feb. 2 Assignment 1: Book Review 20
Feb. 16 Assignment 2: Spatial Economics 16
March 1 Assignment 3: Spatial Interaction 16
March 15 Assignment 4: Macro Economics 16
April 1 Assignment 5: Simulation Modelling 16
April 12 Assignment 6: Lowry Model 16
Total 100
Transportation & Land Use: The
GTHA Case
 City of Toronto
• The City of Toronto is the largest city in Canada
and the 4th largest in North America (behind
Mexico City, New York & Los Angeles).
• 2016 Census stats:
Population 2,731,871
Households 1,112,930
2
Land Area (km ) 630
Persons/hhld 2.4
2
Density (pers/km ) 4,334
% Single-detached homes 24.2%
% Apartments 5+ storeys 44.3%
% Other Attached 31.4%

(Miller, 2017)
15
 Greater Toronto-
Hamilton Area
(GTHA)
• The GTHA is the Toronto-
centred urban region used for
transportation planning purposes.
• 2016 Census population:
Persons %
Regional Municipality of Durham 645,862 9.3%
Regional Municipality of Halton 548,435 7.9%
City of Hamilton 536,917 7.7%
Regional Municipality of Peel 1,381,739 19.9%
City of Toronto 2,731,571 39.3%
Regional Municipality of York 1,109,909 16.0%
GTHA Total 6,954,433
% of Ontario Population 51.7%
% of Canadian Population 19.8%

16
GTHA Growth, 1986-2016
Annual Average
GTHA Population Persons Growth % Growth Growth Rate Growth/Year
GTHA 1986 Population 4,062,949
GTHA 1996 Population 5,096,682 1,033,733 25.44% 0.90 103,373
GTHA 2006 Population 6,060,471 963,789 18.91% 0.92 96,379
GTHA 2016 Population 6,954,433 893,962 14.75% 0.94 89,396
Total, 1986-2016 2,891,484 71.2% 0.77 96,383
Source: Canadian Census, Statistics Canada
 Toronto Urban Form
• A former GM of Planning for the TTC
(Juri Pill) once described Toronto as
“Vienna surrounded by Phoenix”.
• This was an exaggeration on both
counts:
– Downtown Toronto is not Vienna.
– The Toronto suburbs are relatively dense by
North American standards.
• But still, Toronto is a combination of:
– An extremely strong Central Area (the
largest employment centre in Canada).
– A multi-centred region (the Pearson Airport
emp. area is Canada’s 2nd largest
employment centre).
– Classic post-WWII suburban sprawl
18
(population & employment)
 Growth in GTHA Key Indicators, 1986-2006
70.0%

Population grew by 44.5% in 20 years; cars & car-based trips grew even more
60.0%

50.0%

40.0%
% Growth 1986-2006

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
Population Cars 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour AM Peak AM Peak AM peak AM Peak Road Transit
Trips, Total Trips, Auto Trips, Trips, Trips, Total Trips, Auto Trips, Trips, Capacity Capacity
Drive + Transit Walk/Bike Drive Transit Walk/Bike (lane-km) (pass-km)
Passenger +Passenger
-10.0%

19
 Growth in GTHA Key Indicators, 1986-2006
70.0%

At the same time, VERY little capacity was added to the transportation system
60.0%

50.0%

40.0%
% Growth 1986-2006

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
Population Cars 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour AM Peak AM Peak AM peak AM Peak Road Transit
Trips, Total Trips, Auto Trips, Trips, Trips, Total Trips, Auto Trips, Trips, Capacity Capacity
Drive + Transit Walk/Bike Drive Transit Walk/Bike (lane-km) (pass-km)
Passenger +Passenger
-10.0%

20
 Growth in GTHA Key Indicators, 1986-2006
70.0%

Transit & active transportation (walk/bike) have failed to keep up

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%
% Growth 1986-2006

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
Population Cars 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour 24-Hour AM Peak AM Peak AM peak AM Peak Road Transit
Trips, Total Trips, Auto Trips, Trips, Trips, Total Trips, Auto Trips, Trips, Capacity Capacity
Drive + Transit Walk/Bike Drive Transit Walk/Bike (lane-km) (pass-km)
Passenger +Passenger
-10.0%

21
 urban areas.
levels vary with urban

household in denser, older

form, with fewer autos per
Household auto ownership

Number of Vehicles per Household Average Vehicles per Household

R

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
es O
t o ld
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00

f N To
ew ron

0-1000
T to
Doro
ur n
hato
M m
is Yo
R siss rk
es a

1000-2000
t o ug
fP a
R H ee
al l
es
to H
am ton
fH i
2000-3000
am lton
N -W
ia e
W gant
at ra
e
3000-4000

G rloo
W e u
e lp
O llin h
ra g t
Region of Residence

ng on
ev
4000-5000

Ba ille
Zonal Household Density(households/sq. km.)

Si rrie
Pe m
P e te
r
te bo ct
Vi coe
rb ro or
5000-6000

or u i
ou gh a
gh C
i
ECx o ty
u
tre n
6000+

naty
l
 First Trip to Work

20
Trip Length 1986
1991
Trip lengths & total auto usage
18
1996
2001 also vary with urban form.
16
Median Trip Length (km)

14

12

Average Daily VKT per Household

10
100
8
90
6
80
4
70
2
60
0
Toronto Durham York Peel Halton Hamilton 50
Region of Household
40
30
20
10
0
0-1000 1000-2000 2000-3000 3000-4000 4000-5000 5000-6000 6000+
ZonalHouseholdDensity(households/sq.km.)
So too does environmental impact.
 1996 Average Annual Total Travel Costs
0 - 6000
6000 - 10000
10000 - 14000
14000 - 20000
… and average annual 20000 - 45000
No Data

transportation costs per

household
 Employment Location & Transit
• Much of the literature and most of the local debate with
respect to urban form / land use has focussed on
residential development & densities.
• Transit usage, however, depends critically on the
location and concentration of employment within nodes
& corridors that can be effectively served by transit.
• Increasing attention being paid to this:
– CUI/SRRA: The New Geography of Office Location, 2011
– SRRA: A Region in Transition, 2013
– Neptis (Pamela Blais): Planning for Prosperity, 2015
 Employment distributions and
densities, in particular, have
enormous impacts on travel
mode choice.

2011 Employment Levels, GTHA

There are many major employment

areas in the GTA, but the Toronto
downtown is by far the greatest
density centre.
2011 Employment Densities, GTHA
 Macro vs. Micro Design
“Urban form” is defined at both a “macro” level (spatial
distribution of people, jobs, activities – “land use”) and
the “micro” level of detailed neighbourhood design
(street layouts, density, fine-grain mix of uses, etc.).

Both are important in the determination of travel demand

and transportation system sustainability. But, macro location
effects tend to dominate micro neighbourhood design impacts.
Macro vs. Micro Design, cont’d
Average Annual GHG Travel Emissions Per Household

12000
11000
Annual GHG Emissions Per Hhld

10000
9300
8700
8400
(kg CO2 equivalent)

8000
Neighbourhood Designs
7000

6100 Nbhd 1
6000 Nbhd 2
5000 Nbhd 3
4500

4000 3500 1. Conventional suburban

2. Medium density
2000 3. Neo-traditional

0
Inner City Inner Suburb Outer Suburb

Neighbourhood Location

Source: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Urban Travel: Tool for Evaluating Neighbourhood Sustainability,
Prepared by IBI Group for CMHC and Natural Resources Canada, Feb. 2000
Example of a mode choice model that
predicts the probability of taking
transit for a given trip, given its
competing modes (auto, walk, etc.).
Actual 2006 AM-Peak & in-
vehicle travel wait, walk
times experienced by
commuters, by relative
attractiveness of transit

As urban density
increases, transit
service improves
(travel times
decrease)
Unfortunately, a considerable majority
of trips in the GTHA are made under
conditions that are not transit-
supportive.

33
 Auto Transit
Ownership Service

Socio- Residential Nbhd.

Economics Density Design

Employment
Density
Road
Demographics Network Accessibility

ACTIVITY/
TRAVEL

Urban Form Impacts on Activity & Travel

Government & Policy
Government Roles
Federal: Municipalities:
• tax incentives • land
• mortgage guarantees • zoning
• moral support • concessions
Provincial: • lack of funds for infrastructure
• regional government • development charges
• infrastructure (roads, etc.)
• traditional lack of regional
planning
• Places to Grow
• Greenbelt
• Effective????
• Local Planning Appeal
Tribunal (LPAT) (formerly
Ontario Municipal Board )
• moral support
Subsidies & Sprawl

Pamela Blais argues that Canadian

municipalities promote urban sprawl
through perverse development
charges, tax incentives and other
poor policies:

Blais, P., Perverse Cities: Hidden

Subsidies, Wonky Policies & Urban
Sprawl, Vancouver: UBC Press,
2010.
 GTHA/GGH Land Use Policies
• Many government land use policies are intended to create a more
sustainable urban form.
– Greenbelt.
– Places to Grow (Original; Updated Plan).
• Award-winning plans, but how much is really changing?
– Lots of greenfield development going on, more or less as usual.
– Ford Government actively undermining legislation & past controls.
• At the same time massive development /densification (largely
private-sector driven) is occurring:
– Toronto Central Area.
East Harbour Vision
– Liberty Village
– East Harbour (First Gulf /Unilever) development.
– Waterfront Toronto initiatives.
– Some corridors are also densifying elsewhere.
• Is transportation (& other infrastructure)
keeping up?
 GGH/GTHA Transportation Plans
• Public transit is intended to play a major role in the region’s evolution towards
sustainability with very strong connections to land development issues & goals:
– The Big Move
– Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
– MTO long-range strategic planning study.
• Toronto’s “transit wars”:
– Transit City.
– “Subways, subways, subways”.
– Scarborough Subway Extension.
– Spadina Subway Extension.
• Progress, however, is also being made (despite the turmoil):
– Eglinton Crosstown.
– King St. streetcar (?)
– SmartTrack / RER (?)
– Ontario Line (?)
– Waterfront Transit “Reset” (?)
– …
• Meanwhile competitor cities worldwide (New York, Boston, San Francisco,
London, Madrid, Shanghai, ………….) have been aggressively re-investing in
both public transit and (typically) active transit.
 Towards Transportation
Sustainability ENVIRONMENT
“The Four Pillars of Sustainable Urban
Transportation”, Kennedy, et. al (2005)
Sustainable transportation requires
“getting right” the “4 Pillars” of:
ECONOMY SOCIETY

• Governance
SUSTAINABLE URBAN TRANSPORTATION
(including planning).
• Financing
(capital & operating).
• Infrastructure
investment.
• Urban design
(at both neighbourhood &
regional scales). GOVERNANCE FINANCING INFRA-
STRUCTURE
NEIGHBOUR-
HOODS
4 Pillars, cont’d

• The City & the GTHA have been making some good
progress on urban form (although much more needs
to be done).
• But we have been failing badly for decades with
respect to governance & financing.
• And without good planning and decision-making
within a sustainable fiscal plan, adequate, effective
infrastructure investment is very difficult to achieve!

Copenhagen
 Lessons Learned:
Land Use
• The land use – transportation nexus must
be taken seriously: we are going to spend
the next 50 years “undoing” the last 50
years of badly designed growth.
• Transit-oriented development must be
taken seriously – not just paid lip-
service.
• Active transportation is as important as
transit in the equation. Neighbourhoods
must be designed for walk/bike-ability.
• Mixed-use; medium-to-high density are
essential.
Lessons Learned: Plans vs. Action
• Good plans are useless without
implementation.
• We must be continuously building
for the future. We can’t wait for
tomorrow; tomorrow starts today.
• Don’t rest on your laurels (or
believe your own press clippings).
• Remember what you do well.
• Learn from your mistakes.
• Think long-term but build for the
long-term each and every day.
Shovels go into the ground every
day – make them count!
Lessons Learned: Funding Investment

• The 800-lb gorilla everywhere is paying

for transit investment.
• People want congestion relief, better
transit, etc., but few seem willing to pay
for it.
• We need to have an adult discussion about
this:
– You get what you pay for.
– “Taxes” are not a four-letter word.
– The private sector has not yet been
adequately engaged in Toronto, but surely
needs to be part of the solution.
– Both the public and politicians must start
taking responsibility for building a
sustainable future
 Financing Transit, cont’d
• The need for secure, sustained funding is
paramount:
– Golden Report, etc.
– Sales tax; gas tax; property tax; …
• Role of the private sector:
– The private sector is heavily engaged elsewhere
(e.g., London CrossRail I & II).
– Why not here?
– Mechanisms:
• TIFS.
• Special assessments.
• PPPs.
• Direct contributions.
• …
• The need is great for credible integrated urban
models to explore:
– Land value uplifts.
– Development reactions to infrastructure
investment.
– Tax & other policy impacts & revenues.
 Lessons Learned: Politics & Decision-
Based Evidence-Making
Mayor Rob Ford

• In Toronto we have an incredibly toxic political

environment wrt transportation planning & decision-
making.
• The Rob Ford Administration (2010-14) proudly
ignored any shred of evidence concerning transit
plans; fired, intimidated, ignored its civil servants; and
pandered to a narrow and ignorant political base.
• Post-Ford (Rob), (2014-18) things became more
“civil” and superficially rational, but the same
syndrome of “decision-based evidence-making” and
associated bad (or no) decision-making persisted.
• Ford 2.0: With Doug Ford ascending to Ontario
Premier (2018-), things have again become worse
with provincial meddling on many fronts.
• This is no way to run a city or plan/build for the future
(transit or otherwise).
Rob & brother Councillor Doug Ford, dubbed “the twin Ford
mayors” by Margaret Atwood.
Evidence-Based Decision-Making
• We live in complicated, challenging times.
• Cities are complex systems of systems.
• We must return to evidence-based decision-
making if we have any hope of spending
scarce tax dollars wisely and of evolving
into a sustainable future (economically,
socially, environmentally).
• This involves:
– Rebuilding and using a strong, professional civil
service.
– Investing in R&D.
– Proactive citizen consultation.
– Politicians much more seriously taking their role
as stewards of the public good and builders of the
future city.
And lessons not learned …
• And it’s not as if we don’t know what
works & what doesn’t and what needs to
be done.
• Toronto is replete with leading urbanists.
• When will we start paying attention to
them?