Transportation Planning and Regional Equity: History, Policy and Practice
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Research Report – UCD-ITS-RR-12-29 Transportation Planning and Regional Equity: History, Policy and Practice September 2012 Alex Karner Institute of Transportation Studies ◦ University of California, Davis One Shields Avenue ◦ Davis, California 95616 PHONE (530) 752-6548 ◦ FAX (530) 752-6572 www.its.ucdavis.edu Final Research Report D05-3 Transportation Planning and Regional Equity: History, Policy, and Practice Septtember 2012 Alex Karner Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, Davis One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616 Page 1 of 2 DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the author, who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. Page 2 of 2 Transportation Planning and Regional Equity: History, Policy, and Practice By ALEXANDER ANTHONY KARNER B.A.Sc. (University of Toronto) 2006 M.S. (University of California, Davis) 2008 DISSERTATION Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Civil and Environmental Engineering in the OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES of the UNIVERSIY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS Approved: _______________________________ Deb Niemeier, Chair _______________________________ Patricia Mokhtarian _______________________________ Jonathan London Committee in Charge 2012 -i- Abstract This dissertation investigates regional transportation planning in California from 1967 through the contemporary era, identifying advocates for regional equity as important actors for achieving desired planning outcomes including climate change mitigation. It begins with the creation of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Replacing its predecessor organization in 1973, the creation of Caltrans was thought to signal the beginning of multimodalism in state transportation policy. Opposition from the public and the legislature to this new direction led to the establishment of regional transportation planning organizations that actually located authority at the local (city and county) level. California’s transportation policy goals embodied in the contemporary Senate Bill (SB) 375 are similar to those of the 1970s – reducing vehicle-miles traveled through the promotion of compact urban forms – but the institutional arrangements established in the 1970s make progress difficult to achieve. Regional equity advocates are emerging as an important constituency in this fraught planning landscape. Buoyed by foundation funding and federal legislation enacted beginning with Title VI of 1964’s Civil Rights Act, these advocates are seeking to ensure that agencies meet planning goals where the law is insufficiently prescriptive. A key method by which advocates access the planning process is through the “equity analysis” of regional transportation plans. A critical review of equity analysis practice reveals standard methods that are not responsive to public input and do not take advantage of recent developments in activity- based travel demand modeling. Improved methods are proposed that are developed in collaboration with equity advocates. Although these improvements will not ensure equitable outcomes, they are more likely to highlight existing inequities, more accurately reflect the concerns of advocates, and could be deployed nationwide. -ii- Acknowledgements One does not complete a doctoral program without accumulating a number of academic and personal debts. I wish to thank those who opened my eyes to the inherent beauty and potential of civil engineering: Michael P. Collins and Paul Gauvreau. Later mentors at the University of Toronto, Willem Vanderburg and Heather MacLean, encouraged me to consider more than then the immediate design task. Under their guidance I learned to consider the broader effects of engineering activities on human life and the environment. Coffee with Reihane Marzoughi and Antonio Antonopoulos, then at the Center for Technology and Social Development, were also particularly influential in this regard. At the University of California, Davis, I have been extremely fortunate to share time and space with an exceptional cadre of graduate students housed variously in the Institute of Transportation Studies and the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Dana Rowan in particular has been an indispensable colleague. From her I learned the value of thorough, constructive criticism as a component of great research and writing. I have had several influential mentors during my graduate career. Doug Eisinger taught me the fundamentals of good science. Natalia Molina taught me about the method and power of history while I was a visiting graduate student at the University of California, San Diego. I thank my committee members, Patricia Mokhtarian and Jonathan London for their time, comments, and assistance. My advisor, Deb Niemeier, has been exceptionally supportive. She has offered me the freedom to develop my own research directions and to pursue scholarly interests in the humanities and social sciences while providing guidance and input at critical moments in my academic career. -iii- The research described in Chapter 1 would not have been possible without the excellent archivists at the California State Archives and the Caltrans Library and History Center, including Diane Voll and Shubhangi Kelekar. Jeffrey Brown and Jo Guldi provided helpful comments on an earlier draft of Chapter 1. The work of Bay Area advocacy organizations provided the motivation for Chapters 2-4. Parisa Fatehi-Weeks at Public Advocates and Lindsay Imai at Urban Habitat provided regular feedback on my work, giving freely of their time, and also provided key insights on the implications of the work for transportation equity advocacy. For Chapter 4, I received data from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. I thank David Ory at MTC for answering questions about those data and providing them to me. Funding is the lifeblood of academe; I was grateful to have the support of several funding organizations throughout the course of my dissertation. Chapter 1 was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (award number 752- 2010-0293). Chapters 2 and 3 were supported by grants from the California Endowment and the Sustainable Transportation Center at the University of California, Davis, which receives funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the California Department of Transportation through the University Transportation Centers program. Of course, the contents of this dissertation reflect my views, and I am responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. Neither the US nor the Canadian governments assume liability for the contents of use thereof. Academic life is not all academics, of course. My partner, Kaya de Barbaro, has continually provided essential emotional support, research consulting services, and excitement. Neither my work nor my non-work life would be the same without her. -iv- Table of contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... iii Table of contents ............................................................................................................... v List of tables..................................................................................................................... vii List of figures .................................................................................................................. viii List of acronyms ............................................................................................................... ix Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: The Region or the State? California Transportation Planning, 1967-1977 ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 10 Transportation planning at the Division of Highways .................................................. 13 “The start of a new era for other ways to move people”: Creating Caltrans, 1967-1973 ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Motivations for Caltrans ........................................................................................... 19 Regional or statewide authority: AB 69’s unanswered question .............................. 21 “The plan is dead – long live the plan”: Fumbling toward multimodalism .................. 25 Statewide planning, 1973-77 .................................................................................... 25 The six year program, 1976-77 ................................................................................. 31 Frustration, confusion and retrenchment: AB 402 ........................................................ 33 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................