Richard Willson; Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Cal Poly Pomona

1. SB 375 Challenges and Opportunities for
the Inland Empire: A Research View
Greener California: Impacts of SB 375 and Winning Strategies for Southern California
Leonard Transportation Center
Dr. Richard Willson, FAICP
Department of Urban and Regional Planning
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

2. Challenges
► Dominance of the automobile
► Local government
fragmentation and competition
► Development shaped by
regional economy, not local
economics
► “Locked in” built form

3. Opportunities
► Complement existing density w/
mixed, walkable uses
► Develop around improved transit
► Intensify and diversify suburban
activity centers
► Use infrastructure network
differently
► Pricing/TDM policy
► High IE growth share
► Population ready for change

4. Resident perceptions (2007)
► Driving conditions degraded,
► Commutes take 2x as long as ideal
conditions, expect further worsening
► Most have transit w/in walking distance
(84%) – but do not use it
► Responses to higher transportation cost:
carpool,
reduce car ownership,
fuel efficient cars,
transit
► Climate change affects choice of new
car (47%)

5. Compact development
► Higher average densities
► Mixed land uses
► Strong centers, linked by transit
► Interconnection of streets
► Human scale design
► Research summary provided in Growing Cooler
(Ewing et al)
► VMT growth may swamp vehicle efficiency and low carbon fuels
► 20-40% VMT reduction possible with compact development
► Compact development + more transit service + road pricing =
stronger results

6. Transit-oriented development as a
form of compact development
► Moderate to higher density
development cluster around high
frequency transit
► Mixed uses-residential, employment,
shopping
► Walking distance to transit stop
► Less car use, ownership
► Ideally, a network of TODs

7. California TOD Study
► Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented
Development in California (2004)
Comprehensive study of TOD sites throughout
California
Lund, Cervero and Willson
Report available on line at
http://www.csupomona.edu/~rwwillson/
► Sites studied:
Light rail: San Diego Trolley, Los Angeles Blue Line,
San Jose VTA, Sacramento
Heavy rail: Los Angeles Red Line, BART
Commuter rail: San Diego Coaster, LA Metrolink,
Caltrain
► No Inland Empire sites, no BTOD

8. TOD residents
► Transitshares among TOD residents exceed
surrounding city by a factor of 4.9
Transit Commute Mode Share (Rail and Bus)
100
90
80
70
Total trips (%)
60
44.9
50 37.8
40 26.5
30 17.4
20 13.8 13
5.4 5.8 3.3 6.6 4.2 4.8
10
0
All Residential BART: Pleasant BART: S. LA Metro: Long SD Trolley: Caltrain
Sites Hill Alameda Cnty Beach Mission Valley Commuter
Surveyed Sites Surrounding City

9. TOD residents: commute
ridership higher than “non-work”
Drove Drove
Drove Carpool Carpool
Drove 20%
Alone 4% Rode in
alone
67% Carpool Rode in
62%
1% Carpool
6%
Rode
Rail Rode
24% Rail
Rode 5%
Rode
Walked Bus Walked
Bicycled Bus
1% 2% 4%
1% 3%
Work Trip Travel Modes (n=877) Non-Work Travel Modes (n=486)
26% total for work 8% total for non-work

10. Office workers
► Transitshares among TOD workers exceed
surrounding region by a factor of 3.7
Transit Commute Mode Share (Rail and Transit)
100
90 Surveyed Sites
80
70 Surrounding Region
Total Trips (%)
60
50 38.5
40 29
30 18.8 17.2
20 9.5 9.5
5.1 7.8 4.7 6 4.7
10 2.9 3.4 2.7
0
All Office Sites BART: BART: Wlnt LA Red Line: SD Trolley: Sacramento Metrolink:
Berkeley Crk/Fremont Hollywood Missn Valley LRT Anaheim

11. Other factors affecting transit
ridership
► Parking supply and pricing
► Feeder buses
► Retail shop density
► Street connectivity
► Pedestrian characteristics –
sidewalk density, street tree
density, street light density, block
face density
► Distance from station to office

12. CA TOD study conclusions
► TOD sites have higher transit shares;
variation related to:
Characteristics of users
Maturity and connectivity of system
Characteristics of trip destination
► Impacts in lower density areas are smaller,
less studied
Regional VMT versus local traffic

13. Turning around a container ship….
► Land use patterns change slowly…
Difficult to meet targets with land use,
transportation, and housing planning for new
development
► Local attitudes toward density
► Policy and operational changes
required (change the base):
Peak period road pricing, revenues directed to
transit
Parking pricing
Convert roadway space to HOV, transitways
Telecommunication substitution
Residential mobility (for jobs/housing
balancing)

14. Land use authority
► SCS is “not a land use plan”
► Local issues in responding to SCS land use
strategies:
Opposition to density
Mitigating traffic impacts
Resident reaction
► Regional – subregional – local partnership is
essential

15. Potential partnerships: local roles in
GHG mitigation
► Governments can team with
large local institutions
Coordinate built form investment
Transportation partnerships
(capital and management)
Public awareness/education

16. Cal Poly Pomona (CPP)
► One of 526 signatories of the Presidents Climate Commitment
Inventory, early actions, GHG reduction plan for carbon
neutrality, monitoring, education
Work is a collaboration with Dr. Kyle Brown ASLA, Co-Chair,
CPP Climate Action Team
► CPP setting:
1,400 acres, 20,000 students
Separated land uses
Complex trip chains
Physical barriers (roads,
topography)
Favorable solar insolation zone

17. Inventory Results
• Role of
transportation
• CA energy
efficiency
requirements
• Sequestration
< 1%

18. Capital versus Operating Strategies
► Tendency to capital strategies
Ribbon-cutting
Distrust of behavioral approaches
► Experience with incentives only
Consumer sovereignty
versus…
► Flexible,
inexpensive, (tricky)
(ongoing), operating programs

19. CPP 2030 Draft GHG Plan
► Transportation related measures:
Reduce emissions associated with travel
► 40% use alternatives to SOV (transit/carpool)
► Zero emissions university fleet
► Offset air travel (100%)
Reduce trips and/or vehicle miles traveled
(VMT)
► Reduce commuters to 73% of campus population
(on/near campus housing)
► Reduce campus trips by 30-40% (online/hybrid
courses, alternative work schedule)
► Other measures: education, renewable
energy, reduced energy consumption,
scope 3 consumables

20. Lessons and Suggestions
► Regional – subregional – local
cooperation essential
► Compact development must
be tailored to IE conditions
► GHG from existing VMT must
be reduced
► Government and large
Regional and
institutions can partner to State mandates
local initiatives
support SB 375 goals
► Research needed to assess
impacts of new land use
forms in IE
Non-profits/
► CPP Inventory:
http://www.csupomona.edu/~climate/reports.shtml private companies
► Paper: JAPA, 74: 497-504