Evaluating Transport Diversity

www.vtpi.
org
Info@vtpi.org
250-508-5150
Evaluating Transportation Diversity

Multimodal Planning for Efficient and Equitable Communities
21 December 2023
By
Todd Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Abstract
Transportation diversity refers to the variety of mobility and accessibility options
available in a particular situation, including various modes, services and destinations. A
transport system must be diverse in order to serve diverse demands, including the
needs of people who cannot, should not or prefer not to drive. Multimodal planning that
increases transport system diversity tends to increase efficiency, equity and resilience,
and achieve various planning goals including congestion reduction, infrastructure
savings, affordability, improved mobility for non-drivers, traffic safety, increased public
fitness and health, environmental protection and support for strategic development
objectives. Conventional planning undervalues many of these benefits, resulting in less
diverse, more automobile-dependent communities than optimal. This report examines
consumer demands for non-auto travel options, the roles that various modes play in an
efficient and equitable transport system, transport diversity benefits, and methods for
determining optimal transport system diversity.
Originally published as:

“You Can Get There From Here: Evaluating Transportation Choice,”
Transportation Research Record 1756, TRB (www.trb.org), 2001, pp. 32-41.
Todd Alexander Litman  2001-2023

You are welcome and encouraged to copy, distribute, share and excerpt this document and its ideas, provided the author is
given attribution. Please send your corrections, comments and suggestions for improvement.
Evaluating Transportation Diversity – Multimodal Planning for Efficient and Equitable Communities
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2
The Diversity of Travel Demands .................................................................................... 6
Transportation Diversity Benefits ................................................................................... 10
Congestion Reductions and Infrastructure Cost Savings ......................................................... 10
Consumer Savings and Affordability ......................................................................................... 12
Mobility for Non-Drivers ............................................................................................................. 13
Traffic Safety ............................................................................................................................. 14
Increased Public Fitness and Health ......................................................................................... 15
Energy Conservation and Pollution Emission Reductions ........................................................ 16
Strategic Development Goals ................................................................................................... 17
Local Economic Development ................................................................................................... 18
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 19
Multimodal Performance Indicators ............................................................................... 20
Indicators by Mode .................................................................................................................... 20
Aggregate Multimodal Indicators ............................................................................................... 22
Transportation for Everyone Ratings ........................................................................................ 26
Optimal Transportation Diversity ................................................................................... 27
Method 1: Market Principles ...................................................................................................... 27
Method 2: Comprehensive Planning ......................................................................................... 28
Method 3: Equity – A Fair Share for Non-drivers ...................................................................... 29
Method 4: Equity – Optimal Urban Design ................................................................................ 31
Method 5: Accessibility Indicators and Targets ......................................................................... 32
Reforms for More Multimodal Planning ......................................................................... 33
Scope of Impacts....................................................................................................................... 33
Analysis of Demand .................................................................................................................. 33
Accessibility-Based Analysis ..................................................................................................... 33
Transportation Performance Evaluation.................................................................................... 34
Funding Practices ...................................................................................................................... 34
Development Policies ................................................................................................................ 34
Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 35
References.................................................................................................................... 36
A motorist driving on a rural road stops to ask an old farmer for directions to a nearby town. The
farmer ponders the question and replies, “I’m afraid you can’t get there from here.”
This old joke is amusing because it contradicts what we know about transportation. Given
accurate directions and sufficient fuel a motorist can reach nearly any location on a public road.
But if the visitor were walking, the situation might not be so funny. Rather than suggesting that
the destination is generally inaccessible, it could mean, “You can’t get there, at least not the way
you are traveling.” It is tragic rather than comic if some groups of people have inferior
transportation options.
1
“Variety is the Spice of Life”
Introduction
To be efficient and fair, a transportation system must be diverse or multimodal, in order to serve
diverse demands. This lets travellers choose the best option for each trip: walking and bicycling
for local travel, public transit for longer urban trips, and automobiles when they are truly most
efficient overall, considering all impacts. A diverse transportation system ensures that
everybody, including non-drivers, has viable mobility options and receives their fair share of
transportation infrastructure investments.
Transportation diversity declined during much of the last century due to automobile-oriented
planning which invested transportation resources (money and land) primarily in roads and
parking facilities, with little support for alternatives. This created automobile-dependent
communities that favor driving over other travel modes. This can create problems for both
individuals and communities.
Many people cannot, should not or prefer not to drive for most trips. Without suitable options,
non-drivers lack independent mobility, which deprives them of economic and social
opportunities, and forces motorists to chauffeur non-driving family members and friends.
Automobile dependency forces many households to spend more than is affordable on
transportation, and exacerbates traffic problems including congestion, risk and pollution.
Multimodal planning can reduce these problems.
Of course, it is not feasible to provide every travel option everywhere but more multimodal
planning can significantly increase transportation system diversity and respond to currently
unmet travel demands. The results can benefit everybody. Multimodal planning is not anti-car: a
multimodal transportation system includes a significant amount of automobile travel, as
opposed to “car-free” planning which severely limits driving. Table 1 compares approaches.
Table 1 Automobile-Dependent, Multimodal and Car-Free Compared

Auto-Dependent Multi-Modal Car-Free
Motor vehicle mobility: Multimodal mobility and
Planning priority speed and distance accessibility Non-auto accessibility.
Automobile. Other modes Walking, cycling, transit, Walking, cycling, public
are considered inefficient, ridesharing, automobile and transit, taxi and mobility
Mobility Options to be avoided. mobility substitutes substitutes.
Land use Dispersed. Development Most development is All development is compact
development along highways compact and mixed. and mixed around transit.
Vehicle parking Abundant and usually free. Moderate and often priced. Very limited.
Vehicle High. Over 500 vehicles Moderate. 200-500 vehicles Low. Less than 200 vehicles
ownership per 1,000 residents. per 1,000 residents. per 1,000 residents.
Automobile
mode share More than 80% 20-80% Less than 20%
Automobile-dependent, multimodal and car-free communities differ in many ways.
2
Key Terms and Concepts

Transportation diversity (also called multimodalism, or we say that travellers have options or choices)
refers to the availability of various travel modes and services, which can include walking, cycling,
ridesharing (car- and vanpooling), taxi and ridehailing (such as Uber and Lyft) services, various forms
of public transportation (bus, train, ferry, commercial air travel), plus mobility substitutes such as
telework (telecommunications which substitutes for physical travel, such as telecommuting, Internet
shopping and e-medicine) and delivery services (mail, courier, and deliveries by local shops and
restaurants). To complement these mobility options communities need compact development and
well connected transport networks, so most homes and worksites are located within convenient
walking distance of most commonly-used services (shops, restaurants, schools, parks, healthcare,
etc.), providing good non-automobile accessibility. As a result, people who live or work in such areas
tend to own fewer cars, drive less and rely more on alternative modes. Such communities are called
urban villages, Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), Smart Growth, New Urbanist or location-
efficient development, depending on context.
Multimodal planning is the process for creating a diverse transportation system, in contrast to
automobile-oriented planning which favors automobile travel to the detriment of other modes,
which creates automobile-dependent communities. Multimodal planning applies comprehensive
analysis of travel demands and impacts, which tends to increase investments in walking, cycling and
public transit, and justify Transportation Demand Management programs. Multimodal planning also
integrates transportation and land use development policies, and corrects system gaps, such as poor
pedestrian and bicyclist access to public transport stops.
Resilience refers to a system’s ability to accommodate unpredictable changes, including sudden and
extreme conditions. Option value refers to the benefits that people may place on having options
available for possible future use. Transportation diversity tends to increase resilience which provides
option value to people who may want a mode or service in the future.
These factors can be evaluated based on inputs, outputs and outcomes, as illustrated below. For
example, multimodal planning tends to increase the amount of money and road space devoted to
active modes, which increases the quantity and quality of sidewalks, paths and bikelanes, which
often increase walking and bicycling trips, and reduces automobile travel.
Inputs, Outputs and Outcomes
Inputs Outputs Outcomes

(transport policies, (Quantity and
(How and how much
investments and quality of roads,
people travel, and
regulations that parking facilities,
associated inpacts
affect transport sidewalks and
such as transportation
system paths, public
expenditures and
development) transit services,
accidents)
etc.)
Transportation diversity can be evaluated based on input, such as investments in various modes,
output such as the quantity and quality of facilities and services, or outcomes such as how and how
much people travel by different modes.
3
Automobile-oriented planning evaluates transportation system performance based on vehicle

travel speeds, and so favors driving over slower modes in planning decisions such as funding and
road space allocation. For example, evaluating transport system performance based on roadway
level-of-service, justifies road expansions to reduce congestion delays, but ignores the tendency
of wider roads and heavier traffic to degrade walking and cycling conditions, and since most
public transit trips include walking links, this reduces transit access. Similarly, conventional
planning requires generous parking supply for motorist convenience, although this results in
more dispersed development which is difficult to access without a car. More comprehensive
analysis tends to justify more diverse transportation investments.
There are many possible ways to evaluate transportation diversity. A narrow perspective only
considers the degree that a particular option achieves a particular objective, such as whether a
sidewalk improvement solves parking problems or whether a new transit service reduces traffic
congestion on a particular corridor. A more comprehensive perspective considers a broader
range of impacts, and the potential for network effects, and so considers whether particular
sidewalk improvements and public transit service expansions can together help create a more
multimodal community where residents own fewer cars, drive less and rely more on alternative
modes, and how this can provide multiple economic, social and environmental benefits. More
comprehensive analysis reflects current planning practices.
A new paradigm is expanding the range of impacts and options considered in transportation
planning, which supports more multimodal planning. The new paradigm recognizes that mobility
is not usually an end in itself, rather, the ultimate goal of most transportation is access to
desired services and activities (school, work, shopping, healthcare, recreation, etc.), and so
recognizes the important roles that walking, cycling and public transit can play in an efficient
and equitable transport system, and it expands planning goals to include affordability, safety,
mobility for non-drivers, and public fitness and health.
Multimodal planning is a type of transportation

Figure 1 TDM Strategies demand management (TDM) that changes travel
behavior to increase transport system efficiency.
It supports and is supported by other TDM
strategies such as commute trip reduction
programs and Smart Growth development
policies. These strategies tend to be synergistic:
they become more effective if implemented
together. For example, since most public transit
trips include walking links, pedestrian
improvements can help increase transit ridership
and associated benefits, and become even more
effective if implemented with supportive land
use policies such as efficient parking pricing. As a
result, multimodal planning should be evaluated
as an integrated program rather than as
Multimodal planning is a type of TDM strategy. individual components.
4
More comprehensive and multimodal planning tends to increase investments in walking,

cycling, and public transit. Because these modes tend to be more space-efficient, energy
efficient, affordable, inclusive, healthy, and less polluting than automobile travel, this can
provide many benefits. Even motorists who do not use these modes can benefit from reduced
traffic and parking congestion, accident risk, chauffeuring burdens and pollution. Current trends
are increasing their importance due to:
 A growing number of people who cannot or should not drive due to physical, financial or
legal constraints, who need efficient alternatives.
 Concerns about transportation affordability.
 Increasing concerns about sedentary living health problems, and the value of walking and
bicycling for fitness and health.
 Traffic safety policies designed to reduce high risk (young, old, impaired and distracted)
driving, and the need to provide suitable mobility options for these groups.
 Desires to address specific planning problems, such as traffic and parking congestion,
excessive energy consumption and pollution emissions.
 Goals to create more compact, attractive and less polluted communities.
To their credit, many decision-makers support walking, cycling, public transit and Smart Growth
polices more than is justified by conventional planning analysis: they realize intuitively that
diverse transport systems provide important economic, social and environmental benefits that
conventional analysis undervalues. However, more comprehensive evaluation of these impacts
can lead to better policy and planning decisions. This report is intended to provide practical
guidance for more comprehensive and multimodal transportation planning analysis.
This report explores multimodal planning concepts, investigates travel demands for alternative
modes, discusses benefits provided by transportation diversity and practical ways to evaluate
these impacts, investigates barriers to increased transport diversity, evaluates criticisms of
multimodal planning, and discusses examples. This report should be of interest to policy makers,
practitioners (planners, engineers and economists), and multimodal planning advocates.
Multimodal Planning Principles

1. Recognize all travel demands, including by people who cannot, should not or prefer not to drive.
2. Count every trip. Consider all travel, including short trips, active modes, and recreational travel in
travel surveys and data analysis.
3. Recognize the important roles that walking, bicycling and public transport play in an efficient and
equitable transportation system.
4. Apply comprehensive analysis that considers all benefits and costs.
5. Apply least cost planning, which invests resources in the most cost effective option, including
alternative modes and demand management strategies, considering all impacts.
6. Use transportation demand management to encourage use of efficient mobility options.
7. Integrate transportation and land use planning to create accessible, multimodal communities.
8. Reduce or eliminate requirements and encourage efficient parking management.
5
The Diversity of Travel Demands

Travel demand refers to the type and amount of travel that people would choose in a particular
situation, including latent travel that people would take if they had better options. For example,
some travellers would drive less and rely more on walking, bicycling and public transit if they
were more convenient and affordable. Failing to consider latent demand can create self-fulfilling
prophecies by perpetuating automobile-oriented transportation planning.
Conventional travel data often undercounts and undervalues non-auto travel. For example,
many travel surveys only count peak-period trips between traffic analysis zones (TAZs), which
ignores shorter trips (within TAZs), non-commute trips, recreational travel, travel by children
and many active mode (walking and bicycling) trips. A bike-bus-walk trip is often coded simply as
a transit trip, and the trips between parked vehicles and destinations are ignored even if they
involve several blocks of walking. Commute mode share statistics indicate that only 3.6% of trips
are by active modes, implying that they are unimportant, but more comprehensive surveys
indicate that walking and bicycling trips are actually two to six times more common, so if
statistics indicate that only 5% of trips are by active modes the actual amount is probably 10-
30% (Forsyth, Krizek and Agrawal 2010).
Figure 2 Non-Auto Mode Shares (U.S. Census, 2017 NHTS)

18%
16% Public Transport Commonly-cited statistics,
such as commute mode share
14% Bike data, tend to undercount non-
12% Walk auto modes, particularly
Portion of Trips
10% walking and bicycling trips.

More comprehensive surveys
8%
indicate that walking and
6% bicycling trips are three to six
4% times more common than
2% indicated by commute mode
share data.
0%
Commute Mode Share NHTS
Similarly, planning analysis is often based on vehicle ownership data. About 92% of North
American households own at least one vehicle, implying that auto travel is nearly universal.
However, many vehicle owning household members cannot, should not or prefer not to drive
and will use non-auto modes that are convenient and affordable. The study, The Multimodal
Majority? (Buehler and Hamre 2015) found that during a typical week about 7% of Americans
rely entirely on non-auto modes, 65% use a car plus another mode one to five times, and 25%
use non-auto modes seven or more times.
Non-auto travel demands are particularly high among seniors, people with disabilities, youths,
lower-income households and recent immigrants whose ability to drive is limited (Park, et al.
2022; Wang and Renne 2023). For example, many lower-income households have fewer vehicles
than drivers, as illustrated in the following graph, so vehicles must be shared.
6
Figure 3 Vehicle Ownership Rates by Income Class (BLS 2011-2020)

1.2 Vehicles/Adult Although more than 90% of U.S.
Vehicle-owning households households own at least one vehicle
1.0
and there are about as many vehicles
0.8 as adults, these rates vary by income
class. Among the lowest income
0.6 quintile, 34% of households are car-
free and there are only 0.73 vehicles
0.4
per adult, while the highest income
0.2 classes have more vehicles than
adults. As a result, most low-income
0.0 adults are either car-free or car-deficit
First Second Third Fourth Fifth (drivers share vehicles), and so
(lowest) (highest) demand non-auto travel options.
Income Quintiles
Table 2 describes various types of non-auto travel demands. This indicates that in a typical
community, 20-40% of travellers cannot, should not or prefer not to drive and will use non-auto
modes if they are convenient, comfortable and affordable.
Table 2 Types of Non-Auto Travel Demands (Brumbaugh 2021; Census 2021; OIA 2020)
Type Prevalence Costs if not Served
Seniors who do not or should not drive. 5-10% of population.
Non-drivers lack mobility, require chauffeuring
People with mobility impairments. 5-10% of population.
(special vehicle travel to transport a non-driver),
Adolescents (12-20 years). 10-20% of population. must use higher-cost options (such as taxis and
Drivers who share vehicles. 5-15% of motorists. ridehailing) or move to another community with
better transport options.
Drivers who temporarily lack vehicles. Varies.
Lower-income households. 20-40% of households. Lack mobility or bear excessive transport costs.
Tourists and visitors. Varies. Lack mobility or visit other areas.

People who do not drive for religious Lack mobility during religious days or move to
or cultural reasons. 0-3% of households. more walkable areas.
Impaired or distracted travelers. Varies. Impaired and distracted driving, increasing crashes.
People who walk and bike for health Must spend time and money exercising at a gym or
and enjoyment. 40-60% of residents. have insufficient exercise.
Families with pets to walk. 20% of households. Pets lack exercise or owners drive to walking areas.
Motorists who benefit from better Motorists bear more congestion, risk and
travel options for others. Most motorists. chauffeuring burdens.
In a typical community, 20-40% of travellers cannot, should not, or prefer not to drive and will use non-auto
modes if they are convenient, comfortable and affordable.
7
These categories overlap. For example, people with mobility impairments have high poverty
rates which increase the importance of modes that are both affordable and accessible, such as
affordable housing in compact urban villages with universal design features so it is easy for
people with disabilities to easily access local services and activities. The figure below
summarizes major categories of non-drivers. Of course, many of these people travel by
automobile as drivers or passengers, but this imposes costs on them and their families, and so
would use non-auto modes if they were more convenient, comfortable and affordable.
Figure 3 Cannot, Should Not, or Prefer Not to Travel By Automobile
In most communities a significant

Cannot portion of travellers cannot, should
drive not, or prefer not to rely primarily on
Low- automobile travel and will use
Satisfied income
motorists alternatives if they are convenient,
(burdened
(prefer by car comfortable and affordable.
auto- costs)
dependent Prefer non-
lifestyles) auto travel
The demand for non-auto travel depends on how it is defined and measured. For example,
although only a few percent of travellers have severe mobility impairments, most households
will at some time have members with mobility impairments and so benefit from universal
design. Physically-able people can benefit from wheelchair accessible homes and shops so they
can host visitors with disabilities and their future selves if they become impaired. Blumenberg,
Brown and Schouten (2020) find that about 20% of U.S. households are car-deficit, meaning
they have more drivers than vehicles, and they often rely on non-auto modes.
Similarly, although only a small portion of total driving is impaired by alcohol or drugs, all
motorists can benefit from better alternatives for those that do (TIRF 2019). Motorists also
benefit from non-auto improvements that reduce their chauffeuring burdens to family members
and friends who cannot drive. Some non-auto mode improvements provide often-overlooked
benefits. For example, universal design improvements are generally intended to accommodate
wheelchair users, who are less than 1% of travellers, but they also benefit parents pushing
strollers, tourists with wheeled luggage, and people using handcarts to make deliveries.
Physically, economically and socially disadvantaged people tend to depend more than average
on non-auto modes, so improving non-auto travel tends to achieve social equity goals; it
improves disadvantaged groups quality of life and economic opportunities and reduces
disparities between advantaged and disadvantaged groups (Dissell 2023).
Non-auto mode shares tend to increase with density, as illustrated below, and so tend to be
particularly high in areas with the most severe traffic problems. Small increase in non-auto
8
mode shares can provide large benefits if concentrated on congested corridors.
Figure 5 Regional, Central City and CBD Mode Shares (Pisarski 2006)
80%
Region
Transit Mode Share
60%
Central City
CBD
40%
20%
0%
Non-auto mode shares are particularly high in denser urban areas where traffic problems are severe, so small
shifts to walking, bicycling or public transit can provide large benefits if concentrated in those areas.
The figure below illustrates indicators of U.S. non-auto travel demands. The first column shows
their commute mode share. The second column shows total trips, based on National Household
Travel Survey data. The third column shows estimated non-auto mode shares in larger cities
where traffic problems are most severe. The fourth and fifth columns show estimates of
potential non-auto mode shares if communities invested significantly more in them. The sixth
column indicates the portion of U.S. residents who use non-auto modes at least three times per
week. This indicates that non-auto travel demands are higher than generally recognized. The
next section describes the benefits of serving currently unmet demands.
Figure 6 Non-Auto Demand Indicators (2018 ACS, 2017 NHTS, Buehler and Hamre 2015)
60% Non-auto modes
Car + non-auto trips
serve 8% of commute
Non-Auto
Portion of Trips or Travellers
50%
Public transit trips, 16% of total
40% Bike personal trips, 27% of
Walk personal trips in large
30% cities, and a third to
20% half of potential trips
if they received more
10% investment. About
half of all travellers
0%
use non-auto modes
Commute Total Trips Large City Potential Potential 3+ Non-auto
at least three times
Trips Trips Trips Large City Trips per
Trips Week per week.
9
Transportation Diversity Benefits

This section describes various benefits provided by a more diverse, less automobile-dependent
transportation system.
Congestion Reductions and Infrastructure Cost Savings

Automobile travel is space intensive. Figure 2 compares road space needs of various modes.
Figure 7 Space Required to Transport 40 People (www.tobinbennett.com)
Automobile travel
requires far more road
space than other modes,
and so causes more
traffic congestion.
Improving and
encouraging space-
efficient mode can
reduce congestion.
Vehicle travel also requires parking at each destination. Figure 8 compares the road and parking
space requirements for commuting by various modes: automobiles require many times more
space than walking, cycling and public transit.
Figure 8 Space Required By Travel Mode1
1,400
Square Feet Per Commute Trip
1,200
1,000 Parking Area

800 Travel Area
600
400
200
0
Walking Bus Transit Bicycling Motorscooter Motorcycle Automobile
Automobile travel requires far more space for travel and parking than other modes.
1
Transport Land Requirements Spreadsheet (www.vtpi.org/Transport_Land.xls), based on Eric Bruun and
Vukan Vuchic (1995), “The Time-Area Concept: Development, Meaning and Applications,” Transportation
Research Record 1499, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 95-104; at https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=452722.
10
As a result, walking, cycling and public transit help reduce traffic and parking congestion in the
short run, and over the long run can help reduce road and parking facility costs. Critics
sometimes argue that because transit only carries a small portion of total travel it can do little to
reduce congestion, but on the most congested, such as urban highways and downtown arterials,
alternative modes can carry a significant portion of peak-period travel and provide significant
congestion reductions (Litman 2014a; Nelson\Nygaard 2006).
These impacts can be difficult to measure because congestion maintains a self-limiting

equilibrium: it increases until delays cause some travelers to reduce their peak-period vehicle
trips. The quality of travel options affects this equilibrium. If alternatives to driving are
inefficient or uncomfortable, delays must become severe before travellers shift modes, but if
alternative are attractive, less congestion is needed to cause shifts. Congestion does not
disappear, but is less severe than would occur without these alternatives.
Congestion can be measured in various ways that give very different conclusions about the
nature of this cost and the effectiveness of various solutions (Litman 2014a; Wallis and Lupton
2013). Indicators such as roadway Level-of-Service and the Travel Time Index measure
congestion intensity, the degree that traffic speeds decline during peak periods. Measured this
way, alternative modes only reduce congestion if they reduce motorists’ delay. More
comprehensive indicators, such as per capita congestion costs or commute duration, also
account for the congestion avoided by travellers who choose alternative modes or shorter
commutes. For example, compact, multi-modal cities such as New York, Boston and
Philadelphia tend to have more intense congestion (greater peak-period speed reductions), but
lower congestion costs (fewer annual hours of delay per capita) due to lower auto mode shares
and short trip lengths, which reduces congestion exposure (the amount residents drive during
peak periods). More dispersed, automobile-oriented cities such as Houston, Atlanta and Detroit
tend to have less intense congestion but greater congestion costs.
Empirical evidence indicates that residents of more multimodal communities experience less
traffic congestion than in more sprawled, automobile-dependent areas. A major study in
Phoenix, Arizona found less intense congestion, and less congestion experienced by residents of
more compact, multimodal neighborhoods than in lower-density, automobile-dependent areas
(Kuzmyak 2012). Hamilton and Wichman (2016) used a unique fine-grained traffic dataset to
measure the Washington DC Capital Bikeshare program’s congestion impacts. They found that
bikeshare stations reduced congestion by 4% or more compared with what would otherwise
occur, with the greatest reductions in the most congested areas. Because transit riders tend to
travel on congested urban corridors, they usually have much larger congestion reduction
impacts than their mode share. For example, although only 11% of Los Angeles commuters use
transit, when a strike halted transit service for five weeks, average highway congestion delay
increased 47%, with 11% to 38% increases in regional congestion costs (Anderson 2013).
11
Consumer Savings and Affordability

Walking, cycling and public transit are much cheaper than automobile travel, providing savings
and affordability (savings to lower-income households). Automobiles sometimes impose large
unexpected costs for repairs, crashes or traffic citations that can be particularly burdensome to
lower-income motorists (Weinstein Agrawal, et al. 2011). Residents of compact, multimodal
communities spend much less on transportation than in sprawled, automobile dependent areas
(CTOD and CNT 2006; Ewing and Hamidi 2014), as illustrated in figures 9 and 10. Households in
transit-oriented neighborhoods often spend less than 10% of their budgets on transportation,
compared with more than 20% in sprawled, automobile-dependent areas (Litman 2005).
Figure 9 Household Transport Spending Versus Compactness (Grammenos 2016)

Households in compact, multimodal regions
spend a far smaller portion of their budgets
on transportation than in sprawled,
automobile-dependent regions such as
Phoenix and Detroit.
Much greater differences are found when

these impacts are evaluated at a finer
geographic scale. Residents of compact,
multimodal neighborhoods typically spend
half as much on transportation as in
sprawled, automobile-dependent areas,
and have better fallback options when they
are unable to drive.
Potential saving are even larger than these surveys indicate since many households spend more
on vehicles than necessary, for example, owning expensive vehicles for status sake, or additional
vehicles for recreation. Transportation diversity also increases economic resilience by providing
savings opportunities for responding to financial stresses such as reduced income or a vehicle
failure, an option that is not feasible in automobile-dependent areas. This helps explain why
housing foreclosure rates are much lower in more multimodal communities (NRDC 2010).
Figure 10 Household Transport Spending Versus Transit Use (Litman 2005)
The portion of household budgets

devoted to transportation (automobiles
and transit) tends to decline with
increased transit ridership, and is much
lower in transit-oriented than in
automobile-dependent urban regions.
12
Non-Drivers’ Independent Mobility and Economic Opportunity

As previously described, 20-40% of residents in typical communities cannot or should not drive
due to age, poverty, disability or impairment. Without suitable travel options:
 Non-drivers lack independent mobility. They have fewer opportunities to travel when and
where they want, and so may have difficulty accessing basic services and activities. This
reduces their economic opportunities, and conversely, the pool of potential employees
available to businesses. It also reduces their recreational activities, reducing their physical
and mental health.
 Non-drivers receive less than their fair share of transportation investments. Approximately
$700 is spent on roads and $1,000-3,000 on parking subsidies annually per capita, compared
with $100-200 for transit subsidies and $20-50 for pedestrian and cycling facilities. This is
unfair to non-drivers and since driving tends to increase with income, it is regressive,
resulting in lower-income households subsidizing the costs of their wealthier neighbors.
 Motorists must chauffeur non-drivers. In automobile-dependent communities this
represents a major portion of total travel (Litman 2015). In the U.S., at least 6.9% of total
personal trips, 15% of morning peak trips, and 9.4% of afternoon peak trips are for
chauffeuring (McGuckin 2009).
 Higher-risk people drive even if they should, and want to, use alternatives. Many traffic
safety strategies, such as graduated licenses, senior driving tests, anti-impaired and anti-
distracted driving campaigns are intended to reduce high risk driving. Their effectiveness
depends, in part, on these groups having viable alternatives to driving.
 More compact, multimodal communities increase economic mobility, the chance that a child
who grows up in a lower-income household will be more economically prosperous as an
adult (Ewing, et al. 2017; Talen and Koschinsky 2013). More diverse transport options help
them access economic opportunities such as school and work (Stanley, et al. 2010).
Figure 11 Upward Mobility Versus Neighborhood Accessibility (Ewing, et al. 2016)
Economic mobility (the chance that

children born in poverty become
economically successful as adults) is
greater for households living in more
accessible, multimodal communities.
This probably reflects ways that

multimodal transportation increases
non-drivers’ economic opportunities.
13
Traffic Safety
An extensive body of research using various data sets and methods indicates that traffic casualty
rates (deaths and injuries) tend to decline with more compact and multimodal urban
development (Duduta, Adriazola-Steil and Hidalgo 2013; Welle, et al. 2015). Per capita traffic
crash rates tend to decline with more compact and mixed development, smaller block sizes,
increased street connections, narrower streets, better pedestrian and cycling facilities, better
crosswalks, roundabouts and more traffic calming (Ewing and Dumbaugh 2009; Garrick and
Marshall 2011). Ewing and Hamidi (2014) found that more compact U.S. urban areas had slightly
higher crash rates but much lower traffic fatality rates than sprawled areas: each 10% increase
in their compact community index is associated with a 0.4% increase in total crashes, and a
13.8% reduction in traffic fatalities.
Traffic fatality rates tend to decline with increased transit ridership (Stimpson, et al. 2014). The
figure below illustrates the relationship between transit trips and traffic fatality rates for U.S.
cities. Higher-transit-ridership regions (more than 50 annual transit trips per capita) have about
half the average traffic fatality rates as low-transit-ridership cities (less than 20 annual trips per
capita). This represents a small increase in transit mode share, from about 1.5% up to about 4%,
but is associated with large reductions in traffic fatality rates. This suggest that many of the
factors that encourage transit travel, such as more compact development, improved walking
conditions, and reduced parking supply, also tend to reduce traffic fatality rates.
Figure 12 Transit Travel Versus Traffic Deaths in U.S. Cities (Litman 2016)
20
Traffic Fatalities Per 100,000 Residents
18
As transit travel
16 increases, per capita
14 traffic fatality rates
tend to decline. Cities
12 where residents
10 average more than
50 annual transit
8 trips have about half
6 the average traffic
fatality rates as cities
4
where residents
2 R² = 0.2676 average fewer than
20 annual transit
0
trips.
0 50 100 150 200 250
Annual Transit Trips Per Capita
As active travel (walking and cycling) increases in a community, total per capita traffic casualty
rates, and per-mile pedestrian and cyclist crash rates tend to decline, an effect sometimes called
safety in numbers (Jacobsen 2003; Myers, et al. 2013). This probably results from a combination
of less total vehicle travel, less higher-risk (youth, senior, impaired, etc.) driving, slower traffic
speeds, and more caution by drivers in compact, multimodal communities.
14
Public Fitness and Health

To maintain basic fitness and health, experts recommend that people spend at least 22 daily
minutes (150 minutes a week) in moderate physical activity, such as fast walking or cycling (CDC
2019). Although there are many possible ways to exercise, organized sports or fitness training
require special time and expenditures, and can be challenging for people who are overweight
and sedentary. For many people, particularly those with the greatest risks, neighborhood
walking and cycling are among the most practical way to achieve fitness targets.
An extensive body of research indicates that living in a more multimodal community increases
the portion of residents who are physically active and fit (Ewing and Hamidi 2014). Controlling
for other factors Frank, et al. (2019) found that improved walkability is associated with
significant increases in active travel, and reductions in obesity and diabetes. Improving walking
and bicycling conditions, improving public transit services, more connected roadway networks,
more compact and mixed development, improved access to parks and recreational facilities, and
programs that promote active transport tend to increase public fitness and health (CPSTF 2017).
Most public transit trips include walking links so physical activity tends to increase with transit
travel. Lachapelle, et al. (2011) found that transit commuters average 5 to 10 more minutes of
moderate-intensity physical activity, and walked more to services and destinations than
nonusers. Melbourne, Australia residents who use public transit average 41 daily minutes of
walking or cycling for transport, five times more than the 8 minutes averaged by residents who
travel only by automobile (BusVic 2010).
Ewing and Hamidi (2014) found that every doubling in their Compact Community index life
expectancy increases about 4%. For the average American with a life expectancy of 78 years,
this translates into a three-year difference in life expectancy between people in a less compact
versus a more compact county.
Frederick, Riggs and Gilderbloom (2017) analyzed the relationships between commute mode
share (the portion of commuters who do not drive an automobile, which ranges from 11% to
36%) as an indicator of transportation system diversity, and twelve public health and quality of
life indicators for various mid-size U.S. cities and counties. The results indicate that, after
adjusting for various demographic factors, there is significant positive relationship between
more modal diversity and positive public health outcomes including healthier behaviors
reported in the Gallup/Healthway’s Well-Being Index, more leisure quality reported by Sperling’s
Cities Ranked and Rated, more access to exercise reported by the Environmental Systems
Research Institute, less sedentary living and obesity reported in the Center for Disease Control’s
Diabetes Interactive Atlas, more Years of Potential Life Lost (an indicator of longevity and overall
health), and higher birth weights (an indicator of infant health) reported by the National Center
for Health Statistics. These relationships are stronger than many other sociological,
geographical, and economic indicators including density, latitude, race, education and income,
suggesting that living in a more multimodal community provides significant health benefits.
Many of the health benefits found to be associated with urban density may actually reflect
those areas’ transportation diversity, which suggests that policies that improve walking, cycling
and public transit can provide health benefits in cities, suburbs and small towns.
15
Energy Conservation and Pollution Emission Reductions

Travel modes vary significantly in their energy consumption and pollution emissions. The figure
below compares lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for various modes, taking into vehicle and
infrastructure production, maintenance and operation emissions.
Figure 13 Lifecycle Carbon Intensity by Mode (TMNT 2021)
Energy consumption and

pollution emissions vary by
mode and vehicle type.
Walking and bicycling

emissions are tiny. Local
transit services have low to
moderate emission rates but
can leverage large reductions
in per capita emissions by
creating more compact,
multimodal communities (ICF
2010). Electric automobiles
reduce emissions 40-80%
compared with comparable
fossil fuel vehicles, depending
on type and electric power
source.
More compact, multimodal development reduces per capita energy consumption and pollution
emissions by reducing vehicle travel and building energy use (Decker, et al. 2017; Litman 2011;
Meyer 2013). The figure below illustrates these impacts.
Figure 14 Household Energy Consumption (http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/maps)
This map produced by the

Cool Climate Calculator
illustrates average
annual household carbon
footprint by zip code in
the Los Angeles region.
More central locations
tend to have lower
emissions (dark green)
due largely to less driving
and more use of
alternative modes.
16
Strategic Development Goals

Many communities have strategic goals to create more compact communities in order to reduce
land consumption and therefore preserve openspace, reduce public infrastructure and service
costs, and to create more accessible, less automobile-dependent communities (Ewing and
Hamidi 2014; Litman 2017). These are sometimes called livability objectives.
Openspace includes farmlands and undeveloped lands such as forests, shorelines, parks and
wilderness areas, which provide various economic, social and environmental benefits including
agricultural production, tourism, recreation, cultural activities, water and air quality, wildlife
habitat and beauty (Jacob and Lopez 2009; Tagliafierro, et al. 2013).
More compact development reduces the costs of providing public infrastructure and services
such as roads, parking facilities, utilities, emergency services and school transportation. Burchell
and Mukherji (2003) found that modest increases in development density can reduce road lane-
miles about 10%, public service costs 10%, housing development costs 8%, providing capital cost
saving that average of $13,000 per dwelling unit or $550 annually. A study for West Des Moines,
Iowa calculates that, to accommodate 9,275 new housing units, compact development designed
to maximize neighborhood walkability would generate $11.2 million ($417 annual per capita)
net fiscal gains (incremental tax revenue minus incremental costs), about 50% more than the
$7.5 million ($243 annual per capita) generated by the lowest density scenario (SGA and RCLCO
2015). The figure below shows how density reduces per capita lane-miles, and therefore
roadway and stormwater management costs, and environmental impacts.
Figure 15 Urban Density Versus Roadway Supply (FHWA 2012, Table HM72)
As urban densities increase, roadway

supply declines. U.S. cities with less than
1,000 residents per square mile
(approximately 1.6 residents per acre)
have nearly three times as much land
devoted to roads than denser cities with
more than 4,000 residents per square
mile (approximately 6 residents per
hectare). This reduces per capita road
construction and operating costs,
hydrologic and stormwater
management costs, and environmental
impacts.
(Each dot represents a U.S. urban

region.)
Multimodal transportation planning both supports and is supported by compact development,

particularly strategies such as more efficient parking management, improving space-efficient
modes (walking, cycling, public transit, etc.), and transit-oriented development.
17
Local Economic Development

More multimodal transportation can support local economic development in several ways
(Angel and Blei 2015; Decker, et al. 2017):
 It expands the pool of lower-wage workers available to employers, many of whom are
limited in their ability to drive and so must rely on alternative modes, at least occasionally.
 It increases agglomeration efficiencies, which tend to increase productivity and incomes
(Melo, Graham and Noland 2009). Hsieh and Moretti (2015) estimate that allowing more
infill development in productive U.S. cities could increase national economic output by 13%.
 It reduces the costs of providing public infrastructure and services, parking subsidy costs to
businesses, and various economic costs such as productivity from disabilities caused by
traffic accidents and illnesses caused by sedentary living.
 It reduces the amount of money that residents spend on vehicles and fuel, expenditures that
provide relatively little local economic productivity and employment per dollar. As a result,
reducing vehicle expenditures tends to increase local economic activity.
 It lets households build long-term wealth by shifting spending from vehicles to housing. For
example, a multimodal household that spends $20,000 annually on a mortgage and $5,000
on vehicles after a decade typically accrues $100,000 more equity than an auto-dependent
household that spends $15,000 on a mortgage and $10,000 on vehicles (Litman 2017).
 It supports industries including tourism, recreation and retail which are stimulated by more
walkable, bikeable and attractive communities.
At both state and regional scales, per capita GDP tends to decline with vehicle-miles traveled
(VMT) and increases with per capita transit ridership (Kooshian and Winkelman 2011). The
figure below illustrates the negative relationship between per capita vehicle travel and
economic productivity. This reflects the efficiencies of reduced transportation costs and more
compact development.
Figure 16 Per Capita GDP and VMT for U.S. States (BTS 2006 and BEA 2006)
$50,000
Per Capita Annual GDP (2004)
$40,000
Per capita economic
$30,000 productivity increases
as vehicle travel
declines. (Each dot is a
$20,000
U.S. state.)
R² = 0.3546
$10,000
$0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Annual Per Capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
18
Summary
Compared with automobile travel, other modes can provide various savings and benefits, as
summarized in Table 4. Depending on the audience, walking, cycling and public transit can be
called space-efficient, affordable, inclusive, healthy, green or sustainable modes. Not every non-
auto mode improvement provides all of these benefits, but most provide several.
Table 4 Multimodal Transportation Benefits

Typical Impacts of Non-Auto Modes Benefits
Space-efficient. Non-auto modes require less Less traffic and parking congestion, and therefore
space per passenger-mile. lower road and parking costs.
Non-auto modes cost less than driving. Increases affordability and economic resilience.
Inclusive. Non-auto modes serve people who lack Improves mobility options for people who cannot
a vehicle or driver’s license. drive. Reduces chauffeuring burdens.
Increases safety. Public transit has very low crash
casualty rates. Walking and cycling impose Reduces traffic casualty (injuries and deaths) rates,
minimal risk on other road users. including risks to motorists.
Improves public fitness and health, provides
Non-auto modes are healthy and enjoyable to use. enjoyment, and supports industries such as tourism.
Non-auto modes are energy efficient and low Reduces energy consumption and resulting
polluting economic and environmental costs.
Reduces per capita land consumption, public
Multimodal planning supports strategic planning infrastructure costs, and improves overall
goals such as more compact development. accessibility.
Non-auto modes reduce fuel imports, expand
worker pools, provide agglomeration efficiencies, Increases local economic development
reduce infrastructure costs and support industries. (employment, productivity, tax revenues)
Compared with automobile travel, walking, cycling and public transport can provide many benefits.
Even people who do not currently walk, bicycle or use public transit can benefit from living in a
community that accommodates these modes if they reduce traffic and parking congestion,
accident risk, chauffeuring burdens, and pollution emissions, and non-users might need these
modes in the future, called option value (ITF 2017). This is not to suggest that walking, cycling
and public transit can serve all trips and driving should be eliminated, but it does suggest that
everybody can benefit from multimodal planning which allows each mode to serve the trips for
which they are best suited.
19
Multimodal Performance Indicators

This section describes methods that can be used to evaluate the degree that a transportation system
is multimodal and the benefits of improving transport diversity.
Performance indicators are metrics suitable for evaluating conditions and measuring progress
(or the lack thereof) toward goals. Most commonly-used transportation performance indicators,
such as roadway Level-of-Service (LOS) ratings and distance-based traffic accident rates (traffic
crashes per 100 million vehicle miles), evaluate transportation system performance based on
automobile travel conditions, with little consideration of other modes. This favors automobile-
oriented improvements and undervalues improvements to other modes. In recent years,
professional organizations have developed multimodal performance indicators suitable for
multimodal planning (Brozen, et al. 2014; De Oña, et al. 2016; FDOT 2012; NYDOT 2012).
Indicators by Mode
Walkability
Walkability refers to the overall quality of the pedestrian environment. Dowling and Associates
(2008-2010) describe walking Level-of-Service (LOS) indicators. Semler, et al. (2016) describe
how to choose and implement such indicators. Seiff and Weissman (2016) describe the process
for collecting these data in typical communities. The Walkability Level of Service Website
(www.levelofservice.com) provides information on methods for evaluating pedestrian LOS.
Performance indicators include:

 Portion of roads with suitable sidewalks, crosswalks and paths.
 Conditions of sidewalks, crosswalks and paths (pedestrian LOS).
 Roadway widths and traffic volumes (and therefore the ease of crossing roads).
 Pedestrian amenities such as benches, trees and awnings.
 Pedestrian information including wayfinding signage.
Universal Design
Universal Design (also called barrier-free design) refers to facilities that accommodate people
with diverse abilities and needs, including wheelchairs users, people who walk with difficulty or
have visual disabilities, and pedestrians with strollers, handcarts or wheeled luggage. The term
Universal Design is preferred to handicapped access because these design requirements can
benefit many users, not just those with disabilities.
Several planning and professional organizations publish Universal Design guidelines and
standards, including the U.S. Access Board (www.access-board.gov) and Access Exchange
International (www.globalride-sf.org).

 Portion of roads with suitable sidewalks, crosswalks and paths, and the portion of those facilities
that meet universal design standards.
 Portion of transportation services that meet universal design standards.
 Enforcement of universal design standards.
20
Bicycling
Dowling and Associates (2008-2010) describe bicycling Level-of-Service indicators. Semler, et al.
(2016) and Seiff and Weissman (2016) describe how to choose and implement such indicators.

 Portion of roads with suitable bike lanes and paths.
 Conditions of roads, bikelanes and paths (bicycling LOS).
 Roadway traffic volumes (and therefore the ease of riding on or crossing).
 Amenities such as bicycle parking.
 Enforcement of traffic laws that protect cyclists.
 Cycling information including wayfinding signage.
Public Transit
Public transit includes various vehicles and services (demand response, bus, train, ferries, etc.)
that provide motorized transport to the general public. This includes local services within a
community, and interregional services that connect distant communities. Various publications
provide guidelines for evaluating transit service quality (Kittelson & Associates 2017). The Local
Index of Transit Availability (LITA) rates transit service availability within urban areas, taking into
account demographic and geographic factors (Rood 1999). Transit service can be assessed with
respect to specific mobility needs, such as welfare-to-work (Tomer, et al. 2011).

 Service availability (portion of homes, worksites and services located within a ten-minute walk of
transit services).
 Service hours.
 Service frequency (number of transit vehicles per hour).
 Service reliability (on schedule performance).
 Comfort (e.g., crowding and cleanliness of shelters and vehicles).
 Service speeds compared with driving.
 Personal security while walking, waiting and riding on transit.
 Quality of pedestrian access to transit stops and stations.
 Fares relative to users’ income.
Taxi
Taxi services provide chauffeured automobile travel to the general public. Ridehailing services
such as Uber and Lyft are a variation. Taxi services are often regulated, in part to maintain
service quality (Linton 2016).

 Average response time for various conditions and locations.
 Number of taxis per capita, or per non-driver in an area.
 Ridehailing services availability.
 Price for an average trip relative to users’ income.
 Comfort, safety, reliability, and courtesy of service.
 Number of taxis able to carry people with disabilities (i.e., wheelchair users).
 Number of problems reported by users.
21
Automobile
Automobile travel provides mobility for people who have a driver’s license and a vehicle, and
can afford the expenses, although it can be delayed by congestion. Automobile travel can
include ridesharing (passengers on a vehicle trip that would occur anyway) and chauffeuring
(special vehicle travel to transport a passenger). Vehicle rental and carsharing services provide
occasional automobile use. The Highway Capacity Manual (TRB 2010) describes roadway Level-
of-Service ratings.

 Portion of population licensed to drive.
 Portion of population that owns a personal automobile.
 Roadway conditions.
 Traffic and parking congestion.
 Availability of rideshare services (car- and vanpooling).
 Availability of vehicle rental and carsharing services.
Telework
Electronic communications (telephones, Internet, and other communications services) can
substitute for some physical trips, including telecommuting (working offsite to avoid travel),
telelearning, Internet shopping and e-government services.

 Portion of households with telephone and Internet access.
 Portion of employers who allow telecommuting.
 Portion of public services (banks, government agencies, libraries, etc.) that can be accessed by
telephone or Internet.
Delivery Services
Delivery services include postal systems, private couriers, and local delivery services for goods
such as groceries. Such services can provide basic access and substitute for vehicle trips.

 Quality of mail and courier services.
 Portion of businesses (such as grocery stores) that offer home delivery.
 Portion of households with telephone and Internet access.
Proximity (Compact and Mixed Communities)

More compact and mixed development increases reduces the distances that must be traveled to
reach common destinations, which increases the portion of trips that can be made by non-auto
modes. The National Association of Realtors’ National Community Preference Survey (NAR 2020)
indicates that about half of households place a high value on living in within an easy walk of
other places and things in a community. López, Annema and van Wee (2022) found that people
value having various services and amenities nearby.
22
Aggregate Multimodal Indicators

Aggregate multimodal performance indicators evaluate the overall diversity of transport options
in an area, and therefore whether planning is multimodal.

 Consideration of non-automobile modes in transport planning and funding processes.
 Consideration of affordability, mobility for non-drivers, health and environmental goals in
transport planning process.
 Multimodal accessibility indicators and maps (Litman 2013).
 Mode share (a smaller automobile mode share indicates more diversity).
 Per capita motor vehicle ownership and annual mileage (smaller values indicate more diversity).
Accessibility Mapping Tools
Access Scores (http://bit.ly/2p2ueHY)

Access Scoring uses GIS mapping tools to measure people’s mobility demands, their ability to access work
and common non-work activities by various modes and at various times and locations, and indicates how
specific transportation system changes will affect that accessibility.
Accessibility Observatory (http://ao.umn.edu)

This is a leading resource for the research and application of accessibility-based transportation system
evaluation.
Opportunity Score (https://labs.redfin.com/opportunity-score)

This program ranks locations in 350 U.S. cities based on the number of jobs that can be accessed within a
30-minute walk or transit ride.
Sugar Access (www.citilabs.com/software/sugar/sugar-access)

Sugar Access is an integrated Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software program that quantifies the
time and financial costs of accessing various types of services and activities (healthcare, shops, schools,
jobs, parks, etc.) by various travel modes in a particular area.
Urban Accessibility Explorer (http://urbanaccessibility.com)

The Metropolitan Chicago Accessibility Explorer is an easy-to-use mapping system that measures the
number of activities, including various types of jobs, schools, parks, stores and libraries, that Chicago
region neighborhood residents can reach within a given travel time, by a particular mode and time of day.
The results are displayed on maps which can be adjusted by scale and area.
The Urban Accessibility Explore is an example of multimodal accessibility mapping. It indicates

the number of services and activities (schools, jobs, parks, stores, etc.) that can be reached
within a given time period by various modes (bicycling, transit and driving). It indicates that non-
drivers who live in accessible urban neighborhoods often have equal or better access than
suburban motorists. Measured this way, non-auto mode improvements and Smart Growth
development policies can play important roles in improving accessibility. For example, improving
urban walking and bicycling conditions, and public transit services can increase non-auto access
to services and jobs, and providing more affordable housing in compact, multimodal
neighborhood can increase lower-income households’ ability to access economic opportunities,
leading to better economic outcomes.
23
Figure 17 Urban Accessibility Explorer (http://urbanaccessibility.com)
This Accessibility Explorer map shows the number of jobs that can be accessed within 30-minutes by
public transit at 8:00 am. It can be changed to indicate other modes, destinations and time periods.
Mode share, vehicle ownership and vehicle travel data are available from various sources
including Census, the American Community Survey, and local travel surveys. The figure below
illustrates commute mode share for various U.S. cities. Although commuting represents only
about 20% of personal travel, commute mode share can be a useful indicator of transportation
diversity: areas with high automobile mode shares tend to be automobile-dependent, with high
rates of per capita vehicle ownership and use, and low rates of active transport.
Figure 18 U.S. Cities Commute Mode Shares (American Community Survey 2014)
100%
Other
80%
Commute Mode Shares
Walk
60%
Bike
40%
Transit
20%
Auto
0%
Passenger
Drive Alone
Automobile commute mode shares (driver and passenger) range from 27% in New York City to 92% in
Indianapolis. Similar ranges are often found between multimodal and auto dependent areas within a region.
24
The figure below illustrates average annual vehicle-miles driven per household for
neighborhoods in Olympia, Washington. This ranges from 16,432 in central, multimodal areas up
to 31,381 in more automobile-oriented areas.
Figure 19 Annual Vehicle Miles per Household (http://htaindex.cnt.org)
The H+T
Affordability Index
website produces
maps indicating
average annual
vehicle-miles per
household by U.S.
census tract based
on travel survey
data. This
information is used
to calculate average
transportation costs
and affordability.
25
Transportation for Everyone Ratings

Because travel demands are diverse, no single travel option can serve all needs. To provide a
high level of accessibility, a community requires diverse and integrated mobility options with
complementary land use development patterns. The Transportation for Everyone rating system,
Table 5, is a simplified method for measuring these options in an area (a neighborhood, city or
region), and therefore overall accessibility for diverse users, including non-drivers.
Table 5 Transportation for Everyone Rating

Accessibility Factors Rating (0-10)
1. All-weather (paved) roads, and reliable motor vehicle fuel and repair services.
2. Compact, mixed urban development, which creates Transit-Oriented Development (if
located around transit stations) or Urban Villages (if pedestrian oriented), where most
common services (shops, restaurants, schools, parks, transit stops, etc.) can be reached
within a 5-10 minute walk or bicycle ride of most homes and worksites.
3. Good walking and cycling conditions, including adequate sidewalks, crosswalks, paths,
bike lanes, bike parking, and vehicle traffic speed control.
4. High quality public transit services, with good coverage, frequency, comfort, safety and
affordability for both local and interregional (between city) services.
5. Good connectivity, including dense walking and road networks, and intermodal
connections such as walking and cycling access, and taxi services at transit stations.
6. Convenient and affordable carsharing and bikesharing, taxi and ride-hailing services
(e.g., Uber and Lyft).
7. Universal design (the ability of transportation systems to accommodate people with
diverse needs and abilities, including those with disabilities, babies and heavy loads).
8. Good telework options, such as on-line shopping, banking and municipal services, and
efficient delivery services ((mail, courier and local shops).
9. Convenient user information concerning transportation options.
10. Social marketing that promotes non-automobile modes to enhance their status.
Each factor can be rated from 0 (worst) to 10 (best).
Transportation for Everyone Score

70–100 Multimodal – A car is unnecessary for most daily travel. Many households are car-free.
50–69 Mixed – It is possible but often difficult to rely on non-auto modes. Most households have at least one car.
0–49 Automobile Dependent – It is difficult to live without a car. Most households have one car per driver.
A higher rating is particularly important for people whose ability to drive is constrained,
including youths, people with disabilities or low incomes, and people who are frequently
impaired or distracted, plus drivers who want to avoid chauffeuring household members with
such constraints, or who may value having non-automobile options for current or future use.
26
Optimal Transportation Diversity

This section describes various ways to determine the optimal amount of transportation diversity.
Method 1: Market Principles

Economists identify three basic requirements for efficient and fair markets (in this case,
transportation systems can be considered markets):
 Consumer sovereignty (markets provide the goods and services that users demand).
 Economic neutrality (public policies do not arbitrarily favor one good or group over others).
 Cost based pricing (the price user pay for goods reflects their marginal production costs).
According to this approach, optimal transportation diversity is what travellers would choose if
the transport system reflected these principles, for example, if the planning process delivered
facilities and services that travellers demanded; if funding allocation reflected least-cost
principles so alternative modes and demand management programs whenever they are more
cost effective than other solutions; and if motorists were required to pay directly for using roads
and parking facilities, plus efficient pricing of congestion, accident risk and pollution emissions.
Such reforms could significantly change planning decisions and travel activity (DeRobertis, et al.
2014; Litman 2014c). There is evidence of significant latent demand for non-auto modes,
indicated by increases in walking, cycling and public transit travel that often occurs after these
modes are improved (FHWA 2014; Schmidt 2018), so consumer sovereignty would improve
these modes. More efficient pricing would significantly increase vehicle user charges and reduce
automobile travel (cost-based parking pricing alone typically reduces affected automobile travel
by 20%, and distance-based insurance and registration fees could reduce vehicle travel another
10%). This suggests that optimal transportation diversity involves less automobile travel and
more use of alternative modes than what currently exists in North America.
Transportation market distortions result in economically inefficient automobile travel, that is,
lower-value vehicle travel that motorists would forego if they had better options or more
efficient pricing. If an employee drives to work when their parking is free but uses another mode
if they must pay directly, the additional vehicle travel stimulated by free parking is economically
inefficient; the marginal value is worth less than the parking space costs.
By leveraging additional vehicle travel, these distortions have large total costs. For example, free
parking not only increases parking demand and therefore parking facility costs by about 20% by
stimulating more driving, it also increases traffic congestion, traffic accident risk and pollution
emissions by about 20%. Described more positively, parking policy reforms that require
motorists to pay directly for parking not only reduces parking costs, it is also an effective way to
reduce congestion, accident and pollution costs. Similarly, policies that underprice road use and
fuel, under-investments in non-auto modes, and policies that favor sprawl over more compact
development, all lead to economically excessive vehicle travel and associated costs.
If market reforms are infeasible, blunter policies may be justified on second-best grounds. For
example, if efficient road and parking pricing are politically unacceptable, regulations that limit
driving, and public transit subsidies may be efficient.
27
Method 2: Comprehensive Planning

A second approach to determining optimal transportation diversity is to consider how more
comprehensive analysis could justify more multimodal planning. Conventional planning is
reductionist: individual problems are assigned to agencies with narrowly-defined
responsibilities. Such planning can result in those agencies rationally implementing solution to
their problems within their scope that exacerbate other problems facing society, and tend to
undervalue strategies that provide more modest but multiple benefits. More comprehensive
planning, which considers the following goals, tends to support more diverse transportation:
 Reduce traffic and parking congestion by improving and encouraging space-efficient modes
(walking, cycling, ridesharing and public transit). The optimal automobile mode share is the
amount that roads and parking facilities can efficiently accommodate, which is often much
less than what currently occurs.
 Ensure that people who cannot or should not drive have affordable basic mobility (they can
access essential services and activities) improving inclusive and affordable modes (walking,
cycling and public transit). The optimal level of transportation diversity is the quality of non-
auto travel options which ensures that non-drivers have convenient and comfortable
transportation options, and households can spend less than 15% of their budget on
transport or less than 40% on housing and transport combined (which recognizes that
households often make trade-offs between housing and transport costs). In many
communities this requires a significant improvement in non-auto modes.
 Improve traffic safety by reducing total vehicle travel and improving the travel options used
by higher-risk (young, old, disabled, impaired and distracted) drivers. Optimal transportation
therefore includes incentives to reduce driving, particularly for higher risk groups, and
improved travel options to meet their mobility needs. This can justify significant policy
changes in automobile-dependent communities with high traffic fatality rates (more than 5
deaths per 100,000 residents annually).
 Achieve public fitness and health objectives by increasing use of active modes (walking and
cycling). Optimal transportation ensures that communities have good walking and cycling
conditions, and incentives to use these modes, so most people can achieve physical activity
targets (150 weekly minutes of exercise) through neighborhood walking and cycling.
 Reduce energy consumption and pollution emissions by favoring resource-efficient modes
and minimizing motor vehicle travel. Optimal transportation includes transportation
demand management strategies to reduce vehicle travel and favor resource-efficient modes.
 Achieve strategic development objectives to create more efficient and livable communities
by favoring space-efficient and low-polluting modes (walking, cycling and public transit).
Optimal transport diversity
This suggests that more comprehensive planning recognizes additional benefits from a more
diverse transportation system, and so would justify more support for non-auto modes and
transportation demand management programs. To the degree that current planning overlooks
or undervalues these goals, it is likely to result in more automobile dependent, less diverse
transportation systems than is optimal for society.
28
Method 3: Equity – A Fair Share for Non-drivers

As previously discussed, many people cannot, should not, or prefer not to drive, and so need
other travel options, so fairness justifies devoting a portion of transportation resources (money
and road space) to non-auto modes (Litman 2021). There are various possible ways to
determine the fair allocation of such resources.
Horizontal equity, which requires that everybody be treated about equally, suggests that non-
auto mode investments should at least equal non-drivers’ portion of the population, and more
to account for benefits to motorists. For example, if 30% of local trips would be made by walking
and bicycling, if their travel conditions were improved, it would be fair to invest up to 30% of
transportation resources (money and road space) to support those modes, and more to make
up for a century of underinvestment.
Currently, only about 3% of total transportation dollars are spent on sidewalks and paths, and
about 7% on public transit; the majority of these resources are devoted to automobile-oriented
roads, traffic services and government-mandated parking facilities. Of course, walkers and
bicyclists use roads, but their costs are minimal due to their small size and weight. The figure
below compares estimated infrastructure spending by mode.
Figure 20 Infrastructure Spending (Litman 2021)

$3,000
This graph
Annual Spending Per Capita
$2,500 Mandated parking 90% compares

infrastructure
$2,000 Traffic services spending by
mode.
$1,500 Roads
Automobiles
Sidewalks and paths receive the
$1,000 most by far.
Operating subsidies
$500
7%
1% 2%
$0
Walk Bike Transit Automobile
Vertical equity, which requires that public policies favor disadvantaged groups, suggests that
transportation resources should be allocated to ensure that physically, economically and socially
disadvantaged groups can access basic services. For example, transportation facilities and
services must accommodate people with disabilities, and lower-income residents deserve
affordable transport options that require spending less than 15% of their household budgets to
access healthcare, shopping, school and jobs (Pereira, Schwanen and Banister 2016).
Equity can also justify policies that favor space-efficient modes (bus and HOV lanes) so users of
these modes are not delayed by congestion caused by automobile traffic. To the degree that
automobile travel imposes delay, risk and pollution on pedestrians and bicyclists, it would be fair
for motorists to bear the costs of facilities that protect active travellers from these harms. To
the degree that pedestrians, cyclists, rideshare and public transit travellers are less advantaged
than motorists, these policies can be justified for both vertical as well as horizontal equity.
29
Such comparisons can be complicated because there are many ways to categorize travellers and
calculate costs. Some analysis of non-drivers focus on relatively small groups such as zero-
vehicle household occupants, transit commuters, or people with disabilities. A broader
definition also includes adolescents, lower-income households, motorists with unreliable
vehicles, people who prefer non-auto modes for exercise and enjoyment, and motorist who
benefit from reduced chauffeuring burdens for non-drivers in their households.
Modal cost comparisons are also affected by which costs are considered. About half of roadway
expenses are financed through special road user charges, such as additional fuel taxes (beyond
general sales taxes) and vehicle registration fees, and so need not be considered subsidies. On
the other hand, most zoning codes require a generous number of parking spaces in most
developments, resulting in 2-6 subsidized off-street parking spaces per vehicle, each with $500-
2,000 typical annualized costs (Litman 2009; Shoup 2005). Although privately owned, they are
government mandated and so can be considered a public subsidy of driving.
This suggest that fairness can often justify increased non-auto mode investments, including
walking and cycling facility improvements, and public transit services that provide basic mobility
to disadvantaged groups. Fairness can also justify policy reforms, such as parking cash out (non-
drivers receive cash benefits equivalent to parking subsidies given to motorists).
From Maximizing LOS to Minimizing VMT (CGOPR 2016)
The primary objective of conventional transportation planning is to maximize vehicle traffic speeds
and minimize delay, measured using roadway Level-of-Service (LOS). This approach has been
criticized for being automobile oriented (LOS recognizes the benefits that wider roads provide
motorists but ignores the disbenefits they cause users of other modes) and for discouraging infill
development, and therefore more accessible urban development.
In response, many jurisdictions are fundamentally changing their transportation planning objectives
from maximizing LOS to minimizing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), based on the assumption that
more multimodal and integrated planning can increase accessibility in ways that reduce vehicle
travel and associated costs. California legislation (SB 743) established this concept in law, and
transportation agencies have worked to develop appropriate planning practices and performance
indicators for implementation. Other jurisdictions are making similar changes.
30
Method 4: Equity – Optimal Urban Design

Another approach to determining optimal vehicle ownership and mode shares is based on urban
design factors. Taking into account various planning objectives including reducing infrastructure
costs, consumer costs, accidents, and pollution emissions, maximizing transportation system
efficiency, and categorizing cities according to their ability to expand geographically, it
recommends design features summarized in Table 6.
Table 6 Optimal Urban Design (Litman 2014a)

Factor Unconstrained Semi-constrained Constrained
Growth pattern Expand as needed Expand less than res. growth Minimal expansion
Gross (regional) density
(residents/ha) 20-60 40-80 80 +
Net (parcel) density
(residents/ ha) 40-120 80-160 160 +
A majority can be Approximately equal portions
small-lot single- small-lot single-family,
Housing types family or adjacent adjacent, and multi-family Mostly multi-family
Automobiles per 1,000 res. 300-400 200-300 < 200
Private auto mode share 20-50% 10-20% Less than 10%
Intersections per sq. km. 40+ 60+ 80+
Land in road ROW 10-15% 15-20% 20-25%
Roadway design All streets have good sidewalks and crosswalks, and safely accommodate cycling.
Most households are located within a ten-minute walk of local parks and
Recreational facilities recreational facilities, and 20% or more of urban land is devoted to public parks
Creativity space Affordable studios and workshops, located in mixed-use arts districts
Most African and Most European and Asian Singapore, Hong Kong,
Examples American cities cities Male
This table summarizes key design parameters for efficient and equitable cities, including vehicle
ownership and automobile mode share ranges.
This indicates that optimal vehicle ownership rates range from 300-400 per 1,000 residents in
unconstrained cities down to less than 200 vehicles per 1,000 residents in highly constrained
cities, and considering personal travel, private automobile modes shares can range from 20-50%
in unconstrained cities to less than 10% in highly constrained cities. These parameters can help
set optimal transportation diversity targets, and therefore help prioritize transportation
planning and investment decisions. It suggests that cities which exceed optimal automobile
ownership or mode share targets should improve alternative modes and apply demand
management strategies, such as road space reallocation and pricing reforms to limit automobile
ownership and use.
31
Method 5: Accessibility Indicators and Targets

Households can use various accessibility indicators, such as, the Transportation for Everyone
ratings (Table 5), the Urban Accessibility Explorer (http://urbanaccessibility.com), or the average
annual vehicle mileage maps from the H+T Affordability Index (http://htaindex.cnt.org) to select
home locations that provide an adequate level of mobility and accessibility options (Zhao, et al.
2013). For example, a household might limit home locations to neighborhoods that meet certain
accessibility targets, such as locations where more than 10,000 jobs are available within 30
minutes by non-automobile modes, or where households spend less than $9,000 annually on
average on transportation, as illustrated below. This is particularly important for households
with one or more members who cannot or should not drive, for lower-income households that
want to minimize vehicle expenses, and households that want to minimize their accident risk
and environmental impacts, or maximize walking and cycling for fitness and enjoyment.
Figure 21 Average Transportation Costs Per Household (http://htaindex.cnt.org)
This map H+T Index map

illustrates average household
transportation expenditures by
location in the Seattle region.
A household that wants to
minimize these costs can
choose homes in the green
areas (less than $9,000) and
avoid dark brown (more than
$13,000).
Community planners can also use these indicators and targets to identify accessibility gaps, such
as inadequate walking or cycling conditions, poor public transit services, or a lack of vehicle
sharing opportunities, and to set targets for improving overall community accessibility, and to
identify where to encourage development that maximizes transportation diversity benefits.
Note that these indicators have various constraints: most only consider a limited set of modes or
costs, for example, some only indicate time costs, ignoring monetary costs, accident risk and
health impacts. Some of these indicators only consider automobile and public transit, and fail to
account for neighborhood walkability. Comprehensive analysis should account for the greatest
number of mode, accessibility factors and impacts.
32
Reforms for More Multimodal Planning

This section identifies common planning practices that are biased in favor of automobile travel, and
reforms to support more multimodal planning.
Scope of Impacts
Current bias: Conventional planning considers a relatively limited set of impacts (benefits and costs),
as summarized in Table 7. Alternative modes, demand management strategies and Smart Growth
development policies tend to provide often-overlooked benefits such as parking cost savings,
consumer savings and affordability, and improved mobility for non-drivers.
Reforms: Apply comprehensive impact evaluation.
Table 7 Impacts Considered and Overlooked

Usually Considered Often Overlooked
Generated traffic and induced travel impacts
Impacts on non-motorized travel (barrier effects)
Parking costs
User costs (including vehicle ownership costs) and affordability.
Project construction traffic delays
Indirect environmental impacts
Financial costs to governments Strategic land use impacts (Smart Growth versus sprawl)
Vehicle operating costs (fuel, tolls, tire wear) Mobility for non-drivers, and social equity impacts
Travel time (congestion delays) Per-capita crash risk
Per-mile crash risk Public fitness and health impacts
Pollution emission rates Latent demand for alternative modes (e.g., walking and cycling)
Conventional transportation planning tends to focus on a limited set of impacts. Other impacts are often
overlooked or undervalued.
Analysis of Demand
Current bias: Travel surveys and other transportation statistics often undercount short trips (within a
transportation analysis zone), non-commute travel, off-peak trips, travel by children, recreational
travel, and active trips for access to motorized modes (such as walking between parked vehicles and
destinations, or walking and cycling to public transit stops). Few travel surveys analyze latent
demand for alternative modes.
Reforms: Develop more comprehensive travel surveys and statistics, including non-drivers’ travel
demands. Investigate latent demand and factors that affect travel decisions, such as the additional
walking, cycling and public transit that would occur if these travel options were improved, and
obstacles to the use of those modes.
Accessibility-Based Analysis
Current bias: conventional transportation planning tends to evaluate mobility (physical movement)
rather than accessibility (people’s ability to reach services and activities) and so overlooks many
factors that affect accessibility such as the quality of alternative modes, land use density and mix,
transport system connectivity, user information, affordability, and mobility substitutes.
Reforms: Develop and apply accessibility-based evaluation tools, such as mapping which measures
the time and money needed to access common services and activities by various modes. Use this to
evaluate the quality of accessibility for non-drivers.
33
Transportation Performance Evaluation

Current bias: Commonly-used transport system performance indicators, such as roadway Level-of-
Service (LOS), Travel Time Index (TTI, which measures traffic congestion delay), and distance-based
crash rates, all reflect automobile travel conditions, and so recognize the benefits to motorists of
expanding roads, but ignore the dis-benefits that wider roads and increased traffic speeds have on
walking and cycling, and since most public transit trips include walking links, the reduction in public
transit access. These indicators tend to overlook and undervalue improvements to other modes,
such as improving walking and cycling conditions and transit service quality, which are only valued to
the degree that they improve driving conditions.
Reforms: Apply multimodal performance evaluation which recognizes the harms that wider roads
and increased vehicle travel can have on other modes, and acknowledges the direct benefits of
improving alternative modes. Develop and apply tools for evaluating accessibility factors such as
walkability and bikability, transit service quality, transport network connectivity, and accessibility for
non-drivers.
Funding Practices
Current bias: Conventional planning dedicates a major portion of transportation funding to roads and
parking facilities, which cannot be used for alternative modes or demand management programs.
Reforms: Apply least cost planning, which allocates funds to the most cost-effective transportation
improvements, considering all impacts.
Development Policies
Current bias: Most jurisdictions have policies that limit development density and mix, and require
large amounts of parking, creating dispersed and automobile-oriented communities.
Reforms: Where there is demand for compact, multimodal neighborhoods allow more density and
mix, and reduced parking requirements. Integrate transportation and land use planning in order to
create accessible, multimodal neighborhoods, particularly around rapid transit stations. Support
affordable infill development so every household can find suitable housing in a walkable urban
neighborhood.
34
Conclusions
Transportation diversity refers to the quantity and quality of mobility and accessibility options
available in an area or to a group. This includes various modes and services, and is affected by
factors such as land use density and mix, user information and affordability.
Travel demands and abilities are diverse so no single option can serve all needs. Every
community contains people who cannot, should not, or prefer not to drive, and many trips are
most efficiently made by non-auto modes, such as walking and cycling for local trips, and
ridesharing and public transit for travel on major urban corridors. As a result, an efficient and
equitable transportation system requires diverse and connected mobility options, with
complementary development patterns.
For much of the last century planning was automobile-oriented. It assumed that the primary
goal was to maximize travel speeds, and so favored automobile travel to the detriment of other
modes. This created automobile dependent communities were driving is convenient but other
modes are inefficient, which creates several problems including traffic and parking congestion,
high infrastructure and consumer costs, inadequate mobility for non-drivers, high crash rates,
reduced public fitness and health, increased air pollution, and various economic and social costs
of sprawl. More multimodal planning can help increase efficiency and equity.
Current demographic and economic trends are increasing the importance of multimodal
planning: aging population, unaffordability problems, increasing urbanization, changing
consumer preferences, increasing health and environmental concerns are all increasing the
value of more resource-efficient, affordable, healthy and enjoyable travel modes.
Various tools can be used to evaluate a particular mode’s performance, and a transportation
system’s overall diversity. They can help identify gaps and guide decisions to create more
diverse, and therefore more efficient and equitable, transport systems. The Transportation for
Everyone rating system is a simplified method for evaluating the quality of accessibility in an
area (a neighborhood, city or region), and therefore people’s ability to satisfy diverse transport
demands, including non-auto travel.
There are several possible ways to determine the optimal level of transportation diversity and
therefore, multimodal planning objectives. One approach applies market principles including
consumer sovereignty, neutral planning and cost-based pricing. A second approach applies
comprehensive analysis which considers all benefits of alternative modes. A third approach
considers how more diverse transportation can achieve equity goals. Horizontal equity, for
example, suggests that non-drivers should receive a proportionate share of transportation
resources (money and road space) based on population or trips, or compared with the costs
imposed by automobile travel under the same conditions, while vertical equity suggests that
resource allocation should favor disadvantaged groups and ensure access to essential services
and activities. A fourth approach sets targets for improving non-automobile accessibility
measured using indices and mapping tools.
This report describes reforms for more multimodal planning, including more comprehensive
travel surveys and statistics, more comprehensive analysis and more multimodal funding.
35
References
ABW (2010-2016), Bicycling and Walking in the U.S.: Benchmarking Reports, Alliance for Biking &
Walking (www.peoplepoweredmovement.org); at https://bit.ly/3yfYSNH.
APTA (2017), Transit Fact Book, American Public Transportation Association (www.apta.com); at
www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/FactBook/2016-APTA-Fact-Book.pdf.
Michael L. Anderson (2013), Subways, Strikes, and Slowdowns: The Impacts of Public Transit on
Traffic Congestion, Nat. Br. of Economic Res. (www.nber.org); at www.nber.org/papers/w18757.
Shlomo Angel and Alejandro M. Blei (2015), “The Productivity of American Cities, Cities,
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.030), free at https://bit.ly/3Cb7M1t.
Bruce Appleyard and William Riggs (2021), “Human Rights to the Street: Ethical Frameworks to
Guide Planning, Design, and Engineering Decisions Toward Livability, Equity and Justice,” Journal
of Transport and Land Use, Vo. 14/1, pp. 911-931 (http://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2021.1918).
BLS (various years), Consumer Expenditure Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov); at
www.bls.gov/cex/tables/mid-year/mean-item-share-average-standard-error.htm#cu-income.
Evelyn Blumenberg, Anne Brown and Andrew Schouten (2020), “Car-deficit Households:
Determinants and Implications for Household Travel in the U.S.” Transportation 47, pp. 1103–
1125 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-018-9956-6).
Madeline Brozen, et al. (2014), Exploration and Implications of Multimodal Street Performance
Metrics, UC Transportation Center (www.lewis.ucla.edu); at http://bit.ly/1DlsKax.
Stephen Brumbaugh (2021), Travel Patterns of American Adults with Disabilities, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov); at https://bit.ly/3exIvnQ.
Ralph Buehler and Andrea Hamre (2015), “The Multimodal Majority? Driving, Walking, Cycling,
and Public Transportation Use Among American Adults,” Transportation 42, 1081–1101
(doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9556-z).
Robert W. Burchell and Sahan Mukherji (2003), “Conventional Development Versus Managed
Growth: The Costs of Sprawl,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, No. 9 (www.ajph.org),
Sept., pp. 1534-1540; at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448006.
BusVic (2010), Public Transport Use a Ticket to Health, Briefing Paper, Bus Association Victoria
(www.busvic.asn.au).
CDC (2019), Physical Activity Guidelines, Center for Disease Control and Prevention
(www.convergencepartnership.org); at https://bit.ly/3QF5I8D.
Census (2021), United States Demographic Statistics, US Census (www.census.gov); at

www.infoplease.com/us/census/demographic-statistics.
36
Census (various years), “Commuting (Journey to Work)” American Community Survey, US Census
(www.census.gov); at www.census.gov/topics/employment/commuting.html.
CPSTF (2017), Physical Activity: Built Environment Approaches Combining Transportation System
Interventions with Land Use and Environmental Design, Community Preventive Services Task
Force, The Community Guide (www.thecommunityguide.org); at https://bit.ly/3ihaI4E.
CTOD and CNT (2006), The Affordability Index: A New Tool for Measuring the True Affordability
of a Housing Choice, Center for Neighborhood Technology and the Brookings Institute
(www.brookings.edu); at www.brookings.edu/metro/umi/20060127_affindex.pdf.
Justin Davidson (2023), “One Way to a Better City: Ask Disabled People to Design It,” New York
Magazine (https://nymag.com); at https://headtopics.com/us/one-way-to-a-better-city-ask-
disabled-people-to-design-it-34415005.
Nathaniel Decker, et al. (2017), Right Type, Right Place: Assessing the Environmental and
Economic Impacts of Infill Residential Development through 2030, Terner Center for Housing
Innovation, Next 10 (http://next10.org); at https://bit.ly/3P2tlGQ.
Juan De Oña, et al. (2016), “A Composite Index for Evaluating Transit Service Quality Across
Different User Profiles,” Journal of Public Transportation, Vo. 19, No. 2, pp. 128-153 (DOI:
dx.doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.19.2.8); at http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jpt/vol19/iss2/8.
Michelle DeRobertis, et al. (2014), “Changing the Paradigm of Traffic Impact Studies: How
Typical Traffic Studies Inhibit Sustainable Transportation,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), May, pp.
30-35; at https://bit.ly/3RfoN1L.
Rachel Dissell (2023), “Unmet Transportation Needs in Kinsman Reflect Neighborhood’s High
Number of Driver’s License Suspensions,” Marshall Project, Cleveland Scene
(www.clevescene.com); at https://tinyurl.com/ytfzn3be.
Richard Dowling, et al. (2008), Multimodal Level Of Service Analysis For Urban Streets, NCHRP
Report 616, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at
http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=9470; User Guide at https://bit.ly/3bXsJ7r. Multi-Modal
Level-of-Service Toolkit at www.dowlinginc.com/completestreetslos.php.
Nicolae Duduta, Claudia Adriazola-Steil and Dario Hidalgo (2013), Saving Lives With Sustainable
Transportation, EMBARQ (www.embarq.org); at http://bit.ly/2p0MnEX.
Reid Ewing and Eric Dumbaugh (2009), “The Built Environment and Traffic Safety: A Review of
Empirical Evidence,” Journal of Planning Lit., Vo. 23/4, pp. 347-367; at http://bit.ly/2nkBhWR.
Reid Ewing and Shima Hamidi (2014), Measuring Urban Sprawl and Validating Sprawl Measures,
Metropolitan Research Center, University of Utah; at https://bit.ly/2I6StdG.
Reid Ewing, et al. (2016), “Does Urban Sprawl Hold Down Upward Mobility? Landscape and
Urban Planning, Vol. 148, April, pp. 80-88; at https://bit.ly/3NGTKZW.
37
FDOT (2012), Expanded Transportation Performance Measures to Supplement Level of Service

for Growth Management and Transportation Impact Analysis, Florida Department of
Transportation (www.dot.state.fl.us); at https://bit.ly/3nGk9wj.
FHWA (various years), Highway Statistics, Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov);

at www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.
FHWA (2014), Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program: Continued Progress in Developing

Walking and Bicycling Networks – May 2014 Report, John A Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center, USDOT (www.fhwa.dot.gov); at https://bit.ly/3nFfvPg.
Ann Forsyth, Kevin J. Krizek and Asha Weinstein Agrawal (2010), Measuring Walking and Cycling
Using the PABS (Pedestrian and Bicycling Survey) Approach, Mineta Transportation Institute
(www.transweb.sjsu.edu); at www.transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2907.html.
Lawrence Frank, et al. (2019), Where Matters Health & Economic Impacts of Where We Live,
Metro Vancouver (https://metrovancouver.org); at http://tinyurl.com/5c4u59c6.
Chad Frederick, William Riggs and John Hans Gilderbloom (2017), “Commute Mode Diversity
and Public Health: A Multivariate Analysis of 148 US Cities,” International Journal of Sustainable
Transportation, pp. 1–11 (https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1321705).
Timothy Garceau, et al. (2013), “Evaluating Selected Costs Of Automobile-Oriented

Transportation Systems from a Sustainability Perspective,” Research in Transportation Business
& Management, Vol. 7, July 2013, pp. 43-53 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.02.002).
Norman W. Garrick and Wesley Marshall (2011), “Does Street Network Design Affect Traffic
Safety?” Accident; Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 769-81,
DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.10.024; at http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1097732.
Fanis Grammenos (2016), What Price Urban Density?, New Geography

www.newgeography.com/content/005183-what-price-urban-density.
Timothy Hamilton and Casey Wichman (2016), Bicycle Infrastructure and Traffic Congestion,
Resources for the Future (www.rff.org); at https://bit.ly/3SY7pj3.
Anthony C. Homan (2012), Using Option Pricing Theory in Valuing Benefits from Transit Projects,
U.S. Department of Transportation (www.transportationresearch.gov).
Chang-Tai Hsieh and Enrico Moretti (2015), Why Do Cities Matter? Local Growth and Aggregate
Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research (www.nber.org); at http://bit.ly/1IIphXE. Also
see, “Home Economics: Sky-High House Prices in the Most Desirable Cities are Holding Back
Growth and Jobs,” The Economist, 4 October 2014; at http://econ.st/1qVWgtr.
ICF (2010), Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit: A Synthesis of
Transit Practice, TCRP 84, TRB (www.trb.org); at www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/163614.aspx.
38
ITF (2017), Economic Benefits of Improving Transport Accessibility, The International Transport
Forum (www.itf-oecd.org); at https://bit.ly/3QX64aC.
John S. Jacob and Ricardo Lopez (2009), “Is Denser Greener? An Evaluation Of Higher Density
Development As An Urban Stormwater-Quality Best Management Practice,” Journal of the
American Water Resources Association , Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 687-701; at http://bit.ly/1IIpgmG.
Peter L. Jacobsen (2003), “Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists, Safer Walking and
Bicycling,” Injury Prevention (http://ip.bmjjournals.com), Vo. 9, pp. 205-209; at
https://bit.ly/2TRkBur.
Kittleson & Associates (2017), Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, TCRP Report 165,
TRB (www.trb.org); at www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/169437.aspx.
Anna Krameer and Alexandra Goldstein (2015), “Meeting the Public’s Need for Transit Options:
Characteristics of Socially Equitable Transit Networks,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vol. 85, No. 9,
pp. 23-29; summary at http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1371713.
J. Richard Kuzmyak (2012), Land Use and Traffic Congestion, Report 618, Arizona DOT
(www.azdot.gov); at www.azdot.gov/docs/default-source/planning/az618.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
Ugo Lachapelle, et al. (2011), “Commuting by Public Transit and Physical Activity: Where You
Live, Where You Work, and How You Get There,” Journal of Physical Activity and Health
(http://journals.humankinetics.com/jpah), Vol. 8, Supplement 1, pp. S72-S82.
John LaPlante (2010), “The Challenge of Multimodalism; Theodore M. Matson Memorial

Award,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vol. 80, No. 10, October, pp. 20-23.
Joe Linton (2016), New Bruce Schaller Report: Recommendations for Regulating Taxi & Ride-Hail,
StreetBlog LA (http://la.streetsblog.org); at https://bit.ly/3wdZPH8.
Todd Litman (2005), “Impacts of Rail Transit on the Performance of a Transportation System,”
Transportation Research Rec. 1930, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 23-29; at www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf.
Todd Litman (2009), Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis, Victoria Transport Policy Institute
(www.vtpi.org/tca).
Todd Litman (2011), “Can Smart Growth Policies Conserve Energy and Reduce Emissions?”
Portland State University’s Center for Real Estate Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 2, Spring, pp. 21-30; at
www.vtpi.org/REQJ.pdf. Also see, Critique of the National Association of Home Builders’
Research On Land Use Emission Reduction Impacts (www.vtpi.org/NAHBcritique.pdf).
Todd Litman (2013), Evaluating Accessibility for Transport Planning, Victoria Transport Policy
Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/access.pdf.
Todd Litman (2014a), Analysis of Public Policies That Unintentionally Encourage and Subsidize
Urban Sprawl, commissioned by LSE Cities (www.lsecities.net), for the Global Commission on
the Economy and Climate (www.newclimateeconomy.net); at http://bit.ly/1EvGtIN.
39
Todd Litman (2014b), Congestion Evaluation Best Practices, International Transportation

Economic Development Conference; at www.vtpi.org/ITED_congestion.pdf.
Todd Litman (2014c), Economically Optimal Transport Prices and Markets: What Would Happen
If Rational Policies Prevailed? paper 11, International Transportation Economic Development
Conference; at www.vtpi.org/ITED_optimal.pdf.
Todd Litman (2015), Evaluating Household Chauffeuring Burdens, International Transport

Economics Association Annual Con. (www.toi.no/ITEA2015); at www.vtpi.org/chauffeuring.pdf.
Todd Litman (2016), The Hidden Traffic Safety Solution: Public Transportation, American Public
Transportation Association (www.apta.com); at https://bit.ly/2NJVgAN.
Todd Litman (2017), Understanding Smart Growth Savings, Victoria Transport Policy Institute
(www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/sg_save.pdf.
Todd Litman (2021), Evaluating Transportation Equity, Victoria Transport Policy Institute
(www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf.
Todd Litman (2022), Fair Share Transportation Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute
(www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/fstp.pdf.
María del Mar Parra López, Jan Anne Annema and Bert van Wee (2022), “The Added Value of
Having Multiple Options to Travel: An Explorative Study,” Journal of Transport Geography, Vo.
98 (doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103258).
Nancy McGuckin (2009), Mandatory Travel During Peak Period, Travel Behavior
(http://travelbehavior.us); at https://trid.trb.org/view/910150.
Maaza C. Mekuria, Bruce Appleyard and Hilary Nixon (2017), Improving Livability Using Green
and Active Modes: A Traffic Stress Level Analysis of Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Access and
Mobility, Mineta Transportation Institute (http://transweb.sjsu.edu); at https://bit.ly/2USILa3.
Patricia C. Melo, Daniel J. Graham, and Robert B. Noland (2009), “A Meta-Analysis of Estimates
of Urban Agglomeration Economies,” Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 39/3, May,
pp. 332-342; at www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166046208001269.
William B. Meyer (2013), The Environmental Advantages of Cities, MIT Press

(https://mitpress.mit.edu); summary at https://bit.ly/31Orr9S.
Mobility Score (http://transitscreen.com/mobilityscore).
Sage R. Myers, et al. (2013), “Safety in Numbers: Are Major Cities the Safest Places
in the United States?” Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 62, Is. 4, pp. 408-418.e3,
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.05.030); at http://bit.ly/2p0E0Js.
40
NAR (various years), National Community Preference Survey, National Association of Realtors
(www.realtor.org); at https://bit.ly/31Rcfsm.
Nelson\Nygaard (2006), Traffic Reduction Strategies Study, report and various appendices, City
of Pasadena (www.cityofpasadena.net); at http://bit.ly/2sGK1OK.
NRDC (2010), Reducing Foreclosures and Environmental Impacts through Location-Efficient

Neighborhood Design, Natural Resources Defense Council (www.nrdc.org); at
https://on.nrdc.org/3PsIlhe.
NYCDOT (2012), Measuring the Street: New Metrics for 21st Century Streets, New York City
Department of Transportation (www.nyc.gov/html/dot); at https://on.nyc.gov/3vZvXLW.
Keunhyun Park, et al. (2022), “Impacts of Disability on Daily Travel Behaviour: A Systematic
Review,” Transport Reviews (DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2022.2060371).
Rafael H. M. Pereira, Tim Schwanen and David Banister (2016), “Distributive Justice and Equity in
Transportation,” Transport Reviews, pp. 1-22 (doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1257660).
Alan Pisarski (2006), Commuting In America III, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/ciaiii.pdf.
Timothy Rood (1999), Local Index of Transit Availability (LITA), Local Government Commission
(www.lgc.org).
Angie Schmidt (2018), Millennials Unhappily Stuck in their Parents’ Transportation System,
Streetblog USA (www.usa.streetsblog.org); at https://bit.ly/2QLtml5.
Andrew Schouten, et al. (2021), “Keys to the Car, Journal of the American Planning Association
(DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2021.1907608).
Carly Seiff and Dana Weissman (2016), “Putting Active Transportation Performance Measures
into Practice,” ITE Journal, Vol. 86, No. 3, pp. 28-33; at https://bit.ly/3oNOjiL.
Conor Semler, et al. (2016), Guidebook for Developing Pedestrian and Bicycle Performance
Measures, Federal Highway Administration
(www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian); at http://bit.ly/2bMCkNL.
SGA and RCLCO (2015), The Fiscal Implications for West Des Moines , Iowa, Smart Growth
America (www.smartgrowthamerica.org); at http://bit.ly/1PC1wVp.
Donald Shoup (2005), The High Cost of Free Parking, Planners Press (www.planning.org).
John Stanley, et al. (2010), Social Exclusion and the Value of Mobility, ITLS-WP-10-14, University
of Sydney (http://sydney.edu.au); at https://bit.ly/3AdO7wT.
41
Jim P. Stimpson, et al. (2014), “Share of Mass Transit Miles Traveled and Reduced Motor Vehicle
Fatalities in Major Cities of the United States,” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York
Academy of Medicine, (doi:10.1007/s11524-014-9880-9); at https://bit.ly/3IHso4w.
Carolina Tagliafierro, et al. (2013), “Landscape Economic Valuation by Integrating Landscape

Ecology Into Landscape Economics,” Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 32, pp. 26-36;
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901112002286.
Emily Talen and Julia Koschinsky (2013), Equality of Opportunity Project (EOP), Arizona State
University; at www.equality-of-opportunity.org.
TIRF (2019), Alcohol-Impaired Driving in the United States, Traffic Injury Research Foundation
(https://tirf.us); at https://bit.ly/3AY7jBr.
TNMT (2021), The Environmental Impact of Today’s Transport Types, (https://tnmt.com); at

https://tnmt.com/infographics/carbon-emissions-by-transport-type.
Adie Tomer, et al. (2011), Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America,
Brookings Institute (www.brookings.edu); at https://brook.gs/3jsZLhk.
Ian Wallis and David Lupton (2013), The Costs of Congestion Reappraised, Report 489, New
Zealand Transport Agency (www.nzta.govt.nz); at https://bit.ly/3IMPEhM.
Xize Wang and John L. Renne (2023), “Socioeconomics of Urban Travel in the U.S.: Evidence
from the 2017 NHTS,” Transportation Research Part D, Vo. 116
(doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2023.103622).
Asha Weinstein Agrawal, et al. (2011), Getting Around When You’re Just Getting By: The Travel
Behavior and Transportation Expenditures of Low-Income Adults, Report 10-02, Mineta
Transportation Institute (www.transweb.sjsu.edu); at https://bit.ly/33pwjD1.
Ben Welle, et al. (2015), Cities Safer by Design: Urban Design Recommendations for Healthier
Cities, Fewer Traffic Fatalities, World Resources Institute (www.wri.org); at
www.wri.org/publication/cities-safer-design.
Fang Zhao, et al. (2013), Transportation Needs of Disadvantaged Populations: Where, When, and
How?, Federal Transit Administration (www.transit.dot.gov); at https://bit.ly/3QS7Ut1.
www.vtpi.org/choice.pdf
42

Evaluating Transport Diversity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluating Transport Diversity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluating Transport Diversity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.vtpi.

Evaluating Transportation Diversity

Originally published as:

Todd Alexander Litman  2001-2023

“Variety is the Spice of Life”

Table 1 Automobile-Dependent, Multimodal and Car-Free Compared

Key Terms and Concepts

Inputs, Outputs and Outcomes

Inputs Outputs Outcomes

Automobile-oriented planning evaluates transportation system performance based on vehicle

Multimodal planning is a type of transportation

More comprehensive and multimodal planning tends to increase investments in walking,

Multimodal Planning Principles

The Diversity of Travel Demands

Figure 2 Non-Auto Mode Shares (U.S. Census, 2017 NHTS)

10% walking and bicycling trips.

Figure 3 Vehicle Ownership Rates by Income Class (BLS 2011-2020)

Tourists and visitors. Varies. Lack mobility or visit other areas.

Figure 3 Cannot, Should Not, or Prefer Not to Travel By Automobile

In most communities a significant

mode shares can provide large benefits if concentrated on congested corridors.

Transportation Diversity Benefits

Congestion Reductions and Infrastructure Cost Savings

Figure 7 Space Required to Transport 40 People (www.tobinbennett.com)

Figure 8 Space Required By Travel Mode1

1,000 Parking Area

These impacts can be difficult to measure because congestion maintains a self-limiting

Consumer Savings and Affordability

Figure 9 Household Transport Spending Versus Compactness (Grammenos 2016)

Much greater differences are found when

Figure 10 Household Transport Spending Versus Transit Use (Litman 2005)

The portion of household budgets

Non-Drivers’ Independent Mobility and Economic Opportunity

Figure 11 Upward Mobility Versus Neighborhood Accessibility (Ewing, et al. 2016)

Economic mobility (the chance that

This probably reflects ways that

Public Fitness and Health

Energy Conservation and Pollution Emission Reductions

Figure 13 Lifecycle Carbon Intensity by Mode (TMNT 2021)

Energy consumption and

Walking and bicycling

Figure 14 Household Energy Consumption (http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/maps)

This map produced by the

Strategic Development Goals

As urban densities increase, roadway

(Each dot represents a U.S. urban

Multimodal transportation planning both supports and is supported by compact development,

Local Economic Development

Annual Per Capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

Table 4 Multimodal Transportation Benefits

Multimodal Performance Indicators

Performance indicators include:

Performance indicators include:

Performance indicators include:

Performance indicators include:

Performance indicators include:

Performance indicators include:

Performance indicators include:

Performance indicators include: