<%BANNER%>

Public Transit Accessibility for Low Income Workers

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024641/00001

Material Information

Title: Public Transit Accessibility for Low Income Workers Case Study of Curitiba, Brasil, and Seattle, Washington.
Physical Description: 1 online resource (201 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Perez, Benito
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: accessibility, curitiba, income, isochrone, low, mismatch, seattle, spatial, transit
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This investigation explores the issue of public transit accessibility from the perspective of low-income workers. The objective of this research is to define the concept of public transit accessibility, develop any typologies in public transit accessibility, and explore the underlying factors that lead to the development of these accessibility typologies. To explore this topic in depth, a conceptual framework consisting of (1) the definition of accessibility, (2) the role of transit and how it impacts economic development, (3) the role of transit and how it impacts employment, (4) the relationship of transit and social equity, (5) the efficiency of transit, and (6) the planning considerations of transit, is used to frame the investigation, the results, and the conclusions to the central research question. The methodology used to achieve the objective of this investigation uses a non-experimental dual case study approach, using Curitiba, Brasil, and Seattle, Washington as the case studies under investigation. This case study approach pursues a two-tiered analysis placed in the context of the historical, demographic, and socio-economic policies and trends of the case studies. The two tiers: (1) statistical and (2) geo-spatial, try to convey where populations, employment, and transit services are located in relation to each other, then transition to studying their relationship and how they impact the core question of accessibility (framed to an agreed definition of access and geographic coverage) to transit by low-income working populations. The results indicate that two low-income transit accessibility typologies emerge when studying the two case studies. Those typologies, which are reinforcements of the spatial mismatch hypothesis, are (1) urban fringe mismatch and (2) urban core mismatch, and they indicate a disparity between where low-income populations live, where job opportunities are located, and how transit connects the low-income worker to the workplace.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Benito Perez.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.
Local: Co-adviser: Macedo, Joseli.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024641:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024641/00001

Material Information

Title: Public Transit Accessibility for Low Income Workers Case Study of Curitiba, Brasil, and Seattle, Washington.
Physical Description: 1 online resource (201 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Perez, Benito
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: accessibility, curitiba, income, isochrone, low, mismatch, seattle, spatial, transit
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This investigation explores the issue of public transit accessibility from the perspective of low-income workers. The objective of this research is to define the concept of public transit accessibility, develop any typologies in public transit accessibility, and explore the underlying factors that lead to the development of these accessibility typologies. To explore this topic in depth, a conceptual framework consisting of (1) the definition of accessibility, (2) the role of transit and how it impacts economic development, (3) the role of transit and how it impacts employment, (4) the relationship of transit and social equity, (5) the efficiency of transit, and (6) the planning considerations of transit, is used to frame the investigation, the results, and the conclusions to the central research question. The methodology used to achieve the objective of this investigation uses a non-experimental dual case study approach, using Curitiba, Brasil, and Seattle, Washington as the case studies under investigation. This case study approach pursues a two-tiered analysis placed in the context of the historical, demographic, and socio-economic policies and trends of the case studies. The two tiers: (1) statistical and (2) geo-spatial, try to convey where populations, employment, and transit services are located in relation to each other, then transition to studying their relationship and how they impact the core question of accessibility (framed to an agreed definition of access and geographic coverage) to transit by low-income working populations. The results indicate that two low-income transit accessibility typologies emerge when studying the two case studies. Those typologies, which are reinforcements of the spatial mismatch hypothesis, are (1) urban fringe mismatch and (2) urban core mismatch, and they indicate a disparity between where low-income populations live, where job opportunities are located, and how transit connects the low-income worker to the workplace.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Benito Perez.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.
Local: Co-adviser: Macedo, Joseli.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024641:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

PUBLIC T RANSIT ACCESSIBILITY FOR LO W-INCOME WORKERS: CASE STUDY OF CURITIBA, BRASIL, AND SEATTLE, WASHINGTON By BENITO OMAR PREZ CARRIN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URB AN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009 1

PAGE 2

2009 Benito Om ar Prez Carrin 2

PAGE 3

To m y Mother, who instilled the belie f that anything is possible. . .especially when we put in the impossible 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWL EDGMENTS I thank the following people who have contributed both time and effort towards my thesis. My thesis committee consisted of Ruth Steiner (Chair) and Joseli Macedo (Co-chair). In Curitiba, I received data collection support from Oscar Ricardo Schmeiske, Geo-Processing Analyst with the Instituto de Pesquisa e Planejamento Urbano de Curitiba (IPPUC). In Seattle, I received data collection support from Cheryl Wilder of the King County GIS Center, Client Services; Mark Hallenbeck of the Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC), and Andrew Norton of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). Here in Gainesville, I like to thank Marilia Brocchetto, who assisted me in Portuguese translation support in my communication with IPPUC, websites, and data. I also would like to thank Sujata Varma, who assisted me in the editing of this thesis document. I also would like to thank Dr. Howell Baum, Dr. Roberto Patricio Korzeniewicz, and Dr. Mila Zlatic of the University of Maryland for their inspiration in social planning, which is what brought me into the planning profession. I also would like to thank the Maryland State Highway Administration (MSHA) and the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) for cultivating this inspiration into transportation planning during my time working for them. I also thank my mother and father, who provided a sounding board for ideas, discussion, and intellectual debate for the furthering of this thesis. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................13 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .16 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................................................................18 Overview....................................................................................................................... ..........18 Public Transporta tion Accessibility........................................................................................20 Public Transportation an d Economic Development...............................................................24 Public Transportation and Employment.................................................................................27 Public Transportation and Social Equity................................................................................29 Public Transportation Efficiency............................................................................................30 Public Transportation Planning..............................................................................................35 Attributes to Consider......................................................................................................35 Political Realities of Public Transportation Planning.....................................................36 Methods of Improving Service Delivery.........................................................................38 Summary.................................................................................................................................39 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................4 1 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........41 Defining the Parameters.........................................................................................................41 Evaluating the Case Studies....................................................................................................43 Statistical Analysis..........................................................................................................4 4 Population trends......................................................................................................44 Employment trends..................................................................................................45 Transit availability....................................................................................................47 Geo-Spatial Analysis.......................................................................................................47 Transit stop walkability............................................................................................48 Transit stop walkshed coverage...............................................................................50 Transit travel time....................................................................................................50 Data Requirements..................................................................................................................52 5

PAGE 6

4 CURITIBA: A CASE STUDY OF PUBLIC TRANSIT PLANNING IN LATIN AMERICA..............................................................................................................................54 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........54 Historical Background.......................................................................................................... ..56 Zoning in Curitiba............................................................................................................. ......56 Population Patterns............................................................................................................ .....60 Transit in Curitiba............................................................................................................ .......63 5 FINDINGS WITHIN THE CURITIBA CASE STUDY........................................................70 Population Concentrations...................................................................................................... 70 Employment C oncentration....................................................................................................74 Transit Stop Availability...................................................................................................... ...79 Walkability to Transit Stops................................................................................................... 83 Residential Parcels to Transit..........................................................................................84 Commercial Parcels to Transit........................................................................................85 Industrial Parcels to Transit.............................................................................................88 Transit Stop Walksheds......................................................................................................... .89 Municipal Transit Walkshed...........................................................................................90 Integrated Transit Walkshed............................................................................................92 Transit System Travel Time...................................................................................................94 Cajuru..............................................................................................................................95 Municipal transit time isochrones............................................................................96 Integrated transit time isochrones............................................................................99 Tatuquara...................................................................................................................... .101 Summary...............................................................................................................................105 6 SEATTLE: TRANSIT PLANNING OF THE US PACIFIC NORTHWEST......................107 Introduction................................................................................................................... ........107 Historical Background.......................................................................................................... 111 Zoning in Seattle.............................................................................................................. .....112 Population Trends.............................................................................................................. ...115 Transit in Seattle...................................................................................................................117 7 FINDINGS WITHIN THE SEATTLE CASE STUDY.......................................................121 Population Concentrations....................................................................................................12 1 Employment C oncentration..................................................................................................125 Transit Stop Availability...................................................................................................... .130 Walkability to Transit Stops.................................................................................................13 3 Residential Parcels to Transit........................................................................................134 Commercial Parcels to Transit......................................................................................135 Industrial Parcels to Transit...........................................................................................137 Transit Stop W alksheds........................................................................................................1 38 Quarter-Mile Walkshed.................................................................................................139 6

PAGE 7

Eighth-Mile W alkshed...................................................................................................140 Transit System Travel Time.................................................................................................142 Broadway.......................................................................................................................143 Greenwood....................................................................................................................146 Columbia City...............................................................................................................148 Summary...............................................................................................................................150 8 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... ....152 General Low-Income Population Trends..............................................................................153 Urban Economic Form.........................................................................................................155 Low-Income Accessibility Redefined..................................................................................156 Case Study Transit System Criticis ms and Innovative Strategies........................................157 Summary...............................................................................................................................158 9 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................... ..160 Summary of Research Findings............................................................................................160 Limitations of Research........................................................................................................161 Future Research Endeavors..................................................................................................162 Conclusions and Final Thoughts..........................................................................................163 APPENDIX A CURITIBA STATISTICAL TABLES.................................................................................165 B SEATTLE STATISTICAL TABLES...................................................................................181 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................197 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................201 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Case study selection pool: Select ed cities of the Americas...............................................42 5-1 Cajuru isochrone travel distances by time on Municipal Transit......................................96 5-2 Cajuru isochrone travel distances by time on Integrated Transit.......................................99 5-3 Tatuquara isochrone travel distan ces by time on Municipal Transit...............................103 6-1 Seattle modal split distribution compared with peer cities in the United States..............118 6-2 Seattle modal split demographic profile..........................................................................118 7-1 Seattle isochrone travel distances by time on Municipal Transit....................................143 A-1 Curitiba population characteristics table..........................................................................165 A-2 Curitiba employment char acteristics table.......................................................................167 A-3 Curitiba transit stop ch aracteristics table.........................................................................169 A-4 Curitiba Residential to/from transit walking distance statistical table.............................171 A-5 Curitiba Commercial to/from transit wa lking distance statistical table...........................173 A-6 Curitiba Industrial to/from transit walking distance statistical table...............................175 A-7 Curitiba Municipal Transit walkshed characteristics table............................................ 177 A-8 Curitiba Integrated Transit walkshed characteristics table..............................................179 B-1 Seattle population characteristics table............................................................................181 B-2 Seattle employment ch aracteristics table.........................................................................183 B-3 Seattle transit stop ch aracteristics table...........................................................................185 B-4 Seattle Residential to/from transit walking distance statistical table...............................187 B-5 Seattle Commercial to/from transit walking distance statistical table.............................189 B-6 Seattle Industrial to/f rom transit walking dist ance statistic al table.................................191 B-7 Seattle Municipal Transit quarter-m ile walkshed characteristics table...........................193 B-8 Seattle Municipal Transit eighth-mile walkshed characteristics table.............................195 8

PAGE 9

LIST OF FI GURES Figure page 4-1 Curitiba, Brasil in relation to South American geography................................................54 4-2 Curitibas 75 Municipal bairros (neighborhoods)..............................................................55 4-3 Agache Plan of 1943..........................................................................................................57 4-4 1966 Curitiba Zoning Plan.................................................................................................58 4-5 1975 Curitiba Zoning Plan.................................................................................................59 4-6 2004 Curitiba Zoning Plan.................................................................................................59 4-7 2004 Curitiba Zoning Plan simplified................................................................................60 4-8 Municipal Curitiba popu lation distribution.......................................................................61 4-9 Municipal Curitiba population density distribution...........................................................61 4-10 Metro Curitiba population distribution circa 1995............................................................62 4-11 Evolution of Curitibas Integrated Transit System 1974.........................................64 4-12 Curitibas Integrated Transit System.................................................................................65 4-13 Curitiba Transit System fleet co mposition........................................................................66 4-14 Linha Verde route map with stops.....................................................................................68 4-15 Linha Verde route map interconnected with metropolitan transit service.........................69 5-1 Curitiba High-Income population concentrations..............................................................70 5-2 Curitiba High and Low-Income concentrations by bairro.................................................71 5-3 High Low-Income population relati onal to bairro population...........................................72 5-4 High Low-Income population relational to Municipal Low-Income population..............73 5-5 Curitiba relative job con centration by bairro.....................................................................75 5-6 Curitiba absolute job co ncentration by bairro....................................................................75 5-7 Curitiba Industrial j ob concentration by bairro..................................................................77 5-8 Curitiba Commercial job concentration by bairro.............................................................78 9

PAGE 10

5-9 Curitib a high transit stop density by area by bairro...........................................................80 5-10 Curitiba high transit stop density by population density...................................................81 5-11 Curitiba high transit stop de nsity by employment density.................................................82 5-12 Residential to transit stop average walking distances........................................................85 5-13 Commercial to transit stop average walking distances......................................................87 5-14 Industrial to transit stop av erage walking distances..........................................................89 5-15 Curitiba Municipal Transit 400-Meter walkshed...............................................................91 5-16 Curitiba Integrated Transit 400-Meter walkshed...............................................................93 5-17 Comparison of the Municipal and Integrated 400-Meter walksheds.................................94 5-18 Cajuru bairro within Municipal Curitiba...........................................................................95 5-19 Cajuru Municipal Transit time isochrones coverage.........................................................97 5-20 Cajuru Municipal Transit time isochr ones related to job concentrations..........................98 5-21 Cajuru Integrated Transit time isochrones coverage.......................................................100 5-22 Cajuru Integrated Transit time isochr ones related to job concentrations........................101 5-23 Tatuquara bairro within Municipal Curitiba....................................................................102 5-24 Tatuquara Municipal Transit time isochrones coverage..................................................104 5-25 Tatuquara Municipal Transit time isoc hrones related to job concentrations...................105 6-1 Seattle, Washington and its relative lo cation in the US Pacific Northwest.....................107 6-2 Seattle, Washington and its neighborhoods.....................................................................108 6-3 Seattle, Washington and its topographical layout ...........................................................109 6-4 Seattle's Interstate 5 and Alaskan Viaduct (WA-99) ......................................................110 6-5 Olmstead Park Plan..........................................................................................................113 6-6 Bogue Master Plan for downtown Seattle.......................................................................114 6-7 Bogue Master Plan skyline drawing for downtown Seattle ............................................114 6-8 Municipal Seattle population density map.......................................................................116 10

PAGE 11

6-9 Metro Seattle population density m ap.............................................................................116 7-1 Seattle High-Income population concentrations..............................................................121 7-2 Seattle population concentrations....................................................................................122 7-3 High Low-Income population relational to neighborhood population............................123 7-4 High Low-Income population relational to Municipal Low-Income population............124 7-5 Seattle absolute job conc entration by neighborhood.......................................................126 7-6 Seattle relative job concentration by neighborhood.........................................................127 7-7 Seattle Industrial j ob concentration by neighborhood.....................................................128 7-8 Seattle Commercial job c oncentration by neighborhood.................................................129 7-9 Seattle transit stop density by area by neighborhood.......................................................130 7-10 Seattle high transit stop density by population density by neighborhood.......................131 7-11 Seattle high transit stop density by employment density by neighborhood.....................132 7-12 Residential to transit stop average walking distances......................................................135 7-13 Commercial to transit stop average walking distances....................................................136 7-14 Industrial to transit stop av erage walking distances........................................................138 7-15 Seattle quarter-mile walkshed..........................................................................................139 7-16 Seattle eighth-mile walkshed...........................................................................................141 7-17 Broadway neighborhood within Municipal Seattle.........................................................144 7-18 Broadway Municipal Transit time isochrones coverage..................................................145 7-19 Broadway Municipal Transit time isoc hrones related to job concentrations...................145 7-20 Greenwood neighborhood within Municipal Seattle.......................................................146 7-21 Greenwood Municipal Transit time isochrones coverage...............................................147 7-22 Greenwood Municipal Transit time isochr ones related to job concentration ..................147 7-23 Columbia City neighborhood w ithin Municipal Seattle..................................................148 7-24 Columbia City Municipal Tran sit time isochrones coverage..........................................149 11

PAGE 12

7-25 Colum bia City Municipal Transit time is ochrones related to job concentration.............150 12

PAGE 13

LIST OF ABBRE VIATIONS IPPUC Instituto de Pesquisa e Planejamento Urbano de Curitiba IBGE Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatstica TRAC Washington State Transportation Center PSRC Puget Sound Regional Council Bairro Neighborhood in Portuguese URBS Urbanizao de Curitiba, S.A. (Transit Operator) RIT Rede Integrada de Transporte (Integrated Transit Network) USA United States of America BR Brasil (Country) CO Colombia (Country) DR Dominican Republic (Country) CA Canada (Country) GT Guatemala (Country) Pop Population Mil Million CIC Cidade Industrial de Curitiba (Industrial City) 13

PAGE 14

Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning PUBLIC TRANSIT ACCESSIBILITY FOR LOW-INCOME WORKERS: CASE STUDY OF CURITIBA, BRASIL, AND SEATTLE, WASHINGTON By Benito Omar Prez Carrin August 2009 Chair: Ruth Lorraine Steiner Cochair: Joseli Macedo Major: Urban and Regional Planning This investigation explores the issue of public transit accessibility fr om the perspective of low-income workers. The objective of this research is to define the concept of public transit accessibility, develop any typologies in public transit accessibility, and explore the underlying factors that lead to the developmen t of these accessibility typologies. To explore this topic in depth, a conceptual framework consisting of (1) the definition of accessibility, (2) the role of tran sit and how it impacts economic de velopment, (3) the role of transit and how it impacts employment, (4) the rela tionship of transit and social equity, (5) the efficiency of transit, and (6) the planning cons iderations of transit, is used to frame the investigation, the results, and the conclu sions to the central research question. The methodology used to achieve the objec tive of this investigation uses a nonexperimental dual case study approach, using Curi tiba, Brasil, and Seattle, Washington as the case studies under investigation. This case study approach pursues a tw o-tiered analysis placed in the context of the historical, demographic, a nd socio-economic policies and trends of the case studies. The two tiers: (1 ) statistical and (2) geo-spatial, try to convey where populations, employment, and transit services are located in relation to each other, then transition to studying 14

PAGE 15

15 their relationship and how they impact the core question of accessibility (framed to an agreed definition of access and geographic coverage) to transit by low-income working populations. The results indicate that two low-income transit accessibility typologies emerge when studying the two case studies. Those typologies, which are reinforcements of the spatial mismatch hypothesis, are (1) ur ban fringe mismatch and (2) urban core mismatch, and they indicate a disparity between where low-income populations live, where job opportunities are located, and how transit connects the lo w-income worker to the workplace.

PAGE 16

CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION Transportation is a critical elem ent in everyones life. It is by means of transportation that people are able to live, work, a nd play. Most people engage tran sportation to get to work, and this enables them to sustain their way of life. In industrialized and developing nations, transportation to work has had an enormous impact on peoples lives, so much so that it consumes an average of 1-4 hours daily. This accounts for 5-15% of the lives of people. Public transit is a mode of transportation th at involves transportation by a collective in a large vehicle, subsidized or managed by the gov ernment, and operates mostly on a fixed route and fixed schedule. It is multi-f aceted, involving various vehicles and facility types, and engages various populations across variou s activity centers. One signif icant segment of the population that uses public transit in their commute to work is low-income users. These low-income users are noted for their limited resource s and struggle to make ends meet, and comprise the segment of the population with the greatest need for mobility. They have limited access to private vehicles so they are heavily reliant on public transit. The concern among advocates of this constituency is whether low-income users have decen t accessibility to public transit facilities and services. Is public transit service fairly provide d? Is there reasonable ac cessibility to public transit facilities for low-income users? It is this notion of fair accessibility that will determine the economic opportunities that this pop ulation is presented with. The issue of public transportation accessibility for low-income users is not a new issue. Scholars have looked into the vari ous issues that affect low-in come users and urban societies because of transit accessib ility issues. Such issues include eco nomic development, social equity, service efficiency, and viable transportati on planning. 16

PAGE 17

17 Up to this point, the topic of conversation on accessibility for low-income users has been geared towards the ills and im pact of limited accessibility within this population. The question that arises now is if any action has been taken to address this issue. If not we have to develop a new approach and a new way of thinking for pr oviding public transportation accessibility for low-income users, especially regarding their jour ney to work. This is of utmost importance to low-income users, just as it is for all workers, because of the significant impact it has upon our lives. It is this inquiry that has led us to th e development of this investigation, one that will highlight the major issues and impacts relating to the accessibility of low-income workers to public transit facilities and services. The research is a dual case study investigation of select transit systems in the Americas and how they a ddress this issue of low-income worker access to transit.

PAGE 18

CHAP TER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Overview The 21st century has been marked as a point in history where robust demographic and economic growth became self-evident across the globe. Populations have been growing exponentially across many developing regions of the world, once dominated by agricultural production. With this population growth, there has been a shift in the population concentration from the rural to the urban center. Because of this population shift, populations have had to adjust to changes in work. Before the Industrial Revolution of the mid 1800s, populations lived in the rural countryside, and people were self -employed or involved in agri cultural production and services, yielding a limited division of labor according to Adam Smiths Wealth of Nations The form of work individuals were involved i n, kept them close to their home s or where they worked, and the diversity of work was simple (Smith, 2003). With the shift to the urban center, this dynamic of working close to home was not something applicable to the majority of laborers. The type of labor involved in the urban center became diverse, complex, and concentrated. It is this division of labor that lead to the early phenomenon of commuting, which still exis ts today to a greater degree. This home-to-work travel relationship is an important component in defining the urban form and the transportation system for all major urban areas. As with any system, there is the inevitable opportunity for evolution. The same can be said with the economic system of urban centers. Indus trialism of the 1800s created the manufacturing urban cores and attracted the population to these centers for wor k. To adapt to this population shift, populations started to live in tenements, later evolving to apartments (at least in the United States due to housing codes). This reaction to industrialism was the desire of workers to live 18

PAGE 19

close to where they work. This socio-econom ic re lationship in the urban core created an urban form where work was concentrated in the cente r of the city, and the workers lived in the periphery or were crowded in downtown tene ments due to the affordability of housing (Fishman, 1977). Worker housing density was at its peak near the activity centers of work, and dropped off the further away one went. This ev olution took a turn with the transportation advancement of the streetcar, crea ting radial density to the urban core from major transportation links. As streetcars evolved in its reach a nd the introduction of th e subway, the population dispersion continued to expand ra dially outwards from the urban center, while maintaining the highest density in the urban core, and new conc entrations near major streetcar/subway stops. New social, economic, and environmental patter ns started to emerge from transportation advances (Murray, Davis, Stimson, & Ferreira, 1998) The 1950s brought about a new shift in the dynamic of the home-to -work relationship. A post-war economic boom empowered many people in the United States to become homeowners with their plot of land. On top of that, their homesteads were connected to the city with the rapid development of the American road syst em and the Interstate Highway System. This phenomenon termed suburbia, brought about the advent of decentralizing the city (Hall, 2002). Work activity centers started to disperse across the metropolitan area, and were complemented with recreational urban activity centers and suburban resi dential subdivisions. This suburbanization trend was not without its impact upon the rest of the world. As American consumerism trends became globalized, so t oo was the notion of s uburbia and automobile ownership. This decentralization of the urban area, led to a new issue for transportation systems. That issue was where to focus transportation facilities to best serve this new decentralized urban area. 19

PAGE 20

Do transpor tation facilities orient their se rvices towards activity centers, towards the concentration of users, and towards the historic al urban core? Planners had to contend with varying concerns in developing these systems. For the specific aim of this research, the concern to focus on is the relationship be tween the workers access to public transit and the system itself. In order to understand the relationship of the worker to the public transportation system, one has to look at several key c oncepts that affect this dynamic. The concepts that one has to view public transportation through include: acces sibility, economic development, employment potential, efficiency, social equi ty, and system planning policy. Public Transportation Accessibility Public transportation is a respected mode of travel when considering getting around an urbanized area. It allows the movement of t hose who do not own a priv ate vehicle. It also provides an alternate mode of travel for those who own a private vehicle, but would rather not endure the perceived social, personal, environm ental, and economic cost of operating their vehicle (Murray, Davis, Stimson, & Ferreira, 1998). When contemplating whether to use a public transit system, let alone think of it as reasonable to get to, the user is analyzing public transportation through the notion of accessibility. Accessibility is genera lly agreed to mean the ability of a user to employ the use of a transit service while weighing the perceived and actual co sts of using such a system to transport oneself from an origin to a destination within a reasonable period of time (Murray, Davis, Stimson, & Ferreira, 1998). Murray and Wu take th is definition a step further, and dissect the concept of accessibility to two key elements: (1) access, or the pr ocess of getting the user from their origin to the transit serv ice or transit service to their destination and (2) geographic coverage, which includes service availability and reach of the service ac ross a spatial medium (Murray & Wu, 2003). From these elements outlined previously, we garner an understanding of 20

PAGE 21

it in respect to its effect on the relationship betw een public tr ansit and low-income workers. Accessibility comes into play later in the di scussion when public transportation is analyzed through the lens of efficiency, and how accessibility of public transportation is frequently at odds with expeditious service across the geographical service area. With accessibility deconstructed by academics, how do we convey this abstract notion in practice; how does one determine how accessible one is to public transportation? When looking at accessibility of transit, one needs to look at the potential transit journey in several pieces, to derive the notion of accessibility. Those pieces include the pro cess in which Murray and Wu alluded to, to get to the transi t stop, as well as the transit ride to ones destination. Before addressing the transit ride, one s hould address the journey to trans it, which allows the use of the transit services possible. The journey to the transit stop can be a majo r element in ones decision on whether to use the service/facility, or to seek an alternative mode of transportation. To get to the facility, what is the acceptable distance to travel to it? For the average user, the tole rance level to walk to a transit stop is agreed to be a quarter of a mile (400 me ters), before serious considerations are made about higher perceived costs (Wu & Murray, 2005). Some researchers will either raise or lower the tolerance level of walking ba sed on the demographics of the us er (age, gender, health, etc). Beyond the process of getting to the transit service, one assesses where the transit service is going, in respect to the geographic coverage of the spatial area in whic h the service operates. Going into geographic coverage, the concept goes beyond the individual and looks at it from a collectivist viewpoint. As the user, you are on the transit mode of your urban areas choice (rail, bus, subway, etc). You are traveling across th e urban landscape towards a de stination. Beside you are other 21

PAGE 22

users, with different backgrounds, intents, and schedules, who are head ing towards different destin ations. What about these destinations in respect to accessibility? Addressing accessibility in respect to these des tinations, one looks at th e evolving urban form and the highlighted issue of spatial mismatch theory among academics. The c oncept of the spatial mismatch theory was postulated in 1968 by Kain, who was doing research of the impact of segregation, urban form, and opportunity access. In his research, he found an urban demographic shift occurring where the urban core was emptying out. Affluent individuals, who are cast as wh ites (in the racial lens that this issue has in the United States), left the ur ban core for the suburb, where they could master their destiny and foster an independent sense of affluence. Those less fortunate, cast as minorities in the American melodrama of race relations in the 20th century, were left in the urban core, to fend for themselves, and create a doughnut hole" phenomenon in the urban center (Pugh, 1998). Shortly after affluent reside nts left the urban core, so did the blue-collar and low-skilled job positions. As affluence developed in the subu rbs, so did the need for low-skilled labor and services, and thus the shift from the downtown to the suburb began. The phenomenon of suburbia became the American Way when it ca me to urban development in the 1970s and 1980s, leading to spread out suburbanized region s, and the dilution of the urban core, job distribution, and the segregation of minorities. As a result, such development allowed the car to become king. For those urbanized centers that did remain, the s patial mismatch developed. A large pool of unskilled la bor lived in the urban core, but th eir jobs had been dispersed into suburbia. While there remain jobs next door in the urban core, it is set aside only for skilled labor (Pugh, 1998). In such a relationship, the unskilled laborer was hindered from soliciting any job opportunity near their homes, and then had to ex plore where they could travel via the use of public transportation. 22

PAGE 23

Another aspect of accessibility, when it come s to geographic coverage, pertains to the destination utility. If one has to get to a specific service in town and there are several providers, whom does one travel to? One simple logic is th at one travels to the closest provider. When it comes to distance traveled over transit, one take s into account how the utility of a destination erodes in a negative exponential ma nner the further one is from this destination. On the contrary, if there is an abundance of activity at a respective destination, this has a positive effect over the impact the distance has on the traveler. So, re-imposing the earlier questio n of which provider of a service would you go to, with the ca veat that the further service provider is nested in an area of abundant services, facilities, and entertainment and the closer service provider is in a dispersed activity center, what destinati on does one go to? Depending on the e ffect of distance decay, one would choose the further provider, initially, unti l a certain point where the perceived and actual costs outweigh the benefits that present themse lves at the said location (Levinson, 1998). Applying this concept to public transportation and the low-income work er, one looks at the commute to work through certain factors that govern the decision-making process; to choose a certain mode of travel, and whether to endure a co mmute at all. First, applying distance decay, a low-income worker weighs the perceived travel and time costs imposed over distance, and their willingness to endure a commute under such condition (Levinson, 1998). Secondly, a worker looks at the abundance of activit y which otherwise to them would be job opportunities. Are jobs plentiful and concentrated in a said location? Lastly, no t discussed earlier but equally important, the worker looks at the saturation of the activity, better said as the competition between other workers seeking an opportunity as well. These thr ee factors are issues a worker would consider as they employ the use of their m ode of travel, and specifically for this research, 23

PAGE 24

public transit, and how accessib le certain geograph ical areas are that public transportation has service to. Up to this point we have garnered an understanding on what accessibility means in respect to public transportation, and explore wh at it means to be accessible from the standpoint of the process of getting to the transit servi ce, and from the standpoint of the utility of the destinations that public transpor tation services to. It is from here where one can look beyond the user directly, and look at how public transportation affects the urban form, in respect to the identified user, the low-income worker. In the next section, a review is conducted on how public transportation impacts economic development. Public Transportation and Economic Development Time is money. In the urban region, systems co me together to stimulate economic growth, by bringing in goods and services together for ex change and trade. Economists preach how one has to let the market optimize itself. The question we have in the course of this investigation is to what end do we leave the market to do its wo rk, especially when it involves transportation. Public transportation systems around the world had their start as a private entity. Services were provided to profitable routes a nd dedicated riders. As advances in transportation technology brought on the car, most transportation companies we re losing ridership and revenue. In a market economy, when the consumer does not want a product or service, they dis card the service. This of course was to be the fate of public trans portation, until government intervention. Government stepped in to ensure that public transportation remained a viab le mode of travel for those individuals in a metropolitan area who are unable to own a private vehicle. Governments employed various means to retain services, either via incentives or via subsidies, depending on the region or country. It was and remains crucial for public transpor tation services to operate in cities, in order to provide a means of travel for those users who otherwise would be shut out from 24

PAGE 25

engaging th e market by their lack of automobile access. Government valued the utility of public transportation as a vehicle of engaging and s timulating the economic market. Government found it important to strive for an effective transport sy stem, if it is to optimally allow the movement of people across an urban space so as to engage socially and economically (Murray, Davis, Stimson, & Ferreira, 1998). Beyond the scope of the historical developmen t of public transportation, from an economic lens, how does transit affect economic developmen t? Some planners and practitioners like to apply the maxim If you build it, they will come when it comes to public transit projects and creating new development. Unfortunately, in is olation, such a maxim does not hold when it comes to public transportation and creating ec onomic development (Mackett & Edwards, 1997). Some researchers would correct that thought by stipulating that though public transportation may not create new development, it provides a favorable incentive for new development paired with other stimulant factors. The Stifled Economic Progre ss for Low-income Workers In the eyes of the transportation planner or c ity manager, a public transit service has been successfully implemented in the central business dist rict if it is stimulating business in the urban core. There also are mode-shifti ng individuals who are affluent, and have switched from the car to public transportation. In the eyes of policymakers, this is a job well done. Unfortunately, there is still the issue of low-in come workers and their economic opportunities with in the urban system. As a planner or manager, one wonders as to how it is that su ch a population still has difficulties acquiring jobs, which are sprouting up in the urban core? Is the public transportation system truly a standalone incentive for those unable to find work? One has to look at the dynamics that forms the labor market, and how the public transportation system engages this labor market. 25

PAGE 26

The current labor market in todays cities is a constantly shifting one. As capital moves around fluidly, so do the employme nt opportunities and the potential for low-income workers. With the majority development happening in suburbia, most blue-collar jobs emerge and are located to serve this development. This of course is not next d oor to most low-income workers who do not reside in suburbia. For those jobs that do exist in the central city, known for its extensive public transport access, the net blue-collar job growth has been minimal to negligible at best (Pugh, 1998). As a result, low-income workers have to endure grueling commutes to suburbia to make ends meet. For the lucky few who manage to find steady work in suburbia and have reliable public transit access, those individuals only endure th e commute as long as a car is unaffordable to them. Once finances allow for a ca r, most individuals in these jobs leave public transit behind. Such a behavior leads some researchers to conclude that low-income workers do not always use public transit as a means of ge tting to work and accessing job opportunity, but as a tool to garner work for a car, which then will lead to better opportunities not bound by the extent of the public transit network (Sanchez, 19 99). This of course is rare, where blue-collar workers have ideal public transit connections and service. Most of these workers face commutes at odd hours that make the journey to or from work impossible, due to the lack of service by the public transit agency at certain hours of the da y (Pugh, 1998). As a result, certain blue-collar jobs go unfilled and adversely affect the econom ic health and vitality of the suburbs, and conversely, there remains an unemployment problem among inner city low-income residents. Planners are struggling with the question on how to connect blue -collar workers to appropriate jobs. Improving public transit in th e city center, between the Central Business District and the less affluent neighborhoods only does so much good for both the city and this specific population. Most employment opportunity in the city cente r caters to skilled workers, 26

PAGE 27

with new public transit services further facilitating this trend. It would help blue-collar workers to be able to reverse the commute into the subur bs to garner work, but the scheduling of this work does not always coincide with the schedule of transit services. Policym akers can only try so much to stimulate economic development in the urban center that is geared towards blue-collar workers, through incentives towards employers. Even then, the blue-collar laborer has started to move into the suburbs, slowly but surely, out of necessity to access opportunities (Wachs & Taylor, 2002) Public Transportation and Employment In order for any laborer to get to work, they have to have a means of getting to work. When cities were concentrated, small entities before th e streetcar, the means of getting to work was on foot. As the streetcar came to be, workers turn ed to this mode to get to work. By the 20th century, workers had the modal options of the bus, bicycl e, auto, and walking as a means of getting to work. Each mode has an impact on labor partic ipation and spatial dist ribution of living and working arrangements. Up to recent literature, when researchers have tried to evaluate the correlation between labor participa tion and spatial mismatch, it has been done through the lens of the car, and rarely by public transportation (Sanchez, 1999). It has been recognized in the literature that pub lic transportation has an impact on how low-income users can find and maintain employment. Martin Luther King Jr. argued in his writings that the poor could get meaningful empl oyment and move into mainstream America, only when transportation systems were laid out as accessible to the poor (Sanchez, 1999). It was this finding of inadequate access to public tran sportation that King wrote about and its impact upon black opportunity. This findi ng was also found in the McCone commission, urging the US government to act upon the issue (Sanchez, 1999). Meaningful action by the federal government 27

PAGE 28

on the issu e of public transit a ccessibility for the poor did not materialize until 1991, when the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 included language to improve transportation options and conn ections for the economically disadvantaged(Sanchez, 1999). Implementation of this federal mandate is one to evaluate on a jurisdicti onal basis, since funding, constituent demand, and enforcemen t vary from place to place. Looking at the relationship between public transportation and employment, one will come to derive a theory on this relationshi p. If public transportation service was within accessible range of workers, and it connected them to concentrated areas of employment, there is a strong correlation to high la bor participation and short co mmute times (Sanchez, 1999). Evaluating the reality of the situation in most cities, one will find many low-income workers living in the city center, and a large concentra tion of metropolitan employment in the same city center. The mismatch occurs between this labor pool and opportunity when it comes to the skill set required for employment. As mentioned in the previous secti on of this review, much of the growing blue-collar economic oppor tunities for low-income workers are emerging in the urban fringe (Sanchez, 1999). Over time, the dist ance between the opportuni ties that low-income workers have eligibility to take, and where they live has increased. As this distance between work and home increases for the low-income worker, the size of the labor pool decreases negative exponentially because those who fall out of the labor pool do so out of failing to meet commuting requirements imposed on them and the undue pressure of having to own a car they are unable to maintain (Sanchez, 1999). For th ose laborers remaining in the labor pool, and subject to extraordinary commuti ng conditions, most yield to the car if they are able, versus public transit. These laborers weigh the high cost s of time, fixed scheduling, monetary costs, as well as the inflexible routing of transit as hindrance to choos e public transit (Sanchez, 1999). 28

PAGE 29

The problem becom es acute when laborers are looking for a job, limiting opportunities that they can consider (Preston & McLafferty, 1999). Not a ll laborers have access to cars. Sanchez points out that only about one-sixth of low-income laborers have the ab ility to own and maintain a car (Sanchez, 1999). Most other labor ers stand to benefit solely from public transit services. Public Transportation and Social Equity Up to this point in the literature review, th ere has been much discussion on the aspects of accessibility, economic development, and employment when it comes to impacts on low-income populations by public transit. These issues have touched upon, but have not gone in depth about the social equity issue th at arises from the rela tionship public transit has on low-income workers. One of the driving points when it comes to social equity in public trans it for low-income workers is the spatial mismatch hypothesis. This hypothesi s, described by John Kain in 1968, states that employment levels in the city are impacted by fluid and changing job a nd residential locations, the job decentralization of the center city, and the limiting ex tent of public transit connection between the fluid and changing j ob and residential locations (S anchez, 1999). This hypothesis states that economic opportunity is limited fo r the poor. The theory has become validated recently, through federal efforts to reform welf are programs for urban metropolitan areas (Pugh, 1998). In a study done by Orski in 1998, research foun d that 40 percent of suburban blue-collar jobs, which are the new job opportunities low-income workers are qu alified to take part of, are not within accessible range of publ ic transit routes and services (Cervero, Sandoval, & Landis, 2002). Another study was done in Boston, concentra ting on low-income users in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) program. It was found that 98 percent of these TANF recipients could access transit from home and go into the center city, but most do not qualify for 29

PAGE 30

center city work. On the contrary, 65 percent of blue-collar job growth has occurred in suburban car oriented Boston (Cerve ro, Sandoval, & Landis, 2002). W ithin these efforts to reform welfare and observing this spatial mismatch of the lowincome worker and the opportunitie s they seek, researchers find that there is no uniform formula on how spatial mismatch affects metropolitan areas. It can be stated that each urban area has their unique spatial mismatch experience; va rying job suburbanization and decentralization, centralization of poverty, and ine fficient public transportation for the low-income population (Pugh, 1998). The McCone Commission, highlighted earlier, is another validator of the spatial mismatch theory. This 1965 commission, founded to investigate race riots in Los Angeles, found poor transit accessibility as an instigator for high unemployment among blacks. Even though these findings were crucial towards civil rights and awakening the federal government towards the issue of public transit accessibility, the co mmission report is not wi thout criticism. Some critics charge that for public tr ansit to become effective, serious consideration has to be brought towards the round-trip commute from home to work (Cervero, Sandoval, & Landis, 2002). On the polar end of the issue, critic s charge public transit as a neglig ible mobility option for all. Public Transportation Efficiency Up to this point, the discussion on public tr ansportation and low-income workers has been on the social impacts on the individual and on the urban society context. Shifting gears, one has to look at the delivery of servic e as well as the planning proce ss of new and revised services from the perspective of low-income users. When it comes to the delivery of service by the transit system, the user is going to be concerned about th e efficiency of the service. The user considers whether the costs and benefits are to their advantage to use public transportation for their journey to work. To better assess public transit efficiency one has to revisit the concept of accessibility. 30

PAGE 31

In the beginning of this revi ew, accessibility was defined from the perspective of the user. Murray and Wu earlier defined accessibility as ac cess and geographic coverage. Access, or the process of getting the user from their origin to the transit service or the transit service to their destination, is paired with geographic coverage, which is service availability and reach across a spatial medium (Murray & Wu, 2003). From the perspective of transit service efficiency, access and geographic coverage prove c ontradictory. Applying access to efficiency, a transit agency will have to implement stops to provide a facil ity to enter/exit the transit service. The more transit stops there are on the transit system, th e more accessible the system is for its users because of an acceptable walking/driving distance to a station. As a result, the more entry points into the system translates to more riders willing to use the network. On the contrary, geographic coverage encomp asses the geographic extent of the service across time. The number of stops and the flow of tr affic dictate travel time for the transit service provided. Increasing the number of stops to provide facility service access conversely affects geographic access by increasing travel time. The more stops there are on the route, the more delay is incurred due to dwell time and slower travel speeds (Murra y & Wu, 2003). Because of geographic coverage accessibility, ridership decreases as travel ti me increases and compared to other modes of travel. When it comes to service efficiency, planners ne ed to balance service access and geographic coverage by manipulating stop spacing, in order to reach optimal service delivery efficiency. Achieving efficiency for a public transit syst em is a difficult process, involving not only manipulating stop spacing for geographic coverage and facility access, othe r factors, such as travel time, route configurati on, route service delivery time, and development density. Stop spacing is a key element in the efficiency of service. According to the Federal Transit 31

PAGE 32

Adm inistration (1996), the ideal stop spacing for transit is 600 feet (180 meters) for the downtown core, 750 feet (230 meters) for urba nized areas, and 1000 f eet (300 meters) for suburbanized areas. This ideal st op spacing will vary by metropolitan area and mode of travel, ranging from spacings of 600 feet to 2000 feet (200-600 meters). By implementing more stops along the service route, the users trip to the st op is shortened, whereas sparsely spaced stops increases travel speed of the vehicle and has the additional benefit of using a smaller transit fleet and lowering operational co sts (Murray & Wu, 2003). Route configuration has quite the impact on service efficiency upon the user, especially those of the low-income strata. Many urban tr ansit systems can boast efficient and frequent transit service in their urban core. This benefits many of th e low-income users who live in downtowns and it is economically efficient, comp ared to using the auto (Levinson, 1998). The side effect to this though is that these same services fail to provide service to the growing demand of dispersed trip origins and destinations, such as the decentralized blue-collar workplace, which is where many low-income workers are trying to get to for work (Sanchez, 1999). Because of either no serv ice out to these suburban blue-collar jobs, cumbersome and elongated routing, or unavailability of service during non-traditional employment hours, most users would easily identify their mobility based on the auto and avoid the use of public transit if possible (Sanchez, 1999). Furtherm ore, to the detriment of public transit, most metropolitan areas exhibit cross-jurisdictional commuting. Wi thin the cross-jurisdictional commuting using public transit service, service coordination fo r effective transfers and commute to/from the suburb from/to the urban core or between the diff erent suburbs and jurisdictions is generally not available (Pugh, 1998). Despite their preference of defining mobility by the auto, most lowincome workers are not in a position to use this m ode of travel to address their mobility needs. 32

PAGE 33

This is a res ult of the building costs of owning an auto: insuran ce, maintenance, fuel, and other hidden costs with the commute to suburban work (Pugh, 1998). As a result, most low-income workers are subjected to the commute to work on public transit systems, incurring social and economic costs to get to/from work. Looking at system efficiency of transit syst ems, there are constrai nts that are devaluing the effectiveness of transit. From a fiscal perspec tive, public transit services in the United States and some parts of the world are h eavily subsidized (Wachs & Taylor 2002). This is the result of low ridership and high costs, causing transit to be unprofitable. Transit systems are required to provide service to all populations in a metropolitan area wh ile maintaining costs. Eying new ridership and tax base, transit systems have h eavily focused expansion of service in suburban areas and geared towards the urban core commut er through projects like commuter rail and express bus (Wachs & Taylor, 2002). This tren d has taken its toll on urban center transit services and transit budgets through changing tran sit agency priorities and decisions. Resulting from this change in service provi sion, tied with declining federal support, there has been the rise of maintenance and operating costs and the dema nd by transit agencies to overcome deficits by increasing transit fares (Wachs & Taylor, 2002). Unfortunately, these efforts only have allowed transit services to retain flat-l ined levels of ridership at best though indicating an increase in recent years due to changing energy policies and a ffordability of automobile use (Miller, 2008). By raising transit fares, it hinders transit afford ability for low-income users, as well as decreases system productivity. These effects on transit syst ems are due to the effort to cover an evergrowing urban landscape. Because of these factors, public transit systems have been on the decline, employment centers are increasingly di stant from transit services, and low-income 33

PAGE 34

workers are im posed undue challenges seeki ng and maintaining empl oyment opportunities (Wachs & Taylor, 2002). The efficiency of transit services has not onl y a fiscal and technical element, but also a social element. Public transit has the disadva ntage of maintaining fi xed schedules and fixed routes, which is to the detriment of some users. For some users, there are the undue burdens of balancing the commute and work with the needs of maintaining a family. Such duty bears responsibilities of gettin g children to school or daycare, a nd allowing time to bond with family (Cervero, Sandoval, & Landis, 2002). The needs that users have are not normally met by the use of transit service, which is orie nted in getting users from home to work and back only, and is inflexible in deviating from that purpose. Furthermore, the auto-ori ented nature of industrialized societies has allowed for the availability of free or low cost parking, which is not contested by public transit via low cost or free transit passes (Cervero, Sandoval, & Landis, 2002). What can be observed from the perspective of the user, is weighing the costs and benefits of transit or auto. Things that will come to mind on the user are th at transit service involves more travel time, inflexible, and infrequent service compared to the auto. According to H.S. Levinson (1983), travel time by bus tends to be on the or der of 1.5 times longer than by auto, and travel speed is half of what autos normally do (Wu & Murray, 2005). Regardless of these and earlier notions introduced about efficiency in public transit, it comes dow n to the users perceived value of time, distance, and money that will guide th eir decision-making to us e or reconsider public transit with other modes of travel. Despite all of these aforemen tioned detrimental effects on public transit effectiveness, it can be documented that there are still a signific ant ridership that use public transit to work. According to a report prepared by Newman and Ke nworthy (1999), 9 percent of work trips are 34

PAGE 35

done by transit in the United States (Murray, 2003). This of cour se has risen a few percentage points in recent years, as the result of rising fu el prices and car mainte nance costs (Miller, 2008). Despite the inefficient service that public tran sit may provide, it provid es a major service in optimizing traffic flows in urban areas by removing potential auto ridership and accommodating greater ridership at a lower economic cost. Public Transportation Planning Attributes to Consider In designing a public transportation service, th ere are multiple things to consider, in order to address impacts on socio-economics and efficien cy of service. According to Murray et al. (1998), transit planners should consider the fo llowing in designing a public transit system: Trip purpose Temporal distribution of trips Spatial Distribution of trips Modal splits of Travel Travel costs These factors shape the infras tructure in both th e short-term and long-term delivery of service. They also will impact land use, so cial demography, and the environment (Murray, Davis, Stimson, & Ferreira, 1998). Public transit ha s moved to the forefront in recent years in community ballot boxes and discourse, due to edu cation and awareness of sustainability, higher fuel costs, issues of conges tion, and social welfare for low-income users (Murray, Davis, Stimson, & Ferreira, 1998). Planners face barriers in provi ding transit services for low-income users. A major barrier is decentralized blue-collar employment. Transit se rvice is most effective when ridership and employment are concentrated. Dispersed employm ent increases the cost of providing transit services and may lead to decreased ridership among the targeted population, due to infrequent 35

PAGE 36

service and shorter hours of se rvice. Beyond higher costs in pr oviding service to dispersed em ployment locations, there is the added problem that employment locations are not static. Transit planners are always playing catch up in providing transit services towards these employment centers that have no guarantee of permanency due to market forces. (Sanchez, 1999). Added to this constant catch up phenom enon is undue pressure from users and the economic market for more rapid and real-time ch anges to services, which is unattainable for public transit systems to provide (Modarres, 2003). This leads to a question of the appropriateness and feasibility of fixed routes and fixed schedules in the transit market, but that is beyond the scope of th is literature review. If transit planners manage to establish some level of transit service to these decentralized employment centers, the next challenge is prov iding service for users with varying schedules. Most transit systems orient their transit service in the urban core to be constantly running, due to concentrated residential populati ons. In suburban employment locations, most transit services do not operate beyond traditional wo rking hours due to low demand. These schedules runs contrary to the needs of blue-collar workers, who may have non-trad itional work schedules, have domestic emergencies, or have other family res ponsibilities such as childcare responsibilities for low-income mothers (Pugh, 1998). Political Realities of Public Transportation Planning In an ideal world, transit pla nners create a transit system fr ee of regulations and outside policy makers. Unfortunately, that ideal is just an alternate reality. The environment transportation planners and polic y-maker conduct their work is a heated political environment, complete with elected politicians and voting enab led constituents. Much of the planning that goes into public transit service is governed by goals and policies se t through political entities and technocrats who impose unrealistic standards. Long-range plans and standards of service such as 36

PAGE 37

stop spacing (which have studies supported by academ ic research) are subject to political manipulation and varying political agendas (Murray, Davis, Stimson, & Ferreira, 1998). Furthermore, transit agencies operate as a so cial service and private enterprise. Transit agencies face lower ridership annually and decreasing revenues yet they need to provide a diversity of services to a variet y of transit users. On top of th ese problems, transit agencies face political entities to approve ne w transit services. Agencies fa ce an uphill battle validating and sustaining arguments for such services like suburb an transit service in the face of the autooriented mentality (Sanchez, 1999). Politicians and the voting constituency only support new transit development if the funding originates from the state (provincial) or national level of government or a locally supported tax, and if the lo cal benefit/cost ratio is very high (Mackett & Edwards, 1997). At the same token, voting constituencies block the cutting of underperforming services (Sanchez, 1999). In this political climate, tran sit service providers ar e always in search of national funding and subsidies for their services and new proj ect, and pitch such project and services with optimistic forecasts for ridershi p and revenue, in hopes of seeking project or service approval ((Mack ett & Edwards, 1997). Transit agen cy planners overlook in their proposals before policymakers that their numbers ar e generated in isolation from the rest of the metropolitan transportation network (i.e. automobiles) (Mackett & Edwards, 1997). Beyond the scope of local politics imposing on th e work of transit planners, there are the overhead policies from state and national government. Policy makers attempted to address access of low-income users to employment from federal enforcement of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconcilia tion Act. Under this fe deral legislation, lowincome users face losing welfare benefits if they do not find work. As described in earlier sections, dispersed job opport unities, complicated and long co mmutes, unreliable service under 37

PAGE 38

norm al or reverse commute conditions, and other i ssues hinder the ability of this population in getting work (Pugh, 1998). Policy makers have been pushing for quick fix projects that provide specially tailored bus or van routes for low-inco me workers to reach blue-collar employment. On top of these quick fix projects, not much in th e way of long range planni ng or consideration for economic and demographic shifts is demonstrated for these projec ts (Pugh, 1998). This leads to haphazard programs with no sustainable funding or implementation plan. Methods of Improving Service Delivery Based on the political realities imposed on transi t planners in devising transit services, is there flexibility to improve services? Fortunate ly, there is room for improvement of service delivery. One of the first things to consider in improving transit servi ces is to incorporate incremental and systematic change (Pugh, 1998). Mu ch of the failings of new transit services are to implement major policy departures fr om their normal operations. Implementing new services that are not sustainable in their urban environment, but only doing so because of funding for new systems of transit is not a way transit agencies should do business. What results from these projects that fail to implement to their fu ll potential is the disdain of the public using such service, removal of funding for su ch service, and increasing costs and devaluing assets from such projects. Furthermore, implementing special projects to benefit specific groups, such as lowincome users, has its issues as well (Pugh, 1998) By providing benefits to one group, another defined population may arise and co ntest its validity, let alone not allow the selected group being helped from advancing in step with the rest of the urban social demographic (Pugh, 1998). To better address the issue of low-income user accessibility and mobility, focus should be geared towards mapping out the spatial mismatch problem in each urban metropolitan area (Pugh, 1998; Murray, 2003). From this, a plan can be devised to address th ese spatial gaps of 38

PAGE 39

opportunity using transit that can benefit in the long-term health of th e transportation system, urban economy, and social fabric. In order to promote change in transit planning, planners have to change their mentality of urban development. Up to this po int, the view on urban developm ent is to revitalize the urban core, or improve low-income access to jobs in the periphery, in an either/or conundrum. Planners need to focus on stimulating economic opportunities in the urban center, while at the same time providing for affordable housing in the periphery to address the peripherys need of an bluecollar labor market (Pugh, 1998). Fu rthermore, policy makers should push to balance the burden of the labor market from the blue-collar worker to the employer and not allow a demand driven treatment to labor (Pugh, 1998). In the current interaction, employers be nefit from lower costs by moving out to the suburbs, and still maintain the same need for blue-collar work. Similarly, low-income workers living in the city center are penalized by the labor market through the high costs of commuting to the suburbs to benefit these blue-collar employers and without the sense of job security or decent compensation (Pugh, 1998). Beyond the scope of public transportation planning, land use planners need to impose incentives for employers to move closer to the urban center/cluster, if even just the inner periphery of the suburbs, so that transit service providers can make a decent attempt in providing service and access for low-income users. Summary Over the course of this review of the lit erature, public transit has been defined, deconstructed, and reinterpreted through different lenses, with th e objective of conceptualizing the framework of how public transit is interrelated to the low-income worker. Accessibility was defined as comprising of access and geographic coverage. These two elements of accessibility contradict each other in their effect on user perceptions of access, yet are elements that if balanced correctly, can harness an efficient transit system. 39

PAGE 40

Spatial m ismatch was discussed as a hypothesis that affects both the accessibility of lowincome users, and the economic development of an urban area. The hypothesis stipulates that there is a spatial distance gap between popul ation concentrations, qualified employment opportunity clusters, and transit se rvices. Because of this mismat ch, low-income workers incur a higher social and economic cost within their commute on public transit, reinforced by the inability of this population to own a private automobile. Lastly, there was an overview of the planning process of public trans it systems. There are several attributes to consider when developing a transit system, but are subject to a political climate of challenging policy makers and a vot ing constituency. To overcome these planning shortcomings, transit planning has to make a de parture from providing se rvices to specialized groups and implementing non-incremental policy. Transit planners have to move towards systematic and incremental policy changes, as well as focusing on how to mitigate the spatial mismatch issue within thei r respective jurisdiction. 40

PAGE 41

CHAP TER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction Several issues come to the surface when expl oring public transit system accessibility from the perspective of low-income users. The objective of this research is to define the concept of public transit accessibility, devel op any typologies in public trans it accessibility, and explore the underlying factors that lead to the development of these accessibility typologies. It is from these parameters where we stand to gain an understa nding of the overlying issue of public transit accessibility, and provide feedback and recommenda tion for transit agencies of urbanized areas to address this issue from the viewpoint of low-income workers / users, and help address other underlying socio-economic disparities, whic h are beyond the scope of this research. Defining the Parameters Before delving into the tools necessary and th e indicators to define trends, the parameters of this investigation had to be set. To explor e public transportation accessibility for low-income users, the method used in this investigation was a dual non-experimental case study analysis using retrospective assessment of the transit system operations in two case study cities. This research investigated transit access fo r employment in two middle-sized, second-tier metropolitan regions in the Americas. The two case studies used, were selected from the following criteria: Is the city located in the Americas? Does the city have a population between 2.5 and 4 million within the metropolitan area? Is the city considered a second tier city within their respective country? o Is the city not the national capital or primary economic center of the country? Does the city have an established public trans it system developed within the past fifty (50) years? 41

PAGE 42

Does the city have a m edian income (per capi ta income if median income not available) level above the national av erage of their country? Does the city have economic diversity among their population, but have no more than a quarter (25%) of their populati on defined under the poverty line? Does the city have available statistical and geospatial data? Within all the case studies, it is crucial to en sure that each case city exemplifies positive population growth and a matured, but not antiquated transportation system. For example, in New York City, the public transit system has matured, but has also existed for over one hundred (100) years. Using the initial requirements of being a metr opolitan area within the Americas with a population between 2.5-4 million, the following cities were identified and compared against the selection criteria. Table 3-1 Case study selection pool: Selected cities of the Americas [Source: Thomas Brinkhoff: City Population, http://www.citypopulation.de ] City Country Metro Pop (Mil) City Pop (Mil) A 2.5 < 2nd Tier PT G+ MI ED D Seattle USA 3.950 0.593 X X X X X X X X X Brasilia BR 3.875 2.557 XX X Recife BR 3.850 1.711 X X X X X X Montreal CA 3.750 1.621 XX X Fortaleza BR 3.650 2.431 X X X X X X Salvador BR 3.650 2.949 X X X X X X Medelln CO 3.550 2.223 XX X Curitiba BR 3.475 1.797 X X X X X X X X XMinneapolis USA 3.450 0.373 XX X X X Santo Domingo DR 3.150 2.084 XX X San Diego USA 2.975 1.367 X X X X X X X XCampinas BR 2.900 1.059 X X X X X X X Saint Louis USA 2.850 0.356 X X X X X X Tampa USA 2.825 0.337 XX X X Denver USA 2.800 0.599 X X X X X X X XCleveland USA 2.775 0.478 X X X X X X Santiago de CO 2.750 2.068 X X X X X X Orlando USA 2.750 0.228 XX X X San Juan USA 2.700 0.434 XX X 42

PAGE 43

Where: A City within the Americas PT Mature Public Transit system with major development within 50 years G+ Positive population growth 2.5+ Population above 2.5 million <4 Population below 4 million MI Median Income (or Per Cap ita Income) above national mean ED Economic Diversity D Data availability The table presented above highlights the proc ess of selecting the two case studies. The process first gathered the selected potential case studies based on bei ng cities within the prescribed population range and within the Am ericas. From there, through a process of elimination by way of the selection criteria, th e case studies of Curitiba and Seattle emerged. Denver and San Diego had data available for an alysis, yet were eliminated. What set both Curitiba and Seattle apart was data availability. The city of Campinas was also a potential case study, but was removed from consideration due to the economic disparit y within its population and the reality that the city acts as a s uburb of the greater So Paulo metro area. Evaluating the Case Studies To evaluate accessibility of low-income users to the selected public transit systems, the approach pursued a two-tiered an alysis placed in context by th e historical, demographic, and socio-economic policies and trends of the case st udies. The two tiers: (1) statistical and (2) geospatial, try to convey where populations, employment, and transit services are located in relation to each other, then transition to studying their relationship and how they impact the core question of accessibility (framed to an agreed definition of access and geographic coverage) to transit by low-income working populations. 43

PAGE 44

Statistical Analysis In this tier, statistical tre nds of the metropolitan area populat ion were evaluated. This tier looked for general statistical i ssues in the metro area that a ddress the access component of accessibility. This level of analysis tries to outline where elements of the case study are and their associated aggregate value (i.e. population, em ployment, and transit stop density). The only drawback to statistical analysis is that it do not give a detailed story about geographic space, roadway / transit network, zoning, and physical ba rriers that either pr omote or hinder public transit access. Furthermore, according to Sanchez (1999), general statistics does not do justice to the issue of spatial mismatch within an urban area. Statistics pertaini ng to commute times are skewed, since low-income workers employ the use of public transportation and endure longer commutes. As for statistics comparing workers with availability of jobs, it goes along the line of contemporary discrimination, and one has to be careful as to how one presents th eir statistics. Population trends Within the scope of population trends and in the context of the research question, the researcher needed to know where the low-income populations were lo cated. For geographical comparison, high-income population concentrations were also identified. Knowing population numbers for the individual neighborhoods iden tified in the case study, high-income population concentrations were identified as having the lowest proportion of low-income households within the neighborhood. For purposes of the analysis the neighborhoods considered beyond one standard deviation below the mean ratio of low-income to total households were selected as high-income concentrated neighbor hoods in the case studies. In identifying low-income population concentrations, it was evaluated in two ways. One such way to view low-income popul ation concentration was to look at it from the perspective of the ratio of the low-income population to the total population of a neighborhood. For purposes of 44

PAGE 45

the analysis, the neighborhoods considered beyond one standard deviation above the m ean ratio of low-income to total households were select ed as low-income concentrated neighborhoods in the case studies. Another viewpoint to evaluate low-income population concentrations was to evaluate the ratio of low-income population in a neighborhood to the total lo w-income population in the case study city. In this viewpoint, th e neighborhoods with the highest di stribution ratio of low-income population in the municipality were selected until the ratio sum equaled the municipal lowincome average. Employment trends In the frame of the research question, the study was to focus on the low-income worker. The earlier population trends an alysis identified where one ca n find concentrations of lowincome workers in the municipality The next step in the analysis was to evaluate job availability trends within the case study. This step of the pro cess identified job opportuniti es that exist within the limits of the case study. To evaluate job availability within the municipality, employment trends within the neighborhood limits were considered. If data pe rmitted, defined employment values in sum and by commercial and industrial sector were interp reted. If data was not available on defined employment opportunities within a city, job availability was estimated from parcel data information. In estimating job availability by parcel type, the following figures were used: Commercial Establishments: 1 Job / 100 S quare Meters (1 Job / 1000 Square Feet) Industrial Establishments: 1 Job / 45 Square Meters (1 Job / 450 Square Feet) These numbers to estimate jobs are averages debated among planners in an Economic and Community Development forum in Cyburbia (A nglais, 2006). These numbers only help to 45

PAGE 46

provide a rough estim ate of jobs per parcel, so that absolute j ob concentration and relative job concentration values could be estimated and then interpreted. Noting an assumption made at this juncture of the methodology, the service industry jobs are lumped in with commercial jobs. The rationale behind this interpretation was due in part as to how to assign service industry parcels. Most service industry parcels are zoned simila rly as commercial. Though there are varying zoning levels within the general commercial z oning type, no clear distin ction can be made for service jobs, let alone trying to compare results between the two case stud ies with two distinct zoning codes that do not correlate directly. When evaluating job availability, one can st udy trends from two dis tinct viewpoints. One such viewpoint is to evaluate job availability by absolute job numb ers. Where are citys jobs in sheer numbers? In the analysis, neighborhoods wi th job numbers one standard deviation above and below the mean number of jobs were categorized as high and low absolute job concentrated neighborhoods respectively. Job availability also can be looked at, relatively. Of the jobs within a select neighborhood, how many people within the neighborhood have the potential to compete for the job? This analysis looked at the general population numbers, and not specifically at the workforce population in each neighborhood, for it is ha rd to distinguish of that workforce, who is classified as low-income. In the analysis, neighborhoods with job numbers one standard deviation above and below the m ean ratio of jobs to populatio n were selected high and low relative job concentrated nei ghborhoods respectively. Identif ying as a high relative job availability neighborhood, the populati on to job ratio is relatively lo w, indicating a surplus of job opportunities in that neighborhood. Another trend to consider in employment trends is to look into the details of the sector job availability. Of the jobs av ailable, which jobs are in th e commercial sector versus the 46

PAGE 47

industrial sector? Low-inco me workers are able to take on an industrial job, which requires lowskill, untrained labor that has on-the-job training, versus the skilled educated labor required in the commercial sector. With this assumption, th e selection of neighborhoods above one standard deviation from the mean number of sector jobs were identified with specialized concentrations in industrial versus commercial employment. From this selection, corre lation with population patterns and transit access were assessed. Transit availability The crux of the research question involves ev aluating public transit accessibility for lowincome workers in the select case studies. Up to this point, analysis ha s been made on where populations live in a city, and wher e jobs are located in a city. Th e next analysis that goes over general statistical trends within the case study is transit stop av ailability. Which kind of transit stop densities exist within a neighborhood? To evalua te this attribute, stop densities was assessed by several characteristics. Tran sit stop density was assessed, based on population density and employment density. Estimating transit stop de nsity by population density, the results yield a relationship between the number of stops located within population clusters. The same process can be outlined when it comes to employment de nsity. Selecting the highest and the lowest transit stop densities based on the relationship to population and employme nt density should be made by evaluating neighborhoods with values above and below one standard deviation from the mean. Geo-Spatial Analysis The second tier of the research analysis is a geo-spatial anal ysis. This tier of analysis focuses into more detail the aspects of public tran sit accessibility. The statistical analysis piece of this research focused on general trends and tried to explain where people, jobs, and stops are located in the spatial medium. Geo-spatial trends an alysis provides an exte nsion of the statistical 47

PAGE 48

analysis that is conducted on the data. Geo-spatial analysis allows statistics to have m eaning over space. The geo-spatial analysis al so explores an interactive re lationship that exists getting to/from a transit stop, and using th e transit system across the case st udy city. This analysis allows policy-makers and planners to focus on select area s where public transit access is limited, and try to look at policy, geography, and socio-demogr aphics to explain the lack of access. Transit stop walkability The initial measures of public transit accessibility within the geo-spatial context is transit stop walkability. In this st ep of the analysis, we look to explor e the average travel distance within a neighborhood between each parcel and a transit stop. The parcels being analyzed have been segregated to residential, commercial, and i ndustrial parcels. Parcel s and transit stops are assigned a set of coordinates to be located within the coordinate plane. These coordinates are then be used to calculate the di stance between parcels and stops. One type of distance measure is the Euclidian distance measure. Euclidian dist ance is synonymous with the distance that measures as the crow flies. The other distance measure to be used is the Manhattan distance measure. The Manhattan distance measure trie s to replicate distan ce between two points, assuming a grid system that can be found in the Manhattan borough of New York, New York. The respective distance measures can be calculated by: Euclidian: Square Root( ( Point X1 Point X2)2 + ( Point Y1 Point Y2)2 ) Manhattan: Absolute Value(Point X1 Point X2) + Absolute Value ( Point Y1 Point Y2) Once each parcel and transit stop had their coordinates established, parcels were then assigned to the nearest transit stop. Using ArcGIS the NEAR function performs this task and assigns each parcel the respectiv e information of the closest transit stop. Once this is done, one 48

PAGE 49

can calculate the Euclidian and Man hattan distan ce between the parcel and its assigned transit stop, using the parcel and assigned transit stop coordinates. After transit stop distances are calculated for each parcel, one can then provide an average distance to transit from the perspec tive of the parcel within a neighborhood. Another transit distance perspective exists as well; the dist ance from the transit stop to parcels. In this alternate viewpoint, one has to summarize parc el to stop distances by the bus stop, and then summarize the average bus stop to parcel distan ces by neighborhood. This ensures that both the walk to transit and the walk from transit are an alyzed, since the average trip distance between stops and parcels may vary. In interpreting the resulting average walk distances between transit and parcels within a defined neighborhood, one s hould evaluate the parcel to stop distance averages before evaluating the stop to parcel di stance, and evaluating Euclidian distances before Manhattan distances. The walk distance from parcel to transit tries to convey an important piece in accessibility and using the system from the beginning. If the walk to transit from the starting location is beyond the defined walking threshold, then there is an impediment to accessibility to use the system, than it would have been if one was us ing the system, and then evaluated the walk distance from transit stops to parcels. Euclidian distance has hierarchy over Manhattan distance, for it assumes ideal walk conditions as the crow flies. If the walking distance is beyond the threshold in the Euclidian viewpoint, then ther e is an obvious accessibilit y issue to the transit stop. Manhattan distance is used in the analysis to scrutinize Euclidian distance and provide a more realistic distance measure over a network. The ideal measure, netw ork distance, measures distance along the network. Unfortunately, ne twork distance calculations per parcel are 49

PAGE 50

com plicated and very time and resource consuming. Th erefore, they were not calculated in this study. Transit stop walkshed coverage The next step in the geo-spatial analysis of transit accessibility is to evaluate the walkshed created from the transit stops. A netw ork distance walkshed is created using ArcGIS network analyst. Using the street or pedestrian network (dependi ng on data availability) as well as the transit stops, network distance walksheds are generated. The walksheds are created to extend to the maximum walking distance threshold, which for this analysis is established at a quarter-mile or 400 meters. Use of the street ne twork in creating walksheds assumes that the street network is an ex act replica of the walking environment. It also assumes that all transit users will walk to a transit stop, instead of driv ing to a transit stop. Furthermore, assumptions are made for ideal walkable conditions in generating the walksheds. It is beyond the scope of this research to study the detailed walk ability to transit stops and the barriers and impedances, which can affect such walkability and the generation of these walksheds. Once the walkshed for the transit stops of the case study is generated, one can then do some statistical analysis on the neighborhood. One can evaluate the area within th e neighborhood that the walkshed covers, the number of parcels covered by the walkshed in relation to total parcel s in the neighborhood. From these statistical results, relationships can be es tablished with job concen trations and low-income population concentrations. Transit travel time The final step of the research process that addresses public transit accessibility is the evaluation of travel time within the public trans it network. The literature discusses accessibility encompassing the concepts of access and geographi c coverage (Murray & Wu, 2003). Most of the analysis to this point has been heavily fo cused in answering accessibility from an access 50

PAGE 51

point of view. Evaluating travel ti m es in the transit network is an attempt to answer accessibility from a geographic covera ge point of view. The question this analysis seeks to answer is : Given a period of time, how far can one get within the transit network? To conduct this analysis, several a ssumptions have to be made. One assumption is that one travels along the network at the average transit sy stem travel speed, as prescribed by either the local transit agency or the literature. Traveling along the network, it also assumes ideal travelling conditions for the transi t vehicle. The analysis does not completely accommodate for the number of stops or traffic in cidents, which can impede the progress of the transit vehicle. By using the system average trav el speed, it tries to mitigate the various factors that can enhance or hinder travel time. To crea te transit system coverage over time, one has to employ the ArcGIS network analyst application. Using transit stops and the transit routes, one can create service area lines from the transit stops based on the prescribed distance that a vehicle can cover by a specified period of time. One has to estimate what these distances are, based on the average travel speed of the transit network, and create a value of how far the vehicle can travel in minutes. For example: Average system travel speed: 15 mph 15 miles/hr 1 hr/60 min 5280 feet/1 mile = 1320 feet/minute Knowing how far the vehicles in the specified transit system can ideally travel in a given minute, the researcher can then create distance benchmarks, based on the time benchmarks they want to establish. For purposes of this investigation, time benchmarks are to be set in five (5) minute intervals until one (1) hour has been reache d. Network analyst is then used to create distance isochrones along the network. The developm ent of time isochrones, or a line joining a set of points at equal travel time from a specifi ed location, defines the maximum extent a traveler can travel the transit network within a given time period (O'Sullivan, Morrison, & Shearer, 51

PAGE 52

2000). After all the isochrones are drawn for the designated increm ents of time, one can then attribute the isochrones to the origin stop, which then can be attribut ed to the appropriate neighborhood. Furthermore, if one wants to take time to study specific low-income neighborhoods in question, one can extract travel lines from the time increment isochrones files, which have an origin in the neighborhood in question. From th ese isochrones, a time catchment map can be generated, to overlay the time isochrones on th e municipal map; for the neighborhood being scrutinized, and give a visual definition of the ti me cost that transit users will experience using the transit system. These time isochrones can al so be overlaid on the ne ighborhoods identified as having high concentrations of jobs within the case study to hone in on the relationship of the commute to the job location from the origin neighborhood. Data Requirements To conduct this investigati on, especially the geo-spatia l analysis portion of this investigation, certain data sources will be needed for analysis. Such data files and sources that would be required for th is research include: Municipal Limits demarcation of extent of geo-spatial research and analysis Census Blocks or neighborhood demarcated areas for demographic information on the specific area (small unit of spatial statistical analysis that remains manageable). Parcels base residential or employment locations Road Network to emulate the pedestrian ne twork, and assess distan ce to transit stops from parcel locations. Public Transportation stops to analyze walkshed catchment access to stops from parcels. Public Transportation routes to use routes in a network analysis to generate isochronal catchment areas. 52

PAGE 53

Data f or the statistical analysis will emerge from a demographic databank for the City of Curitiba, which has census data down to the neighborhood level. The same data can be acquired from the US Census and the City of Seattle GIS department for Seattle. 53

PAGE 54

CHAP TER 4 CURITIBA: A CASE STUDY OF PUBLIC TRANSIT PLANNING IN LATIN AMERICA Introduction Curitiba is a bustling metropolitan city located in southern Brasil. As the capital of the southern state of Paran, the Municipality of Curitiba is home to approximately 1.8 million residents, of which the majority are of various European ancestries (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica, 2002). Figure 4-1 Curitiba, Brasil in relation to South American geography. [Map Provided by Urbanizao de Curitiba, S.A., 2007.] Encompassing 75 bairros or neighborhoods, the municipality covers approximately 166.4 mi2 (430.9 km2) of area (Instituto Brasileiro de Geogr afia e Estatistica, 2002). The city is home to an economy revolving around the urban service industry, manufacturing, and refined agricultural products such as packaged foods and agricultu ral machinery. Noted for a vibrant industrial sector, Curitiba boasts a niche in auto manufacturing, which is lauded for its advanced technology, and providing 17,500 jobs in the metropolit an area (International Society of City and Regional Planners, 2004). It ope rates as a second tier city in Brasil, being influenced by the 54

PAGE 55

socio-econom ic activity of the nearest major city, So Paulo, 150 m iles (250 km) to the northeast (Macedo, 2004). Figure 4-2 Curitibas 75 Municipal bairro s (neighborhoods) [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] 55

PAGE 56

Curitib a has come to prominence on the global stage for its aggressive ecological and transportation planning. Under the leadership of prolific mayor Jaime Lerner, this city has embarked on investing in green space and enviro nmental protection programs for its citizenry, as well as constructing and prioritizing on public transportation in th e municipality. As a result, Curitiba is lauded as a shining example of pla nning, and boasts of the highest quality of living in Brasil (Macedo, 2004). Historical Background Curitiba got its start in 1693, when it was orga nized into a village, where it served as a travel point between the larger cities of So Paulo and Rio de Janeiro to the Northeast and Buenos Aires to the southwest. Until the 1950s, Curitiba had a strong agricultural heritage and small commercial hub, which was cultivated by the im migration pool pouring into Curitiba in the 19th century (Macedo, 2004). After the 1960s, wh ich was hallmarked by the automation and mechanization of the agriculture industry, much of the rural populations n ear Curitiba started to pour into the urban center. Dense urban core neighborhoods became commonplace during this time, where Curitiba started to put pressure on its urban form. As a result, city planners and politicians were faced with a bur geoning question as to where to take the city development into the future. It is fortunate for Cu ritiba that they had a rich heritage of zoning and land use policies dating back to the 19th century, and are adaptive to the times. Zoning in Curitiba Zoning in Curitiba started early in its history, with the first pl an for the city being laid out in 1855 by Pierre Taulois. The Taulois plan arrang ed a small growing city into city blocks and improved urban circulation (Macedo, 2004) (Institu to de Pesquisa e Planejamento Urbano de Curitiba, 2007). In 1886, Curitiba took steps to improve sanitation and curb urban flooding, by converting a sector of the city th at is flood prone, into the first city park; Passeio Pblico. Zoning 56

PAGE 57

in Curitiba does not get an uplift until 1943, under the leadership of Alfred Agache, who designed a city plan around urban functions, urban expansion, housing services, and a redesigned road network. The 1943 plan in its final form was a concentric organization to the city (Macedo, 2004). A balance of zoning between commercial, i ndustrial, and residential zones was relatively even within Curitiba (Instituto de Pesquisa e Planejamento Urbano de Curitiba, 2007). Figure 4-3 Agache Plan of 1943 [M ap Provided by IPPUC, 2007] Unfortunately, the Agache Plan did not hold due to a ballooning popul ation in Curitiba, which was growing approximately four percen t a year between the Agache plan and 1965 (Transportation Research Board, 2003). Because of this growing population and a city plan unable to meet the demands of the burgeoni ng population growth, IPPUC, the municipal planning agency, was organized in 1965. The first task for IPPUC was to devise a new plan for the city, which at that time focused developmen t around transit corridors, instead of developing 57

PAGE 58

transit around development (Inst ituto de Pesquisa e Planejamen to Urbano de Curitiba, 2007). The 1966 plan developed by IPPUC, proved to be a strong zoning code that m anipulated city development over the coming years. Figure 4-4 1966 Curitiba Zoning Plan [Map Provided by IPPUC, 2007] The city organization became linear in na ture, but the zoning balance between the residential, commercial, and industrial zones still maintained equality in the 1966 plan. The plan had some changes added to it in 1975, to accommoda te an industrial city and rising commercial and residential demand because of high populati on growth. This was done through the promotion of the verticalization of the city. The zoning codes did not get any further upgrades until 2004, where zoning of 1975 was refined further to accommodate the present re ality of a service industry, and reduce density, which had its start in the 1970s. Industrial zoni ng was pushed outside th e municipal boundaries of Curitiba, and commercial centers were concen trated within the municipality (Instituto de 58

PAGE 59

Pesquisa e P lanejamento Urbano de Curitiba, 2007). It is estimated now that 72% of the designated parcels in Curitiba are demarcated as predominately residential zones. Figure 4-5 1975 Curitiba Zoning Plan [Map Provided by IPPUC, 2007] Figure 4-6 2004 Curitiba Zoning Plan [Data Source: IPPUC, 2007] 59

PAGE 60

Figure 4-7 2004 Curitiba Zoning Plan si mplified [Data Source: IPPUC, 2007] Population Patterns Curitiba has enjoyed economic growth over the last 50 years, touting a quality of life unrivaled in other Brasilian metr opolitan centers. As it attracted bus inesses into the municipality, the city also attracted urban migrants (Mace do, 2004). Unfortunately, much of the employment opportunities relocating into municipal Curitiba were high-skilled labor, which proved to be of no benefit to blue-co llar workers (Macedo, 2004). On th e contrary, through 2004 zoning and market demand, low-skilled industrial work was being pushed outside th e municipal limits (Instituto de Pesquisa e Planejamento Urbano de Curitiba, 2007). Evaluating the population patterns in the Munici pality of Curitiba, one finds that the population is concentrated in the Nort heast portion of th e municipality. 60

PAGE 61

Figure 4-8 Municipal Curitiba population distribution (one Do t = 100 Persons) [Data Source: IPPUC, 2007] Figure 4-9 Municipal Curitiba population density distributio n [Data Source: IPPUC, 2007] 61

PAGE 62

In the Metropolitan Region of Curitiba, the population is heavily concentrated in the northeas tern part of the Cur itiba municipality, extending north along the former BR-116 federal road and other northbound state roads (Instituto de Pesquisa e Planejamento Urbano de Curitiba, 2007). Figure 4-10 Metro Curitiba population distribution circa 1995 [Map Provided by IPPUC, 2007] This trend could be attributed to the socio-economic gravita tional pull that So Paulo has upon Curitiba, to the northeast. Furthermore, th is trend could be attributed to the growing informal population migrating from other parts of the country that sits to the north and northeast, and making their way into Curitiba, attracted by the promise of a better life (Macedo, 2004). Curitibas population of 1.8 million residents is largely comprised of European descent, notably of Italian, German, Polish, Slavic, Sw edish, and French ancestries (Macedo, 2004). These residents are housed in approximately 470,000 households. The average household size in the city has been calculated at 3.35 persons per household (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica, 2002). The average income per household in Curitiba is calculated at R$1,431/monthly, or 9.48 minimum sa laries (Instituto de Pesquisa e Planejamento Urbano de 62

PAGE 63

Curitib a, 2000). The minimum salary is defined in Brasil during the 2000 census as constituting R$151/month, though subject to change due to infl ation and other economic variables (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Esta tistica, 2002). The latest change to the minimum wage, dated February 2009, places the minimum wage at R$465 (Iankilevich, 2009). This research focuses on the lower income households and population. For purposes of the 2000 census procedures by the Brasilian Census Bu reau, IBGE, the poverty line is drawn at three minimum salaries or R$453/monthly. With the p overty line drawn and identified by the census, 96,882 residents of Curitiba living below the pover ty line, which is approximately 20% of the citys population (Instituto de Pesquisa e Pl anejamento Urbano de Curitiba, 2000). When all residents living under low-income status or under five (5) mini mum salaries are considered, the percentage of the municipal population in the group increases from 20% to 37% (Macedo, 2004). The low-income population in municipal Curitiba is only a small segment of the Metropolitan Curitiba population, which comprise s 26 municipalities, with a population of 3.3 million, of which 71% are classified as low-in come (Macedo, 2004) (Urbanizao de Curitiba, S.A. 2007). Transit in Curitiba Curitiba is known the world over for its innovative bus transportation system. It has an extensive transportation system, consisting of 465 bus transit lines circulating through the city and nearby municipalities. According to Urbani zao de Curitiba, S.A. (URBS), 390 of the 465 transit lines are coordinated in an Integrated Transit System (U rbanizao de Curitiba, S.A. 2007). The transit system covers between 4,000,000 duplicated route kilometers in the metropolitan area, and 1,100 kilometers within the municipality, of which 60 kilometers are designated busways (Transportation Research Board, 2003). According to URBS, the transit system carries an average of 1.9 million trips da ily (Transportation Research Board, 2003). Bus 63

PAGE 64

stops occurs approxim ately every 400 meters across the system (Transportation Research Board, 2003). The transit system got its start in 1955, with the first transit line crossing the city, but was not modified until the development of the Integr ated Transit System Plan of 1974. From 1974 to the present, the Integrated Transit System has s een constant growth, as new lines were added and more parts of the city were made accessible to the Integrated Transit System (Instituto de Pesquisa e Planejamento Urbano de Curitiba, 2007) Now, the Integrated Transit system consists Figure 4-11 Evolution of Curitibas Integr ated Transit System 1974 [Figure Provided by IPPUC, 2007] of five busway express corridors interconnected by the circumferen tial Inter-District bus routes (Transportation Research Board, 2003). 64

PAGE 65

Curitib as bus network encompasses a multi-layered vehicle fleet, employed to serve various demands of the transit network. Some of the vehicles used, notab ly the bi-articulated express, inter-district, direct, and feeder lines are interconnected into one transit network that allows unlimited transfers between the transit lines (Urbanizao de Curitiba, S.A. 2007). Figure 4-12 Curitibas Integrated Transit System [Data Source: IPPUC, 2007] Delving into the intricacies of the transit fleet of Curitibas bus network, one finds the biarticulated buses as one of the trademarks of the Curitiba bus system. The bi-articulated buses are the express buses that serve integrated transi t terminals in the periph ery of the municipality and provide express service dow ntown on dedicated bus lanes. The express bus service is integrated into a trinary road system where the dedicated bus lane is flanked by two one-way through streets, one for each direction of low speed automobile travel and parking. In the adjacent block from the bus lanes in either dir ection, one will find another one-way street, this time designed for higher speed automobile trav el (Macedo, 2004). The Inter-District buses provide radial bus service between peripheral ba irros within the munici pality. The Direct Line 65

PAGE 66

Figure 4-13 Curitiba Transit System fleet composition [Image Chart Provided by Urbanizao de Curitiba, S.A., 2007.] buses serve as a complimentary bus network, in terconnecting between the Inter-District buses and the express bus service at both transit terminals and the downtown core, through secondary express corridors in the city (Urbanizao de Curitiba, S.A. 2007). The Direct buses took life in 1991 within the integrated tran sit network to replicate an underground transit mode, yet employing the use of buses (Macedo, 2004). The Feeder buses in the trans it system are meant to serve moderate passenger flows and concentrations in the neighborhoods of Curitiba, integrating them to the rest of the transit network. The conventional buses in the system are the other neighborhood feeder buses with lower passenger flows, and which are not interc onnected into the transit system. These buses require multiple transfers to get about the transit system in Curitiba (Urbanizao de Curitiba, S.A. 2007). There are other special bus services, directed towards a special audience such as tourists, special needs patients, school children, to name a few. These special buses will not be 66

PAGE 67

discussed fu rther in this investigation because they are beyond the scope of the research in question. Fares in Curitibas transit network are disputed as to their impact on the systems users. According to Jaime Lerner, the key to a successful transit system, is to keep the fares of the transit system low, which encourages ridershi p (Lerner, 2009). The concept holds true in practice, but can be reinterpreted from another viewpoint. As of 2007, the fare for a one-way trip was billed at R$1.90, or approximately USD$1.00. Fr om an American perspective, transit fares on Curitibas transit system are affordable, especially with the diversity of transit services and delivery. However, from a Brasilian perspectiv e, commuting to and from work becomes an expensive ordeal, especially when the average numb er of trips per user is approximately 2.4 trips per day. URBS has a set policy that the fare for the system would be set so that the ridership would not have to pay more than 10% of an ave rage workers salary (Transportation Research Board, 2003). With the upper end salary of R$755/month (5 minimum salaries) for low-income users in Curitiba compared to R$1432 for the aver age worker, it can be estimated that users could spend upwards of 35% of their meager earnings to pay for travel within the municipality (Macedo, 2004). This ratio of tran sit fare to income earnings for low-income workers increases further, when taking into account the various transfers incurred from the municipal fringe, each requiring a new fare to use the transit service. As to the frequency of service and delivery of transit service in Curitiba, most buses in the integrated bus system have 10 minute headwa ys, with the buses oriented as feeders or conventional buses having upwards of 30 minute h eadways (Urbanizao de Curitiba, S.A. 2007). From a bus stop point of view, some stops such as the transit te rminals are served by various bus routes, and headways between buses at these locations can be as low as 90 seconds. 67

PAGE 68

Service is rendered throughout th e entire network between the hours of 6 AM (few routes have 5 AM start tim es) and midnight (Urb anizao de Curitiba, S.A. 2007). One thing of note to mention about Curitibas transit system, is the development of the Linha Verde. The Linha Verde is a project under construction in the eastern periphery of the municipality. The new project develops a new ex tension of the bi-articulated bus routes subsystem, which originally included five spokes fr om the city center, and now has added a sixth spoke that interconnects some of the other spoke end points th at radiate east. Figure 4-14 Linha Verde route map with stops [Image Provided by PTUPC, 2009]. The project takes advantage of the right of way that has pre-existed the former BR-116, which has been rerouted onto a beltway around the municipality. This project is noted for many innovations, such as ITS operations, but its location is of note to th is investigation (Programa de Transporte Urbano da Prefeitura de Curitib a (PTUPC), 2009). What we will find in the subsequent chapter is that ther e is a relationship between the im plementation of this project and that of current population densit ies, especially that of lowincome populations. Due to the ongoing construction and lack of av ailable data, the impact of the Linha Verde has not been included in this analysis. 68

PAGE 69

69 Figure 4-15 Linha Verde route map interconnected with metropolitan transit service [Image Provided by PTUPC, 2009.]

PAGE 70

CHAP TER 5 FINDINGS WITHIN THE CURITIBA CASE STUDY Population Concentrations According to the analysis of the geo-spatial data, the social demographic of Curitiba were able to be mapped. Within this demographic mapping, pockets of high-income and low-income concentration were identified. Income clusters were identified by assessing the ratio of low income households to total households in the bai rro. Bairros below one standard deviation were classified as High Income Concentrated bairro s, and bairros that we re above one standard deviation were classified as Low Income C oncentrated bairros. Most neighborhoods within Curitiba that have high concentrations of afflue nt populations were located in the city center. Figure 5-1 Curitiba High-Income population co ncentrations [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] 70

PAGE 71

The general concentrations of the low-incom e households, in respect to these high-income population concentrations, were located in a half-ri ng lying to the south of the municipal center. Figure 5-2 Curitiba High and Low-Income concentr ations by bairro [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] As to the specifics of the low-income populat ion concentrations, it was evaluated in two ways. One such way to view low-income population concentration is to look at it from the perspective of the ratio of the low-income population to the tota l population of a bairro. Bairros selected from this viewpoint were below one sta ndard deviation from the mean ratio low-income households to the total house holds that were selected. 71

PAGE 72

Figure 5-3 High Low-Income population relational to bairro population [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] Most of the neighborhoods that were selected with this viewpoint were located in the municipal fringe, with the excep tion of two neighborhoods (Parolin & Prado Velho) which are the oldest favelas in the muni cipality, located near the cent ral municipal activity center. Another viewpoint to evaluate low-income population concentrations is to evaluate the ratio of low-income population in a neighborhoo d to the total low-income population in the municipality. From this viewpoint, the neighborhoods w ith the highest distribution ratio of lowincome population in the municipality would be selected until the ratio sum equals 37%. This value is selected, so to equal the municipal low income population ratio. 72

PAGE 73

Figure 5-4 High Low-Income population relational to Municipal Low-Income population [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] From this point of view, a ring cluster of ba irros on the immediate s outhern periphery of the municipal urban core emerged. When it came to both viewpoints that highlight low-income population concentration, the bai rros of Tatuquara emerged as a significant neighborhood with a high low-income concentration, irrespective of which viewpoi nt of low-income population concentration is considered. For more information on the population characte ristics of Curitibas bairros, especially on the statistical distributio n of low-income household to the to tal household ratio, please refer to Table A-1 (Curitiba Population Characteristics) in the appendix. 73

PAGE 74

Employment Concentration Another con sideration in this analysis of Curitiba is employment. One has to know where jobs are located in the municipali ty, to enable one to evaluate how this relates to the population concentration of low-income workers. Evaluati ng employment concentr ation can take on two views to highlight high or low job concentr ation. The first viewpoint in evaluating job concentration is to take into consideration absolute numbers. Which neighborhoods have a high absolute number of jobs? From thereon, one can determine as to which neighborhoods have the highest number and which have the lowest num ber of jobs. The neighborhoods above or below one standard deviation were se lected in the high job numbers and low job numbers categories. On the contrary, while analyzing employment one has to look at how many jobs are there per worker. This viewpoint was evaluated by deriving a ratio that places the number of households over the number of jobs in a resp ective neighborhood. From this ratio, one was able to highlight the top neighborhoods by being above or below one standard deviation in the high job numbers and low job numbers categories. What one finds in analyzing employment in Curitiba is that there is an availability of jobs in the downtown core, since household to job ratios were found to be below two. From the downtown core, there are some peripheral bairros with some relative employment densities, but not of the magnitude of the downtown core. What those ratio values signify is the number of workers (assumed as two per household) there are on one job. Where job density is lacking is in the municipal periphery, as well as similar areas noted for low-income population concentration within the bairro level. Taking a closer look at the statistics in the ma p, job densities do not necessarily mean that there are jobs available where the map says they are. For most of the bairros noted for high absolute and relative job concentr ations, most can be found in the urban core. This same area is 74

PAGE 75

Figure 5-5 Curitiba relative job concentrati on by bairro [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] Figure 5-6 Curitiba absolute job concentra tion by bairro [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] 75

PAGE 76

noted for the high-income concentrations residing in this same area. Ba irros such as Batel, Alto de Rua XV, and the Centro Civico neighborhoods, ha ve statistical profiles suggesting that much of the work available pertains to skilled la bor. At the same time, these neighborhoods have affluent populations requiring pers onal services that require blue -collar workers, promising work to low-income populations. Another bairro of note, Boqueiro, is noted for having a proportionate share of the municipal low-inco me population, and has a proportionate share of employment opportunities. Boqueiro, in this case, is the exception to the trend, which stipulates that low-income areas have a dearth of job opportunities. Furt hermore, in Boqueiro, current development trends and the con centration of jobs indicate th e development of a secondary Central Business District in this bairro. Severa l issues emerge from this development, ranging from increased business as a result of having di rect access to the muni cipal airport, and the development of the Linha Verde through the bair ro. Much can be evalua ted through a close study of the Boqueiro bairro and the cause of its transformation, but th is is beyond the scope of this research. Looking beyond the general scope of job concen tration one also has to evaluate as to where sector specific jobs are located. Blue-col lar workers would qualify for manufacturing and industrial jobs than they would for a commercial service job. Most commercial / service jobs are geared towards skilled educated la bor. On the specifics of indust rial specific jobs, they can be found in a peripheral ring on the south side of the downtown core. A spur of industrial job concentration emanates from the Central Business District and connects with the peripheral ring to the southwest, in the di rection of the Cidade Industr ial de Curitiba (CIC) bairro. Comparing this industrial job concentration to the population, there is a correlation. Where there are industrial jobs, the ove rall population fits into the lowincome bracket. The further the 76

PAGE 77

Figure 5-7 Curitiba Industrial job concentration by bairro [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] neighborhood is to an industrial concentrated neighborhood, one will find higher concentrations of the affluent population. On the c ontrary, in these same industrialoriented bairros, one can find the disproportionate shar e of the municipalitys low-income population livi ng in the vicinity or within them. Though low-income populations are less qualified to seek commerc ial sector jobs, they are not exclusively removed from pursuing blue-c ollar service and comme rcial work. Evaluating where commercial level employment is locat ed, one can find a large concentration of commercial work in the downtown core, in the CIC, and in a cluster immedi ately to the south of the downtown core. 77

PAGE 78

Figure 5-8 Curitiba Commercial job concentration by bairro [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] The jobs in the downtown core is where most of the skilled labor is to be concentrated, so it should not be seen as a focal point of employment opportuniti es for low-income populations, though it should not be disregarded. The bairro cluster to the south of the municipal core is of interest. This area, when compared to populat ion trends, is one with low-income population concentrations, as well as being mixed with indus trial ventures. Also of note, just beyond the municipal limits, due east of the Boqueiro bairro, the Curitiba Afonso Pena International Airport is situated. Airport opera tions are a stimulus to blue-collar jobs, not only within the airport, which is beyond the municipal jurisdiction being analyzed, but bairros within Curitiba that are in the vicinity of the airport. 78

PAGE 79

For more information on employment characteri stics of Curitibas bairros, especially on the statistical distribution of rela tive versus absolute job concen tration values, please refer to Table A-2 (Curitiba Employment Characteristics) in the appendix. Transit Stop Availability Much has been discussed in the introductory segments of Curitibas transit system. For purposes of this case study, transit in Curitiba has been evaluated from the perspective of both the municipal transit system and the integrated transit system. An eval uation of the municipal transit system encompasses all transit services th at are within the confin es of the municipality. This does not include the metropolitan bus servic es outside the municipality. The integrated transit system is a misnomer in this analysis. The Curitiba municipal transit system is called the Rede Integrada de Transporte (RIT), or Integr ated Transit System. For the purposes of this research, the RIT has been named the municipal tr ansit system, and the integrated transit system referenced in the findings is a s ubset of the municipal system. The subset system includes the biarticulated, inter-bairros, and direct line buses in the munici pality. This subset is made since these routes facilitate free transfers between rout es. Feeder buses are part of the system, but not all feeder buses facilitate free transfers between routes. Evaluating the transit system from the two system viewpoints, one can find trends in th e public transit accessibility within Curitibas unique transportation network, focu sed on the low-income population. The first aspect to evaluate a bout transit is the ava ilability of a trans it stop. What kind of stop density exists in ones nei ghborhood? In the case of Curitiba one can find much of the stop density highest in the urban core and neighborhoods to the northeast of the downtown core and lowest along the western, and the southern periphe ry of the municipality (the northern periphery is for integrated transit only). This finding is based on evaluating the stop density by land area within the bairro 79

PAGE 80

Figure 5-9 Curitiba high transit stop density by area by bairro [Dat a Source: IPPUC, 2009] Evaluating the transit stop density by populati on density, there is no direct nuclei of low transit stop density, but rather, a weakly defined corridor of tran sit stop density emanating from the urban core (Centro bairro), going to the northeas t and the southwest. The stop density is highest in pockets around the municipality, but most pronounced along the western periphery of the municipality. Having a low transit stop density by population density, indicates high usage of the transit stops by the population, whereas a high transit st op density by population density indicates a surplus of stops and low tran sit stop usage by the population. 80

PAGE 81

Figure 5-10 Curitiba high transit stop density by population density [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] The bairro of Riviera has an impediment when analyzing stop density in that there are no transit stops serving this bairro. A resident of Riviera would have to travel to an adjacent bairro to access a transit stop. This noted l ack of stops in Riviera could be the result of several factors; high level of low-income households to total hous eholds, and a low bairro population in general (203 residents). Another relationship in respect to stop density has also been explored. Stop density was also looked at, based on employ ment density. In this analysis one finds low levels of stop 81

PAGE 82

density in the urban core, whereas higher stop densities are located in the periphe ral bairros to the southwest. Figure 5-11 Curitiba high transit stop density by employment density [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] By having low stop density per employment density, stops are limited and located in concentrated employment locations in the ur ban core, demonstrating high levels of job opportunity and a low level of co mmuters departing from the downt own bairros. On the contrary, the same stops are more numerous in the periphe ral bairros, due to the dispersed and sparse 82

PAGE 83

nature of employm ent sites the further away one gets from the urban core. This high transit stop density by employment also designates commuter bairros within the municipality. Evaluating the statistical trends between the bairros, several tr ends emerge to reinforce job opportunity locations and locate low-income commute r bairros. According to the statistics in Appendix A-3 (Curitiba Transit Stop Density Characteristics), the ur ban core bairros of Alto da Rua XV, Batel, Centro, Centro Civico, So Fran cisco, and Vila Izabel emerge as a commuter destination bairros. The bairros of Alto da Gloria, Batel, Cristo Rei, Juvev, and Vila Izabel have transit stop densities that would characterize tran sit services in that area catering to affluent residents. The bairros of Augusta, Cajuru, Ca mpo de Santana, Caximba, CIC, and Ganchinho emerge as low-income commuter bairros. All these low-income commuter barrios also have transit stop densities that limits access for their resident population. A bairro to revisit from the job concentra tion discussion is Boqueiro. This bairro was noted for a high level of job concentration, as well as having a high proportion of the low-income population. Based on the transit stop density statistics, the Boque iro bairro does not boast good transit service. This problem also exists for the bairro of Cajuru, which has low stop densities, but demonstrates a high low-income commuter population. Walkability to Transit Stops Having established the general av ailability of transit stops wi thin a respective bairro, the next issue that comes to mind for the typical user is the distance it takes to get from their home or place of work to the transit stop. Is it w ithin a reasonable walking distance? To assess walkability to transit stops, the analysis was done through a resident ial, commercial, and industrial parcel viewpoint. Parcel to stop distance averages were calculated per bairro, and then analyzed and mapped onto the municipa lity map, to assess walkability. 83

PAGE 84

Residential Parcels to Transit As per the residential parcel viewpoint on walkability to stops, one will find that most bairros have residences near 400-meters of a municipal transit stop. The exception to this rule can be found in the western fringe, and two southernmost bairros, as well as the northernmost bairro in the municipality. From th ere, we know the bairros with no integrated bus access, as per discussion in the transit st op availability section of the findings. For the bairros with integrated transit availabi lity, the majority of the bairros, with the exception of the urban core and 4 kilometer corri dors oriented to the northwest, northeast, and south from the urban center, have an average walk distance to integr ated transit stops beyond 400-meters. What this analysis tells us is that the majority of the populat ion has some form of transit access within walking distance of their homes, but only residents of the urban core, who by population trends happen to be the more affluent populations, can fi nd integrated transit within walking distance of their homes. The bairros of Parolin and Prado Velho emerge in this analysis as unique bairros, w ith the fact that they have a high low-income household to total households in the bairro value, yet are two ba irros with good transportation access from both the municipal and integrated transit systems. This is attributed to being the oldest favela communities in the municipality, absorbed into the urban core, thus benefiting from excellent transit connections. Most other bairros with excellent walk to/from transit stop distance averages have a strong correlation to high-income residential concentrations, where the opposite relationship pertaining to low-income concentrat ed areas in the periph ery having poor transit access holds true. A detailed profile of the residential to tran sit walk distances can be found in the Appendix, under Table A-4 (Curitiba Residential to/from Transit Walk distances). 84

PAGE 85

Figure 5-12 Residential to transit stop averag e walking distances [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] Commercial Parcels to Transit According to the commercial parcel viewpoint on walkability to stops, it was found that most bairros had commercial establishments n ear 400-meters of a municipal transit stop. The exception to this rule was found in the western fri nge, and two southernmost bairros, as well as the northernmost bairro in the municipality. A bairro of note is Campo de Santana, where if one is commuting from a commercial establishment to a transit stop, the walking trip can average over 800 meters. As a result, job co ncentrations are noted as low in the bairro. From there, we know the bairros with no integrated bus access, according to the discussion in the transit stop availability section of the findings. 85

PAGE 86

For the bairros with in tegrated transit availabi lity, one found that three distinct clusters of bairros had an average walk di stance to integrated transit stops beyond 400-m eters. The three clusters identified with averag e walk distances to integrated transit stops beyond 400-meters included: the northeast fringe bairros of Boa Vista, Bacacheri, and bairros northwest of Boa Vista, and northeast of Bacacheri; the western fr inge bairros not identified earlier with limited municipal transit included the Industrial City and bairros due north; the Sitio Cercado, Alto Boqueiro, Boqueiro, and the Uber aba bairro cluster due south of the urban center and within the municipal boundary. What this analysis tells us thus far, is that the majority of the municipality has some form of transit access within walking distance of their commerc ial establishment or job, but only establishments and commercial jobs of the ur ban core and cluster of bairros due east of Fazendinha, can find integrated transit within walking distance of their commercial job/establishment. The bairros of Parolin and Prado Velho remain in this step of the analysis as unique bairros, with the fact that they have a high low-income household to total households in the bairro value, yet are two bairros with good transportation access from both the municipal and integrated transit systems to get to commercial jo bs in their bairros. As mentioned earlier, these two bairros are host to the oldest favelas in the municipality and integrated into the urban core. Another bairro of note is Capo Raso, a bairro adjacent to the Industria l City. Capo Raso has population trends with a high proportionate share of the low-income muni cipal population, yet is a notable bairro with excellent walking distance to transit under 400-meters for commercial jobs and establishments. On the opposite end of th e spectrum, the bairro of Xaxim has a high concentration of job opportunities, yet has an average distance of commercial establishments 86

PAGE 87

to/from transit on the average end of the scale. This is the result of some distance issues to integrated transit stops. Figure 5-13 Commercial to transit stop aver age walking distances [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] Commerical entities have the ability to sw ay where transit stops are located, through political action and association, but such met hods of getting a transit stop to serve their establishment is beyond the scope of this research. A detailed profile of the commercial to tr ansit walk distances can be found in the Appendix, under Table A-5 (Cur itiba Commercial to/from Transit Walk distances). 87

PAGE 88

Industrial Parcels to Transit Regarding the industrial parcel view point on walkability to stops, one found that most bairros have industrial establishments near 400-meters of a municipal transit stop. The exception to this rule can be found in the Butiatuvinha ba irro in the northwest region. This analysis overlooks 13 bairros that do not have industrial es tablishments, which for some bairros if they were included in this analysis, would emerge as having walk ing distances to stops beyond 400meters. From there, we know the bairros with no integrated bus access, per discussion in the transit stop availability section of the findings. For the bairros with integrated transit availabi lity, the majority of the bairros, with the exception of the urban core, a thr ee bairro cluster to the south of the urban core, and a corridor oriented to the southeast from the urban center to the municipal limit, have an average walking distance to integrated tran sit stops beyond 400-meters. What this analysis tells us is that the major ity of the municipality has some form of transit access within walking distance of their industrial job/establishment and can be considered as average accessibility to tran sit based on the walking distan ce benchmark of 400-meters, and those residents working in the ur ban core, the southeas tern corridor, or th e southern municipal cluster have decent to excellent integrated tran sit access. The bairros of Parolin and Prado Velho remain in this step of the analysis as unique, with the fact that they have a high low-income household to total households in the bairro valu e, yet are two bairros with good transportation access from both the municipal and integrated trans it systems to get to industrial jobs in their bairros. Another bairro of note that emerges in this stage of the analysis is Cajuru, which is in the eastern corner of the municipali ty. Cajuru is noted in population trends with a high proportionate share of the low-income munici pal population, and is the north eastern extreme of a ring of bairros with a high proportionate share of the low-in come municipal population, yet emerges as a 88

PAGE 89

notable bairro with excellent walking distance to transit under 400-m eters for industrial jobs and establishments. Figure 5-14 Industrial to tran sit stop average walking distan ces [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] A detailed profile of the indus trial to transit walk distances can be found in the Appendix, under Table A-6 (Curitiba Industrial to/from Transit Walk distances). Transit Stop Walksheds So far, we have identified bairros with levels of walkability to trans it that are within or beyond a defined acceptable walking distance. This can be seen not only in the earlier figures for residential, commercial, and i ndustrial walk to transit discussi on, but in the statistical charts 89

PAGE 90

located in the appendix. One other analysis that has not been conducted is im posing the walkshed from the transit stops on the bairros. How much of the bairro does the walkshed for municipal and integrated transit cover? How many residentia l, commercial, and industrial parcels within a bairro are within this defined 400-meter walkshed to the transit stop. This final analysis provides the visual representation of accessibility for the Curitiba transit system, and can be correlated to low-income residential areas and employment centers. Municipal Transit Walkshed To evaluate walkshed coverage that can be compared between Seattle and Curitiba, the 400-meter municipal transit walk shed had to be generated. Before going into the walkshed analysis, an explanation of the municipal transit system is in order. An evaluation of the municipal transit system encompasses all transit services that are within the confines of the municipality. This does not include the metropolitan bus services outside the municipality. This 400-meter walkshed is the only walkshed threshol d that can be compared to Seattles quartermile walkshed coverage. In the Curitiba munici pal limits, 81.72% of the area is contained within the 400-meter walkshed. This Municipal Transit 400-meter walkshed contains 91.08% of residential parcels, 91.48% of commercial parcels, and 90.92% of industrial parcel s. These numbers highlight relative excellent access for transit users, regardless of coming from home or work. Within these numbers, transit stop access also is balanced between the land use zone types (residential, commercial, and industrial). Delvi ng specifically to the bairros with high conc entrations of work opportunities, the walkshed coverage within the municipality is calculated at 96.02%. 90

PAGE 91

Figure 5-15 Curitiba Municipal Transit 400-Me ter walkshed [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] It is important to note though, that within thes e numbers and walkshed coverage, the bairro of Riviera does not have any wa lkshed coverage. As mentioned in an earlier section, there are no municipal transit stops within Riviera, and the average distance to transit is more than 1000 meters. Another trend that emerges from the municipal walkshed statis tics is a stark difference of walkshed coverage of bairros considered high-income versus low-income. In respect to highincome bairros, 98.18% of these bairros are cont ained within the walkshed. This value is in contrast with the 67.03% of the low-income bairros that are contained in the 400-meter 91

PAGE 92

municipal transit walksh ed. W ith such a statistic, 1 in 3 low-income households can be found outside the accessible range of a municipal transit stop. Specifics of the Municipal Transit Walkshed, relating to the bairros can be found in Table A-7 of the Appendix. Integrated Transit Walkshed The Integrated Transit 400-meter walkshed wa s used to scrutinize the walking distance averages for neighborhoods in Curitiba in relati on to the municipal transit system. Before going into detailed analysis of the Integrated Transit walkshed, an explanation of this system is in order. The Integrated Transit system is a misn omer in this analysis. The Curitiba municipal transit system is called the Rede Integrada de Tran sporte (RIT), or Integr ated Transit System. For the purposes of this research, the RIT has been named the municipal transit system, and the Integrated Transit System referenced in the find ings is a subset of the municipal system. The subset system includes the bi-articulated, inter-bai rros, and direct line bu ses in the municipality. This subset is made since these routes facilitate free transfers between routes. Feeder buses are part of the system, but not all feeder buses facilitate free transfers between routes. This Integrated Transit walkshed is another one that was generated for this analysis. The analysis covers only 63 of the 75 municipalities, since the Integrated Transit System does not encompass all the bairros within Municipal Curi tiba. In the Curitiba municipal limits, 40.76% of the area is contained within the In tegrated Transit 400-meter walkshed. In this Integrated Transit 400-meter walksh ed, 39.85% of resident ial parcels, 51.60% of commercial parcels, and 37.89% of industrial parcels are also c ontained within. These numbers highlight the average to poor acce ss for transit users, regardless of coming from home or work. Within these numbers, transit stop access is heavily biased towards commercial establishments with average transit acc essibility. Specifically evaluating the walkshed coverage on high job 92

PAGE 93

Figure 5-16 Curitiba Integrated Transit 400Meter walkshed [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] concentrated bairros, the cove rage is calculated at 63.76%, 1.6 tim es higher than residential or industrial coverage. From the commercial es tablishments, the residential and industrial establishments have low accessibility values. Eval uating the walkshed coverage to the population concentrations of the municipality, one f ound that 56.14% of high-income bairros and 34.12% low-income bairros contained within. This statistic speaks volumes to the fact that the integrated transit has a bias towards highincome users than it does to low-income users. Beyond the inequity usage based on population demographics, it can also be inferred that the Integrated Transit System operation is heavily bias ed towards commercial establishments. 93

PAGE 94

Figure 5-17 Comparison of the Municipal and Integrated 400-Meter walksheds [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] Specifics of the Integrated Transit Walkshed, relating to the bairros can be found in Table A-8 of the Appendix. Transit System Travel Time For purposes of this investigation, two neighborhoods (Cajuru and Tatuquara) were selected in this case study, for their unique char acteristics of having a high proportionate share of low-income households in the case study and ha ving a high ratio of low-income households within the neighborhood (Tatuquara) or just ha ving a high proportion of low-income households within the municipality (Cajuru) and have integrated transit access. This relates to the central question of evaluating public transit accessibility for low-income workers. Due to the large 94

PAGE 95

num ber of bus stops, the complexity of the tr ansit network, and the number of neighborhoods in the selected case study, it would involve extensive resources to calculate time isochrones and provide analysis for all of the neighborhoods, and provide an intelligible output. Because of this limitation, only the selected neighborhoods (Cajur u & Tatuquara) are anal yzed for the transit system travel time. Cajuru Cajuru, located in the east central portion of the municipality, is one of the defined neighborhoods in Curitiba. In earlier sections we found that Cajuru is a bairro noted for having a proportionate share of Curitibas low-income population being in close proximity to the municipal core. Figure 5-18 Cajuru bairro within Munici pal Curitiba [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] 95

PAGE 96

Cajuru not o nly has regular municipal transi t access, but integrated transit as well. By having access to both transit systems, travel time isochrones were generated from Cajuru using both transit systems. Municipal transit time isochrones For purposes of the case study, the transit system average speed of 19 km/hr (Urbanizao de Curitiba, S.A. 2007)was used to generate time isochrones, us ing the municipal transit system (which incorporates the Integrated Transit System ). The time increment used was defined as five (5) minutes. Table 5-1 Cajuru isochrone travel di stances by time on Municipal Transit Time Distance 5 Minutes 1583 Meters 10 Minutes 3167 Meters 15 Minutes 4750 Meters 20 Minutes 6333 Meters 25 Minutes 7917 Meters 30 Minutes 9500 Meters 35 Minutes 11083 Meters 40 Minutes 12667 Meters 45 Minutes 14250 Meters 50 Minutes 15833 Meters 55 Minutes 17417 Meters 60 Minutes 19000 Meters After inputting all the parameters into th e Network Analyst application of ArcGIS, 12 time isochrone line layers were generated from the transit stops in Cajuru, traveling throughout the municipality via the munici pal transit system. One found that by studying the time isochrone map, most adjacent neighborhoods to Cajuru were accessible within a 15-minute bus ride, assuming smooth transfers and no wait times. Trying to reach the western limits of the municipality, one found that transit took upwards of an hour or more, depending on the destination within the western portion of the municipality. 96

PAGE 97

Figure 5-19 Cajuru Municipal Transit time is ochrones coverage [Dat a Source: IPPUC, 2009] Imposing job concentrations on the neighbor hood boundaries, one can evaluate commute times from Cajuru to bairros where there are concentrations of work. For jobs located in the urban core, one can expect to travel within the vicinity of 20 minutes, depending on the location. For other bairros not in the urban core that have job c oncentrations, the trip duration goes up to 40 minutes. Lastly, for jobs within the Industrial City (C IC), commute times on the transit network can exceed one hour, depending on the location. 97

PAGE 98

Figure 5-20 Cajuru Municipal Transit time isoc hrones related to job concentrations [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] All these isochronal calculations assume id eal transit operating conditions, smooth transfers with no wait time. Due to factors th at can erode transit ope rating conditions and traveling by bus, commute times can easily balloo n upwards from the calculated results. Such impacts are beyond the scope of this research. 98

PAGE 99

Integrated transit time isochrones After exam ining travel time isochrones from Cajuru along the municipa l transit system, the Integrated Transit system can be scrutinized. On e has to redevelop time isochrones for Cajuru, using the Integrated Transit system average spee d of 22.4 km/hr (Urbanizao de Curitiba, S.A. 2007), and keeping the five (5) minute time in crements. Because of the time increment and average transit speed, the following distances were used to generate the isochrones. Table 5-2 Cajuru isochrone travel di stances by time on Integrated Transit Time Distance 5 Minutes 1867Meters 10 Minutes 3733 Meters 15 Minutes 5600 Meters 20 Minutes 7467 Meters 25 Minutes 9333 Meters 30 Minutes 11200 Meters 35 Minutes 13067 Meters 40 Minutes 14933 Meters 45 Minutes 16800 Meters 50 Minutes 18667 Meters 55 Minutes 20533 Meters 60 Minutes 22400 Meters After inputting all the parameters into the Ne twork Analyst application of ArcGIS, 12 time isochrone line layers were generated from the transit stops in Cajuru, traveling throughout the municipality via the Integrated Transit system. One found by studying the time isochrone map, that most adjacent neighborhoods to Cajuru are accessible within a 10-minute bus ride, assuming smooth transfers and no wait times. Trying to reach the western limits of the municipality, it was also found that transit took upwards of an hour, depending on the destinat ion within the western portion of the municipality that has Integrated Transit access. Imposing job concentrations upon the ne ighborhood boundaries, one can evaluate commute times from Cajuru to bairros where work is concentrated. For jobs located in the urban 99

PAGE 100

Figure 5-21 Cajuru Integrated Transit time is ochrones coverage [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] core, one has to travel within the vicinity of 15 minutes, depe nding on the location. For other bairros not in the urban core that have job concentrations, the trip duration went up to 25 minutes. Lastly, for jobs within the Industrial Ci ty (CIC), commute times on the transit network can reach upwards of one hour, depending on the location. All these isochronal calculations assume id eal transit operating conditions, smooth transfers with no wait time. Factors that can er ode transit operating c onditions and traveling by bus can result in commute times ballooning upwards from the cal culated results. Such impacts are beyond the scope of this research. 100

PAGE 101

Figure 5-22 Cajuru Integrated Transit time is ochrones related to job concentrations [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] Tatuquara Tatuquara, located in the southwest part of the municipality, is one of the defined neighborhoods in Curitiba. Earlie r, we found that it had a propor tionate share of Curitibas lowincome population and had a hi gh low-income population ratio. Tatuquara alone can be attribut ed to having regular municipa l transit access and no direct integrated transit access with in the neighborhood. Therefore travel time isochrones were generated from Tatuquara using only the municipal transit system. 101

PAGE 102

Figure 5-23 Tatuquara bairro within Muni cipal Curitiba [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] Before examining travel time isochrones from Tatuquara, one has to develop the isochrone development context used in Tatuquara. For pur poses of this case st udy, the transit system average speed of 19 km/hr was used to generate time isochrones, using the municipal transit system (which incorporates the Integrated Transit System). The time increment used in the case study was defined as five (5) minutes and because of this and the average transit speed, the following distances were used to generate the isochrones. After inputting all the parameters into th e Network Analyst application of ArcGIS, 12 time isochrone line layers were generated from the transit stops in Tatuquara, traveling throughout the municipality via the municipal tr ansit system. Studying the time isochrone map, 102

PAGE 103

Table 5-3 Tatuquara isochr one travel distances by time on Municipal Transit Time Distance 5 Minutes 1583 Meters 10 Minutes 3167 Meters 15 Minutes 4750 Meters 20 Minutes 6333 Meters 25 Minutes 7917 Meters 30 Minutes 9500 Meters 35 Minutes 11083 Meters 40 Minutes 12667 Meters 45 Minutes 14250 Meters 50 Minutes 15833 Meters 55 Minutes 17417 Meters 60 Minutes 19000 Meters one found that most adjacent neighborhoods to Ca juru are accessible within a 15-minute bus ride, assuming smooth transfers and no wait time s. Trying to reach the urban core of the municipality or the Industrial C ity (CIC), one also found that tr ansit took upwards of an hour or more, depending on the destination w ithin the downtown core or Indu strial City. If one wanted to travel to the northern or western extremities of th e municipality, even the northern extent of the downtown core, one could expect travel times to easily exceed one hour. It is of note that some bairros just due east of Tatuquara not directly adjacent to the bairro, also have travel times exceeding one hour. Imposing job concentrations upon the ne ighborhood boundaries, one can evaluate commute times from Tatuquara to the bairros wher e there are concentrations of work. For jobs located in the urban core, one can expect to travel upwards of an hour or more, depending on the location. For other bairros not in the urban core that have job c oncentrations, such as the lower portion of the Industrial City, the trip duration went up to 25 minutes. Lastly, for jobs within Cajuru and most other bairros with work not in the urban core, comm ute times on the transit 103

PAGE 104

Figure 5-24 Tatuquara Municipal Transit time isochrones coverage [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] network could exceed one hour, since no isochron es reached them. This was the result of requiring a bus transfer in one of the bus terminals in the urban core to reach these other bairros. All these isochronal calculations assumed ideal transit operating conditions, smooth transfers with no wait time. Taking into account su ch factors that can erode transit operating conditions and traveling by bus, commute times can easily balloon upwards from the calculated results. Such impacts are beyond the scope of this research. 104

PAGE 105

Figure 5-25 Tatuquara Municipal Transit time is ochrones related to job concentrations [Data Source: IPPUC, 2009] Summary Curitibas transit system provides a trad itional textbook definition of low-income accessibility issues on its transit system. Curitiba has a gradient that has job concentrations in the urban center wherein high-income population concen trations reside and interact over a wellestablished municipal and integrated transit system. Based on evaluating the statistics on connections that the municipal and integrated tran sit provides, the municipal transit system is a transit system focused on equal access for all sectors of zoning. On the other hand, the integrated transit system is focused on providing service towards economic activity centers. 105

PAGE 106

106 In the periphery of the muni cipality, low-income populations with few job opportunities in their vicinity reside. Since these low-income populations are dispersed around the urban core, it is hard to define providing acce ss to a distributed population over a large area. These low-income workers are shut out from living in the urban core by rising costs of living and the lack of low skill entry jobs in the urban core. Since the urba n core is the main economic center of the city, much of the low-income populations flock to the same location, if they get transit access, and stimulate competition for the work that is available.

PAGE 107

CHAP TER 6 SEATTLE: TRANSIT PLANNING OF THE US PACIFIC NORTHWEST Introduction Seattle is a regional city of great importance in the United States. Situated in the Pacific Northwest, approximately 150 miles south of Va ncouver, British Columbia and 900 miles north of San Francisco, California (Rose, 1990), Seattle serves as the regions port city and financial center. Figure 6-1 Seattle, Washington and its relative location in the US Pacific Northwest [Map Provided by Google Earth, 2009] Home to 3.9 million people within its gr eater metropolitan area and approximately 592,800 in the city proper, Seattle has enjoyed re lative economic success, specifically from the technological boom (United States Census Bure au, 2005) (Seattle Department of Planning and Development, 2009). The Seattle metropolitan area is home to several major corporations, not least recognized are Microsof t, Boeing, and Starbucks. Municipal Seattle encompasses 107

PAGE 108

approxim ately 142.5 mi2 (369.2 km2) of land area, shared between 85 defined neighborhoods (United States Census Bureau, 2005) (Seattle Office of the Clerk, 2009). Figure 6-2 Seattle, Washington and its nei ghborhoods[Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] Of great consequence in Seattl e is its topography. Seattle is located on the shores of the Puget Sound, allowing for the establishment of its harbor and maritime business. Beyond the 108

PAGE 109

shores of the Puget Sound, Seattle has Lake W ashington to the east of the city, placing Seattle in an isthmus type location. Figure 6-3 Seattle, Washington and its topographical layout [Map Provided by Google Earth, 2009] As a result of this constrained topography that municipal and Metropolitan Seattle has come to develop on, one can find a varied distribution of population across the region, as well as a channelized transportation and activity flow (Hodge, 1988). These two issues will be discussed at greater length in subsequent sections. An important feature th at exists in the transportation network within Seattle that canno t be overlooked, are US Interstate 5 and the Alaskan Viaduct, major expressways cutting through the heart of the city. 109

PAGE 110

Figure 6-4 Seattle's Interstate 5 and Alaskan Viaduct (WA-99) [Map Provided by Google Earth, 2009] In recent years, Seattle has had to face an extraordinary le vel of congestion and travel demand due to a ballooning populatio n, upwards of fourteen per cent growth. Unlike New York Citys definition of public transportation and mob ility, Seattle does not en joy an extensive public transportation system that covers every corner of the city. On the other hand, Seattle has made 110

PAGE 111

great s tride in expanding its transit system to provide access and congestion mitigation for its population, yet much remains to be improved. Historical Background Seattle, Washington had its start as an in corporated village back in 1853, where the business of the region at the time was towa rds timber operations. Prior to the village establishment, the area was primarily forested and inhabited by local Native American tribes. After a slow start to Seattles development in itially, growth emerged towards the end of the century. In 1897, business in Seattle catered to the Klondike gold rush, founding supplies, messenger, and clothing stores such as UPS, Eddie Bauer, an d Nordstrom that exist today (Wikipedia, 2009). It is in this time that the small timber village started to evolve into a metropolitan center that is known today. The economy of Seattle can be quite adaptive to the economic movement of the time. Being a port city in of itself plus having abundant timber supply, Seattle was in a position to be in the shipbuilding business, which took off after World War I. Unfortunately, the Great Depression took a toll on Seattles maritime busin ess, diverting such business to Los Angeles and causing labor strife in the city. Seattle r ecouped economically during World War II, when Boeing established itself in the area and manufactured aircraft for the war, and subsequently after for the commercial airline business (Rose, 1990). The 1960s brought economic depression into Seattle, which did not recover until Microsoft established itself in the area in 1979. Through the move Microsoft made to estab lish itself in the Seattle Metrop olitan area, other technology companies established themselves in the area, lead ing to Seattles economic stability and rise, as well as a major demographic shift in the populat ion noted for a high conc entration of skilled workers (History of Seattle, 2003). 111

PAGE 112

Z oning in Seattle In Seattles short history of 156 years, there have been several visi ons for the development of the city, some of which carries on today. One of the earliest development plans for Seattle was drafted by J.C. Olmstead in 1903. J.C. Olmstead, son of the late Frederic Law Olmstead, was contracted by the City of Seattle to develop a comprehensive plan for a network of parks (Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation, 20 07). This plan would be the drive to make Seattle a green city. Up to this point, lot of the development within Seattle was haphazard; mixing land use and social classes within the devel opment of the city (His tory of Seattle, 2003). The plan spells out the need for green space and playgrounds to be within one half (1/2) mile of every home in Seattle. All of these parks woul d be interconnected by a 20 mile landscaped boulevard. This park plan remains an integral pl an in Seattle today, guiding development in the city around Olmstead recommended green space and the spirit of being a g reen city, which has spilled over to not only planners, but also engineers and developers in the region. A general city development plan was devel oped by Virgil Bogue in 1911. Bogue seized the opportunity to leave a lasting impr ession in the planning world at the end of his career by taking advantage of a 1910 Seattle charte r amendment that calls for Municipal Plan Commissions that seek plans for Seattles development. Bogue dr afted his plan for the city, under the influence from his earlier collaborative work with Freder ic Olmstead, and having first hand knowledge of European urban form and the City Beautif ul movement (Anderson, 1991). Bogues plan revolved around the grandiose boulevards and embraced the Olmstead Park plan. Much of the transit in Bogues plan would be serviced by an integrated rapid transit network of subways, elevated trains, and streetcars; there was no mention of the auto in the development of Seattle, since the auto industry a nd its effects were only in their infancy at the time (Anderson, 1991). Bogue met failure in the 1912 municipal elections, when the Seattle 112

PAGE 113

Figure 6-5 Olmstead Park Plan [Map Provi ded by Kathy Mulady of the Seattle Post Intelligencer, 2003] 113

PAGE 114

Figure 6-6 Bogue Master Plan for downtown Seattle [Image Provide d by Davidson Galleries, 2008] Figure 6-7 Bogue Master Plan skyline drawing for downtown Seattle [Image Provided by City of Seattle City Clerk, 2008] citizenry voted down the implementation of his plan. Critics cited the high costs of implementation. Furthermore, the general trend in urban development was away from the City Beautiful movement and towards the City Fu nctional movement, where the emphasis was more on function than aesthetics (Blackfo rd, 1993). Despite not being implemented in 1912, elements of the Bogue plan, such as the harbor development, were referenced and implemented 114

PAGE 115

haphazard ly over time. Today, Seattle is evaluati ng its transportation vision for the future, and only now comes to find its proposal for public tr ansportation in the Long Range Transportation Plan bearing resemblance to the Bogue plan of 1911 (Anderson, 1991). Population Trends In the municipal limits of Seattle, the popul ation is approximately 592,800, a 5% increase compared to the 2000 census, where the populat ion was tallied at 563,374 (The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Polic y, 2003). Most of the grow th within Seattle is occurring in the outer suburban ar eas versus the city center. The median income within Seattle has been measured at $45,736/ annually (T he Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2003). Evaluating the population patterns in the City of Seattle, one finds that the population is concentrated in the downtown core neighborhoods, moderately clustered in northern Seattle, and then along the eastern part of the city beyond Interstate 5. In the Metropolitan Region of Seattle, the population is heavily concentrated along the western shore of Lake Washington, followe d by densities along Puget Sound. Population densities within the Metro region become sparse as one travels along Interstate 5, south of the urban core, through the southern metro area and King County, and in to neighboring Pierce County to the south. Looking into the labor force population of Seattle from the 2000 census, 86% of the overall population was of working age. Of Seattles working age population, 70% were participating in the labor force and 7.4% were unemployed (The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2003) Seattle has 115,000 jobs concentr ated in the citys central business district. Most of the work in Seattle is in the high-skilled category. In the broader regional context of Seattle, the rest of the em ployment in the metropolitan area is dispersed 115

PAGE 116

Figure 6-8 Municipal Seattle population densit y map (one Dot = 100 Persons) [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] Figure 6-9 Metro Seattle population density ma p (one Dot = 100 Persons) [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] 116

PAGE 117

outside the municipal lim its, speci fically those classified for the low-income worker. This trend has caused a demographic pull on the population. Most of the population is highly educated, ranging from 90% high school attainment and 48% Bachelors education attainment. Seattles population is noted as the third highly educat ed population among American cities (The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2003). On the issue of low-income populations, poverty is defined by the US Census as a family not attaining an income threshold of $18,000/annua lly. The low-income attainment threshold for families is defined as $34,000/annually. Of the 258,635 households recorded in Seattle for the 2000 Census, 94,454 or 37% of househol ds were classified as lo w-income households (The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropo litan Policy, 2003). This value is in stark contrast to the poverty rate for Seattle, wh ich is 11.8% of the population (The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2003). Transit in Seattle Seattles transit network is multi-modal a nd multi-faceted in nature. Seattles public transportation network encompasses the modes of bus, ferry, and a central business district (CBD) monorail. From this public transportation infrastructure, Seattle boasts an 8% modal split towards public transit, and a lower private auto modal split than other peer cities in the United States. Transportation routes flow into the city center to service the concentration of work, as well as through the city, due to topogr aphical issues. Due to Seattl es unique topography, which can be compared to a funnel or hourglass, transp ortation predominately flows in a north/south direction (TRB, 2003). 117

PAGE 118

Table 6-1 Seattle modal split distribution compared with peer cities in the United States [Source: US Census American Comm unity Survey: 2006 S0802. Means of Transportation to Work by Selected Characteristics] Metro Area Population (in Millions) Mode Split (%) P/S/T/O* Average Travel Time to Work (min) Baltimore 2.658 76 / 9 / 6 / 9 28.9 Minneapolis 3.175 79 / 9 / 4 / 8 23.9 San Diego 2.941 75 / 11 / 3 / 11 24.9 San Juan 2.588 75 / 12 / 5 / 8 31.5 St. Louis 2.794 83 / 9 / 2 / 7 24.8 Seattle 3.263 71 / 12 / 8 / 9 27.8 Tampa 2.698 80 / 10 / 1 / 9 25.8 New York City 18.818 51 / 8 / 30 / 11 34.1 Washington D.C. 5.289 66 / 12 / 14 / 8 33.2 Table 6-2 Seattle modal split demographic profile [Source: US Census American Community Survey: 2006 S0802. Means of Transportation to Work by Selected Characteristics] Demographic Indicator Median Value Private Vehicle Shared Vehicle Transit Median Income $37,368 $39,819 $36,467 $33,168 Gender Ratio (M/F) (%) 55 / 45 55 / 45 55 / 45 48 / 52 Travel Time to Work (min) 27.8 25.7 32.1 45.8 Vehicle Ownership (None / 1 / 2 / 3+) (%) 3/22/42/34 1/20/43/37 2/ 21/34/44 16/36/30/18 Housing Tenure (Own/Rent) (%) 68 / 32 71 / 29 65 / 35 50 / 50 This is also true for public transportati on. Unfortunately, public transportation becomes inefficient if it is in a constant struggle with regular traffic flows and doe s not have the option of an on-street exclusive right-of-way. To tackle this issue in downto wn Seattle, the city and Metro Transit, the local transit agency, built a 1.3 m ile transit tunnel in 1990. The transit tunnel was developed to serve as the exclus ive off-street right-of-way for buses to flow in and through the city center (Transportation Research Board, 2003) This same transit tunnel in operation for buses at this time, has also been retrofitted with rail, for possible light-rail implementation in the future (Transportation Research Board, 2003). Fu rthermore, the Seattle transit system is 118

PAGE 119

considered to be the firs t transit system in the United States to employ the use of articulated buses in its network, with implementation startin g as early as 1978 (A Magic Carpet Ride Free Zone, 2008). It was the goal of the transit agency to employ the articulated buses along heavily used corridors to carry a larger load of passengers. Another innovative concept that has been implemented in Seattle is a Ride-Free zone. This zone, dating back to 1973, encompasses the centra l business district (A Magic Carpet Ride Free Zone, 2008). It contains most routes in the central business distri ct, with the exception of a few express routes, and currently operates between 6 AM and 7 PM (King County Metro, 2009). There are speculations as to the emergence of the Ride Free Zone, ranging from attracting tourists and catering to office workers. Accordin g to David Anderson, the Ride Free Zone policy could be the result of the Theory of Cons traints (Anderson D. J., 2003). According to Andersons explanation of the theory in relation to public transportation: Public transport systems can become virtuous or vicious cycles the more they get used the more provision of service, and the more av ailable service, the more usage. Equally, the corollary is true, the less usage, the less se rvice is provided which leads to less usage. -David Anderson (2003)In application to the Seattle Ride-Free Zone, Anderson argues that the King County Metro is trying to limit the irregularity of their bus timetables caused by high boarding concentrations trying to pay their fare. By being able to guarantee a bus timetable that runs on time beyond the downtown core, the transit agency is hopeful of enticing ridership and providing quality levels of service. In hopes of enticing this ridership, th e transit agency was willing to overlook the lost revenue from the downtown core. This revenue loss in the downtown core is easily replaced with the added return on smooth transit and regular traffic flows through the downtown corridors (Anderson D. J., 2003). 119

PAGE 120

120 Evaluating the frequency of service for Sea ttles transit network, one will find a varied headway, depending on the time of day and route de stinations served. For most major routes operating into the downtown area from periphe ral areas outside the city limits, minimum headways range from 30 minutes during peak pe riods, to 60 minutes during off-peak periods in the mid-day and early evening. Most peripheral areas do not have nighttime service. For the downtown and center city districts, transit service headways will range from 10 minutes during the peak period, to 20 minutes during the off-peak period. Th ere is limited nighttime bus service in the downtown core and close peripheral districts, where headways will range between 30 minutes, depending on the ro ute (King County Metro, 2009). Evaluating the transit fares in Seattle, one can find the burden on income that riders have in using the transit network. Currently, there is a tiered-fare policy with in the Metro Transit network. For peak periods, which consists of the time between 6 AM and 3 PM, fares will range from $2.00 to $2.50 a boarding, depending if a rider is going within or beyond the Seattle city limits but within King County, Washington. For all other times, the fare is $1.75 for a boarding. There are unlimited transfers within the Seattle municipal/county transit system and the regional commuter system. For most transfers, they have to be conduct ed within an hour of being issued a transfer pass from the driver. From the perspective of the lowincome worker, transit fares is a cost to consider in their travels. Based on two one-way municipal trips, va lued at $4.00 a day, working five times a week, for approximately fifty weeks a year, the cost to use the transit system pe r user is approximately $1,000. For the low income user who averages an in come of $34,000, this represents 3% of their earnings, and fluctuates upwards the lower their income is.

PAGE 121

CHAP TER 7 FINDINGS WITHIN THE SEATTLE CASE STUDY Population Concentrations As per analysis of the geo-spatial data, the social demographic of Seattle was mapped. Pockets of high-income and low-income concentr ation were identified within this demographic mapping. Income clusters were identified by asse ssing the ratio of low-income households to total households in the neighborhood. Neighborh oods below one standard deviation were classified as High Income Concentrated Ne ighborhoods, and neighborhoods that were above one standard deviation were clas sified as Low Income Con centrated Neighborhoods. Most neighborhoods within Seattle that have high concen trations of affluent populations were located in pockets on the municipal fringe and away from the city center. Figure 7-1 Seattle High-Income population conc entrations [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] 121

PAGE 122

The general concentrations of the low-incom e households in respect to these high-income population concentrations were located in a co rridor running through the m unicipal center. This was most pronounced to the south of the city cente r. This low-income concentration correlates to the location of US Interstate 5 that runs through the heart of the city. Figure 7-2 Seattle population concentrati ons [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] As to the specifics of the low-income populat ion concentrations, it was evaluated in two ways. One such way to view low-income population concentration is to look at it from the perspective of the ratio of the low-income population to th e total population of a neighborhood. For selecting neighborhoods under this viewpoint, neighborhoods th at were below one standard deviation from the mean ratio low-income hous eholds to total households were selected. 122

PAGE 123

Figure 7-3 High Low-Income popu lation relational to neigh borhood population [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] Most of the neighborhoods in this viewpoint ar e located in a corridor axis from the city center, and going south along the le ngth of Interstate 5. The exceptions to this trend are the neighborhoods on the northern fringe of the city limit, the Universi ty District, and the Broadway neighborhood. The University District is an anomaly to the trend of low-income population concentration, for this is the location of the University of Washington, where its students are noted for making low to no income yet the Census does not discuss any parental contribution for this populations wellbeing. As to the Broadway neighborhood that lies to the northeast of the Central Business District (CBD), it shares similar characteristics as the University District, with a large student population attending Seattle University and Seattle Central Community College. 123

PAGE 124

Another viewpoint to evaluate low-incom e population concentrations was to evaluate the ratio of low-income population in a neighborhoo d to the total low-income population in the municipality. In this viewpoint the neighborhoods with the highest distribution ratio of lowincome population in the municipality would be selected until the ratio sum equals 37%. This value is selected, so to equal the municipal low income population ratio. Figure 7-4 High Low-Income population relational to Municipal Low-Income population [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] In this viewpoint, the neighborhoods with the highest proportion of low-income population within municipal Seattle are clustered within the c ity center and to the south of the city center, areas generally known as Beacon Hill, Columbia City, and Rainier Valley; the last three areas situated to the east of Interstate 5. 124

PAGE 125

In both viewpoints that highlight low -inco me population concentra tion, the neighborhoods of Beacon Hill (North, Mid, and South), Columbia City, Rainier Valley, the Central Business District, Lower Queen Anne, First Hill, and Minor emerge out as significant neighborhoods with a high low-income concentration, irrespective of which viewpoint of low-income population concentration is considered. For more information on the population ch aracteristics of S eattles neighborhoods, especially on the statistical distribution of lo w-income household to total household ratio, please refer to Table B-1 (Seattle Populatio n Characteristics) in the appendix. Employment Concentration Another consideration in this analysis of Seattle is employment. One has to know where jobs are located in the city, so to evaluate how this relates to the population concentration of lowincome workers. Evaluating employment concentr ation can take on two views to highlight high or low job concentration. The first viewpoint in evaluating job concentration is to take into consideration absolute numbers. Which neighbo rhoods have a high absolute number of jobs? From there, one looks at which neighborhoods ha ve the highest number of jobs, and the lowest number of jobs. The neighborhoods above or below one standard de viation were selected in the high job numbers and low job numbers categories. The alternate viewpoint in analyzing employment is to look at how many jobs are there per worker. This viewpoint was eval uated by deriving a ratio that pl aces the number of households over the number of jobs in a respective neighborhood. From this ratio, one was able to highlight the top neighborhoods by being above or below one standard deviation in the high job numbers and low job numbers categories. 125

PAGE 126

Figure 7-5 Seattle absolute job concentration by neighborhood [Data S ource: King County GIS, 2008] What can be found analyzing employment in Seattle is that there is an availability of jobs in the downtown core and to a corridor of neighborhoods to the south of the CBD and west of Interstate 5, since household to job ratios were f ound to be below two and the absolute job count was the highest. What those ratio values signify is the number of workers (assumed as two per household) there are to one job. Where job dens ity is lacking is in the seven neighborhoods, which emerges as three clusters of neighborhoods (the vicinity of Sand Point, northwest Seattle, and Bryn Mawr / Skyway cluster). 126

PAGE 127

Figure 7-6 Seattle relative job concentration by neighborhood [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] Taking a close look at the statistics behind the maps, job densities are correlated to lowincome concentrations. The statis tics within Seattles neighborhood dictate that much of the lowincome population lives within or near concentrated areas of work. On the contrary, high-income concentrated neighborhoods live far away from the job concentration. Despite jobs being located in the downtown core and southern corridor axis and lower job densities in the municipal fringes, one also has to evaluate where sector specific jobs are located. Blue-collar workers would qualify for manufactur ing and industrial jobs than they would for a commercial service job. Most comme rcial service jobs are geared towards skilled educated labor. Industrial specific jobs can be found in two clusters lying north and south of the downtown core. 127

PAGE 128

The northern cluster encom passes the Interbay neighborhood. The southern cluster encompasses the neighborhoods of the Indus trial City (Duwamish), Har bor Island, and Georgetown. Figure 7-7 Seattle Industrial job concentrati on by neighborhood [Data S ource: King County GIS, 2008] Comparing this industrial job concentration to population, there are correlations and anomalies. Where there are industrial jobs in the southern cluster, there is a high correlation to low-income population clusters. Furthermore, the s outhern cluster is home to the Port of Seattle, King County Airport, Boeing Fiel d, and within the vicinity of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. With the concentration of these major transportation modes, there is correlation of industrial jobs in fields of air or marine freight, as well as ma nufacturing jobs related to Boeing. On the contrary, the northern cl uster of industrial work is near some affluent neighborhoods in Seattles northwest end. 128

PAGE 129

Though low-incom e populations are less qualified to seek commerc ial sector jobs, they are not exclusively removed from pursuing blue-c ollar service and comme rcial work. Evaluating where commercial level employment is located, one will find a large concentration of commercial work in the downtown core, Adams neighborhood, and in a cluster in the northern fringes of the municipal limits. Figure 7-8 Seattle Commercial job concentration by neighb orhood [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] The jobs in the downtown core is where most of the skilled labor is concentrated at, so it should not be seen as a focal point of empl oyment opportunities for low-income populations, though it should not be disregarded. The neighborhood cluster on th e northern municipal fringe is of interest. This area is noted when compared to population trends, an area with low-income population concentrations within the neighborhood. 129

PAGE 130

For more information on the employment characteristics of Seattles neighborhoods, especially on the statistical distribution of relati ve versus absolute job co ncentration values, refer to Table B-2 (Seattle Employment Ch aracteristics) in the appendix. Transit Stop Availability Much has been discussed in the introductory segments on Seattles transit system. For purposes of this case study, the firs t aspect to evaluate about transit is the availability of a transit stop. What kind of stop density exists in ones neighborhood? In the case of Seattle, one will find much of the stop density highest in the urban core as well as in a pocket in Rainier Beach. Transit stop densities by area are the lowest in the Madison Point and Harbor Island neighborhoods, as well as the Sand Point area. Th is finding is based on ev aluating stop density by land area within the neighborhood. Figure 7-9 Seattle transit stop density by area by neighborhood [Data S ource: King County GIS, 2008] 130

PAGE 131

Exam ining the stop density by neighborhood population density, one can find a different portrait of transit acces sibility for neighborhood populations. One also finds the Industrial districts (Duwamish and Georgetown) with high transit stop density by population. This finding states that these neighborhoods are destination neighborhoods, which is validated through the job concentration trends in the earlier section. Figure 7-10 Seattle high tran sit stop density by populati on density by neighborhood [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] Examining the map for the location of low transit stop density by population density, one will find that most areas that have low stop de nsities which correlate to neighborhoods in the northern part of the municipalit y, but it does not have any correla tion to any concentrated income populations (high or low). Overal l, this map highlighting transit stop density to population points out a major flaw in the Seattle transit system. Mu ch of the stop concentrations have no specific 131

PAGE 132

correlation to general populati on concentrations, nor does it serve the low -income population well, which is more reliant on transit services. One other relationship in respec t to stop density was explored as well in this analysis. Stop density was also looked at based on employment density. In this an alysis, one finds low levels of stop density in the industrial neighborhoods (Geo rgetown, Interbay, Cascade, Eastbay, Adams, and South Park), whereas higher stop densities ar e located in the periphe ral neighborhoods in the northern and southern fringes of the city. Figure 7-11 Seattle high transit stop density by employment density by neighborhood [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] By having low stop density per employment density, stops are limited and located in concentrated employment locations in the indus trial city, demonstrating high levels of job opportunity and a low level of commuters depart ing from these neighborhoods. On the contrary, the same stops are more numerous in the pe ripheral neighborhoods, due to the dispersed and 132

PAGE 133

sparse nature of e mployment sites the further aw ay one gets from the industrial core. This high transit stop density by employ ment also designates commut er neighborhoods within the municipality. Evaluating the statistical trends between the neighborhoods, several trends emerge to reinforce job opportunity locati ons and locate low-income commuter neighborhoods. According to the statistics in Appendix B-3 (Seattl e Transit Stop Density Characteristics), the neighborhoods of Adams, Eastlake, Georgetown, Harbor Island, Interb ay, Georgetown, South Park, West Woodland, and Westlake emerge as commuter destination neighborhoods. The neighborhoods of View Ridge a nd White Center emerge as a ffluent commuter neighborhoods. The neighborhoods of First Hill and Yesler Terrace emerge as low-income commuter neighborhoods with transit stop densities that would suggest go od transit service for the lowincome population residing there. The commute r neighborhoods that are evident from the statistics have the common trait of being affl uent neighborhoods, which also have the tendency of being in the periphery of the municipal limits. On the other hand, neighborhoods with good transit access to employment are also tied to low-income neighborhoods, yet provide no good transit stop density for the respective residing population. Walkability to Transit Stops Once establishing the general avai lability of transit stops wi thin a respective neighborhood, the next issue that comes to mind for the typical user, is the distance it takes to get from their home or place of work to the transit stop. Is it within a reason able walking distance? To assess walkability to transit stops, the analysis was done from a residential, commercial, and industrial parcel viewpoint. Parcel to stop distance aver ages were calculated per neighborhood, and then analyzed and mapped onto the municipa lity map to assess walkability. 133

PAGE 134

Residential Parcels to Transit According to the residential parcel viewpoint on walkability to stops, one can find that all neighborhoods have residences ne ar a quarter of a mile (1320 fe et, 400-meters) of a transit stop, regardless of the stop to the neighborhood or neighborhood to st op point of view; Euclidian versus Manhattan distance. This finding is quite impressive for the City of Seattle. To scrutinize walkability to transit on the residential viewpoi nt, the walkshed threshold was lowered to an eighth of a mile (660 feet, 200 meters). In this viewpoint, there were some neighborhoods with some transit walking accessibi lity. Of note are the Madison Park, Windermere, Harrison/DennyBlaine, and Meadowbrook neighborhoods, which are beyond the walkshed threshold from a Euclidian measure. With the exception of the Meadowbrook neighborhood, the neighborhoods are noted for their concentrati on of high-income residents. From a Manhattan measure, the general no rtheast and northwest neighborhoods, and the neighborhood clusters of Columbia City, Mid Beacon Hill, and Seaward Park as well as Riverview, High Point, and Roxhill are noted to have average walk distances beyond the walkshed threshold. The Beacon Hill neighborhood cluster in the south part of the city is noted for the concentration of low-income residents within the municipality. Going further into the statistic s behind the map, there is a gene ral correlation that for lowincome concentrations not in the urban core, walk distances to transit te nd to be on the higher end than the municipal average. This is the case within the High Point, Greenwood, Columbia City, Mid Beacon Hill, and to an extent in Nort h Beacon Hill. This suggests extra effort on the part of these specific low-income populations to access transit. It is al so common to find highincome concentrated neighborhoods having high aver age walk distance to transit stops as well, indicating that the affluent popul ations are not employi ng the use of public tr ansit and in turn, degrading service in their neighborhoods. 134

PAGE 135

Figure 7-12 Residential to transit stop aver age walking distances [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] A detailed profile of the residential to tran sit walk distances can be found in the Appendix, under Table B-4 (Seattle Residential to/from Transit Walk distances). Commercial Parcels to Transit As per the commercial parcel viewpoint on walkability to stops, one found that all neighborhoods have commercial establishments n ear a quarter of a mile (1320 feet, 400-meters) of a municipal transit stop, re gardless of the stop to the neighborhood or neighborhood to stop 135

PAGE 136

point of view; Euclidian versus Manhattan distance. This finding is quite impressive for the City of Seattle. To scrutinize walkability to tran sit on the residential viewpoint, the walkshed threshold was lowered to an eighth of a mile (6 60 feet, 200 meters). In this viewpoint, only the High Point neighborhood emerges as a neighborh ood with walkshed distance issues beyond the defined threshold. This neighborhood is noted for having a low stop density by population, as well as being defined as a low-income popul ation area irrespective of the neighborhood population. Figure 7-13 Commercial to transit stop average walking distances [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] 136

PAGE 137

A detailed profile of the commercial to tr ansit walk distances can be found in the Appendix, under Table B-5 (Seattle Industria l to/from Transit Walk distances). Industrial Parcels to Transit According to the industrial parcel viewpoint on walkability to stops, one will find that all neighborhoods have industrial establishments near a quarter of a mile (1320 feet, 400-meters) of a municipal transit stop, regardless of the stop to the neighborhood or neighborhood to stop point of view; Euclidian versus Manhattan distance. Th is finding is quite impre ssive for the City of Seattle. To scrutinize walkability to transit on the residential viewpoint, the walkshed threshold was lowered to an eighth of a mile (660 feet, 200 meters). Before proceeding in the analysis of industrial parcel distance to transit stops, it is of note to mention the significant number of neighborhoods with no defined industrial parcel. This does not preclude industrial employment and establishments in thes e neighborhoods, but with land use codes allowing for mixed development, as well as data availability, industrial parcels were identified by specified City of Seattle land use codes that specifically outline industrial parcel codes. For the neighborhoods with established indus trial parcels, one can find that most neighborhoods have poor walk distance averages to transit stops. Most of the defined neighborhoods with high industria l job concentrations exemplif y poor walk distance averages. Such examples include the Interbay, Georgeto wn, Harbor Island, and South Park neighborhoods. Only the Industrial City neighborhood has high concentrations of industrial jobs and has good walk distance to transit averages. A detailed profile of the indus trial to transit walk distances can be found in the Appendix, under Table B-6 (Seattle Industrial to /from Transit Walk distances). 137

PAGE 138

Figure 7-14 Industrial to tran sit stop average walking distances [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] Transit Stop Walksheds Up to this point in the section, we have iden tified neighborhoods with levels of walkability to transit that are within or beyond a defined acceptable walking di stance. This can be seen not only in the earlier figures for re sidential, commercial, and indust rial walk to transit discussion, but in the statistical charts located in the a ppendix. One other analysis that has not been conducted is imposing the walkshed from the transit stops on the neighborhoods. How much of the neighborhood does the walkshed for the muni cipal transit cover? How many residential, 138

PAGE 139

commercial, and industrial parcels within a neig hborhood are within the de fined quarter-m ile and eighth-of-a-mile walkshed to the transit stop? This final analysis provides the visual representation of accessibility for the Seattle tran sit system, and can be correlated to low-income residential areas and employment centers. Quarter-Mile Walkshed To evaluate walkshed coverage that can be compared between Seattle and Curitiba, the quarter-mile walkshed had to be generated. This is the only walkshed threshold that can be compared to Curitibas walkshed coverage. In th e Seattle municipal limits, 80.12% of the area is contained within the quarter-mile walkshed. Figure 7-15 Seattle quarter-mile walksh ed [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] 139

PAGE 140

In this quarter-m ile walkshed, 87.87% of re sidential parcels, 99.53% of commercial parcels, and 80.85% of industrial parcels are also contained w ithin. These numbers highlight relative excellent access for transit users, regardless of coming from home or work. Within these numbers, transit stop access is heavily biased towards commercial establishments before residential areas. Another trend that comes out from the quarter-m ile walkshed statistics is a stark difference of walkshed coverage of neighborhoods consider ed high-income versus low-income. Regarding high-income neighborhoods, 66.14% of these are contained within the walkshed. This value contrasts the 84.56% of the low-income neighborhoods that are contained in the quarter-mile transit walkshed. With such a statistic, it begs the question if low-income populations have decent transit access, but the issue arises in Seattle as to destinations and getting to work. This question is reinforced with the transit walksh ed coverage over job c oncentrated neighborhoods averaging 59.79%. With such numbers, low-income populations have coverage within the scope of transit service, yet the locat ions where there are job opportunities they do not have decent coverage to support an em ployment endeavor by an blue-collar worker. Specifics of the Quarter-Mile Seattle Tran sit Walkshed, relating to the neighborhoods can be found in Table B-7 of the Appendix. Eighth-Mile Walkshed The eighth-mile walkshed, which was used to scrutinize walk distance averages for neighborhoods in Seattle, is another walkshed th at was generated. This eighth-mile walkshed only provides comparison between this walkshed and the quarter-mile walkshed. In the Seattle municipal limits, 49.53% of the area is cont ained within the eighth-mile walkshed. 140

PAGE 141

Figure 7-16 Seattle eighth-mile walksh ed [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] In this eighth-mile walkshed, 53.30% of reside ntial parcels, 92.04% of commercial parcels, and 59.86% of industrial parcels ar e also contained within. These numbers highlight relative decent access for transit users, regardless of comi ng from home or work. Within these numbers, transit stop access remains heavily biased towards commercial establishments before residential areas. What is unique in the numbers between th e quarter-mile and eighth-mile walkshed is the bias towards industrial establishments versus re sidential parcels in th e eighth-mile walkshed. Another trend that comes out from the eighth-m ile walkshed statistics is a stark difference of walkshed coverage of neighbor hoods considered high-income versus low-income, albeit at a scaled level compared to the quarter-mile wa lkshed. In respect to high-income neighborhoods, 40.26% of these neighborhoods are contained within the walkshed. This value contrasts with the 141

PAGE 142

59.04% of the low-incom e neighborhoods that are contained in the quarter-m ile transit walkshed. With such a statistic, it begs the question if low-income populations have decent transit access, but the issue that arises in Seat tle is regarding destinations and getting to work. This question is reinforced with the transit walkshed coverage over job concentrated neighborhoods averaging 39.41%. With such numbers, low-income populations have coverage within the scope of transit service, yet the locations wher e there are job opportunities they do not have decent coverage to support an employment endeavor by an blue-collar worker. Specifics of the Quarter-Mile Seattle Tran sit Walkshed, relating to the neighborhoods can be found in Table B-8 of the Appendix. Transit System Travel Time For purposes of this investigation, thr ee neighborhoods (Greenwood, Broadway, and Columbia City) were selected in this case study, for their unique characteristic of having a high proportionate share of low-income households in the case study. These neighborhoods also have a high ratio of low-income households within the neighborhood (Broadway and Columbia City) or just having a high proportionate share of low-income households within the case study (Greenwood). These neighborhoods we re selected, based on these ch aracteristics, and relating to the central question of evaluating public transit accessibility for low-income workers. Three neighborhoods were selected within the case study, because due to the large number of bus stops, the complexity of the transit network, and th e number of neighborhoods in the selected case study, it would involve extensive re sources to calculate time isochr ones and provide analysis for all of them. Since all the neighborhoods share one trans it system throughout the municipality, each neighborhood being studied in detail will be generating isochrones in the same analysis environment. For purposes of a ll the neighborhood case st udies, the transit sy stem average speed 142

PAGE 143

of 15 m i/hr (King County Metro, 2009)was used to generate time isochrones, using the transit system. With this in mind, the following time increment used in all the neighborhood case studies was defined as five (5) minutes. Because of the time increment and average transit speed, the following distances were used to generate the isochrones. Table 7-1 Seattle isochrone travel distances by time on Municipal Transit Time Distance 5 Minutes 6600 Feet 10 Minutes 13200 Feet 15 Minutes 19800 Feet 20 Minutes 26400 Feet 25 Minutes 33000 Feet 30 Minutes 39600 Feet 35 Minutes 46200 Feet 40 Minutes 52800 Feet 45 Minutes 59400 Feet 50 Minutes 66000 Feet 55 Minutes 72600 Feet 60 Minutes 79200 Feet After inputting all the parameters into the Ne twork Analyst application of ArcGIS, twelve time isochrone line layers are generated from the transit stops in al l the neighborhoods being studied, traveling throughout the c ity via the city transit system. Broadway Broadway is one of the defined neighborhoods in Seattle. Earlier in this study we found that Broadway is a neighborhood noted for having a proportionate share of Seattles low-income population and a high low-income population ra tio within the neighborhood. Broadway is located in the central portion of the municipality, just due no rtheast of the Central Business District. 143

PAGE 144

Figure 7-17 Broadway neighborhood within Mu nicipal Seattle [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] Because of Broadways central location in the city, time isochrones generated from the neighborhood have a reach over the city within the average of 30 minutes in any direction of the neighborhood. Imposing these same isochrones upon where jobs are located within the city, it can be found that transit is well connected for low-inco me residents of Broadway within a 20 minute window. All these isochronal calculations assume id eal transit operating conditions, smooth transfers with no wait time. Taking into consider ation factors that can erode transit operating conditions and traveling by bus, commute times can easily balloon upwards from the calculated results. Such impacts are beyond the scope of this research. 144

PAGE 145

Figure 7-18 Broadway Municipal Transit ti me isochrones coverage [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] Figure 7-19 Broadway Municipal Transit time is ochrones related to job concentrations [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] 145

PAGE 146

Greenw ood Greenwood is one of the defined neighborhoods in Seattle. Earlier in our findings, we found that Greenwood is a neighborhood noted fo r having a high low-income population ratio within the neighborhood. Greenwood is located in the north-central portion of the municipality, just due north of the Ballard Business Area. Because of Greenwoods central location in the north of the city, time isochrones generated from the neighborhood have a reach into the downt own core within the av erage of 30 minutes. Figure 7-20 Greenwood neighborhood within Mu nicipal Seattle [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] Imposing these same isochrones upon where jobs are located within the city, it can be found that transit is decently connected for lowincome residents of Greenwood, based within a 20 minute window. The only detriment to Greenwood s location is that the jobs in the city are located south of the urban core, opposite Greenwoods location, which translates to travel times close to one hour. 146

PAGE 147

Figure 7-21 Greenwood Municipal Transit time isochrones coverage [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] Figure 7-22 Greenwood Municipal Transit time is ochrones related to job concentration [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] 147

PAGE 148

All these isochronal calculations assum e id eal transit operating conditions, smooth transfers with no wait time. Taking into account su ch factors that can erode transit operating conditions and traveling within the bus, commu te times can easily balloon upwards from the calculated results. Such impacts are beyond the scope of this research. Columbia City Columbia City is one of the de fined neighborhoods in Seattle. In the earlier sections of the findings, we found that Columbia City is a neighborhood noted fo r having a proportionate share of Seattles low-income popul ation and a high low-income population ratio within the neighborhood. Columbia City is located in the sout heast portion of the muni cipality, just due east of the Industrial City area. Figure 7-23 Columbia City neighborhood within Municipal Seattle [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] 148

PAGE 149

Because of Colum bia Citys off-center locati on in the south of the city, time isochrones generated from the neighborhood have a reach into the downtown core with in the average of 30 minutes. Trying to reach the northern extremities of the municipality, travel time reaches 60 minutes. Figure 7-24 Columbia City Municipal Transit time isochrones coverage [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] Imposing these same isochrones upon where jobs are located within the city, it can be found that transit is decently connected for lowincome residents of Columbia City, yet the neighborhoods location on the opposing side of the Interstate 5 Right of Way channelizes transit flow from Columbia City to the Industrial City and points west where jobs are relatively plentiful. 149

PAGE 150

Figure 7-25 Columbia City Municipal Transit time isochrones related to job concentration [Data Source: King County GIS, 2008] All these isochronal calculations assume id eal transit operating conditions, smooth transfers with no wait time. Taking into consid eration such factors that can erode transit operating conditions and traveling by bus, comm ute times can easily balloon upwards from the calculated results. Such impacts are beyond the scope of this research. Summary Seattles definition of public tr ansit accessibility deficiencies for the low-income user is quite different from that of Curitiba. Seattle s transit system is well established, and provides walkable transit access for residents across the m unicipal area. In relation to high versus lowincome populations, high-income populations see le ss transit access, since they rely on the auto for their travels and live in pe ripheral neighborhoods of the municipality. On the other hand, low-income populations see average transit services within their centra lly located neighborhoods 150

PAGE 151

151 in the municipality. Problems arise for low-in come users on Seattles transit system because transit does not go towards economic activity cent ers beyond the traditional urban core directly, if at all. Much of the transit system is or iented towards a fixed route network connecting neighborhood residential areas to the urban core, skipping over ec onomic activity centers in the vicinity.

PAGE 152

CHAP TER 8 DISCUSSION Throughout the analysis process in these two cas e studies, the central themes addressed in the Literature Review were constantly revisite d. Questions of what factors constitute the two aspects of accessibility (access and geographical coverage). Questions of Transits impact on social equity, economic development, and employme nt were revisited thr ough the course of this research. Each case study brings some similar tr aits on the surface of th e data, but each also brings a different vantage point to the issue of accessibility of the low-income worker. The issues to be addressed in th is discussion include: Low-income Population Trends Where are they? In what relation to high-income population concentrations? Urban Economic Form as a Result of Public Transit Where are the jobs located? What relation do the jobs have to low-income population concentra tions? Does transit service these economic centers of activity? Low-income Access to Transit Are there tr ansit stops where low-income people live? Are low-income populations within walking distance to transit? Public Transit Equity Based on where the jobs are and where people live, is the transit service that is provided equitably distribut ed or focused towards a certain population? After addressing the issues that correlate th e relationship low-income workers have to public transit and the accessibility to it, we make one more visit back to the case studies. In this final step, we take time to address some of the tr ansit systems flaws by way of the statistics and analysis done so far, and provide recommendati ons for improvement. By the same token, each case study addressed a unique part of the ques tion of public transit acces sibility towards lowincome users. What can we extract from the case st udies that can be brought together as lessons for other contemporary cities of similar circumstance and conditions? 152

PAGE 153

General Low -Income Population Trends Planners and policy makers have to understand the population that inhabits the urban form before they can devise or adjust policy to mani pulate this same urban fo rm. Transit systems play a role in how these populati ons of high and low-income households agglomerate in the metropolitan area. In the case of Curitiba, the urban core attributed high-income populations. Most of the low-income populations can be attributed to the fringe bairros of the municipality. In the case of Seattle, the reverse trend of lo w income workers living in the core and the high income population living in the fringe was evid ent. In both cases, transit was very high and accessibile in the urban core. The further one gets from the urban core, the sparser transit services get. Demographic forces in cities influenced wher e low-income populations live. In cities with demographics like Curitiba, low-income populations were forced away from the urban center, to a point where they do not belong to the metropolit an area by the high cost of living in the urban nuclei. Conversely, in cities with demographics like Seattle, low-inco me populations are drawn to the urban core, in hopes of finding work a nd cheap living. What this low-income population found in the urban core is an agglomeration of other low-income families, with average access to a decent public transportation infrastruc ture, but no access to blue-collar work. The population demographic in Curitiba is a ha llmark to the typical American urban form before the automobile became the dominant mode of travel. The unusual nature of Curitiba holding on to such urban form from the days of the streetcar is an accomplishment in itself in harnessing urban sprawl and concen trating jobs in a key area. On the other end of the spectrum, we have th e Seattle case study. Seat tle is an American city, which has been impacted by the advent and mass usage of the car. American history attributes the car for th e start of suburbanization and the radi cal shift in populat ion demographics 153

PAGE 154

of a city. Instead of a high-incom e nuclei, the upper class families were moving to the periphery; away from the vicinity of their work, and enj oying freedoms bestowed upon them by the use of the car. These trends in Seattle led to the decen tralizing nature of population and work within the urban area. The detriment to Curitibas urban demogra phic is that low-income populations are dispersed along the fringe of the municipality. This population can not access the system to get to work, located in the urban nuclei. Similar circ umstances can be seen in Seattle as well, but with the distinction that the low-income worker s have access to transit around the municipality, yet can not access employment opportunities disp ersed in the auto dominated urban fringe. The transit system cannot adapt to th e changing location of work in S eattle, thus low-income workers are put at a disadvant age in getting work. It becomes a challenge in defining transit serv ice that could serve a wide distribution of a segmented population, than focusing on a concentr ated area. This is the challenge transit planners in Curitiba have in working with low-income households, and in Seattle towards bluecollar employment. The aim of the Curitiba master plan and municipal polic ies is to agglomerate the population to the city nuclei and to the satellite integrated transit terminals. It is from these nuclei and satellites where the city can focus its energies in providing more reliable transit. Such initiatives do not materialize easily. Issues such as affordab le housing, social services, and impacts on the urban fabric come into play, which is beyond the scope of this research. What can we assess from the case studies? If a city has a trans portation network that heavily constricts cars (or lacks the economic acce ssibility for the majority of the population to cars such as some cities in third world countri es) and has land use and zoning geared strongly towards public transit, such as in Curitiba, the urban form will mold towards a high-income 154

PAGE 155

nuclei, and the low-inco me drawn out to the peri phery. On the other hand, if zoning and land use are not strongly tied to transportation considerations, such as in Seattle, then the urban form will mold towards a low-income nuclei and a dispersed economic core. Urban Economic Form Briefly, we have touched upon how transit affect s the urban economic form. In one case of transit operations and policy, transit keeps jobs concentrated and accessible. In another case of transit operations and po licy, transit operates towards the resi dent, and cannot adapt to the everchanging job concentration. The common denomi nator between the two case studies comes down to an issue of zoning and integrating transit with zoning. Curitiba has a zoning plan that has sectioned off parts of the municipality for specialized purposes, but brings all zoning types together via its transit system. Curitiba planned a city on how different uses will come together and how they will interact over the municipal sp ace. On the contrary plans in Seattle were drafted in the early 20th century, moved by aesthetics initiall y, and then segregated functions. There was no plan to merge land uses or correlat e land uses to transit. As a result, employment opportunities shift as chan ce arises, leaving a transit system and ridership playing catch-up to adjust to the changing employment opportunities. It is in such an environment like Seattle, where high-income populations and anybody who can own a car, resort to their use, leaving transit systems to wither due to disuse. This is eviden t in the high-income nei ghborhoods that have long walks to transit services and low stop densities. Curitibas case study, though lauded for its progressi ve policies in reigning in urban sprawl and ensuring access to work opportunities, fails to consider access for its ridership. Where Seattle can boast that its entire municipal area is within a quarter-mile of a transit stop and Curitiba does boast such a feat, Curitiba cannot pr ovide reasonable transportation access for all its citizens, especially the low-income populat ions. Though Seattle can provide transit access for 155

PAGE 156

its low-inco me population, it can not provide re asonable transportation access to blue-collar work opportunities for this same population. Low-Income Accessibility Redefined There is a growing dichotomy in transportati on policy focus between the two case studies. The first part of the dichotomy addresses where jobs and populations are lo cated in the city and how transit engages these two factors in availability. The next part of the dichotomy addresses the engagement the system operations have on the rider. What the two case studies provide is two city archetypes on the basis of their public transit accessibility towards the user. In the first archetyp e, as demonstrated by Curitiba, the affluent and employers have priority and are catered to in transit services. The low-income concentrated areas suffer due to the lack of transit service, followed by the long average distan ces to/from the transit stop from their homes. It is in this popul ation we find low-income users beyond the scope of the transit system walkshed. Even if the lowincome user gets on the transit system there is still the issue of getting acro ss the geographical space, the se cond part of the accessibility definition. The second archetype that became evident wi thin the Seattle case study is the direct opposite of Curitibas type. Public transit is existent in locations of low-income concentrated populations. Flow of the transit system is geared towards conformance of the topography and the fixed residential sectors of the c ity. Transit is distributed equitabl y over an area, ensuring that the municipality can enjoy access to transit within the prescribed quarter-mile walkshed. Unfortunately, having distributed transit across the spectrum of geographic coverage does not guarantee access to work. Because of many direct routes operating within Seattle, operating to the topography and homes versus routing that works together a nd with the aim of harnessing 156

PAGE 157

econom ic activity to the resident, Seattles transit system become s an impediment towards public transit accessibility towa rds the low-income user. Another aspect to evaluate, beyond the scope of the geo-spatial a nd statistical trends exhibited between and within the ca se studies, is the aspect of affo rdability to transit. Each case study had a discussion on transit fares. Based on currency conversion, the fare in Curitiba is markedly cheaper than that of Seattle. This woul d indicate affordability of the Curitiba transit system. What this discussion and this document did not go into too much detail, so as to not go beyond the scope of the research, is the issue of purchasing power parity between low-income users in both case studies to their respective transit system. In Curitibas transit system, we find that transit affordability for low-income users becomes out of reach. Users have to use at minimum, 35% of their income to use the tran sit system. This does not take into detailed consideration the multiple transfer s that Curitiba low-income reside nts have to do, in order to get from the urban fringe, lacking in much transp ortation coverage, to get to the urban core. This transit fare reality in Curitiba is in st ark contrast to the experience of Seattle lowincome transit users. With transfers free and interconnected through the whole system, Seattle low-income users spend approximately 3% of th eir income (if earning $34 ,000 / annually), to use transit. This disparity in purchasing power pa rity between these two distinct low-income populations, adds on a new dimension for further research to the spatial mismatch problem; affordability of services. Case Study Transit System Criticisms and Innovative Strategies So what constitutes public transit accessibility for low-income workers, based on these two case studies? One initial aspect of accessibility is the availability to transit stops and services. This fact is something that is exemplified in S eattle and lacks in Curitiba. The other aspect to accessibility is to guide transit services towards activity centers. In this regard, Curitiba becomes 157

PAGE 158

quite su ccessful and Seattle fails to orient ec onomic activity towards transit centers. Transit planners need to merge two planes of the social ur ban fabric as one fabric. Both cities have yet to merge the plane of the low-income worker a nd economic demands. A ba lance between molding transit towards the residential fabric of the work er and using policy and transit routing to harness employment and economic activity into concen trated centers of employment has to be converged, so as to make the transit system efficient and attractive for all workers. Curitiba has a two-tiered transit system addr essing accessibility for different purposes. The Municipal transit system gears its operations in providing access to all us ers in the system. On the other hand, the Integrated Transit System is geared towards the employment concentrations of the city. Intersecting the two systems better, and expanding municipal service into areas of low coverage can assist in im proving public transit accessibility for the low-income populations, and guide them towards more economic opportuniti es that the Integrated Transit system is prepared to deal with. Adopting a Seattle type transit networking of parallel corridor routes, could help address expanding Curitibas Munici pal transit system to address low-income accessibility. Using parallel transit routes that are spaced equitably and feeding into the satellite terminals, a larger swath of the low-income popu lation can be captured in the transit walkshed, and can have transit accessibilit y. To benefit Seattle and other cities in Seattles situation, an overlaid integrated transit syst em, focused on circulating betw een the activity centers would bring low-income transit users closer to work opportunities. Summary Much of the trends exhibited in the case studies and highlighted th roughout this chapter and document are reaffirmations of John Kains spatial mismatch theory. Kains theory discussed the mismatch between employment a nd population concentration. What Kain did not strongly develop in his theory was the connection of public transit accessibili ty and the role it has 158

PAGE 159

159 in creating the spatial mismatch between employm ent and population concen trations. It is this public transit accessibility, by way of access a nd geographic coverage defined by Murray and Wu, where spatial mismatch can take on a defi ned typology. In the t ypology, common factors in employment and population concentrations as well as transit servic e accessibility can be identified to define the cause of the typology. Defining the root factors in a spatial mismatch typology, can there be policies drafted and impl emented to shape population, employment, and transit characteristics.

PAGE 160

CHAP TER 9 CONCLUSION Summary of Research Findings In the course of this research, explora tion has been on the is sue of public transit accessibility for low-income users in select cities in the Americas. The intent of the research was to explore if there was a trend within the Americas as to how transit accessibility for low-income workers is conceptualized. Thr ough the study of Seattle, Washington, and Curitiba, Brasil, one can conclude from the findings that there is no one way low-income accessibility issues materialize in the Americas. Low-income accessi bility to transit comes down to two issues: Workers access from home to transit and access from the job to transit. Studying the two case studies, it can be concl uded that there are tw o archetypes portraying public transit accessibility deficiencies, each of wh ich have their success in addressing the other archetypes deficiency. The first archetype refers to an urban form that has job concentrations in the urban center. Within the urba n center, high-income population co ncentrations also reside. In the periphery of the municipality, low-income populations with few j ob opportunities in their vicinity reside. In addition, since these low-income populations are dispersed around the urban core, it is hard to define pr oviding access to a distributed popu lation over a large area. On the other hand, high-income populations enjoy excellent transit serv ices, because of their close concentration. The second archetype highlights the deficien cy of transit accessibility to/from the workplace. The transit system usually is well es tablished, and provides walkable transit access for residents across the municipal area. In rela tion to high versus low-income populations, highincome populations see less transit access, since th ey rely on the auto for their travels. On the 160

PAGE 161

other hand, low-incom e populations see excellent tr ansit services, but tran sit not going towards economic activity centers beyond the traditional urban core directly, if at all. Limitations of Research Over the course of this research, there have been setbacks and limitations to the depth and scope that this research could take. First, factors that affect the walkability to transit is a setback in this research. How to operationalize the impa ct of walkability on transit accessibility was a problem in addressing true walkability to tran sit, a component of acce ss in the accessibility definition. In the scope of this research, walksheds are defined as a benchmark distance from the transit stop outwards along the road network. This does not take in to account the modes of travel to get to a transit stop, nor the walking condi tions if walking is the mode of travel. Furthermore, there is the issue of the lo w-income population. Through the course of the research, low-income populations, low-income households, and low-income workers have been used interchangeably. Due to limitations in the data sets, it is hard to conc eptualize the number of low-income workers in the municipality. Another issue that comes to pl ay is the surroundin g jurisdictions and their impact on the case study city in question. For pur poses of this investigation, the geographic focus was aimed at the primary municipality in the metropolitan area. According to the literature, there are documented trends of reverse commuting to the suburbs (Pugh, 1998). This could be the case in Seattle, with low-income workers going out to th e surrounding jurisdictions to seek work. These surrounding jurisdictions impose sp rawl impacts on the municipal city by attracting the worker out. The reverse trend can be true as well, in the case of Curitiba, where inter-jurisdictional lines bring in workers from surrounding ju risdictions into the city to wo rk. Either way the jurisdictions behave with the primary metropolitan city, not much is known about their exact interaction. 161

PAGE 162

Another issue that com es to mind is deficien cy in employment data. Sometimes data is available to pinpoint employment numbers by neighborhood. Sometimes one had to estimate population by the square footage of commercial and industrial pa rcels. From this, we estimate absolute job concentrations and relative job c oncentrations. This was done with existing job numbers involving employed persons. These statisti cs do not look at the vacancies in the sectors either. There may be a hidden neighborhood with job opportunities, but was ignored due to having low employment numbers at the time the data was collected. In the realm of the isochrones generated, there we re issues in defining them to actual time. In the current methodology, the isochrones were generated based on ideal transit conditions across the system at the system travel speed, tr anslated to relative di stances. This methodology did not consider transit operat ion conditions, vehicle speed, ride rship and stop interactions, and other traffic conditions. These fact ors have a say in influencing th e extent of the time isochrones. Future Research Endeavors To continue to refine this question and answer on public transit accessibility for lowincome users, there are several avenues and notions to explore. Among such notions, as expressed a few times, is to explore the walkabil ity conditions to transit, and how it influences the walkshed to transit stops. Another idea for st udying public trans it accessibility is to explore the geographical coverage of accessibility. This would involve exploring defining a methodology to generate, analyze, and compare travel ti me isochrones within and between municipal neighborhoods and municipalities. Another issue to consider for further investigation is the multi-jurisdictional relationships in the metropolitan area. How is transit accessib ility defined and spatial mismatch characterized from a metropolitan point of view? This i ssue goes into population and employment concentrations that are concentrated or dispersed in the metropolitan area. In the case of Seattle, 162

PAGE 163

we find that blue-collar employ m ent is dispersed in the metr opolitan periphery of municipal Seattle. Likewise, there is a disproportionate number of low-income workers located in the metropolitan periphery of municipal Curitiba that are not factored into the accessibility and spatial mismatch discussion pr esented in this research. Affordability of transit services was an elem ent that was not considered in the scope of accessibility to transit for low-income workers. In as much as walkability and geographic coverage play a role in accessibility for the user so does the economic aspect of using the service (i.e. the fare value in relation to medi an income of low-income populations). Much has been said about ei ther public transit accessibility issues or low-income employment opportunities. To link these two is sues to a sample of neighborhoods, not only studying time isochrones within and between neighborhoods, but also evaluating commute trends, successes, and deficiencies in low-in come concentrated neighborhoods could help open up literature on how to address the problem. Conclusions and Final Thoughts Public transit accessibility is a fluid concept, especially when trying to apply it to a select population, such as low-income workers. In trying to define and assess tr ansit accessibility for a population, one has to look at the general population and economic demographics. One then has to assess the varying relationships accessibility to transit can have in the dynamic of the lowincome worker getting to and from work. For so me cities, their transit systems are oriented towards getting people to and from work. In such a setting, this ideally occurs over concentrating employment in clusters, and orie nting concentrated transit services from satellite collection points into these employment clusters. Evaluati ng public transit access based on the connection from work to transit is a cr ucial piece left overlooked. 163

PAGE 164

164 Just as much as we need to pay attention to wh ere the work is located in relation to transit, we have to consider where population clusters are, and whether they can go about pursuing the essence of their adult life work ing to sustain a lifestyle. Going forward, the challenge planners will ha ve to face and move to the top of their priorities, is to grasp an unde rstanding of the unique spatial mismatch typology within their jurisdiction. It is from this investigation, which outlined a methodology in evaluating spatial mismatch typologies, where planners can start to understand their unique spatial mismatch typology in their jurisdiction. With this understanding, policies can be drafted, services and facilities planned, and operations implemented to mitigate gaps in transit service for low-income workers and any other specific population within any jurisdiction.

PAGE 165

APPENDIX A CURITIBA STATISTICAL TABLES Table A-1 Curitiba population characteristics table. Compiled from data provided by IPPUC, 2009. 165

PAGE 166

Table A-1 Continued 166

PAGE 167

Table A-2 Curitiba employment characteristics tabl e. Compiled from data provided by IPPUC, 2009. 167

PAGE 168

Table A-2 Continued 168

PAGE 169

Table A-3 Curitiba transit stop characteristics table. Compiled from data provided by IPPUC, 2009. 169

PAGE 170

Table A-3 Continued 170

PAGE 171

Table A-4 Curitiba Residential to/from tran sit walking distance statistical table. Co mpiled from data provided by IPPUC, 2009. 171

PAGE 172

Table A-4 Continued 172

PAGE 173

Table A-5 Curitiba Commercial to/from transit walking distance st atistical table. Compiled from data provided by IPPUC, 2009. 173

PAGE 174

Table A-5 Continued 174

PAGE 175

Table A-6 Curitiba Industrial to/from transit walking distance statistical table. Compiled from data provided by IPPUC, 2009. 175

PAGE 176

Table A-6 Continued 176

PAGE 177

Table A-7 Curitiba Municipal Transit walkshed characteri stics table. Compiled from data provided by IPPUC, 2009. 177

PAGE 178

Table A-7 Continued 178

PAGE 179

Table A-8 Curitiba Integrated Transit walkshed characteri stics table. Compiled from data provided by IPPUC, 2009. 179

PAGE 180

180 Table A-8 Continued

PAGE 181

APPENDIX B SEATTLE STATISTICAL TABLES Table B-1 Seattle population characte ristics table. Compiled from da ta provided by the US Census, 2005. 181

PAGE 182

Table B-1 Continued 182

PAGE 183

Table B-2 Seattle employment char acteristics table. Compiled from da ta provided by the US Census, 2005. 183

PAGE 184

Table B-2 Continued 184

PAGE 185

Table B-3 Seattle transit stop char acteristics table. Compiled from data provided by King County GIS, 2008. 185

PAGE 186

186 Table B-3 Continued

PAGE 187

Table B-4 Seattle Residential to/from transit walking distance statistical table. Compiled from data provided by King County GIS, 2008. 187

PAGE 188

Table B-4 Continued 188

PAGE 189

Table B-5 Seattle Commercial to/from transit walking distance statistical table. Compiled from data provided by King County GIS, 2008. 189

PAGE 190

Table B-5 Continued 190

PAGE 191

Table B-6 Seattle Industrial to/from transit wa lking distance statistical table. Compiled from data provided by King County GIS, 2008. 191

PAGE 192

192 Table B-6 Continued

PAGE 193

Table B-7 Seattle Municipal Transit quarter -mile walkshed characteristics table. Co mpiled from data provided by King County GIS, 2008. 193

PAGE 194

Table B-7 Continued 194

PAGE 195

Table B-8 Seattle Municipal Transit eighth -mile walkshed characteristics table. Co mpiled from data provided by King County GIS, 2008. 195

PAGE 196

196Table B-8 Continued

PAGE 197

LIST OF REFERE NCES A Magic Carpet Ride Free Zone (2008). Retrieved March 2009, from Seattlest: http://seattlest.com/2008/11/ 14/a_magic_carpet_ride.php Anderson, D. J. (2003). Seattle's Free Buses a Constraint-oriented Explanation Retrieved March 2009, from Agile Management: http://www.agilemanagement.net/Artic les/Weblog/SeattlesBuses.html. Anderson, R. (1991, July 21). Metropolis-Corrected Vision-In Hindsight, When It Comes to City Planning, We Blew It! The Seattle Times Retrieved from http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19910721&slug=1295553. Anglais, M. (2006, May 16). [Msg 3] Job Estimate per square foot. Retrieved from http://www. cyburbia.org/ forums/showthread.php?t=24772 Blackford, M. (1993). The Lost Dream: Businessmen and City Planning on the Pacific Coast 1890-1920. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Cervero, R., Sandoval, O., & Landis, J. (2002). Tr ansportation as a Stimulus of Welfare-toWork: Private versus Public Mobility. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22 50-63. Davidson Galleries. (2008). [Images of the Bogue Plan]. Retrieved from http://www.davidsongalleries.com/subjects/NW_mapsviews/map-16172_lk_union.jpg. Federal Transit Administration. (1996). Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops. Washington: National Academy Press. Fishman, R. (1977). Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Le Corbusier. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Google Inc. (2009). [Map of Seattle, Washington and Western United States]. Retrieved from http://maps.google.com Hall, P. (2002). Cities of Tomorrow (Third ed.). Malden: Blackwell Publishing. History of Seattle. (2003). Retrieved March 15, 2009, from KnowledgeRush: http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/History_of_Seattle/ Hodge, D. C. (1988). Fiscal Equity in Urban Mass Transit Systems: A Geographic Analysis. Annals of the Associatio n of American Geographers 78 (2), 288-306. Iankilevich, D. (2009, March 3). Salrio mnimo do Paran vai ficar entre R$ 605 e R$ 629. Jornale Retrieved from http://jornale.com.br/index.php?option=com_ content&task=view &id=18080&Itemid=53. 197

PAGE 198

Instituto d e Pesquisa e Planejamento Urbano de Curitiba. (2007). Retrieved June 2007, from http://www.ippuc.org.br Instituto de Pesquisa e Planejamento Urbano de Curitiba. (2000). Curitiba em Dados. Retrieved March 2009, from http://ippucnet.ippuc.org.br/Bancodedados/C uritibaemdados/Curitiba_em_dados_Pesquisa. asp Instituto de Pesquisa e Planejamento Urbano de Curitiba. (2009). Curitiba GIS Data [Data files]. Retrieved from Os car Ricardo Schmeiske. Instituto Brasileiro de Geogr afia e Estatistica. (2002). Cidades @. Retrieved March 2009, from http://www.ibge.gov.br/cidadesat/topwindow.htm?1. International Society of City and Regional Planners. (2004). Curitiba. Retrieved from http://www.isocarp.org/pub/events/congr ess/2004/en/program/C uritiba_Profile.pdf King County GIS. (2008). King County GIS Data [Data files]. Retrieved from Cheryl Wilder. King County Metro. (2009). Retrieve d from http://transit.metrokc.gov Lerner, J. (2009, February). Bus Rapid Transit: Curitiba Perspective. (C. o. Gainesvill, Interviewer) Levinson, D. (1998). Accessibility and the Journey to Work. Journal of Transport Geography 6, 11-21. Levinson, H. (1983). Analyzing Tran sit Travel Time Performance. Transportation Research Record 915, 1-6. Macedo, J. (2004). City Profiles: Curitiba. Cities 21 (6), 537-549. Mackett, R. L., & Edwards, M. (1997). The Im pact of New Urban Transport Systems: Will the Expectations be Met? Transportation Research 32, 231-245. Miller, V. (2008). Public Transit Ridership Continues to Grow in First Quarter 2008. Washington: American Public Transit Association. Modarres, A. (2003). Polycentricity and Transit Service. Transportation Research 37, 841-864. Mulady, Kathy. (2003, April 2). The Olmstead Legacy The Seattle Post Intelligencer Retrieved from http://www.seattlepi.com/local/115362_olmsted02.shtml. Murray, A. T. (2003). A Coverage Model for Impr oving Public Transit System Accessibility and Expanding Access. Annals of Operations Research 123, 143-156. Murray, A. T., & Wu, X. (2003). Accessibility Tradeoffs in Public Transit Planning. Journal of Geographic Systems 5, 93-107. 198

PAGE 199

Murray, A. T., Davis, R., Stim son, R. J., & Ferr eira, L. (1998). Public Transportation Access. Transportation Research 3 (5), 319-328. Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (1999). Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Washington: Island Press. O'Sullivan, D., Morrison, A., & Shearer, J. (2000) Using Desktop GIS for the Investigation of Accessibility by Public Transport: an Isochrone Approach. International Journal of Geographic Informational Science 14, 85-104. Preston, V., & McLafferty, S. (1999). Spatial Mi smatch research in the 1990s: Progress and Potential. Papers in Regional Science 78, 387-402. Programa de Transporte Urbano da Prefeitura de Curitiba. (2009). Programa de Transporte Urbano: Linha Verde Retrieved April 4, 2009, from Prefeitura de Curitiba: http://www.linhaverde.curitiba.pr.gov.br Pugh, M. (1998). Barriers to Work: The Spatial Divide Betw een Jobs and Welfare Recipients in Metropolitan Areas. Washington: Brookings Institution Ce nter on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Rose, D. C. (1990). City Profiles: Seattle. Cities 7 283-288. Sanchez, T. W. (1999). The Connection Be tween Public Transit and Employment. Journal of the American Planning Association 65, 284-296. Seattle Department of Pa rks and Recreation. (2007). Park History Olmstead Parks Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/Parks/parkspaces/olmsted.htm Seattle Department of Pla nning and Development. (2009). Seattle's Population and Demographics. Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/ Research/Population_Demographics/Overview/ Seattle Office of the Clerk. (2009). Seattle City Clerk's Neighborhood Map Atlas Retrieved from http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us /~public/nmaps/fullcit2.htm. Smith, A. (1776). The Wealth of Nations (2003 ed.). (E. Cannan, Ed.) New York: Random House. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. (2003). Seattle in Focus: A Profile from Census 2000. The Brookings Institution Cent er on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Transportation Research Board. (2003). TCRP 90 Bus Rapid Transit, Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus Rapid Transit. Washington: National Academy of Sciences. United States Census Bureau. (2005). American Community Survey. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/acs 199

PAGE 200

Urbanizao de Curitiba, S.A. (2007). Pub lic T ransportation System [Presentation]. Urbanizao de Curitiba, S.A. (2007). [Map illustra tes location of Curitiba in relation to rest of Brasil]. Retrieved from URBS presentation May 2007. Wachs, M., & Taylor, B. D. (2002). Can Trans portation Strategies He lp Meet the Welfare Challenge? Journal of the American Planning A ssociation forum on Welfare Reform. Wikipedia. (2009). Seattle Retrieved March 2009, from http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle Wu, C., & Murray, A. T. (2005). Optimizing Public Transit Quality and System Access: the Mulitple-route, Maximal covering/shortest-path problem. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 32, 163-178. 200

PAGE 201

201 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Benito Omar Prez Carrin was born in 1985 in Portsmouth, Virginia, to a family serving in the United States Navy. Growing up among places such as Napoli, Italia; Rota, Espaa; and Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico, Benito was exposed to varying styles of urban and social form. Graduating from Great Mills High School in 2003, Mr. Prez attended the University of MarylandCollege Park. In 2006, Mr. Prez comple ted a Bachelor of Ar ts degree in sociology (Organizations & Institutions, Social Psychology Tracks) from th e University of Maryland. Mr. Prez commenced his studies toward his Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning and Master of Science in civil engi neering at the University of Fl orida in 2006. During his tenure at the University of Florida, Mr. Prez was i nvolved in research i nvolving school siting and childrens walkability to schools, as well as re search developing a methodology in determining Multi-Modal Level of Service ratings for urban st reets. Mr. Prez had th e privilege of being a member and serving as President of the Student Planning Association. Furthermore, Mr. Prez had the opportunity to work on a transportation st udio in Curitiba, Brasil a nd intern with the US Department of Transportation a nd the District of Co lumbia Department of Transportation. Mr. Prez received, in the summer of 2009, a Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning degree and a Master of Science in ci vil engineering degree, focusing on the transportation planning and transportation engineering tracks respectively.