IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/itsdav/qt49t729rc.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Tensions and Trade-offs in Planning and Policymaking for Transit-Oriented Development, Transit, and Active Transport in California Cities

Author

Listed:
  • Barbour, Elisa
  • Jin, Janet
  • Goldsmith, Emma
  • Grover, Salvador
  • Martinez, Jacqueline
  • Handy, Susan

Abstract

This report provides research findings from the second year of a two-year research project on patterns of local policymaking in California to support transit-oriented development (TOD), transit, and active transport. Through survey research and case studies, the project assessed motivations, perceived obstacles, and priorities for development near transit, in relation to patterns of local policy adoption, from the perspective of city planners in the state’s four largest regions: the San Francisco Bay, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Sacramento metropolitan areas. The second research phase based on case study analysis identified tensions and trade-offs in policy “packaging” to support TOD in six large and five smaller cities in the same regions. View the NCST Project Webpage

Suggested Citation

  • Barbour, Elisa & Jin, Janet & Goldsmith, Emma & Grover, Salvador & Martinez, Jacqueline & Handy, Susan, 2021. "Tensions and Trade-offs in Planning and Policymaking for Transit-Oriented Development, Transit, and Active Transport in California Cities," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt49t729rc, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt49t729rc
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/49t729rc.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Burge, Gregory & Ihlanfeldt, Keith, 2006. "Impact fees and single-family home construction," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 284-306, September.
    2. Shoup, Donald C., 1999. "The trouble with minimum parking requirements," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 33(7-8), pages 549-574.
    3. John M. Quigley & Steven Raphael, 2005. "Regulation and the High Cost of Housing in California," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(2), pages 323-328, May.
    4. Daniel G. Chatman, 2013. "Does TOD Need the T?," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 79(1), pages 17-31, January.
    5. Gabbe, C.J. & Pierce, Gregory & Clowers, Gordon, 2020. "Parking policy: The effects of residential minimum parking requirements in Seattle," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    6. Henderson, Jason, 2011. "Level of service: the politics of reconfiguring urban streets in San Francisco, CA," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 1138-1144.
    7. C. J. Gabbe, 2018. "How Do Developers Respond to Land Use Regulations? An Analysis of New Housing in Los Angeles," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 411-427, May.
    8. Manville, Michael & Pinski, Miriam, 2020. "Parking behaviour: Bundled parking and travel behavior in American cities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    9. Gregory Burge & Keith Ihlanfeldt, 2006. "The Effects Of Impact Fees On Multifamily Housing Construction," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 5-23, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. De Gruyter, Chris & Davies, Liam & Truong, Long T., 2021. "Examining spatial variations in minimum residential parking requirements in Melbourne," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. Gyourko, Joseph & Molloy, Raven, 2015. "Regulation and Housing Supply," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 1289-1337, Elsevier.
    3. Bimonte, Salvatore & Stabile, Arsenio, 2015. "Local taxation and urban development. Testing for the side-effects of the Italian property tax," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 100-107.
    4. Gössling, Stefan & Humpe, Andreas & Hologa, Rafael & Riach, Nils & Freytag, Tim, 2022. "Parking violations as an economic gamble for public space," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 248-257.
    5. Joseph Gyourko & Albert Saiz & Anita Summers, 2008. "A New Measure of the Local Regulatory Environment for Housing Markets: The Wharton Residential Land Use Regulatory Index," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 45(3), pages 693-729, March.
    6. Ihlanfeldt, Keith R., 2007. "The effect of land use regulation on housing and land prices," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 420-435, May.
    7. Mark Skidmore, 2014. "Housing Affordability: Lessons from the United States," Treasury Working Paper Series 14/11, New Zealand Treasury.
    8. Norman Gemmell & Arthur Grimes & Mark Skidmore, 2019. "Do Local Property Taxes Affect New Building Development? Results from a Quasi-Natural Experiment in New Zealand," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 58(2), pages 310-333, February.
    9. De Gruyter, Chris & Hooper, Paula & Foster, Sarah, 2023. "Do apartment residents have enough car parking? An empirical assessment of car parking adequacy in Australian cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    10. McAslan, Devon & Sprei, Frances, 2023. "Minimum parking requirements and car ownership: An analysis of Swedish municipalities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 45-58.
    11. Chatman, Daniel G. PhD & Barbour, Elisa PhD & Kerzhner, Tamara & Manville, Michael PhD & Reid, Carolina PhD, 2023. "Policies to Improve Transportation Sustainability, Accessibility, and Housing Affordability in the State of California," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt03z7t8r1, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    12. Millar, Jonathan N. & Oliner, Stephen D. & Sichel, Daniel E., 2016. "Time-to-plan lags for commercial construction projects," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 75-89.
    13. Changhoon Jung & Chul-Young Roh & Younguck Kang, 2009. "Longitudinal Effects of Impact Fees and Special Assessments on the Level of Capital Spending, Taxes, and Long-Term Debt in American Cities," Public Finance Review, , vol. 37(5), pages 613-636, September.
    14. Burge, Gregory, 2014. "The capitalization effects of school, residential, and commercial impact fees on undeveloped land values," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 1-13.
    15. Mintz, Mordekhay & Portnov, Boris A., 2023. "Social and environmental factors affecting the amount of property taxes collected by local authorities in Israel," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    16. Mark Skidmore, 2014. "Housing Affordability: Lessons from the United States," Treasury Working Paper Series 14/11, New Zealand Treasury.
    17. Burge, Gregory & Ihlanfeldt, Keith, 2009. "Development impact fees and employment," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 54-62, January.
    18. Gabbe, C.J. & Pierce, Gregory & Clowers, Gordon, 2020. "Parking policy: The effects of residential minimum parking requirements in Seattle," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    19. Ball, Michael & Meen, Geoffrey & Nygaard, Christian, 2010. "Housing supply price elasticities revisited: Evidence from international, national, local and company data," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 255-268, December.
    20. Jackson, Kristoffer, 2016. "Do land use regulations stifle residential development? Evidence from California cities," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 45-56.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social and Behavioral Sciences; Transit-oriented development; transit; land-use planning; policy design and adoption; Case studies; Policy making; Surveys;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt49t729rc. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/itucdus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.