From here to there: transportation opportunities for Arizona: ninety-fourth Arizona Town Hall, April 9-12, 2009

                                 
                                       
                     
                             
                       
                              
                 
                       
                  
              
Contributing Sponsors
Associate Sponsors
March 2009
We thank you for making the commitment to participate in the 94th Arizona Town Hall to be
held in Tucson on April 19- 22, 2009. You will be discussing and developing consensus with
fellow Arizonans on how best to address our state’s transportation challenges and needs.
An essential element to the success of these consensus- driven discussions is the background
report that is provided to all participants before the Town Hall convenes. As they have so
often done for past Arizona Town Halls, Arizona State University has prepared a detailed and
informative report that will provide a unique and unparalleled resource for your Town Hall
discussions.
Very special thanks go to Michael Kuby and Aaron Golub who spearheaded this effort and
served as contributing authors, marshaled top talent to write individual chapters, and ensured
all deadlines were met. For sharing their wealth of knowledge and professional talents, our
thanks go to the many authors who contributed to the report.
The 94th Town Hall could not occur without the financial assistance of our generous sponsors,
which include, as Contributing Sponsors, Arizona Public Service/ Pinnacle West Capital
Corporation and Union Pacific. Our Associate Sponsors are American Council of Engineering
Companies of Arizona, KDA Creative, Regional Transportation Authority, Sonoran Institute,
and Valley Metro.
When the 94th Town Hall ends, ASU’s background report will be combined with the
consensus recommendations from the Town Hall into a final report. This final report will be
available to the public on the Town Hall’s website and will be widely distributed and
promoted throughout Arizona. The work of the Town Hall participants and the final report
will help to create solutions to meet Arizona’s transportation needs.
Sincerely,
James R. Condo
Board Chair, Arizona Town Hall
Ninety- Fourth Arizona Town Hall
April 19- 22, 2009
From Here to There: Transportation Opportunities for Arizona
Background Report Prepared by
Arizona State University
Michael Crow, President
School of Geographical Sciences
Luc Anselin, Director
School of Planning
Luc Anselin, Director
School of Sustainability
Charles L. Redman, Director
College of Public Programs
Debra Friedman, Dean
Editors
Michael Kuby
School of Geographical Sciences
Aaron Golub
School of Planning
Authors
Soyoung Ahn
Jessica F. Aquino
Keiron Bailey
Stephen Blank
Jeffrey Chapman
Esther Corbett
Matthew Croucher
Norm DeWeaver
Laurence Gesell
Aaron Golub
Mark Hickman
Tim James
Karthik Konduri
Michael Kuby
Erik Lee
Eva Madly
Arnold Maltz
Patricia Mariella
John McNamara
Ram M. Pendyala
Joseph Plotz
Sandra Rosenbloom
Ethan Rauch
William Sheaffer
Kangwon Shin
Martin L. Shultz
Jennifer Toth
Sravani Vadlamani
D. Rick Van Schoik
Simon Washington
Dave D. White
Zuduo Zheng
Acknowledgements
This report would not have been possible without contributions from many dedicated people.
First, we thank the team from ASU's Global Institute of Sustainability. Kathryn Kyle copy
edited, and Cindy Zisner formatted, all 18 chapters, with great patience and skill. From ASU's
School of Geographical Sciences, cartographer Barbara Trapido- Lurie designed the cover and
advised the student cartographer, Hope Johnston, who produced maps and graphs. Jason
Kelley, PhD student in ASU’s School of Planning, researched the transportation history
timeline and other issues. We thank the directors of our units at ASU for their support: Luc
Anselin ( Director, School of Geographical Sciences and School of Planning), Wellington
Reiter ( former Director, School of Planning), and Charles L. Redman, ( Director, School of
Sustainability). We thank Debra Friedman, Dean of the College of Public Programs, for
recruiting us and maintaining the strong relationship between ASU and the Arizona Town
Hall. It was a pleasure working with the team at the Arizona Town Hall, including editorial
guru Sharon Flanagan- Hyde, Debbie Stanhope who put the finishing touches on the report and,
most of all President Tara Jackson, whose enthusiasm and insight guided us from start to
finish. The report was shaped and improved during two meetings with the Town Hall Research
Committee, whose members shared patiently their extensive knowledge of transportation,
Arizona history and politics, and their Town Hall experience. Finally, to our brilliant authors,
we thank you for your cooperation and expertise, and for all we have learned from your
chapters.
Arizona Town Hall Research Committee Members
Warren Prostrollo, Chair Jay Kittle, Vice Chair
F. Rockne Arnett
Esther Corbett
Darryl Dobras
Jessica Fotinos
Debra Friedman
Susan Goldsmith
James Holway
John Hudson
Jack Lunsford
Robert Matia
Elizabeth McNamee
Victor Mendez
Dennis Mitchem
Elliott Pollack
Scott Rhodes
Fred Rosenfeld
Martin Shultz
David Snider
Devan Wastchak
Jim Condo, ex officio
Tara Jackson, ex officio
Sharon Flanagan- Hyde, ex officio
Cover photo credits ( clockwise from top)
Freeway map: Arizona Department of Transportation, www. az511. com/ hcrsweb/ hcrsweb. jsp
Traffic jam: Istock Photo, www. istockphoto. com
Light- rail train: Valley Metro, www. valleymetro. org/ metro_ light_ rail/ downloads/ progress_ photos/
Bicyclist: Istock Photo
Pedestrians: ASU Digital Asset Management
Bus: Sun Tran
Truck: Tennan- Gas, commons. wikimedia. org/ wiki/ File: Airlift_ axles_ 001. JPG
Amtrak train: Ted Ellis, Desert Rails, algomacentral. railfan. net/ AZMisc. htm
US Airways plane: Sander van der Molen, commons. wikimedia. org/ wiki/ File: US_ Airways- 01_( xndr). jpg
Gas prices: Istock Photo, www. istockphoto. com
i
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2 GASOLINE PRICES .............................................................................. 17
Chapter 3 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AND LAND- USE PLANNING . 29
Chapter 4 RURAL TRANSPORTATION ................................................................ 45
Chapter 5 INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND TRANSPORTATION .......................... 55
Chapter 6 TRIBES AND TRANSPORTATION IN ARIZONA ................................. 65
Chapter 7 TRANSPORTATION ISSUES IN NATIONAL PARKS .......................... 75
Chapter 8 HIGHWAY TRAVEL AND CONGESTION ............................................. 85
Chapter 9 PUBLIC TRANSIT.................................................................................. 95
Chapter 10 NON- MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION .......................................... 103
Chapter 11 AIR TRANSPORTATION ................................................................... 113
Chapter 12 LONG- DISTANCE PASSENGER RAIL ............................................. 123
Chapter 13 FREIGHT AND LOGISTICS ............................................................... 135
Chapter 14 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ........................................................... 143
Chapter 15 AGING AND MOBILITY ..................................................................... 151
Chapter 16 ALTERNATIVE- FUEL VEHICLES ..................................................... 163
Chapter 17 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN ARIZONA’S TRANSPORTATION
DECISION MAKING .............................................................................................. 175
Chapter 18 TRANSPORTATION FINANCE ......................................................... 183
Appendix 1 TIMELINE OF ARIZONA TRANSPORTATION HISTORY ............... 197
Appendix 2 EXCERPT FROM ARIZONA CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN .. 202
Appendix 3 LATEST REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN MAPS FOR
ARIZONA'S METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS ........................... 204
Appendix 4 ARIZONA STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT
STRATEGY ........................................................................................................... 215
Appendix 5 TRANSPORTATION STIMULUS FUNDING ..................................... 248
ii
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Arizona Journey- to- Work Mode Shares, 2006 ..................................... 6
Table 1.2: Arizona Population- Growth Estimates ................................................. 6
Table 1.3: Example Policy Instruments ................................................................ 12
Table 2.1: Fuel Economy Savings ........................................................................ 25
Table 3.1: Measures of Transportation Supply and Demand for Urban Areas in
Arizona ......................................................................................................... 30
Table 3.2: Daily Transit Ridership Projections, 2008- 2032 ................................. 40
Table 4.1: Representative Projects and Programs .............................................. 51
Table 5.1: Value of Trade with Arizona's Leading Trade Partners, 2007 ........... 57
Table 5.2: Northbound Crossings and Lanes at Ports of Entry ......................... 59
Table 9.1: Selected Transit Performance Measures, 2007 ................................. 96
Table 10.1: Mode Share for the Journey to Work in the United States ........... 104
Table 10.2: Percent of Workers Bicycling and Walking to Work ..................... 105
Table 12.1: Annual Amtrak Station Ridership in Arizona, Fiscal Year 2008 ... 124
Table 12.2: County- to- County Worker Flows ..................................................... 125
Table 12.3: Characteristics of Railroad Development Alternatives in
Arizona ....................................................................................................... 126
Table 12.4: Characteristics of Comparable Railroad Routes ........................... 128
Table 12.5: Financial Analysis of the Phoenix- Tucson Route.......................... 130
Table 13.1: Freight Carried by Mode of Transportation .................................... 136
Table 14.1: Trend of Traffic Crashes and Vehicle Miles Traveled in Arizona . 144
Table 14.2: Arizona Fatalities and Injuries by Focus Area ............................... 145
Table 15.1: Paratransit Ridership and Costs, 2007 ........................................... 155
Table 15.2: Estimated Paratransit Costs for Servicing All People 65+ with
Disabilities ................................................................................................. 157
Table 16.1: Summary Table of Alternative- Fuel Vehicles................................. 165
Table 16.2: Estimated Consumption of Alternative Fuels by Fuel Type,
2006 ............................................................................................................ 167
Table 16.3: Alternative Fuel Stations, October 2008 ......................................... 168
Table 18.1: ADOT Funding Sources and FY2007 Actual Revenue .................. 187
Table 18.2: Criteria for Evaluating Funding Sources in Two Recent Studies . 188
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: 20th Century National Travel Trends .................................................. 2
Figure 1.2: Cars per Household, 1983- 2007 ........................................................... 3
Figure 1.3: Commuting Mode Share by Number of Cars per Household ............ 4
Figure 1.4: Vehicle Miles Traveled, U. S. vs AZ ...................................................... 4
Figure 1.5: Arizona Population Distribution, 2000 ad 2050 ( Projected) .............. 5
Figure 2.1: Energy Consumption by End- Use Sector, 1949- 2006 ...................... 18
Figure 2.2: Components of Average U. S. Gasoline Price at the Pump ............. 18
Figure 2.3: World Oil Consumption Trends ......................................................... 19
Figure 2.4: World Oil Production Trends ............................................................. 20
Figure 2.5: U. S. Oil Trends .................................................................................... 21
Figure 2.6: Production vs. Reserves, by World Region...................................... 22
Figure 3.1: Phoenix Annual Public Transit Trips per Capita Compared to Peer
Cities and Roadway Supply Compared to Peer Very Large Urban Areas,
1982- 2005 ..................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3.2: Tucson Annual Public Transit Trips per Capita Compared to Peer
Cities and Roadway Supply Compared to Peer Medium Urban Areas,
1982- 2005 ..................................................................................................... 32
Figure 3.3: Planning Jurisdictions in Arizona ..................................................... 33
Figure 3.4: A Rough Typology of Planning Responsibilities for the Overlapping
Jurisdictions in a Metropolitan Area ......................................................... 34
Figure 3.5: Current Air Quality Status for Regions of Arizona ........................... 36
Figure 3.6: Daily Vehicles Miles Traveled per Capital for Arizona Counties..... 39
Figure 4.1: Regional Framework Study Area Location ....................................... 48
Figure 5.1: a. Arizona Border Ports and Related Networks. b. CANAMEX
Corridor ........................................................................................................ 58
Figure 6.1: American Indian Reservations and Transportation District
Boundaries .................................................................................................. 66
Figure 6.2: Motor Vehicle Collision Mortality Rates for American
Indians/ Alaska Natives in AZ 1980, 1990, 2000- 2007 ............................... 69
Figure 7.1: National Park Service Units in Arizona ............................................. 76
Figure 8.1: Vehicle Miles Traveled and Lane Miles per Capita, and Delay Hours
per Peak Hour Traveler: 1982 to 2005 ....................................................... 86
Figure 8.2: Current ( 2005) and Projected ( 2050) Traffic Conditions .................. 89
Figure 8.3: Basic Arizona Parkway Design .......................................................... 91
iv
Figure 9.1: Annual Ridership for Valley Metro and Sun Tran............................. 96
Figure 9.2: State Funding through LTAF Distributions ...................................... 98
Figure 10.1: Trend in Share of Workers Walking to Work ................................ 104
Figure 11.1: State of Arizona Primary Airport System ...................................... 115
Figure 12.1: Proposed Phoenix- Tucson Intercity Route .................................. 127
Figure 13.1: Inbound, Outbound, Internal, and Through Freight ..................... 136
Figure 14.1: Trend of Fatal Traffic Crashes and Arizona Population .............. 144
Figure 14.2: Arizona vs. U. S. Fatality Rate ........................................................ 145
Figure 14.3: Fatalities and Injuries Involving Young Drivers, 2001 to 2005 .... 146
Figure 14.4: Fatalities and Injuries Involving Speeding, 2001 to 2005 ............ 147
Figure 16.1: Alternative Fuel Pathways ............................................................. 164
Figure 16.2: Recent Prices of Some Alternative Fuels ..................................... 167
Figure 16.3: Alternative Fuel Stations in the United States, 2008 .................... 168
Figure 17.1: Arnstein Ladder of Public Participation ........................................ 176
Figure 17.2: Stakeholder Evaluation of Public Involvement ............................ 177
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Aaron Golub
Arizona State University, School of Planning and School of Sustainability
Michael Kuby
Arizona State University, School of Geographical Sciences
Jason Kelley
Arizona State University, School of Planning
“ From here to there” is transportation in its most elemental form: the movement of people
and goods from one place to another. Transportation is how we overcome physical
separation and create links that hold our society and our world together— links among
people, places, regions, companies, industries, cultures, and families. As linkages grow more
complex, transportation becomes ever more essential to our way of life. Some observers like
to say that transportation is becoming less important— that knowledge and information now
drive the world economy, that distance is unimportant, that the world is once again “ flat.” 1
These pronouncements, however, take smooth, fast, and inexpensive transportation for
granted. The world has gotten smaller and our cities have gotten larger because of the
efficiencies of our transportation systems for people and goods. But this ease of travel may
not remain forever; we now confront, for the first time, real limits relating to global supplies
of fossil fuels and climate change.
Because transportation is a big topic with diverse geographic settings, technologies, and
issues, we have chosen to provide you with 18 short chapters, each one focused on a
specialized topic. The chapters were written by some of the leading transportation
researchers at Arizona’s universities, government agencies, private companies, and
consulting firms.
The chapters are organized into four groups. There are two introductory chapters: this one,
and one on gasoline prices. Following those stage- setting chapters are five chapters
organized by geographical setting: metropolitan, rural, NAFTA, tribal lands, and national
parks. These chapters frame transportation needs and solutions for several different spatial
scales and in areas with unique issues. The third group consists of five chapters on modes of
transportation: roads and highways, public transit, non- motorized transportation, intercity
rail, and air. Space limitations prevented us from including chapters on modes such as
pipelines and electricity transmission, but they figure prominently in energy transportation to,
from, and within Arizona. Since Arizona lacks navigable rivers and ocean coastline, water
transportation is excluded, though it does affect Arizona through intermodal connections and
is briefly discussed in the NAFTA and freight chapters. The fourth set of chapters features
important cross- cutting issues: freight and logistics, safety, aging and mobility, alternative
fuels, community involvement, and perhaps most importantly, transportation finance.
2
Each chapter ( excluding this introduction) is organized into the same four sections to help
you navigate the material:
Current Conditions, which provide you with important background data and
the overall picture
Existing Plans and Programs, which brief you on the main policies relevant to
the subject area
Challenges, which focus on the most difficult problems to solve and barriers
to overcome
Opportunities, which highlight some strategies and solutions that you may
wish to consider
In this chapter we present some basic trends, terminology, and themes that are important in
chapters that follow. These include economic, environmental, and policy themes, as well as
background information on growth. We emphasize the fact that transportation is an
interdisciplinary, intermodal system. While we divide this report into chapters, it is important to
recognize that each aspect of transportation discussed is a subsystem of the overall system.
Travel Trends
To set the stage for the chapters that follow, we begin with a brief overview of travel trends
in Arizona and the United States. Figure 1.1 shows a long- term view of some major travel
trends. While the U. S. population has more than doubled since 1925, the number of
registered automobiles has climbed eight- fold. During wartime rationing, bus and streetcar
ridership peaked, but dropped precipitously afterwards. Rapid rail ( subway, elevated, and
commuter rail) dipped in the 1950s and 1960s only to recover somewhat in the 1990s, while
light rail and streetcars almost completely disappeared, despite the new light- rail systems
opened in the 1990s.
Figure 1.1: 20th Century National Travel Trends
Source: Miller, John S. Expected Changes in Transportation Demand in Virginia By 2025. Virginia
Transportation Research Council, 2003. virginiadot. org/ vtrc/ main/ online_ reports/ pdf/ 03- tar5. pdf.
3
According to most measures, auto dependency grew from the 1980s to the early 2000s, but
there are signs of a possible reversal in this trend. Figure 1.2 shows the share of households
with access to various numbers of vehicles. The number of households with no car at all
decreased by nearly one- quarter, from 13% of total households to 9%, while the share of
households with two or more vehicles grew. However, the trends towards more households
with multiple cars and fewer households with no or one car appear to have slowed or
reversed themselves in the 2007 survey. Whether the decades- long trend towards auto
dependency and suburbanization is reversing, possibly due to higher gas prices and back- to-the
city residential movement, is difficult to determine at this time.
Figure 1.2: Cars per Household, 1983- 2007
Source: Data from American Community Survey.
Car ownership is significant, because the mode share for public transit in households without
a car is over 20%, but drops to less than 0.5% for households with two or more cars ( Figure
1.3). When people have access to a car and have paid the substantial fixed costs of
ownership, they use it.
The 2007 reversal in the long- term vehicle per household trends ( Figure 1.2) is consistent
with other findings that auto dependency might finally be slowing. 2 From 1995 to 2008, total
vehicle- miles traveled ( VMT) grew 50% in Arizona, compared with 21% for the United
States ( Figure 1.4a). VMT growth, however, has been slowing since 2004, and actually
began declining in late 2007— before $ 4 per gallon gasoline and the mortgage crisis. On a
per capita basis, Arizona’s VMT peaked back in 2004 at 9,980 miles per year, before
dropping to 9,134 in 2008 ( Figure 1.4b). But even in 2007, VMT per capita in Arizona was
below its 1996 level.
VMT is the best measure of demand for road capacity, so it is important to understand the
factors behind it. A recent study indicates that nearly half ( 46%) of the growth of VMT
during the late 20th century was due to an increase in the number of daily trips per person.
4
Figure 1.3: Commuting Mode Share by Number of Cars per Household
Figure 1.4: Vehicle Miles Traveled, US vs. AZ
Population growth accounted for 28%, people switching from other modes to driving for
16%, and people making longer trips for 10%. 3
Arizonans are more dependent on driving to work than the nation as a whole, but also
carpool at a higher rate ( Table 1.1). Adding together the drive- alone and carpool shares,
88.7% or Arizonans drove to work, compared with 87.7% nationally. Arizonans use transit
and walk significantly less, but bicycle and work from home more. These patterns vary
somewhat among regions in Arizona.
Source: Pisarski, A. A. Commuting in America III: The Third National Report on Commuting
Patterns and Trends. Transportation Research Board, TCRP Report # 110, 2006.
www. trb. org/ news/ blurb_ detail. asp? ID= 6699.
Source: Federal Highways Administration. Traffic Volume Trends.
www. fhwa. dot. gov/ ohim/ tvtw/ tvtpage. cfm and U. S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates.
www. census. gov/ popest/ estimates. php.
5
Table 1.1: Arizona Journey- to- Work Mode Shares, 2006
Mode Share Percent
Region
Drive
Alone
HOV
Carpool Transit Bicycle Walk
Work
from
Home Other
Phoenix Metro 74.8% 14.3% 2.3% 0.7% 1.8% 4.5% 1.6%
Tucson Metro 75.2% 12.2% 2.6% 1.2% 2.9% 4.4% 1.6%
Flagstaff Metro 68.3% 13.6% 0.9% 2.9% 7.3% 5.6% 1.5%
Prescott Metro 76.3% 12.5% 0.1% 0.2% 2.8% 6.5% 1.5%
Yuma Metro 74.4% 15.3% 1.8% 0.3% 3.9% 2.7% 1.5%
Arizona 74.8% 13.9% 2.1% 0.8% 2.3% 4.5% 1.6%
United States 76.1% 10.6% 4.8% 0.5% 2.9% 3.9% 1.2%
Source: American Community Survey, 2006.
Another important trend relates to trip purpose. Work trips in 2001 made up only 15% of all
trips, and 18% of miles traveled. 4 Work trips per person increased 14% from 1977 to 2001,
while family and personal business trips increased 114%. These trends have important
implications for congestion, which is spreading to other times of day, and for use of mass
transit, because some trips are easier to make by transit than others.
Growth Trends
From 2000 to 2008, Arizona’s population grew by 26.7%— the second- fastest rate in the
country, behind Nevada. Rapid growth will likely resume after the current economic
recession. The factors driving that growth, such as warm winters, affordable housing, good
quality of life, and job growth, will likely continue to stimulate migration to Arizona in
coming decades. Table 1.2 shows population estimates for Arizona counties through 2030.
Megapolitan Growth. Throughout history, our settlement patterns have been shaped largely
by accessibility. Before mechanized transportation, cities in the United States were not much
more than large, compact villages traveled on foot or by horse. In the 19th century, cities
developed star- like arms along horse- drawn, and then mechanized, streetcar lines that
brought workers and shoppers to an all- powerful central business district. Then, due to the
automobile, our cities exploded. Bedroom suburbs were followed by suburban shopping
malls, suburban factories and office parks, full- fledged suburban downtowns, shrinking
central business districts, and exurban landscapes that look rural but are half- filled with urban
commuters or telecommuters functionally tied to the metropolitan area.
As metro areas expand farther and farther, once- separate regions begin to merge. Experts
recognize an emerging megapolitan region that will stretch almost continuously from
Prescott, through the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas, all the way to Nogales ( Figure
1.5). This “ Sun Corridor” is among 20 emerging megapolitan areas, including 5 in the
Mountain West, with overlapping cross- region commuting patterns and economic
interdependence. 5 Arizona’s Sun Corridor, which currently occupies only 10% of land area
of Arizona, has 80% of the population growth, and produces 88% of state GDP.
6
Table 1.2: Arizona Population- Growth Estimates
Population Estimates Change
2010 to 2020
Change
2008 2010 2020 2030 2010 to 2030
Apache 76486 78229 86,533 93,447 8,304 15,218
Cochise 140560 146037 169,717 187,725 23,680 41,688
Coconino 137261 141457 159,345 173,829 17,888 32,372
Gila 56427 57766 64,396 69,879 6,630 12,113
Graham 36666 37441 41,119 44,556 3,678 7,115
Greenlee 8238 8209 8,189 8,289 - 20 80
La Paz 22062 22632 25,487 28,074 2,855 5,442
Maricopa 3992887 4217427 5,276,074 6,207,980 1,058,647 1,990,553
Mohave 208372 221443 281,668 330,581 60,225 109,138
Navajo 117971 123172 147,045 165,647 23,873 42,475
Pima 1026506 1070723 1,271,912 1,442,420 201,189 371,697
Pinal 316899 364587 609,720 852,463 245,133 487,876
Santa Cruz 47777 50210 61,658 71,033 11,448 20,823
Yavapai 227468 241667 305,343 355,462 63,676 113,795
Yuma 207305 218810 271,361 316,158 52,551 97,348
Arizona 6,622,885 6,999,810 8,779,567 10,347,543 1,779,757 3,347,733
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, Research Administration, Population
Statistics Unit.
www. azcommerce. com/ econinfo/ demographics/ Population% 20Projections. html.
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments. http:// www. mag. maricopa. gov/ maps. cms
Figure 1.5: Arizona Population Distribution, 2000 and 2050 ( Projected)
7
ASU’s Morrison Institute notes the harsh realities of the region’s transportation- infrastructure
limitations in the face of such rapid growth. 6 The impacts of continued growth, the lack of
coordinated Corridor governance, and concerns about how to fund necessary infrastructure
have direct implications for transportation in the Sun Corridor. Of the ten individual urban
realms within the Corridor, the Morrison Institute identified six with transportation- related
challenges for future growth ( including traffic congestion and inadequate infrastructure), and
seven with air- quality challenges. One- third of undeveloped land in the Sun Corridor is
privately held, and with much of that land already permitted for construction, existing
patterns of car dependence and energy consumption may continue. The lack of strong
coordinated governance in the Corridor presents challenges for a regional perspective on
transportation planning, while infrastructure investments continue to lag far behind actual
development, thereby contributing to increased traffic congestion and air- quality problems.
According to the Morrison Institute Report, infrastructure in the Sun Corridor will need to go
beyond simply building highways to include “ smart” infrastructure and smart- growth
planning approaches, renewable fuels, efficient vehicles, creative transit options, and
commuter rail. To pay for these investments, new funding mechanisms may be needed ( see
Chapter 18). The ability of the Sun Corridor to successfully meet these transportation
infrastructure challenges may very well determine the region’s ability to compete globally
with other emerging megapolitan areas.
The Full Costs of Transportation
Individuals, and society as a whole, must consider costs and tradeoffs when choosing how to
invest in and use the various modes of transportation available. An automobile driver, for
example, balances the value of a vehicle trip with the costs incurred by making the trip. The
costs perceived by the driver, however, may be quite different from the actual full costs
imposed on society. Drivers are likely to be most aware of the marginal internal costs they
personally incur, such as fuel or travel time, for that one trip. Fixed internal costs, such as
vehicle purchase, depreciation, insurance, and registration, may have little effect on a driver’s
short- term decision about whether to drive or how far to drive. Drivers may perceive parking
at a mall as free. Although it is obviously not free to build or maintain a parking lot, the cost
to do so is not paid by the driver and is “ externalized” for others to pay. Other external
( a. k. a. social) costs include traffic congestion, environmental impacts, costs of securing
foreign oil supplies, 7 and noise. Individuals, corporations, and government agencies may not
recognize many of these costs in making their transportation daily choices and investment
decisions.
Transportation planning and policy analysis typically focus on a limited number of direct
costs— those that are easiest to measure, such as construction costs, operating and
maintenance expenses, and time savings from increased travel speeds. Other external costs
that are difficult to measure may be considered intangible and therefore excluded from
quantitative analysis. Market efficiency, however, is maximized when the total marginal
costs are reflected in the price paid by the user. Underestimating these marginal costs can
lead to under- pricing resources and overconsumption. Todd Litman, an expert on “ full- cost
accounting,” determined that transportation, particularly private- motor- vehicle travel, is
significantly under- priced when compared to the total marginal costs it causes. 8 Estimates of
8
the value of external costs vary, but are substantial. For example, the external costs of
driving automobiles in peak- hour conditions, when congestion effects are quite large, are
estimated to cost society ( above the internal costs paid by the driver) almost 30 cents per
mile. 9 To recoup these costs, an equivalent gas tax of about six dollars per gallon would
need to be collected. Even the high gasoline taxes collected in Europe ( see Ch. 2) only cover
a portion of these costs, while the low gas taxes collected in the U. S. barely cover the
construction and maintenance of the freeway system, and none of the external costs. ( Local
roadways are typically maintained using local taxes, such as sales or property taxes.)
One response to under- pricing transportation is to attempt to “ internalize” external costs, and
convert fixed costs to marginal costs, through what is often referred to as marginal social-cost
pricing. Techniques for quantifying such costs have improved significantly and various
pricing strategies have been proposed or are in use. Though uncertainty still limits the
precision with which these costs can be measured, Litman argues that the complete exclusion
of external costs from the decision- making process would result in greater inaccuracy, which
therefore justifies their inclusion. Due to the uncertainty, however, other experts caution
against complete reliance on pricing strategies alone. 10 Social concerns that cannot be
accounted for in cost- benefit analyses must still be worked out through the political process.
Litman contends, however, that social- cost analysis can help identify important
transportation problems, understand tradeoffs, and evaluate alternatives, thereby creating
better- informed transportation decisions.
Environmental Impacts of Transportation
Transportation systems create significant impacts on the environment at local, regional, and
global scales. Here, we condense this very important issue into a brief subsection. As you
read it, keep in mind that environmental impacts have implications for every other subject
covered in the report.
Air Quality. It is important to keep in mind that the same air quality will affect different
people in different ways and to different degrees. Information on the six major air pollutants
can be found at www. epa. gov/ air/ urbanair/ 6poll. html. Two of the six, lead and sulfur
dioxide, are not reviewed here because they are mainly caused by activities other than
transportation. Detailed information on air- quality trends in Arizona is available at
www. epa. gov/ air/ airtrends/ index. html.
Particulate Matter ( PM) consists of many different substances suspended in air as particles,
which are categorized by size. 11 Fine particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, known
as PM2.5 pose the greatest threat to health because they can get into the lungs. Particles
between 2.5 and 10 micrometers are called PM10, while particles larger than 10 micrometers
are referred to as total suspended particulates ( TSP). Particulates are caused not only by
emissions from combustion but also by tire wear and driving on dirt roads. Effects of
inhaling particulates include cough, phlegm, wheezing, shortness of breath, bronchitis,
increased asthma attacks, and aggravation of lung or heart disease.
9
Ozone ( O3) is a colorless but pungent gas. Ozone occurs naturally high in the atmosphere
and serves as a protective element in the upper atmosphere. At ground level, however, ozone
is a pollutant. Ozone is not usually emitted directly into the air, but is created by a chemical
reaction between other vehicle pollutants: oxides of nitrogen ( NOx) and volatile organic
compounds ( VOC). Ground- level ozone is the primary constituent of smog. Ozone causes
respiratory illnesses such as lung edema, asthma, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, coughing,
sneezing, and chest pain. It also reduces crop and forest yields and makes plants more
susceptible to disease.
Nitrogen Oxides ( NOx) consists mostly of NO2 and is a reddish- brown gas that contributes to
ozone formation, haze, and acid rain. Motor vehicles are a primary source. Lung infections,
bronchitis, and eye and nose irritation are the worst health effects. Deposition of nitrogen
from the atmosphere also causes water pollution. Nitrogen builds up at the mouths of rivers,
stimulating excessive algae, which reduces dissolved oxygen and creates large dead zones.
Carbon Monoxide ( CO) is an odorless, colorless, and poisonous gas caused mostly by motor
vehicles. CO levels have not exceeded federal standards in Arizona since 1996.
Greenhouse Gases ( GHG) include carbon dioxide ( CO2), methane, nitrous oxides, CFCs,
and even water vapor, which are building up in the global atmosphere and raising global
temperatures. 12 The greenhouse effect is not new and some CO2 in the atmosphere is
essential to life on Earth. What is new since the Industrial Revolution is the amount of CO2
being emitted into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels and forests. The
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from about 280 parts per million ( ppm) at
the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to 386 ppm in 2008. In conjunction with these
atmospheric changes, the mean global temperature has increased by 1.4 º F since 1900.13 The
hottest 10 years on record have all occurred between 1997 and 2008.
The U. N.- sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) concluded that
“ most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid- 20th century is
very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.” 14 The 2007
Fourth Assessment Report predicts a 30% to 240% increase in CO2 concentrations by 2100,
with average temperatures increasing between 3.2 º F and 7.2 º F. Warmer sea and air
temperatures would partially melt the polar ice caps and increase the volume of existing
oceans, causing sea levels to rise and flooding low- lying coastal areas and heavily populated
islands. 15 Global circulation patterns would change in ways climatologists don’t fully
understand, but there is some consensus that storms would increase in number and strength.
Agricultural and biotic regions could shift, causing disruption to human, animal, and plant
communities.
The Arizona Climate Action Report ( Appendix 2) warns of many impacts specific to the
Western U. S., including an additional temperature increase of 3° to 9° F by mid- century.
The most extreme estimates show southwestern U. S. temperatures increasing by up to 14° F.
This would have a profound impact on water cycles, decreasing summer rain but increasing
winter rains and flooding. Overall, water supplies will likely decline, along with forest
cover. Not surprisingly, considering the population- growth estimates cited above, Arizona is
10
projected to increase its GHG emissions by 148% from 1990 to 2020.16 Transportation
accounted for 39% of Arizona’s GHG emissions in 2000, well above the U. S. average of
26%, and was the largest singe emissions category. The Obama Administration has included
revenues from a carbon cap- and- trade system in its projected 2012 budget.
Stormwater Runoff from impervious roads and parking lots into rivers, lakes, and
groundwater is a serious problem. The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) estimates
that 30% of water pollution is due to runoff, including runoff from farms, construction sites,
and landfills. 17 Runoff from paved surfaces includes oil and grease, toxic compounds from
brake dust, debris, chemicals, sediment, and bacteria.
Noise Pollution was first regulated by the federal Noise Control Act in 1972, which required
noise analysis of all federal projects. Trucks, motorcycles, and airplanes are the worst
sources of noise, although they are quieter now than several decades ago. Traffic noise is
related to traffic speeds. Noise barriers are now standard features of urban highways.
Natural Habitats are often disturbed by transportation projects. Roads, railroads, bridges,
airports, and pipelines can drain wetlands, divide animal territories, disrupt animal migration,
and reduce the wilderness quality of various habitats. Exposure to traffic is a significant
cause of mortality for endangered species. Under- or overpasses for animal crossings are
sometimes included as a part of new highways in major wildlife corridors. Wetlands are
especially ecologically valuable, particularly in Arizona.
Highway planners typically look for the cheapest and easiest routes for constructing new
infrastructure corridors. Not surprisingly, these corridors often go through lands that are
undeveloped precisely because they are ecologically sensitive lands that have been protected
by previous conservation efforts. The Arizona Chapter of the Nature Conservancy has
published a report, Growing by Design that identifies alternative growth corridors with less
impact Arizona’s “ natural infrastructure.” 18
Economies of Scale and Utilization
Transportation is one of the more capital- intensive parts of the economy. Efficient
transportation relies on investment in capital goods, from the networks themselves, to the
passenger and freight terminals where we access the networks, to the vehicles on the
networks. In thinking about the costs of transportation, it is important to distinguish between
two terms that even experts often mix up: economies of scale and economies of utilization.
In these two terms, the word “ economies” means cost savings. Therefore, economies of
scale imply savings from a larger scale of operations. These benefits derive from many
sources: larger vehicles, volume purchasing, mechanization, and specialization of employees
and equipment. A large airport, for instance, can process planes and passengers at a lower
cost per plane and per passenger than a small airport. Similarly, a double- tracked railroad
can move more than twice as many trains per day as a single line, yet costs less than twice as
much to build and operate. Economies of scale have been a major factor in lowering
transportation costs of all kinds.
11
Economies of utilization, on the other hand, refer to savings from fully utilizing one’s capital
equipment and thus spreading its fixed costs ( purchase, insurance, licensing, etc.) over more
trips, passengers, or tons. Airlines, trucking companies, and transit agencies hate to see their
expensive vehicles sitting idle, so they try to maximize their use, also known as their load
factor or capacity utilization. Economies of utilization are a short- term phenomenon to
achieve lower average costs with one’s existing capital stock, while economies of scale are a
long- term phenomenon that involves increasing one’s capital stock.
Policy Fundamentals and Approaches
Derived Demand. Derived demand is a key concept of demand- side management ( see
below). According to this concept, most of our demand for transport is derived from our
demand for some other activity: we need to take classes, shop, work, socialize, or play, but
because the activities are located somewhere else, we need to make a trip to do them.
Occasionally, people drive, bike, or walk just for the sake of the activity of driving, biking, or
walking, but few of our trips are made simply because we wish to make a trip.
Demand- Side Management. When use of a transportation facility approaches or surpasses
the capacity for which it was designed, congestion results. We most often associate this
problem with roads, but rail, air, and transit are not immune. For centuries, policy makers
have responded to congestion by building more capacity. In recent decades, scientists and
policy makers have increasingly recognized two distinct ways to deal with congestion. The
business- as- usual, supply- side approach adds to the supply of transportation: more roads,
more buses, more rail lines, more runways, more pipelines and canals, and more transmission
lines. In contrast, demand- side strategies aim to reduce the demand or spread the demand to
less costly times and places. This kind of strategy has been catching on in both the
transportation and energy industries. For instance, electric utilities have found it cheaper to
invest in energy conservation for their customers ( insulation, new appliances, or weather
stripping) or to try and steer demand to the nighttime ( when there is excess capacity), rather
than build new power plants to meet customers’ needs.
In the transportation sector, opportunities abound to “ manage demand.” For instance, the
supply capacity of a freeway lane is about 2,400 passenger cars per hour. Demand is a
function of VMT in the peak rush hours. Since VMT is a function of both number of
vehicles and number of miles, demand- side strategies can aim at either target. Peak- hour
vehicle trips can be reduced in several ways:
Flex- time and four- day workweeks
Carpooling
Telecommuting, online shopping, distance learning, and online social
networking
Multipurpose trip- making
Mode shifting to mass transit ( including school buses) or non- motorized
transportation
12
Similarly, we can reduce highway demand by shrinking the miles traveled by vehicles:
Jobs- housing balance
Mixed- use development
Master- planned communities
Infill development within central cities
Urban villages
Location- efficient mortgages that consider both mortgage and commuting
costs in calculating a potential buyer’s ability to pay, thus eliminating the
built- in bias towards cheaper housing on the urban fringe ( i. e., the “ drive ‘ til
you qualify” phenomenon)
Induced Demand. Economists use the term “ induced demand” to describe how an increase
in the supply of a good leads to an increase in the demand for it. 19 In transportation systems,
all trips have a cost that includes fuel, tolls, and the value of the user’s time. Congestion
raises the user’s time costs and causes some people or companies to drive at less- convenient
times, take alternative routes or modes, change destinations, or forego trips entirely. When
road capacities are expanded, congestion drops. In the short- term, trips that were moved off-peak,
to public transit, or to a less- convenient route or destination can return, and trips that
were completely avoided can be made. As a result, the new capacity may be quickly filled
by “ latent demand.” In the longer term, adding capacity can alter people’s choices of where
they live or work, and modify land- use patterns. Induced demand has become important in
debates about road widening and urban sprawl. Highway expansion can be inefficient to the
extent that it just fills the new capacity with “ low- value” trips that people were previously
willing to shift or forego and generates more negative externalities, and can be unsustainable
in the long- run because it leads to an ongoing cycle of supply and demand expansion. And
yet, people change their travel behavior because they perceive a benefit, and therefore
induced demand can also be another form of benefit, above and beyond the time and fuel
savings of the road’s current users.
Policy Instruments: Carrots and Sticks. Policies either encourage or discourage a particular
behavior, and can take the form of regulation or pricing. A simple representation is shown in
Table 1.3, with a few examples.
Table 1.3: Example Policy Instruments
Allowing/ Encouraging Banning/ Discouraging
Regulation Hybrid vehicles in HOV lanes Emissions test
Pricing Hybrid vehicle tax credits Bridge toll
Regulation places specific limits on the behavior of individuals, firms, or public agencies,
while pricing strategies raise the cost to users of activities considered undesirable and lower
them on desirable choices. Allowing hybrid vehicles in HOV lanes is a regulation designed
to encourage people to purchase hybrids. An emissions test is an example of a regulation
that bans undesirable choices. There’s no opting out of the test by paying a fee: every car
must pass the test or it cannot be registered. Example pricing strategies to encourage
desirable behaviors include tax credits for purchasing hybrid vehicles. A bridge toll, such as
on the Golden Gate Bridge, discourages drivers from crossing the bridge when the cost of the
13
trip, including the toll, exceeds the benefit of the trip. Understanding these approaches is
important when considering the effect that policies, regulations, and financing mechanisms
may have on demand.
An Intermodal System
For much of the 20th century, transportation research and planning focused on the
competition among modes. Rail, air, road, bus, water, pipeline, biking, and walking were
viewed as competing ways to make a trip or send goods. But multimodal trips have been
common throughout history. Goods have been hauled overland to rivers or ports and
transferred to ships, while people have walked, taken a bus, or driven to train stations. Our
thinking about transportation modes began to change with the invention of containerized
freight transportation. Freight could be packaged in a standard- size container that could be
loaded on a flatbed truck or rail car, or stacked on a ship, and transferred quickly by machine
from transport mode to another. Containerization provided the muscle, but the intermodal
system did not fulfill its potential until information technology provided the brains. Using
door- to- door routing, booking, billing, and tracking technologies, freight- transportation
modes were integrated into a nearly seamless web that has indeed made the world smaller
and “ flatter.” Containerization moved transportation from loosely linked modal networks to
an integrated intermodal system.
Passenger transportation lags behind freight— not surprising since few of us would be willing
to submit ourselves to human forwarders who arranged our door- to- door transport to
minimize total system transportation costs. Nevertheless, transportation planners and
researchers increasingly recognize that every passenger trip is a door- to- door planning
process. Automobiles have a built- in advantage because many Americans, and nearly all
Arizonans, park in their own driveway or in front of their own house, and are able to park at
their destination. Transit planners are aware that it is a challenge to get people from their
homes to the nearest bus or rail stop, via walk, bike, or car ( the latter via drop- off or park-and-
ride). An even more vexing challenge is the “ last mile” problem, getting people from
the end of the transit trip to their final destination, because even fewer options are available.
We have already noted the environmental and congestion problems associated with single-occupancy
vehicles ( SOV), but we must also recognize the convenience advantage of SOVs
over intermodal options for completing door- to- door trips.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ( ISTEA) of 1991 created funding
programs to help regional governments address congestion and air quality by combining
whatever approaches and modes would work best for them, instead of mandating a particular
solution. Prior to ISTEA, each surface transportation mode was treated separately in federal
legislation. ISTEA also expanded the requirements for public participation in transportation
planning. The act has been renewed twice: in 1998 as the Transportation Efficiency Act for
the 21st Century ( TEA- 21), and in 2005 as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users ( SAFETEA- LU). The act is currently due for
reauthorization, and its new contents will have important implications for Arizona’s
transportation system. ADOT took a major step in 2007, combining its ( highway) planning
and public transportation divisions into a new Multi- Modal Planning Division. ADOT is in
14
the midst of developing a multi- modal “ framework” study, working closely with other
jurisdictions to create long- term visions based on broad and comprehensive analysis. Several
recent statewide transportation studies are cited in various chapters within this report. For
clarity, we present a brief description of each study, along with a link to their website where
you can find more information.
Arizona Investment Council ( 2008) Infrastructure Needs and Funding Alternatives. This
study tallies total statewide infrastructure needs across the energy, water, communications,
and transportation sectors. It includes a review of demand and supply estimates, and detailed
cost estimates for meeting demand projections. The full report can be found at:
www. arizonaic. org/ images/ stories/ pdf/ AIC_ FINAL_ report. pdf.
Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy. The investment strategy is a comprehensive
inventory of transportation projects, some of which correspond to current financially
constrained regional plans, and some of which remain unfunded. This strategy served as the
underlying project proposal to be funded under the failed TIME ballot proposition. TIME
proposed to raise $ 42.58 billion over 30 years, to be allocated 58% to highways, 18% to rail
and transit including high- speed intercity rail, 20% to local mobility projects by any mode,
and 4% for walking and biking improvements. The maps and lists of projects with projected
costs are included in the Appendix 4 and can be accessed at:
www. azdot. gov/ Statewide_ Transportation_ Investment_ Strategy/ Index. asp.
Statewide Transportation Planning Framework. Currently underway, the framework study
is a statewide, multijurisdictional effort spearheaded by ADOT, focused on particularly
important state travel corridors. The study area maps and report updates can be found at:
www. bqaz. gov/ index. asp.
We have divided this report into separate chapters for road, rail, air, and non- motorized
transportation, and for urban, rural, international, tribal, and national park transportation
issues. We encourage you to make connections across these artificial divisions to better plan
Arizona’s transportation future.
Conclusion
This April 2009 Town Hall occurs at a time when the national economy is slowing at a faster
rate than it has at any time since World War II, with especially large impacts on Arizona.
Housing prices have dropped and construction starts have ground to a halt. What good can
come from this slow- down? It does offer some benefits for planning. The state has been
leading the nation in growth rates for decades. Now, pressures to catch up with growth will
ease and we can take time for reflection, assessment, and planning. We can identify and
correct things that seem to be going wrong, and recognize and build upon things that are
going right. This is a time of trouble, but also one of opportunity. ( See Appendix 5 for the
most current information available on the stimulus funding when this report went to press.)
The report’s title, “ From Here to There,” refers not just to getting from place A to B, but also
to transitioning from the transportation system we have now to the system we envision. Our
15
current system is the result of decades— even centuries— of changes in technology,
regulatory structures, resource availability, awareness of environmental issues, and economic
and cultural development. There is tremendous inertia in the transportation system because
of the huge infrastructure already in place, and the existing built environment that it must
serve. While we may be able to envision a more efficient, equitable, and sustainable system,
figuring out how to get from here to there— from now to then— is an inherent part of the
challenge. It is a challenge for which the Arizona Town Hall is ideally suited.
List of Abbreviations Used
CO Carbon Monoxide NOx Oxides of Nitrogen
CO2 Carbon Dioxide O3 Ozone
EPA Environmental Protection Agency PM Particulate Matter
GHG Greenhouse Gases SOV Single- occupant vehicle
HOV High- occupancy vehicle TEA- 21 Transportation Efficiency Act for the
21st Century
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act
TSP total suspended particulates
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change
VMT Vehicle miles traveled
NAFTA North American Free Trade
Agreement
VOC volatile organic compounds
Aaron Golub is an assistant professor in the Schools of Planning and Sustainability at ASU. He holds a PhD in
Civil and Environmental Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley, and a BS and MS in
Mechanical Engineering. His research focuses on environmental- and social- equity outcomes of planning
processes; travel survey data analysis; transportation policy and finance analysis; public transportation planning;
and advanced bus systems and vehicle technologies. He has consulted with public agencies around the world on
transportation projects, including the World Bank, United Nations, city governments, and sustainable-transportation
advocacy organizations.
Michael Kuby received a Bachelor’s degree from The University of Chicago and a PhD from Boston
University, both in Geography. He is a Professor in the School of Geographical Sciences at ASU, where he has
taught since 1988. His research centers on creating optimization models for facility location and transport-network
design, mainly for sustainable energy and transport systems. His work with the World Bank on energy
and railway transport in China was a Finalist for the 1994 Franz Edelman Award for Management Science
Achievement. Kuby has served as Chair of the Transportation Specialty Group of the Association of American
Geographers, and on editorial boards of the Professional Geographer and Journal of Transport Geography. He
is currently Area Editor for Location Science for Networks and Spatial Economics.
Jason Kelley is a PhD student in the School of Planning at ASU. He earned a MA in Geography from ASU in
2007, and a BA in Geography from ASU in 2005.
1 Friedman, T. L. The World is Flat, 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty- first Century. Picador, New York, 2007.
2 Puentes, R., and A. Tomer. The Road… Less Traveled: An Analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled Trends in the
United States. Brookings Institution, Washington, D. C., December 2008.
www. brookings. edu/ reports/ 2008/ 1216_ transportation_ tomer_ puentes. aspx. Accessed Feb. 27, 2009.
3 Polzin, S. E. The Case for Moderate Growth in Vehicle Miles of Travel: A Critical Juncture in U. S. Travel
Behavior Trends. Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, April 2006.
www. cutr. usf. edu/ pdf/ The Case for Moderate Growth in VMT- 2006 Final. pdf. Accessed Jan. 7, 2009.
4 Pisarski, A. A. Commuting in America III: The Third National Report on Commuting Patterns and Trends.
Transportation Research Board, TCRP Report # 110, 2006. www. trb. org/ news/ blurb_ detail. asp? ID= 6699.
Accessed Feb. 26, 2009.
16
5 The Brookings Institution. Mountain Megas. 2008.
www. brookings. edu/~/ media/ Files/ rc/ reports/ 2008/ 0720_ intermountain_ west_ sarzynski/ IMW_ full_ report. pdf.
Accessed Feb. 26, 2009.
6 Morrison Institute for Public Policy. Megapolitan: Arizona’s Sun Corridor. May, 2008.
www. asu. edu/ copp/ morrison/ megapolitan. htm. Accessed Feb. 26, 2009.
7 A recent paper estimated the wartime and peacetime defense expenditures for protecting United States access
to Persian Gulf oil at $ 27- 73 billion per year. See Delucci, M. A., and J. J. Murphy. US Military Expenditures to
Protect the Use of Persian Gulf Oil for Motor Vehicles. Energy Policy, Vol. 36, 2008, pp. 2253– 2264. The
International Energy Agency estimates that the United States spends $ 150 billion per year maintaining a
military presence in the Middle East, primarily to secure oil imports.
8 Litman, T. Policy implications of full social costing. Annals of the AAPSS, Vol. 553, 1997, pp. 143- 156.
9 Delucchi, M. Should we try to get the prices right? Access, Vol. 16, 2000, pp. 10- 14.
10 Ibid.
11 U. S. EPA. Particulate Matter. www. epa. gov/ particles/. Accessed Jan. 7, 2009.
12 Much of this section on greenhouse gases was adapted with permission from Kuby, M., Harner, J. and Gober,
P. Human Geography in Action ( 4th edition). John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2006.
13 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC). IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change
2007. www. ipcc. ch/ ipccreports/ ar4- syr. htm. Accessed Feb. 23, 2009.
14 Ibid.
15 While two feet of sea- level rise is the conservative estimate of the IPCC report, assuming no changes in ice
floes, a recent study of the possible collapse of the 2,000- ft high West Antarctic Ice Shelf raises the possibility
of a rise up to 21 feet. See Mitrovica, J. X. N. Gomez, P. U. Clark. The Sea- Level Fingerprint of West
Antarctic Collapse. Science. Vol. 323. No. 5915, 6 February 2009, p. 753.
16 Arizona Climate Change Advisory Group. Climate Change Action Plan, August 2006.
www. azclimatechange. gov/. Accessed Jan. 7, 2009.
17 University of Arizona, Non- point Education of Municipal Officials. Arizona NEMO.
www. srnr. arizona. edu/ nemo/ index. php. Accessed Jan. 7, 2009.
18 The Nature Conservancy. Growing by Design: Choices for a Sustainable Arizona.
www. nature. org/ wherewework/ northamerica/ states/ arizona/ projects/ art25470. html.
19 Wikipedia contributors. Induced Demand. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
en. wikipedia. org/ w/ index. php? title= Induced_ demand& oldid= 268775685. Accessed February 27, 2009. Also
Federal Highway Administration. Induced Travel: Frequently Asked Questions.
www. fhwa. dot. gov/ Planning/ itfaq. htm. Accessed February 27, 2009.
17
Chapter 2
GASOLINE PRICES
Michael Kuby
Arizona State University, School of Geographical Sciences
Key Points
The United States relies on oil for 96% of its transportation energy.
Recent fluctuations in gasoline prices were driven by changes in crude oil prices.
World oil consumption is growing rapidly, while global supply peaked in May 2005.
The United States imports 58% of its oil. Given where world reserves are found, we
will grow more dependent on the Middle East over time. We should expect higher,
more volatile prices, and even shortages.
While there is little that Arizona can do to lower gas or diesel prices, there are many
things we can do to prepare for higher future prices.
Federal and state taxes are only 18 cents per gallon each.
Predicting future gasoline prices is a risky business. Even when there is broad consensus
about the direction prices will go, the consensus can be wrong. Although the amount of oil
contained in the earth is finite, many people are too pessimistic about future oil prices. On the
other hand, it is easy to be too optimistic by putting too much faith in the ability of market
forces and technological change to overcome geology, geography, politics, and global trends.
Despite the difficulty of predicting gas prices, it is essential that we begin this report with a
realistic understanding of the factors involved. Oil provides 96% of the energy used in the
transport sector in the United States. No other sector of the economy is remotely as
dependent on a single source of energy as transportation is on gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel
derived from oil ( Figure 2.1). Our vehicles and infrastructure are built almost entirely around
the technological advantages of using liquid fuels derived from oil. Future gas prices are
likely to be higher and more volatile, which has major implications for the competition
among transport modes, land- use patterns, and the competitiveness of our industries.
Current Conditions
Let’s begin with a breakdown of the retail cost of gasoline at the pump ( Figure 2.2). Taxes
comprise a small and stable part of the pump price, averaging 41.5 cents nationally. Local
distribution and market costs are a small part of the whole, averaging 23 cents per gallon
since 2000, but they have fluctuated quite a bit, from 5 to 76 cents. Refining costs have
averaged 31 cents, and have spiked as high as 81 cents when capacity has been tight, but
were clearly not responsible for the 2008 price surge. But despite the fluctuations in
distribution, marketing, and refining costs, it is clear from the graph that the cost of crude oil
is the driving force behind retail gasoline prices. At the low point of the graph, in December
2001, the national average price was $ 1.09 per gallon and crude oil accounted for only 37%
18
of the cost. Prices peaked in July 2008 at $ 4.06 per gallon, when crude oil comprised 76% of
the cost. 1 In absolute terms, the cost of the crude oil in a gallon of gas went from 40 cents to
$ 3.03 between the low and high points of the graph.
The upward trend in gas prices that dominated the news in 2007- 2008 actually began in
2002, and should not be viewed as an aberration ( Figure 2.2). Both crude oil prices and U. S.
gasoline prices have dropped drastically since July 2008 as the global financial crisis
Figure 2.1: Energy Consumption by End- Use Sector, 1949- 2006
Source: Annual Energy Review. U. S. Energy Information Administration.
Figure 2.2: Components of Average U. S. Gasoline Price at the Pump
$ 0.00
$ 0.50
$ 1.00
$ 1.50
$ 2.00
$ 2.50
$ 3.00
$ 3.50
$ 4.00
$ 4.50
Jan- 00 Jan- 01 Jan- 02 Jan- 03 Jan- 04 Jan- 05 Jan- 06 Jan- 07 Jan- 08 Jan- 09
Crude Oil
Refining
Distribution & Marketing
Taxes
Source: EIA. Gasoline Components History. tonto. eia. doe. gov/ oog/ info/ gdu/ gaspump. html.
19
reverberated throughout the world economy and demand plummeted. In December, 2008, the
average U. S. gasoline price was $ 1.69, with crude oil prices accounting for 56%. Diesel
experienced a similar run- up to $ 4.70 per gallon ( 65% for crude) in July 2008, and drop- off
to $ 2.45 ( 39% for crude) by December. Crude prices at the end of 2008 stood at $ 35 per
barrel, down from $ 147 at the July 2008 peak. 2
Taxes comprise a small part of the pump price. The Arizona state tax is18 cents per gallon,
below the average state tax of 21.5 cents. 3 Federal tax is 18.4 cents. The combined federal
and state average of 39.5 cents per gallon is far lower than in other industrial countries such
as Canada ($ 1.19), Japan ($ 2.29), the U. K. ($ 5.02), and Germany ($ 5.12).
Figure 2.2 makes it clear that to understand gasoline prices, we need to understand crude oil
prices. OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, was formed in 1960. Oil
prices quadrupled in 1973 because of the Arab oil embargo, and then doubled again during
the Iran hostage crisis of 1979. Many feared the world was entering a new era of dwindling
oil resources, but that did not come to pass. Real oil prices declined through the 1980s and
1990s, and many came to believe that geological supply was not a limitation.
Crude prices began rising again in the early 2000s. Although the run- up in prices in the
2000s coincided with the second Gulf War, there were no major supply disruptions like those
in the 1970s. Even when such factors as speculation, terrorism, and world politics are taken
into account, the latest rise in crude oil prices was mostly due to world demand growing
faster than world supply.
To get a better idea of how world supply and demand are likely to evolve after the current
recession, it helps to look at past trends ( Figure 2.3). In 1960, the United States consumed 9.8
million barrels per day ( mbd), or 46%, of the world’s oil. By 2007, our consumption had
more than doubled to 20.7 mbd, but our share of world consumption fell by almost half, to
24%. Since 1995, oil consumption in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, and
Australia has grown by 4 mbd, compared with 11 mbd in the less- developed world. In
Figure 2.3: World Oil Consumption Trends
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2008 ( original data from U. S. EIA).
USA
Other More-
Developed
Countries
India China
Other Less-
Developed
Countries
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
20
particular, from 1960 to 2007, consumption in China and India grew 32 times larger, from
0.33 to 10.5 mbd. China and India together have 2.5 billion people, more than 8 times the
U. S. population. Despite their rapid economic growth, they still lag far behind the United
States in car ownership. India and China average 18 and 24 motor vehicles per 1,000 people,
compared with 787 per 1,000 in the United States. 4 Given these facts, world oil consumption
may continue to rise rapidly.
On the supply side, U. S. production peaked in the early 1970s at 11 mbd and has steadily
declined to less than 7 mbd ( Figure 2.4). Canada and Mexico, our largest sources of imported
oil, have not made up the difference. Other more- developed countries, mainly Norway and
the United Kingdom, peaked in 2000 at 11 mbd and have since declined to less than 9 mbd,
as offshore deposits in the North Sea are depleted. Meanwhile, more than half of the world’s
oil is supplied by the Middle East, North Africa, and the former USSR.
World crude- oil prices are, of course, a result of the balance of supply and demand on a
global level. Compare the height and slope of world consumption and production trends in
2007 in Figures 2.3 and 2.4. Production shows some flattening at 81- 82 mbd, compared with
the steady increase in consumption from 80 mbd to 85 mbd. This global shortfall in supply
relative to consumption has been the primary cause of the price increase since 2003. World
daily oil demand rose from 82.4 mbd in 2004 to 87.0 mbd in the fourth quarter of 2007,
without a corresponding increase in supply, while the sudden recession- related drop to 84.7
mbd in the third quarter of 2008 was primarily responsible for the price decline in late 2008.5
USA
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Canada and Mexico
Other More- Developed Countries
Middle East and North Africa
Former USSR
Other
Less- Developed Countries
Figure 2.4: World Oil Production Trends
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2008 ( original data from U. S. EIA).
21
Both oil supply and demand are known to be highly inelastic with respect to price in the short
run. This means that production and consumption cannot respond quickly or sizably to
changes in prices, while prices change dramatically in response to changes in supply and
demand. On the supply side, it takes many years and large investments to bring new fields
into production. On the demand side, consumption barely budges because oil is a necessity
with few substitutes in the short run. People still need to get to work or heat their homes, and
companies need to run their equipment, and neither consumers nor firms can quickly replace
their oil- fueled equipment with something else. Both consumers and firms can cut back more
easily on other budget items than on their transportation needs.
The growing gap between U. S. consumption and production is filled by imports ( Figure 2.5).
Net imports in 2007 accounted for 58% of U. S. oil consumption. In 2007 our four largest
suppliers were Canada ( 18%) and Mexico ( 11%), as well as OPEC members Saudi Arabia
( 11%), and Venezuela ( 10%). While the rest of the world relies heavily on OPEC, it supplied
only 45% of our imports in 2007.6
Are these trends likely to continue? The answer depends heavily on how much oil is left in
different regions of the world. The most common measure of oil in the ground is reserves:
deposits that are geologically proven, and recoverable at a profit using today’s technology at
today’s prices. Reserves shrink mainly by pumping them out, but they can also grow through
three mechanisms. Technology can improve or prices can rise, thus making it economically
feasible to recover more oil for a profit, and companies can identify deposits that were
previously unknown or uncertain. U. S. oil reserves began falling in the late 1960s, rose in
1970 when oil was discovered in Alaska, and have declined ever since. In contrast, our
natural- gas reserves keep growing as discovery outpaces production.
Figure 2.5: U. S. Oil Trends
Source: Annual Energy Review. U. S. Energy Information Administration.
22
U. S. dependence on imports, from OPEC and the Middle East in particular, is likely to
increase in the coming years. As Figure 2.6 shows, the United States currently produces 8.4%
of the world’s oil, but has only 2.4% of the reserves. Canada, Mexico, and other more-developed
countries similarly have much higher shares of the world’s production than of
reserves. The Middle East and North Africa, meanwhile, are producing 37% of the world’s
oil, but are sitting on an estimated 66% of reserves. 7 Furthermore, the Middle East is the only
region with the capacity to increase production in the short term to meet shortfalls.
What about less conventional sources, such as oil and tar sands, oil shale, and oil on the outer
continental shelf or in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve ( ANWR)? According to U. S.
Energy Information Administration ( EIA) analysis, the earliest ANWR production could
begin would be 2018, in which case it would peak at 0.78 mbd around 2027. 8 Opening
ANWR would reduce our oil dependency ( by 3% in 2030) and balance of trade, but would
have little effect on world oil prices, which are determined by the balance of global supply
and demand. EIA predicts ANWR would lower crude prices by only 75 cents per barrel in
2025. Similar results are found for the outer continental shelf. Tar sands and oil shale hold
much larger quantities of oil, but at much steeper production and environmental costs.
As we said at the beginning of this chapter, predicting future oil and gasoline prices is nearly
impossible for specialists in the field, let alone local residents and officials. There are,
however, agencies, institutes, and companies whose job it is to make such prognostications.
The International Energy Agency ( IEA) recently doubled its forecast for the price of oil in
2030 to $ 120 per barrel in 2008 dollars, because of “ rising demand in the developing world
as well as surging costs of production as oil needs to be sourced from more expensive
offshore fields and state- run companies.” 9 The IEA called the current trends “ patently
unsustainable” and said “ the era of cheap oil is over.” The Association for the Study of Peak
Oil and Gas- USA finds even this revised IEA outlook too optimistic: " Years of data from the
majority of oilfields around the world show steady or declining production. Most major
oilfields were found decades ago, and those reserves were easy and inexpensive to extract.
Since then, few new fields have been discovered to replace those reservoirs . . . We anticipate
supply shortages and price increases within a few years." 10 A recent presentation by oil
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2008.
Figure 2.6: Production vs. Reserves, by World Region
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
USA Canada and
Mexico
Other More-
Developed
Countries
Middle East and
North Africa
Former Soviet
Union
Other Less-
Developed
Countries
Production
Reserves
23
expert Matthew Simmons to the EIA called peak oil “ extremely real and extremely risky”
and said “ there is nothing fuzzy when global demand outstrips faltering supply.” 11 While the
debate continues about when world oil production will peak and begin a possibly inexorable
decline, according to the EIA’s own data, the monthly world production record set in May
2005 has not been broken in 48 months.
Existing Plans and Programs
CAFE Standards. In 1975, Congress passed the Corporate Average Fuel Economy ( CAFE)
standards requiring each manufacturer’s fleet- wide average to meet certain miles- per- gallon
( mpg) targets. The passenger- car standard reached 27.5 mpg in 1985, was briefly lowered,
and then remained at 27.5 from 1990 to 2007. In addition, lower standards for light trucks
allowed the auto industry to get around the regulations by producing more pickups and
SUVs, which were permitted to average 25% fewer mpg. The United States and Canada have
the lowest mpg standards of any industrialized country in the world. 12 In 2007, the Energy
Independence and Security Act eliminated the separate standards for cars and light trucks and
raised the standard on the combined fleet to 35 mpg by 2020. President Obama has asked the
U. S. Department of Transportation to consider even higher standards.
Federal Tax Credits and Disincentives. There is a $ 3,400 federal tax credit for hybrid and
diesel vehicles, but both credits are gradually phased out as each manufacturer surpasses
certain sales totals. There is also a federal “ gas guzzler” tax on cars with exceptionally poor
fuel economy, but it does not apply to light trucks, which include minivans and SUVs.
State Standards and Incentives. Federal law allows states to seek a waiver from the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) to set their own, more- stringent emissions
standards, which often have the effect of improving energy efficiency. Concerned about their
air quality, California received 50 waivers until, in 2007, their attempt to require a 30%
reduction in greenhouse- gas emissions in cars and light trucks by 2016 was blocked by EPA.
President Obama has ordered the EPA to reconsider California’s request. Eleven other states
had adopted the standards, and Arizona was one of six states seriously considering them. 13
Arizona offers a “ limited number” of high- occupancy vehicle ( HOV) lane exemptions to
owners of Honda and Toyota hybrids, but not to low- sulfur diesels or efficient small cars. 14
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Federal Government maintains the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve ( SPR) to safeguard against— and deter— disruptions in oil supply. As of January
2009, the SPR contained 703 million barrels, enough to supply all U. S. needs for 33 days.
U. S. Presidents have approved two SPR drawdowns, during Operation Desert Storm in 1991
and after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.15
Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline. Due to past violations of federal carbon monoxide ( CO)
standards, Maricopa County and parts of Pinal and Yavapai are required by agreement with
the EPA to sell Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline ( CBG) during the winter gasoline season.
Arizona CBG is oxygenated by the addition of ethanol or MBTE, and reformulated by
chemical removal of impurities. Arizona CBG has substantially reduced ozone and CO in the
atmosphere. Arizona CBG adds an estimated 9 to 17 cents per gallon to gas prices. 16 Even
24
though the EPA re- designated the MAG region as being in “ attainment” status for CO in
2005, Arizona CBG is still required during months when there is a risk of exceeding those
standards. Arizona has requested EPA to reduce the winter gasoline season to 3 months. 17
Price Gouging. Over half the states have laws against price gouging, usually defined as
prices 0- 25% above the norm during a declared state of emergency. 18 Arizona does not have
such a law, which would not apply to non- emergency price increases anyway. Arizona’s
Attorney General’s Office has the authority to enforce anti- trust laws in cases of price fixing
and unfair competition, but not in cases of retailers setting prices at what they think the
market can bear. Arizona cooperates with the Federal Trade Commission’s Gasoline Price
Monitoring Project. The Arizona Department of Commerce’s Energy Office analyzes and
reports on gasoline supplies and prices.
Challenges
As we said at the outset, the United States relies on petroleum— gasoline, diesel, and jet
fuel— for 96% of its transportation energy. While other factors such as labor agreements and
shortages, capital costs and interest rates, safety and environmental regulations, taxes and
fees, economies of scale, and competition also affect transport costs, none has as much
impact on transportation costs as fuel prices. Fluctuations in gas prices over time are largely
determined by global supply and demand. Variations from place to place are mainly dictated
by fuel taxes, although delivery and blending costs also cause variation. 19
In the short run, when oil prices rise, the main option available to companies is to switch to
another mode that uses oil- based fuels more efficiently ( e. g., rail instead of truck).
Individuals can switch to transit, which uses alternative fuels in many parts of Arizona ( see
Ch. 16). They also can use non- motorized transportation ( see Ch. 10), telecommute, shop or
take classes online, and reduce or combine trips. From April 2007 to April 2008, gas prices
rose 21%, yet average miles driven fell only 2.1%, from 250 miles per week to 245.20
Americans drove 5 billion miles less, yet transit use increased by only 50 million miles,
meaning they made fewer or shorter trips rather than making the same trips by transit. In
practice, people’s ability to switch to transit is highly constrained by where they live relative
to where they need to go, the transit service available, and their family and time constraints.
Recently, the National Resources Defense Council ranked Arizona the 7th most vulnerable
state to gas price changes. 21 The average Arizona driver spends nearly twice the portion of
income on transportation ( 4.9% vs. 2.5%) as drivers in states with the least vulnerability.
Opportunities
While cities and states can do little specifically to lower gas prices, there are opportunities for
actions that indirectly, and over the longer term, can help prepare for higher future prices.
Alternatives. The main thing that state and local governments can do to prepare for higher
future gas prices is provide alternatives to driving— alternative modes and alternative fuels. As
subsequent chapters will show, the success of alternative modes and fuels depends heavily on
25
infrastructure. Investing in alternative modes such as transit ( see Ch. 9), walking and biking
( see Ch. 10), and intercity rail ( see Ch. 12) is one solution. ( Air transport is omitted from this
list because its cost will increase even more rapidly with higher oil prices— see Ch. 11).
Promoting “ smart growth” land- use patterns that support use of alternative modes is also
important ( see Ch. 3). The other major alternative to paying high gas prices is to start investing
now in the infrastructure for alternative transportation fuels ( see Ch. 16).
Conserving Fuel. Even without switching to alternative fuels, Arizonans can replace gas-guzzling
cars and light trucks with more efficient vehicles. While the greatest gains result
simply from driving a smaller vehicle ( several cars cost under $ 15,000 and get over 40
mpg), 22 hybrid vehicles are about 25% more fuel efficient than a conventional vehicle of
similar size. Diesel vehicles get 30- 35% better mpg than gasoline vehicles due to improved
engine efficiency and higher energy content of the fuel, and they have gotten cleaner in
recent years. Federal programs exist to help finance fuel- efficient, “ clean- diesel” trucks. 23
In the short term, Arizonans can take steps to improve the mpg of their current vehicles
( Table 2.1). While the Arizona Department of Commerce web site regularly updates fuel-price
information and other useful links at www. azcommerce. com/ Energy/ MotorFuel/,
consumers have to seek out this information. A more effective way to publicize these savings
would be to require that they be posted on all gas pumps.
Table 2.1: Fuel Economy Savings24
Action Fuel Savings
Driving less aggressively 5- 33%
Observing the speed limit 7- 23%
Removing excess weight from the car 1- 2% / 100 lbs.
Keeping engine properly tuned 4%
Replacing air filters Up to 10%
Keeping tires properly inflated Up to 3%
Using recommended grade of motor oil 1- 2%
Source: www. fueleconomy. gov
Speed Limits. As Table 2.1 shows, slower driving saves gas. During the gas crises of the
1970s, the federal government reduced the national speed limit to 55 mph. Arizona could
lower the state speed limit to save energy and money, and reduce pollution and accidents,
albeit at the cost of longer travel times.
Refineries and Pipelines. Arizona relies on refineries in El Paso and Southern California for
its gasoline and diesel, which are shipped in by private pipelines. Being at the “ end of the
pipeline,” Arizona is at risk of fuel shortages, refinery capacity limitations, and, as we saw in
2003, pipeline ruptures. The new refinery proposed in Yuma, and additional pipelines, could
help avoid future fuel emergencies.
Higher and “ Net- Zero” Gas Taxes. Average Americans, faced with the transport choices
and prices before them, are not irrational. From 1980 to 2000, real personal income in the
United States rose over 50%, while real gas prices fell more than 50%. 25 It is no surprise,
therefore, that Americans responded to these signals by buying more and bigger cars and
driving them more miles. Higher gas prices would likely have the opposite effect over time.
26
There are proposals by experts from both the left26 and the right27 to raise fuel- excise taxes in
a revenue- neutral and politically acceptable way by phasing it in gradually and lowering
other taxes proportionally. The decrease in other taxes could be calibrated so that individuals
who drive an average vehicle an average number of miles would see no net change in their
taxes, but all Arizonans would have additional incentive to conserve. The idea has been
proposed and has been described as a “ win- win- win- win- win” solution. 28
Another idea being discussed is trying to stabilize gas prices by creating a price floor. At the
2009 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner
said taxing gas or providing rebates on fuel- efficient cars " is going to be the most effective way
to move the needle fast." 29 Ford Executive Chairman Bill Ford Jr. commented: “ It makes life
very difficult if the market gyrates wildly over the course of several months, and that’s exactly
what we’ve seen happen.” 30 Increasing fuel taxes now while prices are low, without adding to
citizens’ total tax burden, might get Arizona moving earlier to meet its energy future.
List of Abbreviations Used
ADEQ Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ANWR Arctic National Wildlife Refuge HOV High- occupancy vehicle
BP British Petroleum IEA International Energy Agency
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy mbd Millions of barrels per day
CBG ( Arizona) Cleaner Burning Gasoline OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
CO Carbon monoxide SPR Strategic Petroleum Reserve
EIA Energy Information Administration ( U. S.) VMT Vehicle miles traveled
Michael Kuby received a Bachelor’s degree from The University of Chicago in 1980 and a PhD from Boston
University in 1988, both in Geography. He is a Professor in the School of Geographical Sciences at Arizona
State University, where he has taught since 1988. His research centers on creating optimization models for
facility location or transport network design, mainly for sustainable energy and transport systems. His research
has been funded by the U. S. Department of Energy, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the National
Science Foundation. His work with the World Bank on energy and railway transport in China was a Finalist for
the 1994 Franz Edelman Award for Management Science Achievement. Kuby has chaired the Transportation
Geography Specialty Group, and served on editorial boards for the Professional Geographer and Journal of
Transport Geography, and is currently Area Editor for Location Science for Networks and Spatial Economics.
1 U. S. Energy Information Administration. Gasoline Components History.
tonto. eia. doe. gov/ oog/ info/ gdu/ gaspump. html. Accessed March 1, 2009
2 U. S. Energy Information Administration. World Crude Oil Prices.
tonto. eia. doe. gov/ dnav/ pet/ pet_ pri_ wco_ k_ w. htm. Accessed Jan. 7, 2009.
3 American Petroleum Institute. Notes to State Motor Fuel Excise and other Taxes.
www. api. org/ statistics/ fueltaxes/ upload/ MotorFuelNotesJan20092. pdf. Accessed Feb. 28, 2009.
4 Population Reference Bureau. World Population Data Sheet, 2008. www. prb. org.
5 U. S. Energy Information Administration. International Petroleum Monthly.
www. eia. doe. gov/ ipm/ demand. html. In addition, a good 1- minute video on inelastic oil supply and demand
curves can be viewed at www. youtube. com/ watch? v= T7vGDwGLU7s. Accessed Jan. 7, 2009.
6 U. S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review. / www. eia. doe. gov/ emeu/ aer/ contents. html.
Accessed Feb. 28, 2009.
27
7 Estimates of oil reserves in the Middle East and in other OPEC countries might be inflated. OPEC assigns
production quotas based on a percentage of a country’s reserves, so there is some incentive to exaggerate
reserves in order to be allowed to produce more. Oil production is nationalized in many OPEC countries, so
independent estimates are not possible. The possibility that their reserves are overestimated could be good or
bad for the U. S. If OPEC reserve estimates are inflated, the world would be less proportionally dependent on
the Middle East, but it would also mean that the world has much smaller reserves than currently believed.
8 U. S. Energy Information Administration. Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. Report # SR- OIAF/ 2008- 03, May 2008. www. eia. doe. gov/ oiaf/ servicerpt/ anwr/ results. html. Accessed
Jan. 5, 2009.
9 Porretto, J., and J. Wardell. Energy Agency Warns of Impending Supply Crunch. USA Today, Nov. 12, 2008.
www. usatoday. com/ money/ economy/ 2008- 11- 12- 3143874449_ x. htm. Accessed Feb. 28, 2009.
10 Bowden, D. World Energy Outlook 2008 Report Details Significant Challenges In Petroleum Production,
Agreeing With ASPO- USA's Long- Held Position. Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas- USA.
November 17, 2008, www. aspousa. org/ index. php/ 2008/ 11/ patently- unsustainable/. Accessed Jan. 7, 2009.
11 Simmons, M. The Peak Oil Debate as the EIA Turns 30. April 7 2008.
www. eia. doe. gov/ conf_ pdfs/ Monday/ Simmons. pdf. Accessed Jan. 5, 2009.
12 Wikipedia, Corporate Average Fuel Economy. en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Corporate_ Average_ Fuel_ Economy.
Accessed Jan. 6, 2009.
13 California Air Resources Board. Climate Change Emissions Standards for Vehicles.
www. arb. ca. gov/ cc/ factsheets/ ccfaq. pdf. Accessed Jan. 6, 2009.
14 U. S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center. Arizona Incentives and Laws.
www. afdc. energy. gov/ afdc/ progs/ state_ summary. php/ AZ. Accessed Jan. 5, 2009.
15 U. S. Department of Energy. Strategic Petroleum Reserve— Profile.
fossil. energy. gov/ programs/ reserves/ spr/ index. html. Accessed Jan. 5, 2009.
16 Arizona Department of Commerce. Arizona Cleaner Burning Gasoline.
www. azcommerce. com/ doclib/ energy/ az_ cleaner_ burning_ gasoline. pdf. Accessed Jan. 5, 2009.
17 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Cleaner Burning Gasoline State Implementation Plan
Revision: Removal of February and March from the Winter Gasoline Season. Sept. 27, 2007.
www. azdeq. gov/ environ/ air/ plan/ download/ 0707sip. pdf. Accessed Feb. 28, 2009.
18 Arizona Department of Commerce. The Law. www. azcommerce. com/ doclib/ ENERGY/ AZ_ The_ Law. pdf.
Accessed Jan. 5, 2009.
19 U. S. Energy Information Administration. A Primer on Gasoline Prices.
www. eia. doe. gov/ bookshelf/ brochures/ gasolinepricesprimer/. Accessed November 10, 2008.
20 Pendyala, R. Arizona’s Travel Trends and Conditions. Presentation to Arizona State Legislature Gas Price
Summit, June 24, 2008.
21 National Resources Defense Council. Addicted to Oil: Ranking States’ Oil Vulnerability and Solutions for
Change, 2007. http:// docs. nrdc. org/ air/ files/ air_ 07061901a. pdf. Accessed Mar. 1, 2009.
22 U. S. EPA. Fuel Economy Guide. www. fueleconomy. gov/ feg/ FEG2009. pdf. Accessed Jan. 5, 2009.
23 U. S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Smart Way. www. epa. gov/ smartway/. Accessed Jan. 5,
2009.
24 See also Edmunds. com. Fuel Economy: We Test the Tips.
www. edmunds. com/ advice/ fueleconomy/ articles/ 106842/ article. html. Accessed Jan. 5, 2009.
25 See note 20.
26 Friedman, T. Win- Win- Win- Win- Win… The New York Times, December 27, 2008.
www. nytimes. com/ 2008/ 12/ 27/ opinion/ 27sat1. html?_ r= 1& partner= rss& emc= rss. Accessed Feb. 1, 2009.
27 Krauthammer, C. The Net- Zero Gas Tax: A Once- in- a- Generation Chance. The Weekly Standard 14( 16),
Jan. 5, 2009. www. weeklystandard. com/ content/ public/ articles/ 000/ 000/ 015/ 949rsrgi. asp. Accessed Feb. 1,
2009.
28 See note 26.
29 Carty, S. S. Carmakers Lean Toward Higher Gas Tax to Fuel Small- Car Sales. USA Today. January 13, 2009.
www. usatoday. com/ money/ autos/ 2009- 01- 12- gas- tax- automakers- small- car- sales_ N. htm. Accessed Feb. 1,
2009.
28
30 Associated Press. Automakers Talk of Stabilizing the Price of Gas. January 13, 2009.
www. msnbc. msn. com/ id/ 28643952/. Accessed Feb. 1, 2009.
29
Chapter 3
Metropolitan Transportation and Land- Use Planning
Aaron Golub
Arizona State University, School of Planning and School of Sustainability
Key Points
There is a strong relationship between transportation demand and the density
and mix of land uses.
Metropolitan areas absorb most of the population growth in the state by the
dual processes of densification in established cores alongside “ sprawl” on the
edges of urban areas— therefore special attention should be paid to land- use
and transportation planning in both central and outlying areas.
Many public agencies are involved in overlapping financing, planning, and
implementation of metropolitan transportation systems.
Current metropolitan land- use and transportation plans do little to control
demand.
There is a growing movement, both in the state and nationally, for more
comprehensive land- use and transportation planning that controls demand and
sustains economic growth.
This chapter reviews the process of transportation planning in Arizona’s metropolitan areas
across the full scale of jurisdictions— from municipalities to the state and federal
Departments of Transportation. It also reviews the systems of land- use planning within the
various jurisdictions of the metropolitan areas, and summarizes the results of those processes.
Also included are proposals that fall outside of typical planning processes.
Current Conditions
Connection between Urban Land Use and Transportation. There is a strong and
fundamental interdependency between the workings of the transportation system and the
possibilities for land use in a metropolitan area. The physical extent and performance of its
transportation system determine the relative costs of traveling within a metropolitan area, and
therefore the possible arrangements of the area’s land uses. The history of metropolitan area
growth shows that as evolving transportation technologies enable faster travel, cities expand
in size, which allows for greater differentiation and specialization of land uses over wider
areas ( see Ch. 1). Improved transportation enables faster, cheaper, and more convenient
travel, and without planned control of growth it can lead to expansion of the metropolitan
area. On the other hand, if transportation- system performance degrades or costs rise due to
worsening congestion or increasing gasoline prices, land- development pressure may move
inwards as more central locations become relatively less costly to access.
30
This dynamic works in the reverse direction as well. Land- use types can also place
constraints on the possibilities for transportation. Low land- use density means that distances
between destinations— home, work, shopping— are long. Low density affects slower modes
such as cycling or walking, making travel times prohibitive. Public transit is also affected,
since the average cost of providing service per rider is related to how many riders can access
the system in a given area. Bus service in a dense area yields more riders per unit cost than
in a low- density area, and therefore is cheaper to operate. Many metropolitan areas have
rules governing the minimum share of operating revenues that must come from passengers,
which de facto limits the areas where public transportation is viable. Areas with mixed- use
development ( MUD), such as places with residential and retail uses, can encourage non-automobile
modes for trips within the development. When different uses are scattered over
several miles, the traveler may prefer to drive. For those without an automobile, choices are
limited. Land- use and transportation planning are two sides of the same coin. Land- use
plans need to incorporate transportation- system characteristics, while transportation plans
need to understand the layout of, and their effect on, land uses.
Current Trends: Transportation Infrastructure and Travel Demand. Forty years of
applying a transportation and land- use planning approach based strongly on automobile
accessibility has resulted in metropolitan areas that are highly dependent on cars for almost
all travel needs. Table 1.1 in Chapter 1 shows that 88.7% of work trips in Arizona are by car.
Table 3.1: Measures of Transportation Supply and
Demand for Urban Areas in Arizona
2007 NET LAND AREA ( SQUARE MILES)
RURAL URBAN % URBAN
U. S.
RANK
U. S.
AVERAGE
111,063 2,572 2.3 36 4.5
2007 POPULATION ( 1000)
RURAL URBAN % URBAN
U. S.
RANK
U. S.
AVERAGE
1,144 5,195 82.3 12 85.0
URBAN POPULATION DENSITY ( POP/ SQUARE MILE)
URBAN U. S. RANK
U. S.
AVERAGE
2,020 9 1,493
ANNUAL VEHICLE- MILES OF TRAVEL ( MILLIONS)
RURAL
VMT
URBAN
VMT
URBAN
VMT/ CAPITA
U. S.
RANK
U. S.
AVERAGE
19,586 43,377 8,350 28 8,396
LANE- MILES
URBAN
LANE-MI/
CAPITA U. S. RANK
U. S.
AVERAGE
52,956 10.2 38 9.9
Source: Calculations by author, based on data from: Federal
Highway Administration: Highway Statistics, 2007.
http:// www. fhwa. dot. gov/ policyinformation/ statistics/ 2007/.
Though Arizona is overwhelmingly rural in land area, its human settlement is heavily
concentrated in a few large metropolitan areas. Consequently, its passenger transportation
31
activities and infrastructure are concentrated there as well: 71% of its vehicle- miles traveled
( VMT) ( Rank: 13th in the nation) and 40% of its road supply ( Rank: 10th in the nation) are
packed into these few urban areas. 1 Table 3.1 puts other measures for Arizona’s urban areas
in a national context. Arizona’s urban areas are of higher density, have slightly higher road
capacity per capita, and slightly lower travel demand per capita than the average of all urban
areas in the United States.
The Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan statistical areas ( MSA) contain nearly 75% of the
state’s population and over 95% of its urban population. Both of these areas were late in
developing urban freeway infrastructure. 2 Until 1948, Phoenix relied heavily on streetcars
and was connected with neighboring cities by arterial- type roads. There was great skepticism
about the various regional freeway proposals because of fear of negative impacts on central
Phoenix. For a long time, the region depended on ever- expanding arterial roads and had
worse than average congestion. The freeway construction program hit full stride in the 1990s
and, as shown in Figure 3.1, by 2002 Phoenix had caught up with the rest of the nation. It
now has a typical freeway system and relatively low congestion compared to peer cities ( see
Ch. 8, Fig. 8.1). Phoenix also has significantly lower public- transit use than its peer cities
( Figure 3.1). 3 In the early 1980s Phoenix was ranked 2nd worst for congestion delay per
traveler among the 85 largest cities in the nation, but according to the 2007 Urban Mobility
Report, it has greatly improved to 15th ( or 9th of the 14 “ very large” U. S. urban areas). 4
Like the Phoenix area until recently, Tucson has historically relied heavily on arterial
capacity for road travel rather than on freeway capacity, compared to the medium- sized peer
cities ( Figure 3.2). 5 Tucson experiences higher average delay per peak traveler ( see Ch. 8).
It also has higher public- transit ridership than peer cities ( Figure 3.2). According to the 2007
Urban Mobility Report, Tucson has steadily increased in congestion delay per traveler
compared to medium- sized peer cities, rising from 52nd to 25th.
Current metropolitan population and land- use trends. There are two overarching and
opposing trends in metropolitan land use: growing density in most existing urban areas and
leapfrogging and sprawling growth on the edges of some urban areas. Both have major
implications for travel demand and regional planning. The densities of centrally located
cities such as Phoenix, Glendale, Mesa, and Tempe have been steadily rising over the past
decades. 6 Meanwhile, the fastest- growing areas of the state are in low- density fringe
developments in or near small towns on the peripheries of the larger metropolitan areas, such
as Casa Grande, Coolidge, Florence, Maricopa, and Surprise. Growth in these areas, which
tend to be job- deficient, adds to peak- hour demand on regional freeways. Table 1.2 in
Chapter 1 shows how the counties containing or near the large metropolitan areas ( Pima,
Pinal, and Maricopa) are projected to absorb most of the state’s future population growth.
Existing Plans and Programs
Metropolitan Planning Overview. Various overlapping jurisdictions plan transportation and
land use in metropolitan areas, including the Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOT),
a metropolitan planning organization ( MPO) for that region, and other local bodies such as
county and municipal governments. Arizona has five metropolitan areas with designated
32
Figure 3.1: Phoenix Annual Public Transit Trips Per Capita Compared to Peer
Cities ( Left) and Roadway Supply ( Freeway and Arterial) Compared to Peer
Very Large Urban Areas ( VLUA) ( Right), 1982- 2005
Figure 3.2. Tucson Annual Public Transit Trips Per Capita Compared to Peer
Cities ( Left) and Roadway Supply ( Freeway and Arterial) Compared to Peer
Medium Urban Areas ( MUA) ( right), 1982- 2005
Source: Calculated by author using data from TTI 2007 Urban Mobility Report.
Source: Calculated by author using data from TTI 2007 Urban Mobility Report.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002004
Annual Public Transit Trips per Capita
Very Large Peer Cities
Phoenix- MSA
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Very Large Peer Cities - Freeway Lane- Mi per Capita
Very Large Peer Cities - Arterial Lane- Mi per Capita
Phoenix- MSA- Freeway Lane- Mi per Capita
Phoenix- MSA- Arterial Lane- Mi per Capita
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Annual Public Transit Trips per Capita
Medium Sized Peer Cities
Tucson- MSA
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Medium Sized Peer Cities - Freeway Lane- Mi per Capita
Medium Sized Peer Cities - Arterial Lane- Mi per Capita
Tucson- MSA- Freeway Lane- Mi per Capita
Tucson- MSA- Arterial Lane- Mi per Capita
33
Figure 3.3. Planning Jurisdictions in Arizona
Source: mpd. azdot. gov/ planning/ Files/ index/ Cogs_ Mpos. pdf
MPOs: Phoenix ( MAG), Tucson ( PAG), Yuma ( YMPO), Flagstaff ( FMPO), and Prescott
( CYMPO). Planning in non- metropolitan areas is the responsibility of councils of
governments ( Figure 3.3).
Overlapping metropolitan planning jurisdictions can be difficult to separate, especially for
regionally significant issues. While the relative contribution of each jurisdiction differs
drastically from project to project and among funding, planning, implementation, and
maintenance activities, a rough sketch of relative planning responsibility is shown in Figure
3.4. Freeway projects, because of environmental impacts review and the need for capital
finances from federal, state, and regional funds, usually involve all levels of planning, while
operations and maintenance rely on more local, county and regional financing and decision
34
making. Because of particular air- quality issues in Arizona ( discussed below), the MPO for
that metro area takes a central role in overall planning of any project.
Figure 3.4: A Rough Typology of Planning Responsibilities
for the Overlapping Jurisdictions in a Metropolitan Area
Metropolitan Land- Use Planning. Historically, Arizona has a strong philosophy of local
control over land- use decisions. Thus, land- use controls are administered and controlled at
the municipal level, or at the county level in un- incorporated areas, meaning that
metropolitan land- use planning is really a patchwork of local land- use planning. Land- use
planning, in effect, translates community goals into controls on the use of land. These goals
may include health or environmental quality, historical or cultural preservation, creation of
affordable housing, or promoting economic growth, among other things. 7 The separation of
land uses, such as zoning industrial uses away from residential, may help to meet health or
environmental goals, while density or height limits may determine housing affordability or
preserve vistas. An emphasis on retail or commercial uses may help raise sales taxes in a
municipality dependent on them for revenues. These various goals can have profound
impacts on the relative mixture, proximity, and intensity of land uses, all of which have
implications for urban travel demand. Since these goals can differ from community to
community, outcomes can often conflict and there can be inefficiencies in land use, although
sometimes communities work together to make more efficient decisions.
Municipal Transportation Planning. Municipalities play an important role in metropolitan
transportation planning in two ways: they evaluate and mitigate project- level transportation
impacts, and they maintain and finance local transportation systems, including public transit,
roadways, and parking. Evaluating proposed projects for transportation impacts involves
estimating the future traffic impacts of the project. Depending on the extent of impact, the
developer may be asked to provide minimal traffic mitigations or fees, or even major
infrastructure improvements. These impacts are only measured on local facilities—
additional traffic on freeways is not normally included in the developer’s responsibility. A
single project may not only impact local streets, but may add to peak- hour congestion and
significantly degrade the level of service on regional facilities, depending on demographics,
location, and other factors. Cities are responsible for building and maintaining road
infrastructure outside of each development, and for providing a portion of the funding for
public transit.
35
Municipal transportation planning, although focused on local issues, affects the larger
metropolitan system. Major differences exist from city to city in terms of programs,
financing methods and levels, and planning processes. Each city follows a different planning
schedule, and may revise plans at different time intervals. The differences in public- transit
support among Tempe, Mesa, and Phoenix mean that bus services end earlier in Phoenix and
Mesa and bus riders are left stranded. Tempe, Phoenix, and Glendale all have special sales
taxes dedicated to transportation. Tempe supports the region’s best free neighborhood- shuttle
network, a new transit center, and an excellent bikeway program. Some cities develop
specific area transportation plans, such as Scottsdale’s Downtown Plan. Local transportation
plans may include approaches that conflict with regionally defined needs. Even plans that do
not end up being implemented can help focus discussion on needs, guide future proposals,
and reveal support for regionally significant projects such as freeways or light rail.
Regional Transportation Planning. In metropolitan areas with a population over 50,000,
MPOs manage regional transportation planning by federal law. The MPO maintains a work
calendar of the studies and plans it is undertaking, convenes technical review committees,
manages the public- involvement process in all of its planning programs, and oversees the
development of the Regional Transportation Plan ( RTP) and the Transportation Investment
Program ( TIP).
The RTP is a long- range plan covering at least 20 years, is updated every 5 years, and defines
a regional vision for transportation development. An extensive public process helps define
the RTP and the alternatives within it. TIPs are the short- term implementation of RTP
projects, are updated every two years, and include specific funding for five years. Requests
for project funding from within an urbanized area are submitted to the MPO for inclusion in
the RTP and TIP. MPO staff reviews each project for coordination, conformity ( to pollution
restrictions), and fiscal constraint in relation to TIP and RTP objectives.
While some MPOs actually develop and compare holistic regional scenarios embodying truly
different visions, most merely assemble a list of projects from municipalities, county
transportation departments, and regional public- transit agencies. For large regions, there are
specific requirements for the RTP to clearly define a congestion management approach.
For financing, regional planning is highly interdependent with state and federal agencies. In
Arizona, state- managed gas taxes, vehicle license fees, federal funds based on population,
and grants for specific projects all account for a large part of the regional transportation
budget. Regionally collected, transportation- dedicated taxes, such those in the MAG, Pinal
County, and PAG regions, are also significant.
Regions where air quality does not meet one or more standards ( see Ch. 1) are classified by
the EPA as “ non- attainment” regions. This classification places specific requirements on the
MPO to develop a set of policies in the RTP to reduce emissions, called Transportation
Control Measures ( TCM); these may include High- Occupancy Vehicle ( HOV) lanes,
improved public transit, rideshare programs, and express buses, among others. The RTP
must be updated every three years, and it must be shown that projected emissions from the
total package of transportation improvements in the RTP and TIP will not cause emissions to
36
rise above the allowable limit. Even after consistently meeting air- quality standards, “ non-attainment”
regions remain classified as “ maintenance” for some time, and still must meet
conformity requirements.
Conformity requirements are particularly important for Arizona, because the three largest
metropolitan areas are all either in non- attainment or maintenance for at least one
transportation- related pollutant. Figure 3.5 shows that the MAG area is in non- attainment for
ozone and PM- 10, the PAG area is a “ maintenance” area for carbon monoxide, and the Yuma
area is in non- attainment for PM- 10. This means that projects proposed for the RTP or short-term
TIP must meet conformity requirements and not contribute to worsening pollution.
According to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and later DOT orders, MPOs must also
analyze plans for their impact on low- income and minority populations.
Figure 3.5: Current Air Quality Status for Regions of Arizona
Source: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
www. azdeq. gov/ environ/ air/ plan/ images/ notmeet. jpg
As regional visions and needs or specific region- scale projects are defined, either at
municipal or agency levels, through regional planning processes, or even by non- public
actors, the regional transportation plan takes shape. Below we review the main elements of
the regional plans from the five MPOs in the state, as well as two state- level planning
37
process: the Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy, and the Statewide Transportation
Planning Framework. Appendix 3 includes summary maps from each of the MPO’s RTPs.
Maricopa Association of Governments. The 2007 update of MAG’s RTP includes
expansions of the regional freeway system, arterial roads, arterial bus system, high- capacity
transit corridors connected to the light rail system, and other improvements. 8 The plan
spends almost 70% on roadway expansions and operations and maintenance ( O& M), about
30% on public- transit expansions and O& M, and almost 2% on bicycle and pedestrian
improvements and other projects. Tables A- 3.1 and A- 3.2 in Appendix 3 show the
breakdown of financing for the MAG RTP, along with maps of the freeway, arterial, and
high- capacity improvements.
Pima Association of Governments ( PAG). PAG is currently updating its RTP for a horizon
to 2040. Its last RTP, from 2005, covered planning to 2030. Its plan includes freeway, transit,
and bicycle- system improvements, and even a modern streetcar proposal.
Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization ( YMPO). YMPO’s RTP focuses primarily on
roadway improvements, with some transit route reorganizations.
Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization ( CYMPO). CYMPO’s RTP focuses
on roadway improvements, new commuter bus routes, and a possible high- capacity transit
corridor.
Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization ( FMPO). FMPO’s current RTP is underway
but incomplete, so no information is included here. A review of its TIP for 2008 to 2012
showed a mixture of roadway, transit, and bicycle- way improvements. 9
Statewide Transportation Investment Strategy. The investment strategy is a comprehensive
statewide inventory of transportation projects, some of which correspond to current
financially constrained regional plans, and some of which remain unfunded. The maps and
lists of projects with projected costs are included in Appendix 4.10
Statewide Transportation Planning Framework. Currently underway, the framework study
is a statewide, multi- jurisdictional effort led by ADOT, focused on important travel corridors
in the state. Areas in the urbanizing MAG and PAG regions, such as Hidden Valley and
Hassayampa Valley, are particularly important in the study. 11
Challenges
Fragmented Planning Process. Because of the strong and unavoidable relationship between
land use and transportation, effective transportation planning must involve land- use planning.
The common “ predict and provide” process, predicting future land use and transportation
demand based on disparate local decisions and then scrambling to meet that demand, is
technically not planning. Most developments are permitted well before the transportation
capacity exists to handle the traffic they create, meaning that localities and developers are
speculating on future regional investments in capacity. They assume that the rest of the
38
region will bail them out. Quoting from a key passage in the 2007 Arizona Town Hall report
on Land Use: Challenges and Choices for the 21st Century: 12
The horse is already out of the barn in terms of population growth because of the sheer
amount of land that has been set aside for future development. Development areas are
defined as parcels that are either planned or approved for future development. They are,
in turn, divided into three types: active areas that are experiencing infrastructure
development, entitlements that are not yet active but have gone through the planning
process and have received official approval, and proposed areas that are at an early point
in the planning process but have not yet received approval. In the six- county region,
including Yavapai, Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, which
includes 35% of the state’s land area and 86% of its 2000 population, the Maricopa
Association of Governments ( MAG) estimates that in early 2007, there were 1.6 million
existing residential units, 0.7 million units under active development, and 1.2 million
units that were entitled or planned, for a future total of 3.5 million housing units.
Assuming an average of 2.6 persons per household, this area now has enough housing
built, under construction, or planned to accommodate more than nine million residents.
Thinking about this another way, there are as many housing units entitled, planned, or
under construction today as there are in the current housing stock. 13
Problems with advance permitting are both private and public. In private hands, land serves
as a vehicle to make money. Land near high- growth regions rises in value as development
gets closer, even without any action on the part of the landowner. If the owner gets
permitting for development, again without any actual development, the land can rise in value
dramatically. From there, whether the same owner develops or sells the land, the problem of
speculation is locked in because of Proposition 207. Passed in 2006 and called the “ Arizona
Private Property Rights Protection Act,” Prop 207 created a new Arizona statute stating: “ If
the existing rights to use, divide, sell or possess private real property are reduced by the
enactment or applicability of any land- use law enacted after the date the property is
transferred to the owner and such action reduces the fair market value of the property, the
owner is entitled to just compensation from this State or the political subdivision of this State
that enacted the land- use law.” 14 An attempt to shape growth may include limiting or
restricting development in certain areas, thereby reducing the market value for some property
which would be potentially costly under Prop 207, though there has been no such litigation
brought forth to date.
The implications of Proposition 207 for controlling growth and coordinating land- use and
transportation planning at regional levels are numerous. In Chapter 4 of the 2007 Arizona
Town Hall report on land use, Grady Gammage, Jr. comments:
It is also important to note that Prop 207 affects state laws as well as city ordinances.
Historically, Arizona has not had extensive land- use regulation at the state level, and
Prop 207 will make any additional regulation difficult. Any state statute regulating rural
lot splits ( for example), as has been proposed in several recent legislative sessions, is
likely to result in widespread claims under 207. Even recent legislation dealing with the
authority of counties to consider water supply in making planning and zoning decisions
39
has been attacked as posing a potential diminution in property value compensable under
the proposition. 15
Prop 207 threatens the ability to alter any existing permitted development in unwanted or
inefficient areas. Given the number of developments already permitted, Prop 207 may prove
to be barrier to sustainable development.
Growing Automobile Dependence. The region’s fragmented planning does little to reduce
VMT growth, greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions, or the state’s dependence on imported oil.
In fact, it appears to increase these problems. The Natural Resources Defense Council
ranked Arizona the seventh most vulnerable state to gas price changes. 16 It also ranked the
state poorly ( 39th) for its lack of policy solutions to oil dependence; its transit spending was
low and Arizona has no key transportation policies designed to reduce oil dependence.
According to the Arizona Investment Council ( AIC), a full build- out of currently planned
land use and transportation will more than double statewide VMT over the next 20 years. 17
According to the AIC, “ the growth in VMT is a function of both population growth and
increases in per- capita vehicle miles traveled.” Dispersed land uses and expansion of
freeway capacity leads to lengthening trips, according to the same study. Figure 3.6 shows
the significant rise in trip lengths for Maricopa County in particular. Current planning only
provides more capacity and does not effectively address demand management; it is
unsustainable because much of the new VMT will be in highly congested conditions. ( See
Ch. 1. for a discussion about “ induced demand.”) It is like addressing a weight problem by
loosening one’s belt – it feels good until the belt is taught again, but now there is more
weight. Other regions in the country questioned this process decades ago, and steered
investments from freeways into public transit and effective growth management.
Figure 3.6: Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled per Capita for Arizona Counties
Source: Arizona Investment Council, p. 255.
While public- transit use in the main metropolitan areas of the state is projected to rise, the
question remains: Is it enough? Table 3.2 shows these trends. The MAG region relies very
little on public transit compared to its peer cities nationwide, and a doubling of its ridership
40
may not be enough. In the MAG region, 300,000 daily trips with a population of 6 million is
very low. Automobile travel is still projected to rise even faster over the same period.
Table 3.2: Daily Transit Ridership Projections, 2008 to 2032
2008 2020 2032 2008- 2032 % Change
MAG 157953 242995 333952 111.4%
PAG 52909 71063 88018 66.4%
FMPO 428 498 561 31.1%
Total 211290 314556 422531 100.0%
Source: Arizona Investment Council, p. 262 ( based on ADOT’s MoveAZ Study).
Integrated land- use and transportation planning is the primary tool available to manage
transportation demand and growth most effectively. In the words of planning scholar
Jonathan Levine:
The term “ shared land- use authority” is used where municipalities are asked to conform
to regional development needs. This essentially gives regional planning agencies the
power to relax zoning restrictions in order for municipalities to meet regional
development goals including density and other smart- growth elements. Here, regional
needs trump individual municipalities’ wants. This is the case of Portland, Oregon,
where development rights were restricted outside of the urban growth boundary, but
relaxed within it, allowing developers to build more higher- density and MUDs than
previously allowed. 18
Opportunities
High Growth Means High Opportunity. Metropolitan planning will have an important role
to play in shaping and instituting new growth paradigms to meet the challenges outlined
above. The Arizona Department of Economic Security estimates that almost 35% of the
state’s 2030 population has yet to arrive in the state; most of the projected growth will be in
metropolitan areas ( see Table 1.2 in Ch. 1). This means there are tremendous opportunities
to redefine growth paradigms and change past growth patterns.
Climate Change and Transportation Innovations. Transportation accounted for 39% of all
Arizona GHG emissions in 2000, well above the United States’ 26% and the largest single
emissions category. There is a growing statewide, national, and international movement to
direct growth in more sustainable ways. The Arizona Climate Action Plan counts on
transportation to provide a major share of emission reductions. The plan groups
transportation and land use into one category of policy solutions and counts on them for
about 20% of the necessary reductions. Recommended planning interventions include smart
growth, improving non- automobile transportation options, transit- oriented design
approaches, hydrogen fuel infrastructure, rebates for efficient vehicles, and signing on to the
multistate CO2 standards for new cars.
Beyond establishing the advisory group that produced the action plan, former Governor
Napolitano also signed executive orders asking ADOT to inventory options for mass transit,
including commuter and light rail, 19 and to define a smart- growth development process to
41
" direct future discretionary funding to applicant communities that agree to participate in and
abide by this smart growth and development process." 20 The future of the Climate Action
Plan is uncertain. These planning options are of key importance for metropolitan
transportation planning in Arizona. Other metro areas, such as Atlanta, Denver, Portland,
Seattle, and those in California, are moving forward to combine land- use and transportation
planning to manage growth in a more sustainable way.
Smart Growth. The movement in urban planning for “ smart growth” seeks to counter the
scattered and