Transportation in Contemporary City Planning
by Robert B. Mitchell

In the accelerating change and increasing complexity of urban life our cities are becoming more rapidly obsolete. Especially this is true in the field of transportation, where technology has run far ahead of our ability to adapt the city’s inherited physical structure. In this paper I shall emphasize transportation planning, not for itself alone, but as one example of a need to change and enlarge our whole concept of the nature and role I of city planning in a community.

Part I will propose the challenge to be met by city planning if it is to be really effective in guiding and inspiring the development and renewal of the contemporary city.
Part II will sketch the transportation problems in American cities and some of the background out of which these problems have risen.
Part III will describe an approach being made to planning for transportation in Philadelphia, and some of the methods and techniques which we are employing and with which we are experimenting.

I - Planning for Urban Development

In many American cities, dusty shelves and file drawers contain city plans - old and new - which bear little relation to the continuous process of urban change. Generally speaking, these plans have been “Utopian”: they visualize some wished for but static future condition. Often attainment of the proposals is not feasible because they have left out of account the processes and available tools of city building, or have stopped short of prescribing ways and means. Sometimes, when the period for which the plans were conceived has arrived, they seem unimaginative and dull because they have not taken into account the social, institutional and technological change which is accelerating in the modern world.
Will Durant’s excellent summary of the philosophy of Henri Bergson states concisely a series of propositions most helpful to contemporary planning if, instead of an individual, we think of a city:
“...we tend to think in terms of space; we are geometricians all. But time is as fundamental as space; ...time is an accumulation, a growth, a duration. ‘Duration is the continuous progress of the past which gnaws into the future and which swells as it advances’, ... ’Each moment is not only something new but something unforeseeable ...change is far more radical than we suppose.
“Consciousness seems proportionate to the living being’s power of choice. It lights up the zone of potentialities that surrounds the act. It fills the interval between what is done and what might be done. It is no useless appendage; it is a vivid theatre of imagination, where alternative responses are pictured and tested before the irrevocable choice ...Man is no passively adaptive machine; he is a focus of redirected force, a center of creative evolution.
...For life is a matter of time rather than of space, it is not position, it is change; it is not quantity so much as quality; it is not a mere redistribution of matter and motion, it is fluid and persistent creation...
“Life is that which makes efforts, which pushes upwards and outwards and on; ...it is the opposite of inertia ...against it is the undertow of matter, the lag and slack of things toward relaxation and rest and death; at every stage life has to fight with the inertia of its vehicle” (1).
Bergson’s almost Oriental revolt against mechanism and materialism, written about a half-century ago, holds several important lessons for the contemporary planner. A city is a society of overlapping generations. These generations of men inherit from the past a physical urban structure which to some extent conditions their lives; but they inherit also a culture and aspirations out of which they fashion an image of the society they would be and of the city they would have. The physical structure deteriorates through time and use, and it becomes obsolete. To the extent of their ability and resources men maintain the structure and make changes in it, in the direction of their ideal image. This is Bergson’s creative evolution applied to the city, a constant process of urban development. This process includes both extension and renewal. City planning should be the focal point and instrument of that civic consciousness which “lights up the zone of potentialities that surrounds the act ...a vivid theatre of imagination, where alternative responses are pictured and tested before the irrevocable choice”. A plan would thus be far more than an authoritarian blueprint for a future state of being. A plan should be a road map showing the direction to be traveled and the land-marks to be passed in progressing from the present toward a well-defined goal which, thank God, always moves farther ahead as we approach it. Planning would thus become a guide to the creative evolution of the city, a continuously applied means of shaping a master process of urban development. You notice that the emphasis shifts from the plan to planning.
This “master process of urban development” would be consciously organized and administered. It would include and employ the many kinds of public and private actions involved in urban extension and renewal, according to a master plan and program. The master process, representing municipal policy, would continue without end. As a navigator changes his course after repeated bearings so the city planner would be constantly receiving a feedback of information which would permit the amendment and refinement of the guiding plans. In this manner present “urban renewal” programs in U.S. cities are beginning to orchestrate a variety of actions ranging from zoning, demolition of unfit structures and rehabilitation of others, through the rerouting of traffic around residential precincts and the opening up of parks and playgrounds. Such plans for the development process must include plans for the essential service of transportation; likewise transportation plans must take account of general community development objectives, and - in older areas - be geared into neighborhood redevelopment proposals.

II - Urban Transportation Problems ; Background for Planning

Most American cities are beset by a series of traffic and transportation problems. In many the volume of traffic has doubled since 1947. This is understandable, because the number of registered vehicles on American streets and highways has increased by 25 million since 1940 to a present total of 57 million. Highway officials expect the number to reach 85 million by 1975. Personal and family real income has increased, and American families are spending three times as much on travel as they did before World War II. About $24 billion per year are spent for family and individual travel, exclusive of business trips. Most of this expenditure is for automobiles and automotive fuel and supplies. Recent consumer surveys rate transportation as taking from nine to seventeen percent of family expenditures. In some places this means that families are spending as much for mobility as for housing. Almost half of families whose income is $2,000 or less per year have a car; 85 percent of families in the over- $5,000 income group have a car, - a quarter of them have two cars.
The automobile has taken its place along with the home as a symbol of family status. Moreover, the motor car has given families and individuals new kinds of freedom; dwelling locations are not tied to fixed urban transportation routes and may be widely dispersed; and individuals have a personal mobility in time and extent never known since the days when people were also expert pedestrians. The availability of the motor car and extensive highway building program made possible the suburban migration of average income families, following higher income people who had settled in fashionable suburbs along rail transit lines during the previous half-century. A major difference is that instead of clustering within walking distance of suburban railroad stations these new suburbanites have bought “development” houses, built in fifties or five hundreds at dispersed locations in a much expanded suburban fringe. The automobile, which had made possible their centrifugal movement, became a necessity for personal mobility. At the same time large, organized regional shopping centers, often containing branches of central district department stores, have been built at major suburban highway intersections to serve this new middle-class-on-wheels. In manufacturing industry, too, new plant construction has been influenced to locate in suburban areas by changes in technology, increases in productivity per worker, goods handling by motor truck instead of by railroad train, availability of reasonably priced electric power, inauguration of production-line processes and the need for large areas of parking space for employees. Obviously the suburban expansion is taking place at a much lower density than that of the central city. Of all the 17,700 new building lots plotted during 1953 in three Pennsylvania suburban counties adjoining Philadelphia, the average gross density was less than 2,5 families per acre. The density of most of these new suburban residential areas is too low to support or justify local public transportation (2). A net of twelve radiating suburban railroad lines extends from the central Philadelphia area as far as 20 or 30 miles into Pennsylvania counties. All of these lines are electrified, with special suburban-type multiple unit cars. In Philadelphia, although traffic on the streets has doubled since 1947, the number of riders on the public transit system (buses, street cars and subways) has decreased by more than a third on weekdays (Monday through Friday), by over one-half on Saturdays and by almost two-thirds on Sundays. Since the five-day work week has become customary, transit patronage has suffered. Also the automobile has become the vehicle for recreation and for week-end travel when couples or families wish to go together. The investment in plant remains while people shorten the riding week; also riding during the “rush hour” morning and evening has not fallen as rapidly as during other periods. For this reason some vehicles are used for only two trips per day. Another factor in transit loss is the automobile congestion on the streets. The slower the operation, the greater the cost of the trips. In this situation, although transit fares have risen considerably in recent years, revenues have fallen while expenses were rising steeply. It is questionable whether the existing private carriers can continue to provide an acceptable level of service and invest new capital funds necessary if a sufficient proportion of travel is to remain n transit vehicles.

III - Planning for Traffic and Transportation in Philadelphia

Philadelphia is a city of about 2 million people, the center of a metropolitan population of nearly 4 million. Located on the 40-foot channel of the Delaware River, 90 miles from the Ocean, Philadelphia is a seaport of considerable volume. The economic base of the area is well distributed among manufacturing, trade, services and government, with a little more than the U.S. average emphasis on manufactures. Of the latter, many plants are relatively small and occupy a number of industrial areas in the city itself. Most of the large plants, including nearly all of the new ones are at or near the periphery of the metropolitan area. Closely tied with Philadelphia economically and socially, and with frequent express and suburban rail transit into the central city are Trenton, the capital of New Jersey, and Wilmington, largest city in Delaware, each about thirty miles from the center. Camden, eight minutes from the center of Philadelphia by subway across the Delaware, is the focus of a spreading and rapidly growing suburban area in New Jersey. The original city, laid out between two rivers in the Seventeenth Century , is about two square miles in extent. Within this areas is the central core of the city into which well over one-half million people commute each day for work, business, shopping or pleasure. Early in 1954 the Mayor appointed an Urban Traffic and Transportation Board after a resolution of City Council which said in part: “The solution (of the City’s transportation) problems requires the evaluation of the underlying factors which contribute to the City’s transportation difficulties; the development of an integrated plan useful over an extended period for the elimination of urban transportation congestion; and the establishment of specific devices and a course of action to implement this plan both in the short and long run”.
The Council provided that this Board was “To make recommendations for a sound, workable traffic and transportation program for the City and in so doing, to Consider and recommend upon:
l. The present governmental administrative organization for transportation and traffic control and development;
2. Present financial factors affecting the adequacy of urban transportation and traffic facilities, and future financing thereof;
3. The use of existing transportation and traffic facilities;
4. Future planning for additions to existing transportation and traffic facilities;
5. Integration into the City’s Physical Development Plan;
6. A program of inter-county and interstate cooperation”.
The Board early decided that the traffic and transportation problems of the city cannot he solved entirely within the city limits. The problem is one of the metropolitan region and must he approached on that basis. Another early principle adopted by the Board that all forms of transportation are so interrelated that a total program must include highways, bridges, automobile parking, motor truck terminals and the various forms of intra-regional public transit, - buses, street cars, elevated and subway lines and suburban railroad lines. The problem cannot he solved by plans giving separate attention to highways and public transit. Inter-city rail, bus, marine and air terminals are deferred for later study.

The Plan and Program for Transportation to be Prepared.
Obviously such a plan and program is much more than a diagram of physical facilities for transportation. It should be a master guide to a continuous process of development, financing, maintenance, constant modernization and operation of the transportation systems. This plan will need to he developed with the cooperation of both public and private agencies having responsibilities for various sectors of the transportation service of the metropolitan region. It must be expressed in terms of a program of actions to be taken, and will involve the Board in extensive negotiations among various agencies, some of them quite independent, in an attempt to secure general agreement, or at least to narrow any areas of disagreement.

Subject Matter of a Plan and Program for Transportation.
This plan and program will he concerned with questions such as the following:
l. How well are present needs for transportation being met?
Are present facilities being used most efficiently?
Are traffic control systems adequate and effective?
In what ways are present facilities inadequate to serve all areas and demands for service now?
In what facilities do we have potential unused capacity to take more of the present load?
What would have to he done to shift the load?
What measures should he taken at once to meet present needs more effectively?
What is the ability of present agencies to lake those measures?
2. To what extent will present agencies, facilities, services and controls he appropriate to meet future needs?
What transportation requirements will he imposed by desired or expected changes in regional distribution of population and economic activities?
What transportation requirements will be imposed by changes in technology, travel habits, automobile ownership, population or economic growth?
What transportation requirements will be imposed by policy respecting use of public transportation or private automobile, or other policies?
What deletions, extensions, rerouting or modernization will be required in the present system of transportation facilities to meet future needs at various stages of transportation development.
What changes in operating methods and service will be needed to meet future requirements and attain goals?
Will present agencies he able to provide the required facilities and services to meet future needs?
Are present planning, administration, control and coordination functions of public agencies adequate to meet future needs?
3. What will he the financial requirements of the future needed transportation system?
Can the various segments of the transportation system separately or in combination pay their way? Under what conditions?
Can existing agencies finance the transportation changes required now and in the future? Do new methods of financing need to he devised?
Can and should the pricing of transportation services be used as a tool toward attainment of the desired balanced in transportation systems?
4. Will new or amended agencies or laws be required to attain transportation objectives?

Components of a Plan and Program for Transportation.
Below are listed ten components of a plan and program for transportation, with some explanation of each.

l. A Clear Statement of Objectives.
It is necessary to know in precise terms what the City wants in the way of transportation facilities and services. These will be objectives measuring in operational terms what is desired in such items as:
a) Regional integration of operations, schedules, fare structures, transfer privileges, etc.
b) Coverage of the City and nearby areas; accessibility of major highways and transit lines and stations to drivers and passengers.
c) Directness of transportation from point of origin to point of destination without excessive meandering or vehicle changes.
d) Speed of movement, and elapsed time of trips; speed of mass transit trips compared to that of private vehicle operation.
e) Frequency of service on mass transportation.
f) Amenity of travel congestion and delay on highways; pleasant, comfortable ride without overcrowding in transit vehicles.
g) Pricing of services such as highway tolls, parking charges and transit fares.
h) Economy Vs. efficiency of construction and operation of all facilities and lines.

Other goals will relate to the effect of the transportation system on the distribution of population and economic activity in the City and region, and the speed and direction of its physical development. For example:
a) Is the transportation system to be designed to encourage continued concentration of central district business activities of all kinds and thus the maintenance of central district property values?
b) Where and in what order should development in new areas be encouraged by provision of major highways and transit facilities?
c) Should transportation routes be concentrated to allow more effective consolidation of sites for redevelopment of blighted central areas?

2. A Determination of Guiding Policies.
These are policies within which more specific planning decisions are made, and within which alternative solutions may be proposed or changed according to feasibility of accomplishment. These policies will reflect the objectives adopted, and the expected effectiveness of various kinds of measures which may be possible. They will reflect expected limiting circumstances. They will take account of desired priorities in the objectives to be served and the public and private interests to be considered. These principles will range from the most general to the very particular. One general principle already mentioned in the Board’s meetings represents a choice whether capital and operating costs of all transportation facilities and services should be supported entirely by user payments or whether for other reasons of public policy transportation should be subsidized from general governmental revenues. Another example might be a policy as to the desired balance in persons movement between the use of public transportation or private vehicles.

3. A Determination of Expected Requirements for Transportation Service.
These are requirements derived from needed movement of people, goods and vehicles estimated in quantitative terms for various future periods of time. They will reflect the desired policies. These quantitative requirements will be one of the major bases for the plans discussed in following paragraphs. The Board has employed consultants skilled in both population and economic analysis and in traffic analysis to advise and assist the staff in these studies. Together we have made projections to 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1990 of population and employment in the metropolitan region, by kinds of industry. The eight-county metropolitan area (established by the Bureau of the Census as a statistical unit) has been divided into 70 planning analysis areas. Based upon the total regional projections, future distribution of population and jobs has been projected among these 70 districts and among whole counties in a surrounding hand. The projection of this future distribution is based upon analysis of trends in distribution within the last 50 years, and the theoretical future trends are being checked and amended by city and county planning agencies in the region who know both the practical potentialities for development and the possible effects of land use policies which will be in effect. These projections of distribution are based partly upon “effective distances” (Mileage as modified by time and convenience) among the various districts and from the center. Theoretical projections of distribution are being made on these bases: (l) assuming continuation of present trends in provision of transportation facilities (2) assuming an elaborate development of super-highways (3) assuming extreme emphasis on improvement of transit facilities. Obviously these assumptions would result in different future land settlement and density patterns. The translation of these distributions into potential persons movement is being done as a result of some recent research by one of our consultants at Yale University on traffic generation in relation to land use. We are bringing up to date by spot-checks a major study of the origin and destination of traffic conducted in the Philadelphia-Camden metropolitan area in 1947. The analyses will enable us to quantify the expected amount of travel and to determine by policy the desirable proportion which should be carried by automobile and public transit.

4. A Physical Plan and Program for Transportation Facilities and Operation.
This plan will be based upon the requirements estimated above and will recommend choices among alternative means of satisfying these requirements within the established policies. Thus the plan will reflect the desires of the City and outlying counties for shaping their future land use development, as well as the optimum overall economy of the transportation system and the public convenience. This plan and program will cover a future period of time up to, say, 25 years, but will be much more specific for the immediate future. It will take into account present facilities and their estimated usefulness over future periods of time, and will have to be so arranged that as projects are added in future periods the system will he in balance with current requirements. The plan will include a capital requirements program which will be used to aid in determining the economic plan mentioned below. Of course the physical plan must be done at the same time, and partially reflect the economic and administrative plans that will accompany it.

5. An Economic Program for Transportation Development and Operation.
This program will set forth capital and operating requirements and will recommend sources of capital funds and revenues, and pricing policies. It must be based on a careful study of the ability of various agencies (including some possible new regional agency) to finance needed amendment, modernization or construction of facilities and to provide the desired level of transportation service. The experiences of other cities will be reviewed.

6. An Organizational Plan and Program.
This program will recommend the assignment of developmental, financial, operating and control responsibilities and the continuance, amendment, coordination or creation of agencies. It will give attention to the adequacy of existing staff resources and programs of various agencies. A sub-committee of the Board is now considering the nature of a metropolitan agency which might be established to take responsibility for all local transportation facilities and services.

7. A Program of Needed Legislation.

8. A Program of Public Education.
This program will be needed to advance public understanding of the goals, principles and measures proposed and to provide channels for public discussion and criticism of proposals.

9. A Program for Continued Planning.
Whether or not this Board should continue, there will be needed the means for continuing planning study in the future for adjustment of plans and programs to changing objectives, requirements, technology, economic conditions and governmental or corporate abilities and responsibilities.
 
 
 

next page