Enterprising Twin Cities Transitways Transit System Changes and Access to Jobs

Transcription

1 + Enterprising Twin Cities Transitways Transit System Changes and Access to Jobs Nebiyou Tilahun University of Illinois at Chicago Yingling Fan University of Minnesota WTS Connecticut Chapter 2013 Transportation Mini-Series October 10,

2 + 2

3 + Competitive Clusters 3 Interconnected sectors that are located in close geographic proximity Seen as drivers of regional growth Imply regional specialization Numerous initiatives in the Twin Cities region: MSP regional cluster initiative Bio-Business Alliance Robotics Alley Defense Alliance etc. Focused on jobs and regional growth, but not on access

4 + Goals Focus on competitive clusters in the Twin Cities How accessible are these jobs currently? Look to the future What happens to access in 2030 if we build out the transit system? Move beyond the status quo Integrating transitway planning and land use policy 4

5 Cluster Identification Spring & wire product Motor & generator manufacturing manufacturing Lessors of nonfinancial assets Software publishers Electronic connector manufacturing Management of companies Turned product & screw, nut, & bolt manufacturing Bare printed circuit board manufacturing Unlaminated plastics profile shape manufacturing Ornamental & architectural metal products manufacturing Relay & industrial control manufacturing Paint & coating manufacturing Crown & closure manufacturing & metal stamping Computer storage device manufacturing Electromedical & electrotherapeutic apparatus manufacturing Adhesive manufacturing Paperboard container manufacturing Plastics packaging materials & unlaminated film & sheet manufacturing Other plastics product manufacturing Medical equipment & supplies manufacturing Figure 1: Inter-sector trading relationships in the basic medical manufacturing cluster Legend: Anchor sectors in the identified cluster. Sectors that sell/supply at 2% or higher levels to the anchor sectors. Direction indicates a selling relationship.

6 Cumulative employment Twin cities cluster jobs 6 Cluster Medical manufacturing Management of Companies Finance & Insurance Book Publishers & Printing Industries Lessors of Non- Financial Assets Basic Expanded 4.4% 7.0% 9.1% 25.0% 11.1% 46.9% 6.2% 12.8% 2.5% 6.9% Medical Manufacturing Management of Companies and Enter prises Finance and Insurance Book Publishers and Printing Services Lessors of Non Financial Intangible Assets Distance from downtown Minneapolis (Mi) 6

7 + Transit Reachable Cluster Jobs (High frequency transit service station within a half mile) 7 Percentage of cluster jobs within half a mile of high-frequency transit stop Cluster Basic Expanded Medical manufacturing 9.6% 13.8% Management of Companies 33.8% 28.1% Finance & Insurance 39.8% 29.7% Book Publishers & Printing Industries 31.0% 23.8% Lessors of Non-Financial Assets 25.3% 30.6% All metro jobs 27.4% 7

8 + Access to Cluster Jobs By Transit 8 Medical Manufacturing (7% of metro jobs) Finance and Insurance (47% of metro jobs)

9 + Transit Accessibility by Household Income 9

10 + Accessibility by Income and Distance 10

11 + Regional Income Profile 11

12 + Current Accessibility (All Jobs) 12 The average metropolitan area resident has access to just over 117,500 within a 30 minute transit travel time.

13 + Current System 13 Finance/Management/ Insurance jobs are relatively better served by the transit system Manufacturing type jobs are difficult to access by transit from most areas of the metropolitan region Low income groups have higher access over all (on aggregate) But the transit system has difficulties providing high job access to those outside of the first 10 miles from Minneapolis The average metropolitan area resident has access to 117,500 jobs currently within a 30 minute transit travel time

14 + Future Scenarios 14 Measure how the 2030 transit system alters the accessibility of the metropolitan region Test different potentially achievable scenarios of population and employment distributions in the metropolitan area and their impact on transit accessibility

15 + Job accessibility change from 2010 to Compare 2030 accessibility with estimate: 117,611 jobs 2030 estimate: 126,419 jobs A net positive increase of 8,808 (6.8%)

16 + Centralization: Growth rates 16 Transitway type crossing TAZ Growth Percentages Low Moderate High Light rail 3% 5% 10% Arterial BRT 2% 3% 6% Limited stop BRT 1% 2% 4% Commuter Rail 0% 0% 0% Express Bus 0% 0% 0% Transitway type is assumed to affect the potential additional population and employment gains. Same percentages are used for both population and jobs

17 + Scenario Analysis 17 Population Scenarios 2030 Scenario Analysis Combinations Centralizes at transitways MC 2030 forecasts Growth at fringe Centralizes at transitways Employment Scenarios MC 2030 forecasts Growth at fringe X X X X Base case X X X X Within each combination, we test small, moderate, and aggressive job and population growth rates.

18 + Testing Alternative Growth Scenarios 18 Population Scenarios Selected 2030 Scenario Analysis Combinations (Aggressive Combinations) Development near transitways MC 2030 forecasts Growth at fringe Development near transitways Employment Scenarios MC 2030 forecasts Growth at fringe +6.9%* +2.2% +0.89% +4.5% Base case 126, % +4.3% -0.18% -1.47% *Note: Non-transitway focused centralization of population and employment is associated with a +2.74% increase in person weighted accessibility.

19 + Accessibility Changes 2010 to

20 + Where are the gains? 20

21 0 9.9% % % % % % % % % % Average Additional Jobs Accessible by Accessibility gains and income 21 Centralization significantly increases average accessibility for the lowest income areas. Largest average gain is among the low income areas. Decentralization doesn t have a very large negative impact. Income Quantile (Based on the tr act that the TAZ falls in) Base_Scenario Moderate_Centralization Moderate_Decentralization

22 + Lessons 22 Different industries have unique location patterns and preferences Transportation is central to which jobs one has access to and competes for It also affects potential residences one can take Accessibility is maximized through a concentration of jobs and housing Yet, higher payoffs from job concentration and if concentration occurs along transitways. Implications: Use transitways as a guide for development and collaboration. Focus on jobs Take a closer look at disadvantaged groups

23 + The Take-Away Message 23 Locating new jobs near transitways is especially important for maximizing the positive accessibility impacts of current and future transitways.

24 + 24 Thank You!

25 + Centralization 25 Population Centralization Employment Centralization None Low Mod. High None 126, % +2.6% +4.5% Low +0.6% +2.4% +3.3% +5.2% Moderate +1.2% +3.0% +3.9% +5.8% High +2.2% +4.0% +4.9% +6.9% The None-None scenario corresponds to the base 2030 case. Centralization occurs along transitways only Gains in accessibility for the average individual is high as a result of employment centralization than from population centralization.

26 + Decentralization 26 Population Decentralization Employment Decentralization None Low Mod. High None 126, % -0.63% -1.29% Low -0.03% -0.24% -0.66% -1.32% Moderate -0.09% -0.30% -0.72% -1.38% High -0.18% -0.39% -0.81% -1.47% The None-None scenario corresponds to the base 2030 case. Decentralization occurs everywhere outside the I-494/694 beltway Losses for the average individual are not very large under any scenario, but larger losses arise from employment decentralization than from residential decentralization.

27 + Scenario 3: Job Decentralization and Population Centralization 27 Population Centralization Employment Decentralization None Low Mod. High None 126, % -0.63% -1.29% Low +0.6% +0.43% +0.01% -0.66% Moderate +1.2% +0.98% +0.56% -0.11% High +2.2% +2.0% +1.57% +0.89% The None-None scenario corresponds to the base 2030 case. Decentralization occurs everywhere outside the I-494/694 beltway, Centralization occurs everywhere inside the I- 494/694 beltway Both gains and losses are possible, but are of moderate magnitude.

28 + Scenario 4: Job Centralization and Population Decentralization Population Decentralization Employment Centralization None Low Mod. High None 126, % +2.6% +4.5% Low -0.03% +1.7% +2.6% +4.5% Moderate -0.09% +1.7% +2.5% +4.4% High -0.18% +1.6% +2.4% +4.3% 28 The None-None scenario corresponds to the base 2030 case. Decentralization occurs everywhere outside the I-494/694 beltway, Centralization occurs everywhere inside the I- 494/694 beltway Significant gains from jobs centralization, moderate to high population decentralization has small negative impacts.

29 + Scenario 5: Job & Population Centralization (not transitway focused) 29 Population Centralization Employment Centralization None Low Mod. High None 126, % +0.69% +1.24% Low +0.05% +0.28% +0.74% +1.29% Moderate +0.26% +0.50% +0.95% +1.51% High +1.48% +1.71% +2.18% +2.74% Increased concentration within all inner-beltway TAZs Modest gains when compared to a transitway focused centralization

30 + Accessibility to competitive cluster 30 jobs Year Basic cluster Non-basic cluster Expanded cluster Gains +12.1% +5.0% +7.5% Overall, a 7.5% gain in accessibility is expected. Higher relative gains for the Basic cluster (which tends to be CBD concentrated) than for the non-basic cluster.

31 + Access to Labor 31 All workers Low wage workers Each location is colored by the percentage of metropolitan workers/lowwage workers that can reach it within a 30 minute travel time. Not much difference in the two maps