Search

Copyright of Journal of Planning Education & Research is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Support for transportation policies and investments is increasingly shaped by partisan ideals. Less well documented is the role of partisanship relative to potential mediating factors like transportation-related values, beliefs about the possibility of change, self-interest, and knowledge. We surveyed a representative sample of 600 U.S. adults about these factors, their political ideology, and their willingness to change the automobile-oriented transportation status quo. We found considerable support for change but also deep partisan divides. In exploring the pathways between partisanship and policy preferences, we found that values and beliefs about change are both deeply partisan and closely associated with policy preferences. By contrast, the results were mixed for self-interest and transportation-related knowledge. Ultimately, we found that these four pathways explain much, but not all, of the partisanship in transportation policy preferences. Very conservative respondents opposed reform efforts above and beyond what we would expect from their values, beliefs, self-interest, and knowledge, indicating continuing salience of partisanship. Our results suggest that transportation reforms enjoy broad public support in urban areas with moderate and left-leaning populaces but may struggle to win approval at the regional, state, or federal level due to partisan geographic sorting. Some planners, policymakers, and advocates may choose to embrace partisanship, but doing so may exacerbate tensions and hamper progress. Others may prefer to tackle the pathways between partisanship and preferences without deepening partisan divides. For instance, practitioners may seek to increase support for reform by tackling widespread misunderstandings about induced demand or by installing pilot projects to help the public understand that it is possible to quickly and inexpensively change infrastructure and travel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does living in a neighborhood with high-quality public transit influence travel behavior later in life, even if you move to a neighborhood with worse transit service? To test this, we construct residential histories of individuals using decades of data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. We find that past experiences shape transportation futures. Exposure to transit during young adulthood in particular is associated with an auto-light lifestyle and greater transit usage later in life. This research suggests a long-term benefit for encouraging transit at younger ages to foster a “transit habit.” [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, researchers and advocates have turned their attention to the trade-offs between housing affordability and transportation expenses. They argue that were families to move to more compact, transit-accessible, and walkable neighborhoods, they would reduce their driving and, possibly, forego the need for one or more cars, thus saving them money. We use the Panel Study of Income Dynamics to test this assumption with descriptive statistics and panel regression models, and we find little evidence to support it. We conclude that the location affordability literature may significantly overstate the promise of cost savings in transit-rich neighborhoods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]