urban sprawl
The urban sprawl that has characterized American growth patterns for the past 45 years has been held responsible for a host of problems, including: profligate energy use (Levinson and Strate, 1981 and Newman and Kenworthy, 1989); rising municipal infrastructure costs (Neilson Associates, 1987; Real Estate Research Corporation, 1974; and Frank, 1989); the loss of agricultural and wetlands (OTA, 1984 and Krause and Hare, 1975); the loss of community values (Newman and Kenworthy, 1989 and Freedman, 1975); the erosion of current or potential tax bases in urban centers (Weaver, 1987; Wachs, 1977); and the decline of urban environmental quality (RERC, 1974 and Berry et al, 1974). While many factors contribute to sprawl, the suburbanization of America could not have occurred without the automobile. And if auto use remains cheap and easy, we can expect continued sprawl (Lansing and Hendricks, 1982; Kitamura, 1988). Given the evidence that low density development in turn leads to increased reliance on automobiles, the problem appears to feed on itself (Levinson and Wyn, 1964; Pushkarev and Zupan, 1971; Allman et al, 1982; and Holtzclaw, 1991). To address this problem, planners must seek to better understand and address t
Even where growth is a concern, fragmented regional governmental structures hinder efforts to address the issue (Heilbrun, 1987; Bay Vision 2020, 1991). Indeed, the evidence from Canadian and European cities indicates that in many cases suburban development and effective public transit can be compatible (Cervero, 1982 and UMTA, 1988). To assert that this pattern demonstrates an underlying preference for automobile use assumes that transportation and land use decisions have evolved in the absence of public planning. The second issue is what shape future growth should take. The relationships between transportation planning, land use patterns and economic growth are complex. Transportation is only one of several factors affecting regional development (Briggs, 1981; Mills, 1981; Mountain West, 1987; Newman and Kenworthy, 1989). It would also be inappropriate to conclude that there is not significant scope for change. The first derives from the fact that suburbanization is currently the norm, both for work and residences. Continued emphasis on highway construction may be counter-productive. Where an auto-oriented transportation infrastructure is related to increased sprawl, land-use planning focussed on attaining higher densities, together with well integrated transit development can have the opposite effects. Several new approaches, including busways, multi-center, timed-transfer networks and paratransit, offer viable alternatives. While some affluent neighborhoods have passed no-growth ordinances, the net effect has simply been to push sprawl elsewhere. The conventional view is that suburban travel demands cannot be accommodated by transit. The traditional focus of transportation development has been the automobile. For example, a recent study of nine North American cities with rail transit concluded that transit can induce high density commercial development because it represents to developers and employers an investment in fixed facilities that will be in place for a long time (RPA, 1991).
Common topics in this essay:
Pushkarev Zupan,
Bay Vision,
Newman Kenworthy,
Canadian European,
Mobility Corporation,
Konheim Ketcham,
North American,
Newman Kenworthy's,
Europe Canada,
Mahady Tsitsos,
newman kenworthy,
kenworthy 1989,
newman kenworthy 1989,
urban sprawl,
transportation decisions,
bay vision 2020,
density development,
pushkarev zupan,
low density,
continued sprawl,
development patterns,
pushkarev zupan 1971,
central business districts,
pucher 1988,
|
Acceptance Essays
