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 the significant impact that transportation decisions can have on urban development.
             There are two main issues facing American planners. The first derives from the fact that suburbanization is currently the norm, both for work and residences. Less than 10% of the total population work in the central business districts of traditional cities (Lowry, 1988). The first issue, then, is how best to provide access to existing jobs and residential amenities not located in the city center. The second issue is what shape future growth should take. Transportation decisions will be critical to both of these issues.
             The conventional view is that suburban travel demands cannot be accommodated by transit. This notion is premised on a n...