FREE ESSAY ON URBAN SPRAWL

URBAN SPRAWL

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 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 narrow view of fixed-route, large vehicle transit.
However,there is evidence that in many cases flexible and responsive transit service can
be developed to serve the existing needs of suburban residents and workers. Several new
approaches, including busways, multi-center, timed-transfer networks and paratransit,
offer viable alternatives. 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). 
The conventional view is also that continued sprawl is inevitable and that planners must
simply respond by building more roads (Kingham, 1976; Lowry, 1988; Steiner, 1991).
Evidence for this proposition is provided by pointing to the fact that transit is used
primarily by those who work or live in central business districts, whereas the majority
of the population relies on their cars. 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. However, both travel behavior
and land use patterns are at least in part also functions of public policy. 
The relationships between transportation planning, land use patterns and economic growth
are complex. They involve interacting social, economic and geographical factors.
Transportation is only one of several factors affecting regional development (Briggs,
1981; Mills, 1981; Mountain West, 1987; Newman and Kenworthy, 1989). Nonetheless, the
effects of past transportation decisions and investments are apparent in contemporary
development patterns (University of Michigan, 1961; Barton-Aschman Associates, 1968;
Downs, 1982 and Deakin, 1988). In particular, the current decentralization of services
and employment could not have occurred in the way it did without extensive reliance on
the highway (Glaab and Brown, 1976 and Mahady and Tsitsos, 1981). 
The traditional focus of transportation development has been the automobile. Federal and
state aid to transportation has focussed almost exclusively on the continued development
of the national highway system (Deakin, 1988 and Konheim and Ketcham, 1991).[98]
Automobile use has been heavily subsidized, while comparatively little attention has been
paid to encouraging walking, bicycling or transit use.[99] Instead of being necessitated
by urban development patterns, then, highway-oriented transportation plans should be seen
as at least in part responsible for the problems of sprawl. 
Land use policies, or lack thereof, have also contributed to sprawl. While current
practice is changing, American land policies have traditionally had little focus on
controlling growth (Altshuler, 1981; Bay Vision 2020). Indeed, low-density
suburbanization has been encouraged by federal tax deductions and mortgage guarantees for
single family residences (Heilbrun, 1987 and Pucher, 1988). Many of the direct costs of
servicing low density developments are hidden and not passed directly on to the homeowner
(Frank, 1989). Similarly, local density limits and red lining encourage sprawl. Even
where growth is a concern, fragmented regional governmental structures hinder efforts to
address the issue (Heilbrun, 1987; Bay Vision 2020, 1991). While some affluent
neighborhoods have passed no-growth ordinances, the net effect has simply been to push
sprawl elsewhere. This fragmented local government structure also lacks the capacity to
engage in the comprehensive planning required to integrate social, environmental, transit
and other transportation considerations into regional development. 
Continued reliance on the automobile as the only solution to the transportation demands
of the future is unlikely to be successful. Continued emphasis on highway construction
may be counter-productive. As is noted above, added capacity will not solve the growing
problems of air pollution and congestion. And additional highway capacity further drains
city centers of their dynamism, and burdens those without access to cars. Newman and
Kenworthy's study of major cities around the world concluded that based on auto access a
city's center can accommodate a maximum of about 120,000 jobs. Beyond that point, office
space must be sacrificed for additional parking and road space. On the other hand,
providing access to the city center by mixed modes of road and transit can allow a city
to grow beyond that point while remaining attractive and livable (Newman and Kenworthy,
1989). 
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. The connection between high density
development and reduced travel demand is well established (Newman and Kenworthy, 1989).
Transit can facilitate higher densities. 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). Other studies
conclude that well planned transit systems can concentrate housing and urban amenities
around transit lines and stations, reducing reliance on cars. Total travel demand in
regions that have successfully integrated high density and transit may be lower than in
other areas by factors of four (Pushkarev and Zupan, 1971), or even eight (Holtzclaw,
1991). Finally, where urban sprawl increases municipal service costs, municipalities can
share the costs of expanding transit services with the developers who benefit from access
to their projects (Orski and Zukoski, 1985; Urban Mobility Corporation, 1985; UMTA, 1988;
and Cervero, 1982). 
Any policy directed at the problems of sprawl must address Americans' high willingness to
pay for the space and privacy offered by suburban lifestyles. In addition, there is no
question that automobile use is at least in part determined by Americans' preference for
the privacy, convenience and speed of their cars. Nonetheless, it would be inappropriate
to conclude that our reliance on the automobile is strictly due to an innate preference
for highway travel. As Pucher notes, for the vast majority of Americans, the alternative
to the automobile is immobility (Pucher, 1988). It would also be inappropriate to
conclude that there is not significant scope for change. The evidence from Europe and
Canada is that by incorporating mixed modes, including transit, cycling and pedestrian
access into urban plans, future development could actually enhance access while reducing
the demand for - and social costs of - travel.