PRO
Smart Growth and Transportation Infrastructure Requirements
By Brian S. Bochner
“Smart growth” has been used to describe a wide
range of growth management agendas. Unfortunately, there is no consistent
definition of smart growth. For the purposes of this article, however, smart
growth is defined in relation to transportation, as follows:
• Smart
growth is growth; and
• Smart
growth produces a livable community through a compact, balanced, complementary
mix of land uses consistent with community and regional objectives and needs;
attractive aesthetics; environmental sensitivity, sustainability and integrity
at both local and regional levels; building upon existing infrastructure where
possible to provide sufficient but not excess capacity; effective use of
resources, including right-of-way, infrastructure, enhancements and operations and
maintenance sustainable over time; provision of a range of travel choices;
integration of various transportation/mobility services; and management of both
demand and supply sides of mobility provision.
Transportation system characteristics
Some of the characteristics of a smart growth transportation
system include:
• A
networked system that does not encourage through traffic and that consists of
an integrated multimodal surface transportation system;
• Street
system hierarchy;
• Sufficient
but not excess capacity;
• Right-of-way
(ROW) plan and preservation program; advanced ROW designation; minimum
necessary ROW; and flexible design standards;
• Livable
neighborhood streets;
• Travel
demand management programs;
• System
management to achieve efficient utilization; and
• Area-wide
transportation planning, funding prioritization and oversight.
The keys to transportation-related smart growth are choices
in both travel modes and routes, adequate but not excess capacity, livability
and sustainability for both the community and the transportation system and
area-wide coordination of planning, funding and programming. All are needed to
achieve the objectives of smart growth. All are needed to maximize economies in
transportation infrastructure.
Smart growth economies for transportation infrastructure
Properly employed, smart growth can meet the ultimate
transportation needs for an area and, at the same time, reduce investment in
transportation infrastructure. To do this, the transportation system and its
inherent services have to be well planned and forward thinking, with the goal
of serving ultimate needs.
This does not mean thinking small and building small. It
does mean thinking multimodally, committing to multi-modal transportation
systems early and making sure we can efficiently provide the appropriate modes
and services as justified. Retrofitting and adding unplanned and unforeseen
infrastructure later should be avoided, as that results in the largest expense
and the most disruption and inconvenience to the community.
So what transportation infrastructure economies can be
realized through smart growth?
> Land for right-of-way
Smart growth can reduce transportation ROW needs in two
ways: reduce the length of rights-of-way by making development more compact,
and reduce the widths of land ultimately needed to accommodate desired
functions by making use of better planning.
> Facility mileage
Smart growth encourages infill and redevelopment ahead of
expansion beyond the current urban periphery. This is referred to as
compactness of growth. Compact growth results in the existing urban area being
almost fully built out, at least in given directions, before the urban borders
are expanded beyond the current periphery. In turn, this requires only the ROW
for the ultimate transportation facilities in the areas open to development.
Minimizing the overall area being developed also minimizes the ROW that will be
required to serve it.
Secondly, a properly planned transportation system
designates ROW in advance of development. This permits ROW to be provided where
it is needed, and avoids longer (and more costly) circuitous routing that might
later be necessary if adequate ROW has not originally been reserved. This is
particularly applicable in the cases of transit and freeways that are
afterthoughts.
> ROW widths
Transportation rights-of-way typically accommodate roads,
transit facilities, bike lanes, sidewalks, street furniture, planting strips
and utilities. A properly planned and functioning road system is composed of
streets and highways that are designed to carry major volumes of through
traffic on the periphery of neighborhoods, and of local streets that provide
access within neighborhoods. Appropriate planning and proper ROW for future
needs can ensure that local streets never have to accommodate more than local
access and circulation.
Minor street ROWs can be minimized since they only need to
accommodate local traffic and pedestrian, bicycle and transit use plus
utilities and green space.
Major street ROW needs also can be minimized by ensuring
that the streets operate as efficiently as possible. This necessitates such
provisions as sufficient intersection capacity and ROW, access management,
proper use of traffic control devices and intelligent site planning of major
developments (to impose congestion at specific points). Transit rights-of-way
can be similarly minimized.
> Infrastructure
Smart growth suggests that the actual roadways provided be
sufficient to meet travel needs during the service life of the facility. Hence,
if a road will need six lanes 25 years in the future, smart growth would likely
require less initially, and then widen the road in accordance with developing
needs. Smart growth also advocates building only what is needed, rather than
adhering to “standards” for particular road classifications.
How much might be saved?
Estimates of potential savings vary with circumstances when
a community applies smart growth principles. Savings can be realized through these three aspects of smart
growth:
> Compactness
Most urban areas are almost fully built out in their central
portions, but are less fully developed in their outer areas. If the partially
developed portion comprises 10% of an area, that urbanized area should be
considered quite compact. However, many areas have 25% or more of their areas
only partially developed. This could result in infrastructure investment being
10% or more above what is really necessary and that investment is the full cost
of new facilities, not just maintenance of older existing facilities.
> Avoidance of retrofitting
It is difficult to estimate the cost of retrofitting in
general because each facility is specific to its own location and associated
conditions. However, costs associated with retrofitted facilities may include
high-cost ROW (developed land), relocation and demolition costs, higher
environmental mitigation costs, more transportation structures and more costly
drainage among others.
> Providing only what is needed
Some major streets are undersized at intersections,
resulting in earlier needs for additional through lanes to be built. Because
most roads have their capacity constraints at intersections, the intersections
are the most critical part of the initial plan and design. By providing major
streets with sufficient ROW for needed turn lanes, it may be possible to delay
or even eliminate the need for one through lane in each direction. This may
require double left turn lanes and right turn lanes at more locations. To
accommodate pedestrian and bicycle travel in a desirable manner, the
intersections need to be designed with them in mind, without just providing
wide pavements. Again, the reductions in the ultimate number of through lanes
can reduce ROW width requirements. The most likely savings of this type will
occur on local streets where standard widths are often developed to accommodate
the greatest possible needs.
Final thoughts
In conclusion, smart growth makes better sense. Smart growth
reduces infrastructure investment, makes better use of available infrastructure
and increases available tax base by consuming less ROW. Additionally, smart
growth can improve the perceived quality of life, making people happier. TME
CON
From Illusion to Delusion: Smart Growth
By Wendell Cox
Over the past 50 years, America’s suburbs have grown
to contain most urban residents. As the nation has become more affluent, people
have chosen to live in single family dwellings on individual lots and also have
obtained automobiles to provide unprecedented mobility.
The rise of smart growth
As development has continued, a powerful movement (such as
the Sierra Club and many urban planners) has arisen to oppose what they term as
“urban sprawl.”
The low-density suburbanization of U.S. urban areas is perceived
by these as inefficiently using land, by consuming open space and valuable
agricultural land. The anti-sprawl movement believes that suburbanization
results in too much driving and highway construction and favors public transit
and walking as alternatives. Moreover, they blame suburbanization for the
decline of the nation’s central cities.
The anti-sprawl movement has embraced a set of policy
initiatives called “smart growth.” In general, smart growth would
increase urban population densities, especially in corridors served by rail
transit. Development would be corralled within urban growth boundaries. There
would be little or no highway construction, replaced instead by construction of
urban rail systems. Development would be steered toward patterns that reduce
home-to-work travel distances, making transit and walking more feasible. Land
use would be governed by strong regional or state plans. The anti-sprawl
movement claims that these policies will improve the quality of life and reduce
costs, while reducing traffic congestion and air pollution.
The rationales for smart growth rest on illusions
> The illusion of lost farmland
Urbanization does not threaten agricultural land. Since
1950, urban areas of more than 1 million have consumed an amount of new land
equal to barely one-tenth the area taken out of agricultural production.
Agricultural land has been taken out of production as a result of improving
agricultural productivity. Moreover, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said
that urbanization does not pose a threat to agricultural production.
> The illusion of suburbanization as an American
phenomenon
Suburbanization is occurring wherever people are becoming
more affluent, from Europe to Asia and Australia. In these areas, virtually all
urban growth in recent decades has been suburban. Both U.S. and foreign central
cities have lost population. Since 1950, Copenhagen has lost 40% of its
population and Paris 25%, rivaling the losses that have occurred in Eastern and
Midwestern American cities.
> The illusion of suburbs draining the cities
The nation’s declining central cities have
contributed, at most, 15% of suburban growth. Most suburban growth is the
result of simple population gain and the movement of people from rural to
suburban areas. Moreover, the 2000 census indicates that a number of older
central cities have begun to grow again.
> The illusion of substituting transit for autos
Urban areas cannot be practically redesigned to
significantly reduce automobile use. Whether in America or Europe, the vast
majority of destinations are reasonably accessible only by automobile. A
commuter in one Parisian suburb can find travel to another suburban area as
difficult as in Los Angeles, Portland or Phoenix. Transit can be an effective
alternative to the automobile only to dense core areas, such as the
nation’s downtowns. But downtowns contain barely 10% of metropolitan
employment. Transit is a niche market for people with automobiles.
> The illusion of walkable cities
Smart growth advocates, and their close relatives—the
“new urbanists”—envision “walkable cities,” in
which many trips can be taken on foot instead of by car. And, while some people
will pay more to live in planned communities that have a better residential-commercial
spatial relationship, the potential for materially changing metropolitan travel
patterns is very limited indeed, as Sir Peter Hall chronicles over 50 years in
Stockholm. Jobs will continue to be located throughout the urban area, and
people will continue to work where they like, throughout the urban area. Travel
distance and proximity to home is only one criterion in home and residence
location decisions.
> The illusion of lower costs
Higher costs of living are associated with higher density
living, according to an analysis of U.S. Department of Labor Consumer
Expenditure data. It matters little that transportation household costs may be
higher in cities that sprawl more, because lower housing costs alone more than
make up the difference.
Smart growth’s solutions also are illusions
> The illusion of reduced traffic congestion
As smart growth increases population, it also increases
traffic densities. This is because, as population densities rise, so does
driving. U.S. DOT research indicates that at U.S. densities, a 10% increase in
population is associated with a minimum 8% increase in traffic. Higher traffic
densities mean slower traffic and more time for people behind the wheel.
> The illusion of reduced air pollution
One of the best-kept secrets is the progress that the U.S.
has made in mobile source air pollution control. Since 1970, vehicle travel has
risen more than 30%, yet gross pollution emissions have fallen from 5% to 60%.
Air pollution from cars is frankly going away, but smart growth will delay the
progress. The slower speeds and the stop-and-go conditions associated with more
traffic produces more air pollution.
Smart growth killing the American Dream
But perhaps the most destructive consequence of smart growth
is its impact on the social fabric. Smart growth re-duces housing affordability
by rationing land and residential development. As with any commodity (such as
gasoline), rationing land and development drives up prices. This reality,
however, has not deterred an army of well paid consultants, urban planners and
misguided economists to disprove the fundamental tenet of economics that
scarcity raises prices. They would be as well served to disprove the law of
gravity.
In Portland, Ore., where smart growth policies have been
most comprehensively adopted, housing affordability has declined considerably
more than in any other major metropolitan area over the past decade. Oregon,
with its statewide smart growth policies, experienced the highest increase in
house costs over the past decade, and median incomes fell in relation to
housing prices more than in any other state. The San Francisco Bay area, with
its excessive development impact fees, has seen housing prices rise so high
that middle income people are forced into housing markets 75 miles or more away
from the area.
The effect falls hardest on low-income households,
especially the minorities who are a disproportionately high share. The now
discontinued “red-lining” that denied home ownership to minorities
is being replaced with “green-lining,” which, under the guise of
environmental protection, is putting home ownership out of reach. It
doesn’t matter whether the rationale is discrimination, as was often the
case in red-lining, or disdain for economic factors, as is the case in smart
growth’s land and development rationing strategies; the effect is the
same.
Smart growth: not worth the cost
Smart growth involves significant new limits on people and
their property. In so doing, it places limits on economic growth and
opportunity. If restrictions are to be placed on people and their freedoms,
there must be compelling reasons. As the Lone Mountain Compact puts it:
“Absent material harm to others or the community,
people should be allowed to live and work where and how they like.”
Put simply, the smart growth movement has identified no
problem of sufficient magnitude to justify its policy prescriptions. Worse, it
is clear that imposition of smart growth’s “solutions” will
make cities less, not more, livable, with greater traffic congestion, more air
pollution and more social exclusion. Taken as a whole, smart growth is more
than illusion, it is delusion. TME
RSS: Roads & Bridges Articles
