Revitilizing Communities Through Smart Growth Development
-
Upload
raul-bustamante -
Category
Documents
-
view
73 -
download
2
Transcript of Revitilizing Communities Through Smart Growth Development
Raul Bustamante Professor Rodgers Senior Seminar December 10, 2015
Implementing Smart Growth Through Transit Oriented Development to Revitalize Non-Smart Growth Communities
Smart Growth in the Southeast | Southern Environmental Law Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2015. <https://www.southernenvironment.org/cases-and-projects/smart-growth-in-the-southeast>.
Bustamante 2
Raul Bustamante
Professor Rodgers
Senior Seminar
December 10, 2015
Implementing Smart Growth through Transit Oriented Development to Revitalize Non-Smart
Growth Communities
Abstract The issue of sprawling development is controversial as it leads to dispersed
developmental patterns of suburbs and communities today. With ongoing sprawling efforts, leads
to a plethora of issues not only affecting the way these communities are built, but the
consequences that can arise once sprawling development occurs. This paper examines the
consequences that are led by sprawling development patterns and focuses on remedies for this
type of development that exists. Furthermore, smart growth, a type of development opposite of
sprawl is slated to have a sustainable approach to the ways communities are shaped and built.
Therefore, this paper will lay out the main principles of smart growth and evaluate one of the
best practices to access smart growth, which is through transit oriented development (TOD) that
aims to encourage smart development near transit stops. This paper will discuss the benefits and
costs of TOD implementation through three different case studies within metropolitan regions
and take a look at current practices that are taking place that try to push towards a healthier,
livable, and more sustainable way of living through sustainable communities otherwise known as
smart growth. Also, through data, it will show the main means of transportation for workers in
the United States over the years of 16 and well as determine whether location determines one use
Bustamante 3
of an automobile. Overall, the purpose of this research paper is to determine ways to eliminate
sprawling characteristics, identify best practices to combat sprawl, analyze current transportation
trends, and examine whether there are practices that try to encourage a type of development that
aims to increase physical health and activity, and making communities healthier, livable and
built to revolve around the pedestrian rather than the automobile.
Introduction
Current patters of urban development rely on a kind of development that makes cities,
neighborhoods, and communities inefficient, unhealthy, and for some unlivable. This kind of
development focuses on moving away from the urban core and expanding residential zones
farthest away from the urban core. This kind of development is mostly recognized as sprawl
resulting in sprawling communities. Urban sprawl is defined as “an economic and social process
associated with low residential density, segregation of land use, and automobile dependence”
(Berrigan 2). This kind of process makes it inefficient for people because places and areas are
not accessible enough for people to walk to them. Separating different parts of land for one
purpose creates inaccessibility, thus causing people to depend on the automobile to reach their
desired location. Not only does urban sprawl cause inaccessibility and dependence on an
automobile, but it promotes an unhealthier lifestyle for those living in sprawling communities.
The basis of American urban development focuses on sprawl and the notion of suburbia as the
ideal place to live in.
Sprawl is a concern for the human population, specifically here in the United States, since it
gives people more of an option to use an automobile rather than walking or biking to a specific
place/location. People turn to the automobile as their main mode of transportation because either
of a scarcity of transit services in their communities or their neighborhoods are not built to
Bustamante 4
accommodate those means of transportation. The result of a deficit of transit services and stops,
and accessibility issues is due to zoning laws that permit different zones for one specific
function/purpose rather than multiple purposes. The result of these kinds of developments is due
to low density populations that may be persistent in communities that portray sprawling
characteristics. In order to combat these issues that are heavily prominent in many U.S
communities and neighborhoods throughout the country, planners and developers need to rely
and focus on a development that is opposite of sprawl.
The kind of development and practice that acts as a response to sprawling development
is called “smart growth”. “Smart growth can be defined as a policy framework that promotes an
urban development pattern characterized by high population density, walkable and bikeable
neighborhoods, preserved green spaces, mixed-use development, available mass transit, and
limited road construction” (Resnik 1853). In this paper, the works of David B. Resnik will be
discussed on how smart growth has progressed in current U.S cities and neighborhoods to
combat urban sprawl. Also, it will dwell into the works of Pierre Filion that tries to answer
whether we should move towards smart growth as well into Grant’s, Behans, Moah’s, and
Kanaroglou input on smart growth strategies and the theory of implementing smart growth and
sustainable communities. Furthermore, with a prominent issue regarding American development,
smart growth has facilitated to change the way American communities are shaped.
The following paper will take a look at how sprawl has changed the face of how U.S
communities and how they are shaped and built. It will explore the impact of sprawling
communities towards public health, socioeconomic groups, and the environment. It will then
discuss a remedy for the current patters of urban development, known as smart growth where it
is defined and how this type of urban development is limited through an array of factors such as
Bustamante 5
interest groups who are in opposition of smart growth. One of the best practices to implement
smart growth, transit oriented development (TOD), will be discussed and evaluated on whether
the implementation of TOD in metropolitan areas can 1) can help both urban and
suburban/sprawling communities improve towards smart growth development, as well as try to
(2) examine whether location in an urban area or outside of an urban area determines one’s use
of an automobile, and (3) further examine if there are any existing initiatives in metropolitan
areas that push towards smart growth development near transit zones. My hypothesis states that
people who live outside of any metro area mostly travel by using an automobile because of the
lack of any transit services within their area, compared to urban areas. Also, with TOD design at
a metropolitan scale, if implemented with existing transit stations can push non smart growth
communities into smart growth.
Sprawling effects on Human Health and Communities
Urban sprawl has become such a prominent topic in the field of urban planning and design,
because the effects are continually consequential. The effects of urban sprawl are nothing simple,
but less complex as it has affected different strays towards our communities and people living in
them. Sprawl does not become a problem for planners, urban designers, or developers, but as a
result the consequences of sprawl are exhibited within people living in them and the
communities themselves. David B. Resnik, who analyzes why it is hard for smart growth to be
implemented takes a look at the multiple effects sprawling development has had for our
communities and people. Sprawling development practices has had “negative impacts on human
health and the environment” as well as impacting those who are “socioeconomically
disadvantaged” because they “have less access to exercise opportunities and healthy food than do
wealthier people do” (Resnik 1853). Other impacts sprawl has had on our communities is the
Bustamante 6
practice of “deforestation and disruption of wildlife” (Resnik 1853). Sprawling does not only
commit one fault towards American society, because it becomes an issue towards public health,
the environment, lower classes who do not have access to healthy foods and exercise, and as well
as the lifestyles that are promoted from sprawl. Behan, Moah, and Kanaroglou of “Smart Growth
Strategies, transportation and urban sprawl: simulated futures for Hamilton, Ontario” also
discusses the limitations that sprawl promotes for its communities and people. They mention that
sprawl “contributes to numerous economic and social problems including traffic congestion, air
pollution, and large-scale absorption of open space, extensive use of energy for movement,
inability to provide adequate infrastructure, shortages of affordable housing near where new jobs
are being created and suburban labour shortages” (Behan, Moah, Kanaroglou 292). Urban sprawl
results in a plethora of problems towards our communities and the people living in them. In order
to combat these current societal problems that exist due to sprawling developments in U.S cities
and neighborhoods, a kind of development that strays away from horizontal development,
inefficient land use, and low density development is what is called smart growth.
Defining Smart Growth
Ever since the peak of New Urbanism that aimed to build and create cities to be more
sustainable, a new theory arose that was a way to promote sustainable communities. The theory
behind creating cities to be more sustainable for humans and their surroundings was approached
through smart growth. Smart growth was developed in response to sprawling developmental
patterns. “Smart growth was originally conceptualized as an aesthetically pleasing alternative to
urban sprawl that would offer residents a high quality of life and the convenience of local
amenities, but it also has many potential health benefits such as diminished air pollutions, fewer
motor vehicle accidents, lower pedestrian mortality, and increased physical exercise” (Resnik
Bustamante 7
1853). It is not a theory and practice that only tries to ameliorate and preserve green spaces to
clean the air or it is not a sustainable policy that focuses on just eliminating automobile usage,
but in fact it takes a look at other questions and concerns that make a community unsustainable.
These questions might be, why are people using cars rather than walking to their destination? Is
it far? Is it simply because they have the car? Or other questions regarding zoning such as, do
people drive to their local supermarket? Are these people separated by different land use zoning
such as separate residential and commercial zones? Smart growth takes a look at multiple
concerns in a community that make it non-smart growth related.
Characteristics of a smart growth community shares the same principles of that of a
sustainable community. Jepson and Edwards in “Planners Perceptions of New Urbanism, Smart
Growth, and Ecological City” lay out 14 characteristics of a true sustainable community which
are “(1) jobs-housing balance, (2) spatial integration of employment and transportation, (3)
mixed land use, (4) use of locally produced, clean, and renewable energy sources, (5) energy and
resource efficient building and site design, (6) pedestrian access to work and leisure, (7) housing
affordability (for all income groups), (8) housing diversity, (9)higher density residential
development, (10) protection of natural and biological functions and processes, (11) resident
involvement and empowerment, (12) social spaces, (13) sense of place, and (14) inter-modal
transportation connectivity.” (421-422). Although many smart growth cities and neighborhoods
do exemplify these 14 principles, just because they do not exhibit all qualities does not mean it is
not a smart growth city, but instead a city or community that showcases smart growth principles.
The significance of these 14 principles is that it prioritizes efficiency, accessibility, diversity,
affordability, and space that which makes a true smart growth city.
Implications of Smart Growth Development
Bustamante 8
However, even though smart growth development is promising to combat urban sprawl, it
is currently not the most popular kind of development. It has not reached its full potential
because governing bodies are not seeing the potential and major advantages smart growth can
attribute to the people and communities. “The mounting literature of smart growth chronicles and
praises smart growth initiatives and their positive environmental, financial and quality of life
effects on urbanization… however, these achievements have failed to reach the scale needed to
reorient urban development trends” (Filion 49). Different planning and policy researches have
analyzed the possible reasons as to why smart growth has failed in implementation for the
majority of U.S urbanization development trends. Resnik gives five reasons as to why the
implementation of smart growth has been limited, “(1) smart growth can decrease property
values, (2) smart growth can decrease the availability of affordable housing, (3) smart growth
restricts property owners use of their land, (4) smart growth can disrupt existing communities,
and (5) smart growth may increase sprawl instead of decreasing it.” (1854). Many of these
people who hold these opinions of smart growth are interest groups, who represent the majority
of planning boards. Filion states that these interest groups are people who “defend the low
density and functional segregation of their neighborhood… tied to the ownership of large tracts
of land at the fringe of urban areas” (58). Already, interest groups have values that suburbia and
dispersion are their ideal place to be and live in. These interest groups are groups of people who
depend on the automobile as their means of transportation and sympathize towards it as a sense
of independency and success. However, they might not know the consequential outcomes of
automobile dependency that hurts the environment, and eventually hurting those living in or near
the area.
Another important implication to consider are zoning laws that heavily are prominent in
Bustamante 9
sprawling communities. “Zoning laws that forbid commercial development in residential areas
promote sprawl because they require residents to travel greater distances to buy groceries, shop
for cloths, and so on.” (Resnik 1854). Laws that implement segregated land usage automatically
create sprawling communities, thus resulting in sprawling characteristics. The goal of smart
growth, if implemented, does not segregate zones for one specific purpose, but utilizes the land
for multiple uses, whether that would be residential or commercial.
Furthermore, those invested in smart growth development too have conflicted interests
between each other, which has inevitably made the smart growth movement move at a slower
place than it ought to be. “Key stakeholders involved in the debate- real estate developers, land
owners, environmentalists, public health advocates, and people living in metropolitan areas
affected by smart growth projects have divergent interests” (Resnik 1854). With multiple
interests being talked about at places such as public forums or hearings, can prevent any policies
being passed to implement smart growth development in non-smart growth communities.
Transit Oriented Development
In order to access smart growth, one of the strategies to successfully create smart growth
communities is implementing transit oriented development. In order to accurately define transit
oriented development, authors Sarah Feldman, Paul Lewis, and Rebecca Schiff takes a definition
from Calthrope as
“A TOD is a mixed-use community within an average 2,000-foot walking distance of a
transit stop and core commercial area. TODs mix residential, retail, office, open space and public
uses in a walkable environment, making it convenient for residents and employees/ to travel by
transit, bicycle, foot or car” (Feldman, Lewis, Schiff 26).
Bustamante 10
Source: "Transit-Oriented Development | Planning for Complete Communities in Delaware." Planning for Complete Communities in Delaware. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2015.
The purpose of TOD is to make sure that its community members have the advantage to have
areas with purpose accessible within distance and time. With TOD, it takes away the effects that
sprawling communities have. Sprawling communities make it impossible to get to a certain
location, whether that is retail, office, or commercial purposes, by foot. Along with these type of
communities lacking the accessibility to these certain locations, it also lacks the access to a
transit system. The blame for the way sprawling communities are built, used, and laid out is not
solely on the residents who favor suburbia, but the ideologies of the American Dream that
moving away from the urban core is the ideal place to live in.
Methodology
Benefit-Cost Analysis of Transit Oriented Development
In order to successfully examine the impact transit oriented development can have on
communities if implemented, it is important to list both the benefits and costs of such design.
The following table is a list that states the benefits and costs of TOD design on communities by
multiple authors and experts analyzing TOD. Note, that the given case studies were chosen due
to their location and size of the area. The three case studies that are used for this methodology
Bustamante 11
are all metropolitan regions. The reason why a case study methodology is being used, is to
pinpoint that TOD implementation can only succeed at the metropolitan regional scale rather
than trying to implement TOD that connects multiple small suburban or rural communities.
While implementation of TOD is more likely to occur rather at a larger metropolitan scale rather
than implementing at a lower scale, there is still major controversy regarding this type of
development to occur at the metropolitan scale.
Table 1. Benefit Cost-Analysis of Implementing TOD (Case Study: (1) Montreal Metropolitan Region, (2) Greater Philadelphia Region, (3) Southern California- Los Angeles County)
Authors Location Benefits of TOD Design Costs of TOD Design Feldman, Lewis, Schiff
Montreal Metropolitan Region
• TOD environments will allow people to use other modes of transportation, besides the automobile
• Mixed-use development is promoted
• Already existing transit stations
• With already existing transit infrastructure, can make implementation easier
• controls urban sprawl
• Public sector intervention • Will interfere with a growing
population in the suburbs if extended
• Delay of implementation caused by “government and municipalities” in development
• Expensive to execute due to construction of “denser developments”
• “land scarcity” • “absence of good sites near
transport” • unsuccessful if there is no
supply of transit • lack of comprehension
Bustamante 12
Seymour, Morris
Greater Philadelphia Region
• already exiting transit stations • potential for “station area
planning” • provides alternatives to using
the automobile and its problems (e.g., gas prices)
• Support from the “Common Worth of Pennsylvania)
• Existing parking lots by PATCO would be replaced with TOD stations
• Lifestyle shifts • Rise of millennial generation • Focus on community
revitalization • Allows “mixed-use”
construction for “mix of incomes”
• Funding • “fiscal constraints” • does not allow
implementation in low density neighborhoods
• districts in suburban communities still want to allow a minimum number of parking lots for its residents near TOD stations, limiting TOD design construction
• misunderstood on some communities
• the “fear” that there will be more traffic in TOD areas
Loukaitou-Sideris
Southern California- Los Angeles County
• considered the “worst traffic congestion” area in the country
• automobile dependency becomes expensive (gas prices, traffic)
• rise of diminishing air quality • approval by California voters
to construct affordable housing and TOD development
• reduced parking lots • availability of open space • subsidy provided by public
sector
• fear of “public acceptance and marketability”
• developer’s perception of TOD
• mostly geared for “singles, young professionals, and empty nesters” (62)
• perceptions of “ideal neighborhoods”
• making high density areas less compact
• housing near TOD stations will be more affluent rather than mixed income
After analyzing each case study that were on the brinks of implementing TOD within
their areas, each location had their own distinct reasoning that TOD implementation would be a
benefit or cost towards that area. First, there are differences within how each location listed their
benefits and costs towards implementing TOD within the metropolitan scale. The Montreal
Metropolitan Region’s top key points for the benefits of TOD implementation prioritized the
Bustamante 13
already existing transit stations that are available for development and that with TOD
implementation will promote the mixed-use development within the transit stations that are
already available. However, the costs associated with implementing TOD in the Montreal
Greater Region, is the intervention of government and municipality, controversy of developing
denser communities near transit stations, and the government’s and people’s understanding of
the goals and outcomes of TOD. The benefits towards implementing TOD in the Greater
Philadelphia Region was having the eye of utilizing the already existing infrastructure of transit
locations in the area, as well as looking ahead on what this infrastructure can provide to the
nearby communities. “Station-Area Planning” was one of the key benefits the area sought when
considering the implementation of TOD in the Greater Philadelphia Region (Seymour, Morris
66). However, the greatest costs in the area would be funding and perceptions on the goals and
outcomes of TOD design. One of the major costs the region expects is that it would take away
the ideals of what a suburb actually is made up for those choosing to live in them. Lastly, the
key benefits of implementing TOD in the Southern California- Los Angeles County area are
focusing on the disadvantages the car-centric region has towards travel behavior and
environmental impacts automobiles produce. Loukaitou-Sideris mentioned that the Los Angeles
County area is considered the “worst traffic congestion in the nation” (60). With having this
reputation, the push to create an alternative when it comes to transportation trends in the area, the
implementation of TOD would benefit by giving them this alternative. The Southern California-
Los Angeles County Area, according to Loukaitou-Sideris, experiences much expenses towards
having a car. Due to these circumstances, the implementation of TOD can benefit the community
in that sense. The costs to implementing TOD in the area is mostly perceptions of TOD being
geared towards a specific demographic. “For quite long, developers were reluctant to build
Bustamante 14
TODs because they perceived them as only attractive to a narrow market segment: singles young
professionals, and ‘empty nesters’” as well that housing near TOD stations will be geared
towards the wealthy (Loukaitou-Sideris 62).
Furthermore, after analyzing the three case studies regarding the benefits and costs of
implementing TOD in these metropolitan regions, it is important to focus on what’s similar
between each metropolitan scale in terms of their benefits and costs. All three case studies
included the benefits of implementing TOD to (1) give community members near TOD stations
an alternative to using an automobile, which can eventually promote people to use transit rather
than the car, (2) the advantage of having the already existing infrastructure to reduce
construction costs that are highly unfavorable by government, municipalities, and the public
sector and (3) reduction or urban sprawling patterns by constructing mixed-use developments.
The similarities between the costs of all three regions included (1) funding, (2) comprehension of
the goals and outcomes of TOD design, and (3) the fear that TOD stations will change lifestyles
among people and built environment of exiting suburbs.
TOD implementation in all regions had very similar ideas as to how TOD can greatly
benefit their communities, while at the same time were apprehensive with this policy. While
although the greatest costs of TOD implementation at a metropolitan scale would be very costly,
especially in funds provided by government, municipalities, and the public sector as well as
raising confusion as the goals, outcomes, and whether the development is said to aim community
life for all its residents. The fear and costs of TOD implementation, according to this analysis is
mostly due to funding and how government and people perceive this kind of development. While
money is one of the most important factors in passing policies that promote TOD design, the
amount spent on it can change travel behavior, encourage use of transit, promote mixed-use
Bustamante 15
development that incorporates retail, office, and residential space in in one area, thus making
places accessible by walking, biking, or the use of transit services. The fear is also how people
perceive TOD design within transit stops. Once people realize that TOD development can
eliminate zoning, they will realize that places can be reached by walking or foot, rather than
relying on the automobile at all times to get to one place to another. Also, typical travel behavior
involved traffic congestion, especially in large metropolitan areas. Therefore, TOD can provide
an alternative for those who see congestion as unfavorable by using transit. The benefits of TOD
design are not only to decrease the usage of the automobile to get to and from places such as
work, but TOD can increase smart growth development by constructing mixed-use development
that increases business activity, increasing the means of walking and biking to increase physical
activity, and generate mixed-income housing to attract multiple income groups that promotes
diversity. Although the fear and perception of TOD design is seen as a cost, as well as funding,
TOD provides greater benefits to community life and its residents than it is seen a burden for
them.
Transit Village Initiative (TVI)
A current initiative to tackle urban sprawl and its characteristics is to create the best
practices in order to develop transit oriented stations for revitalization of those existing
communities. The New Jersey Department of Transportation developed an initiative called
“Transit Village Initiative” to encourage other communities to move towards smart growth in
communities near transit stations and stops.
Bustamante 16
“The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT)
and NJ TRANSIT spearhead a multi-agency Smart
Growth partnership known as the Transit Village
Initiative. The Transit Village Initiative creates incentives
for municipalities to redevelop or revitalize the areas around transit stations using design
standards of transit-oriented development (TOD)” (State of New Jersey: Department of
Transportation).
The goals of TVI is to use strategies of TOD and smart growth development within communities
that are lacking those qualities. The goal is revitalizing communities that are diminishing near
transit stations, and provide a walkable and mixed-use development strategy to promote
economic activity, healthier lifestyles, accessibility, and reduce constraints caused by an auto-
centric society. Rather than being a policy to implement TOD stations near transit stops, the TVI
is more of a manual for New Jersey communities near a transit stop to focus on smart growth
near those stations, and a guide for national community members wanting to revitalize their own
areas.
SWOT Analysis of Transit Village Initiative in New Jersey
To evaluate the TVI efficiently, the best way to approach this is through a SWOT
analysis, which lays out the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats if other non-smart
growth communities wanted to proceed with this initiative.
Table 2. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats for TVI
Bustamante 17
After providing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of New Jersey’s
TOD manual, Transit Village Initiative, it is important to quantify the amount of
communities/towns the TVI applies to in the state to show its success and progress. The New
Jersey Department of Transportation has provided the names of towns/communities in which
Transit Village Initiative will apply to:
“There are currently 30 designated Transit Villages. They are Pleasantville (1999),
Morristown (1999), Rutherford (1999), South Amboy (1999), South Orange (1999),
Riverside (2001), Rahway (2002), Metuchen (2003), Belmar (2003), Bloomfield (2003),
Bound Brook (2003), Collingswood (2003), Cranford (2003), Matawan (2003), New
Brunswick (2005), Journal Square/Jersey City (2005), Netcong (2005),
Elizabeth/Midtown (2007), Burlington City (2007), City of Orange Township (2009),
Montclair (2010), Somerville (2010), Linden (2010), West Windsor (2012), East Orange
Strengths-‐ Encourages smart growth development
-‐ Successful with existing transit infrastructure
-‐ Encourage transit ridership -‐ Encourages walking and biking
-‐ Connectipedestrians to transit facilities
Weaknesses
-‐ may not appeal to suburban dwellers-‐ Shift from low density to high density -‐ Funding to encourage transit villages
Opportunities-‐ improve business activity near stations-‐ Attract mixed-‐income home buyers
-‐ Revitalize communities -‐ Alternative to using the automobile
Threats-‐ Displace existing residents
-‐ Continuation of automobile dependence -‐ Exisiting lifestyle to what people are used
to
Bustamante 18
(2012), Dunellen (2012), Summit (2013), Plainfield (2014), Borough of Park Ridge
(2015) and Irvington Township (2015)”(State of New Jersey: Department of
Transportation).
Of these 30 transit villages, all have deemed to benefit being close to transit stops and the
opportunity to revitalize their own communities. The TVI is set to encourage these communities
to move towards smart growth development that utilizes the existing infrastructure to transform
itself to mixed-use buildings, public spaces, open spaces, walkable and bicycle friendly
communities. Due to the TVI, it deems its residents to encourage transit ridership as an
alternative to using to the car. Most importantly the strength towards implementing TVI is
building to revolve around the pedestrian, instead of building roads and structure to revolve
around the automobile. Communities now are focusing on revitalization through designing more
road work, which can increase or promote the use of automobile, rather than creating pedestrian
walkways to encourage people to walk and to their desires locations or transit.
The opportunities that can arise if other communities followed the TVI is to increase
economic activity if mixed-use developmental buildings were constructed. Mixed-use buildings
can utilize the ground floor space for retail, restaurants, or any other commercial activity, while
the upper floor can consist of office space and residential units. Also, the purpose of TVI is not
only to attract wealthy homeowners, but focus on attracting mixed-income groups so that all
people can utilize this space and have access to public transportation services such as bus, light
rail, or train. The reason for TVI is to act as a manual for other communities that wish to utilize
TOD design in their areas. TVI is sought to not discriminate TVI based on socioeconomic
groups, therefore gives non wealthy residents the chance to take advantage of the accessibility of
nearby transit.
Bustamante 19
As for the weaknesses if other regions followed the TVI, is the funding a community can
garnish towards the revitalization of those areas. It is especially a weakness, especially for those
living in suburbs near transit spots. The TVI is set to revitalize communities to be denser, so that
people can take advantage of the opportunities offered from TOD and being close to transit
stops. This initiative may not seem appealing for those suburban dwellers that are used to low
dense communities and using their cars to get to their destinations.
Lastly, the threats can arise if other regions tried to follow the TVI is displacing existing
community members that are already living near transit stops or might disturb their lifestyles
with the transformation from low to high density communities.
Data
In order to understand how people mobilize within different areas, it is crucial to
understand how people get and to and from a specific place, and analyze what is being taken
advantaged of and what is lacking. Therefore, it is important to gather data from U.S Census
Bureau to see the numbers on the trends that are performed by U.S people, specifically workers,
since these are people who normally mobilize at a greater rate than the non-worker. The data that
is being focused here is on the current trends for how workers over the age of 16 mobilize. This
data is given to point out that people who live outside of the central city, primarily use the
automobile to get to and from work.
Graph 1. Methods of Transportation (Age: 16 years and over)
Bustamante 20
Source: McKenzie, Brian, and Melanie Rapino. "Commuting in the United States: 2009." American Community
Survey Reports (2011): n. pag. Web.
Graph 1 shows the main modes of transportation for people who commute to their jobs.
This data focuses on a certain demographic of workers, specifically workers who are of 16 years
and over. According to the U.S Census, the main mode of transportation for workers 16 years
and over who commute to work is driving alone, or using the automobile with a percentage of
76.4%. What is followed by driving alone as the main means of transportation is carpooling at
9.4%. What is interesting according to this data is that the automobile is still in the top two of
main means of transportation compared to its counterparts. Followed by carpooling is public
transportation (bus, transit, light rail), at 5.2%. To get to and from work by walking represents
2.8% of the total workers who are 16 years and over, other means of travel at 1.3%, and finally
the least means and mode of transportation is the bicycle at 0.6%.
Looking at the results from the U.S Census, more than the majority of U.S workers over
the age of 16 and over drive alone and use the automobile to get to and from work. This means
that only 14.3% of all other means of transportation that is available for workers 16 years and
Drove Alone, 76.4
Carpooled, 9.4
Public Transportation, 5.2
Worked at Home, 4.4
Walked, 2.8
Other Means of Travel, 1.3
Bicycle , 0.6
Drove Alone
Carpooled
Public Transportation
Worked at Home
Walked
Other Means of Travel
Bicycle
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
MEA
NS OF TR
ANSPORT
ATION
PERCENTAGE
Methods of Transportation(Age: 16 years and over)
Bustamante 21
over, are used by them. There is a huge gap between how people utilize transportation to get to
and from work. Workers are more inclined to using an automobile to and from work compared to
other modes such as public transportation, which can be used by both those living within the city
core and those living in sprawling communities.
With a given comprehension of transportation patterns in the U.S that are committed by
U.S workers 16 years and over, it is also crucial to understand what kind of workers are using
automobiles compared to public transit, walking, bicycle or other means of going to and from
work. The reason why it is important to take a look at this kind of data is to also show which
modes of transportation are more prevalent in certain types of communities. The American
Community Survey of the U.S Census of Bureau gathered the statistics that shows the trends in
automobile commuting by the type of the community. The numbers that are shown in the Graph
2, is shown to see, according to the location of where one lives, use automobiles the least and the
most from 2006 to 2013.
Graph 2. Automobile Usage by Type of Community in the United States
70
75
80
85
90
95
2006 2013
PERC
ENTA
GE OF AU
TOMOBILE USA
GE
YEAR OF AUTOMOBILE USAGE
Automobile Usage by Type of Community
All Workers Lived outside any metro areaLived outside principal city, in metro area Lived in a principal city, in metro area
Bustamante 22
Source: McKenzie, Brian, and Melanie Rapino. "Commuting in the United States: 2009." American Community Survey Reports (2011): n. pag. Web.
According to Graph 2, there is a shift in the vertical axis (y variable=workers over the age
of 16 and over people using the automobile to commute) from 2006 to 2013. Those using the
automobile to and from work living outside any metro started off at 90% in 2006. In just seven
years, the shift has increased 1% to 91% of people using the automobile to commute to and from
work in 2013. Those using the automobile to and from living outside the principal city, yet in the
metro area shifted from 90% to 89%, a 1% decrease. Those using the automobile to and from
living in a principal city in the metro area shifted from 80% in 2006 to 78% in 2013, a 2%
decrease. Altogether, including those living outside any metro area, outside principal city but the
in metro area, and living in a principal city and metro area went from 87% in 2006 to 86% in
2013, a 1% decrease.
According to this data we see automobile usage in different communities shifting. Those
living outside the metro area had an increased in automobile usage. This means that more people
turned to the automobile as a means of transportation to and from work. Yet those living in the
metro area and in the principal saw a decrease in automobile usage. Sprawling communities
outside of the principal city and metro area see a higher rate of automobile usage compared to
inner cities that may rely on other means of transportation such as public transportation, walking,
bicycle or other means of transportation.
Results
According to the U.S Census, location determines the kind of transportation mode one is
using to get to and from work. The main mode for commuters living outside the metro area is
primarily through the automobile, mostly due to the type of development that is constituted away
Bustamante 23
from urban areas, which is sprawl. Sprawling communities lack the means of providing
alternatives to commuting other than building around the automobile. The goal of this research
paper is (1) examine whether areas focused on the idea that if TOD was built, would encourage
smart growth development near transit stops, (2) examine whether location in an urban area or
outside of an urban area determines one’s use of an automobile and (3) further examine if there
are any existing initiatives in metropolitan areas that push towards smart growth development
near transit zones.
After analyzing the benefits and costs of TOD implementation in (1) Montreal
Metropolitan Region, (2) The Greater Philadelphia Region, and (3) Southern California- Los
Angeles County, the reasoning to analyze these regions is to examine whether these areas
focused on the idea that if TOD design was built, would encourage smart growth development
near transit stops. All three metropolitan regions included some aspect of smart growth
implementation if the implementation of TOD was put in place. Whether that was focusing that
TOD will promote mixed- use development for mixed income individuals or utilize open spaces
in transit oriented zones, these three regions prioritized that if TOD was to be implemented at
that scale, that it saw the potential in transforming the nearby community towards smart growth
qualities. All three regions also focused on the topic of the automobile and how it has produced
consequences to the community and the environment. The consequences listed on relying on the
automobile as the main mode of transportation was often negatively viewed. Whether it had to
do with the cost of gas or ongoing traffic congestion, the car was often seen as a negative factor
towards community life and its residents. All three areas wanted to see a shift in the way
transportation is being utilized within their regions, as all pushed to see transit ridership increase
rather than depending on the automobile. This case study analysis that listed the benefits and
Bustamante 24
costs of TOD implementation leads to the conclusion that TOD implementation would
encourage, promote, and strive for smart growth development, highlighting “mixed-use
development” as the best way to access smart growth.
Next, after analyzing data provided by the U.S Census of Bureau, the need to examine
how people who commute get to and from work was necessary, since commuters usually
mobilize within different locations. The data of the main means of transportation for workers age
16 and over showed that driving alone was the primary way to get to and from work, while
carpooling was second. After these two means, public transportation was third, following with no
mode since they worked at home, walking, other means, and lastly with bicycle. This data shows
that more than half of the modes of transportation people use in the United States is by driving an
automobile. Examining this kind of data was crucial for this research paper to show that the
United States is a car centric society, the fault towards the ways communities are developed. It
was important for this research because it provides reasoning to the development of sprawl and
its communities. Without a car, people living in suburbs would be very limited with getting to
other spaces, whether that is work, retail, recreational, or other purposes.
Along with this data in knowing that the car dominates transportation modes here in the
United States, it was crucial to understand if there is a change in which how people use different
kinds of transportation over time. Specifically, if urban areas use other means of transportation
compared to suburbs, and vice versa. After analyzing the data from the U.S Census of Bureau,
the data provided automobile usage by type of community there was a difference between how
people used transportation in urban core, metro, and outside the metro area from 2006-2013. The
data shows within each area there was a change in shift on how people used automobiles. There
was a decrease in automobile usage for those living in the principal city and metro area, while
Bustamante 25
there was a increase in automobile usage for people living outside any metro area. This data
shows that people living in metro areas relied less on the automobile to mobilize, while the
sprawling communities outside the metro area relied more on the automobile to mobilize.
Therefore, different locations both metro area and outside metro area shows different patterns on
relying on the automobile. Metro areas are relying less on the automobile, while sprawling
communities are relying more on the automobile.
Lastly, the last finding was to further examine if there are any existing initiatives in
metropolitan areas that push towards smart growth development near transit zones. It was
important to research whether there were any initiatives existing that is making a change in the
communities towards smart growth development. According to the State of New Jersey:
Department of Transportation, an initiative to promote transit oriented development was done
through the existing Transit Village Initiative. The goal of the Transit Village Initiative is to
encourage other communities that want to implement TOD design within their communities to
follow the best strategies used by them. In order to analyze TVI, the best way to evaluate this
initiative was through a SWOT analysis that listed the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats. The initiative was a strength because it acted as model for other communities striving for
TOD and that it encourages smart growth development; however, a weakness is that some would
find it unattractive or will not appreciate the shift from low to high density communities.
Furthermore, TVI would give opportunities for business growth, attract mixed-income groups,
and help revitalize communities near existing transit stops, however it could be a threat for
communities as it can displace already existing residents and whether there be a change in
automobile dependence.
Bustamante 26
Overall, suburbs/sprawling communities that have some type of ridership within its area,
the implementation of TOD can be passed if local government, municipality, and the public are
in favor of this type of design. For example, after stating both the benefits and costs of TOD
implementation at the metropolitan scale, the benefits outweigh the costs. By performing a case
study on examining TOD implementation in three metropolitan regional locations, all locations
shared similar benefits. All three metropolitan regions had already existing transit infrastructure
readily available. The idea of having existing transit stations constructed, reduces the cost of new
construction, thus less of an implication for the public sector who are usually the ones funding
TOD. With TOD implementation, promotes smart growth development within transit stations,
this creating “strategic area planning” that builds strategies to revitalize existing communities
near transit stations to make them pedestrian friendly, promote economic and physical activity,
and promote an increase of transit ridership (Seymour, Morris).
Conclusion
Urban sprawl is a major problem here in the United States, especially since it is the most
common form of development that U.S citizens are most familiar with. Sprawl produces a
plethora of consequences, of that being public health, socioeconomic groups, and the
environment. The most common characteristics of sprawl is low density, segregated zones for
one specific purpose, strip malls, horizontal development, parking lots, wide streetscape, and
lack of transit services for its residents. This type of development is detrimental to both the
outcomes of physical, economic, and environmental activity. However, in order to combat
sprawl, the type of development that is opposite of sprawling characteristics is smart growth, a
more sustainable approach to building and revitalizing communities. Smart growth “has many
potential health benefits such as diminished air pollutions, fewer motor vehicle accidents, lower
Bustamante 27
pedestrian mortality, and increased physical exercise” (Resnik 1853). The goal for smart growth
is to make communities healthier, livable, and accessible for its community members. One of the
strategies to best access smart growth development is transit oriented development which “mix
residential, retail, office, open space and public uses in a walkable environment, making it
convenient for residents and employees/ to travel by transit, bicycle, foot or car” (Feldman,
Lewis, Schiff 26).
This research paper was set to examine and answer three points, (1) are areas focused on
the idea that of TOD, would encourage smart growth development near transit stops? (2) does
location in an urban area or outside of an urban area determines one’s use of an automobile? And
(3) are there existing initiatives in metropolitan areas that push towards smart growth
development near transit zones? In order to answer these questions successfully to understand
and examine, a case study approach was applied to three major metropolitan areas that listed the
benefits and costs of TOD implementation. This list focused on how TOD encourages smart
growth development, thus transforming communities to contain smart growth qualities. After this
analysis, TOD implementation in these areas would be that smart growth would be encouraged
and promoted through transit oriented design. As for determining whether location outside or in
an urban area determines one use of automobile. As a result, urban areas have depended less on
an automobile than those living outside. Lastly, TVI was used in this paper to examine an
existing initiative in metropolitan areas that pushes towards smart growth, and that it acts as a
model for others wanting to follow its footsteps.
It is important to take a look at a development that strays away from sprawl and its
negative effects towards the health of its residents and groups, as well as the environment. If
there was a continuation of sprawling behavior, the amount of land consumed would skyrocket,
Bustamante 28
and people would continue to use an automobile due to the lack of accessibility in rural
communities to certain locations. Communities today need to focus on creating healthier, livable,
and accessible spaces that gives people the opportunity to walk, bike, use transit to get to a
specific location. Smart growth communities also add variety, preserve green spaces, promote
pedestrian walkways and plazas. The experience of living in a smart growth community
promotes community life. However, what limits this type of development from succeeding are
interest groups, current zoning laws, and the idea of conflict of interest. With these limitations,
the process of implementing smart growth in non-smart growth areas would stay stagnant. It is
up to planners and urban designers to educate those around them the advantages of smart growth,
and that the benefits outweigh the costs. The future of American communities should not have to
face the consequences of current sprawling behavior, especially when there is a rising population
expected in the future. It is vital to think in the most sustainable of ways to utilize land and
resources to create spaces and communities that are healthier and livable for the community and
its residents.
Bustamante 29
Works Cited
BEHAN, KEVIN, HANNA MAOH, and PAVLOS KANAROGLOU. "Smart Growth Strategies,
Transportation And Urban Sprawl: Simulated Futures For Hamilton, Ontario." Canadian
Geographer 52.3 (2008): 291-308. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.
Feldman, Sarah, Paul Lewis, and Rebecca Schiff. "Transit-Oriented Development In The
Montreal Metropolitan Region: Developer's Perceptions Of Supply Barriers." Canadian
Journal Of Urban Research 21.2 (2012): 25-44. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Dec.
2015.
Filion, Pieire. "Towards Smart Growth? The Difficult Implementation Of Alternatives To Urban
Dispersion." Canadian Journal Of Urban Research 12.(2003): 48-70. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.
Geller, Alyson L. "Smart Growth: A Prescription for Livable Cities." American Journal of Public
Health. © American Journal of Public Health 2003, n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447984/>.
Jepson Jr., Edward J., and Mary M. Edwards. "How Possible Is Sustainable Urban
Development? An Analysis Of Planners' Perceptions About New Urbanism, Smart
Growth And The Ecological City." Planning Practice & Research 25.4 (2010): 417-437.
Business Source Elite. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.
Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia. "A New-Found Popularity For Transit-Oriented Developments?
Lessons From Southern California." Journal Of Urban Design 15.1 (2010): 49-
68. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.
McKenzie, Brian, and Melanie Rapino. "Commuting in the United States: 2009." American
Community Survey Reports (2011): n. pag. Web.
Bustamante 30
"NJDOT Transit Village Initiative Overview, Community Programs." NJDOT Transit Village
Initiative Overview, Community Programs. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.
<http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/village/>.
Resnik, David B. "Urban Sprawl, Smart Growth, And Deliberative Democracy." American
Journal Of Public Health 100.10 (2010): 1852-1856. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3
Dec. 2015.
Seymour, Barry, and Karin Morris. "Transit- Oriented DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREATER
PHILADELPHIA REGION." Economic Development Journal 12.2 (2013): 65-70.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.
Smart Growth in the Southeast | Southern Environmental Law Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec.
2015. <https://www.southernenvironment.org/cases-and-projects/smart-growth-in-the-
southeast>.
"Transit-Oriented Development | Planning for Complete Communities in Delaware." Planning
for Complete Communities in Delaware. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2015.
"Urban Sprawl, Obesity, and Cancer Mortality in the United States: Cross-sectional Analysis and
Methodological Challenges." Urban Sprawl, Obesity, and Cancer Mortality in the United
States: Cross-sectional Analysis and Methodological Challenges. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec.
2015. <http://ij-healthgeographics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-072X-13-
3>.