The
issue of "urban sprawl" recently received top billing at a White
House event at which President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al
Gore announced their Livable Communities Initiative, which, it was
promised, would reduce traffic congestion, promote cleaner air,
preserve open spaces, and retard urban sprawl. Today, organized
opposition to sprawl is led by a relatively new school of urban
planners, the "new urbanists," who blame the expanding urban area
for a number of problems, including increased traffic congestion,
higher air pollution, the decline of central cities, and a
reduction in valuable agricultural land. (New urbanist policies
also go by the label "smart growth").
NEW URBANISM VS. THE FACTS
The
facts demonstrate that major tenets of the new urbanism rest on
false premises. Contrary to new urbanist doctrine, for example:
-
Traffic congestion is
greater, not less, in the compact city.
Higher concentrations of urban residential and employment density
will produce higher concentrations of automobile traffic (and air
pollution). Contrary to new urbanist claims, traffic congestion is
already worse in urban areas with higher densities.
-
Air pollution is
greater, not less, in the compact city.
Generally, the greater the intensity of air pollution, the higher
the population density. As transit-oriented development increases
traffic, it will reduce speeds and increase pollution, because
higher pollution is associated with slower, more congested traffic.
To the extent that new urbanist policies are implemented, air
pollution is likely to be increased relative to levels that would
be experienced in less dense environments.
-
Cities are not crowding out
agricultural production. Expanding urban areas do not threaten
agricultural production. Since 1950, U.S. agricultural acreage has
fallen by 15 percent, while production has risen by more than 105
percent. The area required for agricultural production has
declined, quite independently of urban expansion. Between 1960 and
1990, the area taken out of agricultural production was greater
than that of Texas and more than eight times the area consumed by
expanding urban areas.
-
"Smart growth" could be no growth.
Increasing density and growth restrictions are likely to have a
negative impact on economic growth in metropolitan areas adopting
new urbanist policies. For example, even the new urbanist regional
government in Portland, Oregon (Metro), found that higher densities
and lower automobile usage rates appear to be associated with
"higher housing prices and reduced housing output." As a result of
higher housing prices, new urbanist policies are likely to make the
American dream of home ownership more elusive. Broad implementation
of new urbanist policies could well bring to the United States the
economic stagnation that afflicts Europe, where minimal job
creation and high unemployment are associated with a high-cost and
less competitive economy.
-
Policies like those in Portland will
produce more traffic congestion and air
pollution, not less. Portland is well on the way to replicating the
traffic congestion problems of Los Angeles. Traffic congestion in
Portland already is approaching that of the New York metropolitan
area-which is 15 times larger-and Portland projections indicate
that, even after building five additional light rail lines, traffic
volumes will rise by more than 50 percent by 2015.
Many
new urbanists want to mimic European policies, but Europe's
comparatively high public transit market share has led to the
mistaken impression that transit is gaining at the expense of the
automobile. This is not the case. European automobile use has grown
at three times the U.S. rate since 1970, largely as a result of
increasing affluence. In recent decades, transit market shares have
dropped from even higher levels in Europe as increased affluence
has made the automobile affordable for more people. In Europe (as
in the United States) urban rail's record in attracting people away
from automobiles has been insignificant.
THE URBAN SAFETY VALVE
Despite all the criticism, America's
spacious urban areas provide significant advantages. Their very
geographical expansion has provided a safety valve that has kept
travel times relatively stable.
-
Average peak hour commuting time fell
approximately 6 percent from 1969 to 1995 (from 22.0 minutes to
20.7 minutes).
-
The automobile has improved travel
times. According to the United States Department of Transportation,
one of the most important reasons that average commuting time has
not increased materially over the past 25 years is that people have
abandoned transit services for automobiles, which are considerably
faster. The average transit commute trip takes approximately 80
percent longer than the average automobile commuter trip.
-
The flexibility of the automobile has
improved the efficiency of labor markets, making a much larger
market of employers and employees conveniently accessible to one
another.
-
The competition provided by large
suburban shopping malls and retailers has lowered consumer
prices.
This
is not to suggest that traffic congestion is not a problem. But
today's urban motorist experiences much greater mobility and speed
than can be provided by any practical alternatives. The question is
not how governments are going to force people out of their cars,
but whether capacity will be provided for the traffic growth that
will occur regardless of which measures are adopted.
Wendell Cox is Principal, the Wendell Cox
Consultancy, St. Louis, Missouri.