For decades, American urban areas have grown
in land area much more than they have grown in population. This
geographic expansion is often attributed to increasing dependence
on the automobile and construction of the interstate highway
(freeway) system. A relatively new school of urban planners, the
"new urbanists," 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"). Moreover, new urbanists believe that more
spacious urban areas typical of the United States are inherently
inefficient relative to more compact cities, exhibiting higher
costs for infrastructure and public services.
THE NEW URBANISM
New
urbanist literature often touts Europe's more compact and more
densely populated urban areas as being superior to those in the
United States. The new urbanist vision includes:
-
Establishment of urban growth
boundaries (UGB).
-
Channeling urban development toward
"infill" (undeveloped areas within the urban growth boundary).
-
"Transit oriented development" along
urban rail corridors, higher population density, and higher
employment density.
-
Little if any expansion of street or
highway capacity.
-
Retail developments less oriented
toward the automobile (smaller stores with less parking located
generally in town centers rather than suburbs).
The
new urbanists believe that these strategies will produce a more
compact city in which automobile dependency, traffic congestion,
and air pollution are reduced. New urbanist concepts have been
incorporated into a number of state laws and regional planning
policies. In the United States, the most advanced model of new
urbanist policies can be found in Portland, Oregon, where a
long-range plan has been adopted by an elected regional
government. This plan involves an urban
growth boundary; concentrated employment and
high-density housing patterns, such as town houses and apartments;
significant expansion of the light rail system; and little street
or highway expansion.
New
urbanist policies, especially as adopted in Portland, have evoked
considerable interest among legislators, local officials, and civic
leaders around the world. There are, however, difficulties with new
urbanism, both in terms of analysis and in terms of policies.
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). This is already evident.
Contrary to new urbanist claims, traffic congestion is already
worse in urban areas with higher densities.
-
Urban areas with higher levels of
traffic congestion, as measured by the federal government's Roadway
Congestion Index, have higher population densities (see Chart 1). This is to be expected, since
higher density means less road space on which to accommodate the
high volume of private vehicle traffic.
-
Transit-oriented development increases
traffic congestion. Except in a very few centers, such as Midtown
Manhattan and Chicago's Loop, a majority of trips are by
automobile. The overwhelming majority of travel to proposed
transit-oriented developments--which include high-density housing,
retail, and employment located around transit stations, especially
rail--will be by automobile (new employment centers attract from
six to 100 times as many automobile commuters as transit
commuters). The higher concentrations of employment and residences
therefore must bring an increase in automobile trips in the area.
This will strain road space, slowing traffic and increasing
pollution as a consequence.
Air pollution is greater, not
less, in the compact city.
Higher levels of air pollution are
associated with higher densities, not lower densities. Generally,
the greater the intensity of air pollution, the higher the
population density (see Chart 2). 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 (see Chart 3). 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 (see Chart 4). At current rates of urban expansion, it
would take more than 250 years to urbanize the amount of
agricultural land taken out of production between 1960 and
1990.
There is more to urban land expansion than
interstate highways.
Urban expansion is far too complex to be
blamed simply on the automobile and interstate highways. First of
all, urban interstates largely were not open until the early 1960s
(the Interstate Highway Act was enacted in 1956). Yet the suburbs
already were gaining population at the expense of the central
cities.
During the 1950s, the major central cities
that did not expand by annexation lost approximately 5.0 percent of
their population. Similar rates of pre-interstate urban population
loss occurred in the 1960s (7.2 percent) and 1980s (5.7
percent).
Only during the 1970s was the rate significantly higher, at 14.6
percent. Other factors, such as escalating crime rates, the urban
riots of the 1960s, and declining educational performance in
central city school districts, probably were much more responsible
for flight from the central cities.
Indeed, the 1970s, during which urban
flight was the greatest, followed closely on the urban unrest of
the 1960s and was also a period of particular deterioration with
respect to the crime rate and educational performance. Additional
contributing factors included higher central city taxes, lower
quality central city services, and increasing affluence, which
allowed people the option of living in larger houses on larger
lots.
Lower public service costs are associated
with lower, not higher, densities.
Despite the popular misconception, public
service costs tend to be lower where population densities are
lower.
There are a number of reasons why the reality differs from the
theory on urban costs. For example, the larger, more dense local
government units tend to have larger bureaucracies, and their
political processes are more susceptible to special-interest
control. Both of these factors tend to increase costs.
"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 Portland's new urbanist regional government (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. By
limiting housing output, they are likely to limit job creation in
construction trades and allied fields. Further, discouraging
construction of additional suburban shopping centers can be
expected to raise the cost of living while retarding job growth
even more. 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.
Portland's policies will produce
more traffic congestion and air pollution, not
less.
Portland's new urbanist policies will not
deliver lower levels of traffic congestion and air pollution.
Portland's regional government, Metro, has stated that "[W]ith
respect to density and road per capita mileage it (Los Angeles)
displays an investment pattern we desire to replicate." In fact,
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. It is estimated that Portland's
Roadway Congestion Index will rise to 1.62 from its current 1.16
(see Chart 5). This would represent a worse
level of traffic congestion than is currently experienced by Los
Angeles (which has the highest Roadway Congestion Index in the
nation).
Portland seems to have chosen a future
with two million cars in 500 square miles instead of 600 square
miles. It can be expected that air pollution will be greater as a
result.
Europe is suburbanizing, too.
European cities are suburbanizing, despite
their higher population densities, more comprehensive transit
systems, higher gasoline prices, lower income, and more
focused cities. Like their American
counterparts, many European central cities have lost
population.
-
No freeways enter the central city of
Paris, which has one of the world's most intensive rail transit
systems. Yet Paris's central city population loss and suburban
population explosion mirror those of Philadelphia, a metropolitan
area that has experienced similar overall growth (see Chart 6). At the same time, both traffic
congestion and air pollution are severe. Average automobile travel
speed in the city of Paris is 12.5 miles per hour.
-
Inner London and Manhattan (inner New
York) lost similar percentages of population over a period of 40
years until 1990-1991 (25 percent and 24 percent,
respectively).
-
The cities of Copenhagen, Liverpool,
Manchester, and Glasgow lost approximately 40 percent of their
population in the past 40 years. By comparison, Detroit and
Cleveland lost 45 percent, Newark lost 39 percent, and Washington
lost 32 percent. In each of these European and American cities, all
growth was suburban growth.
-
The central city of Stockholm has lost
16 percent of its population since 1950, with all growth occurring
in the suburbs.
The
same pattern is occurring in other developed nations as well.
-
While San Francisco's population was
rising by 1 percent from 1970 to 1990, Toronto's fell by 8 percent
and Montreal's fell by 20 percent.
-
Tokyo's population has fallen by more
than two million since 1960, with all population growth occurring
in the suburbs.
Central area populations have fallen in
virtually all cities in the developed world. In most cases,
the declines are masked by population added through annexation or
consolidation. In fact, central area depopulation and suburban
expansion have been occurring for some time. Inner London began
losing population between 1901 and 1911, while Manhattan began
losing population between 1910 and 1920. Central area depopulation
was first noted in Philadelphia between 1820 and 1830, as people
moved to the suburbs.
The
depopulation of central cities in Europe and other developed
nations is particularly notable because these cities generally did
not face important factors that contributed to the depopulation of
U.S. central cities, such as high crime rates, urban riots, forced
busing, falling education standards, freeways, and home mortgage
tax deductions. In addition, Europe's much stronger land use
policies, higher suburban land costs, and overall higher cost
structure might have been expected to forestall
suburbanization.
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: No such transfer has taken place. Europe's trend
toward higher automobile dependency and lower transit market shares
is following U.S. trends by a decade or two, just as its rising
affluence has followed U.S. trends.
Urban growth boundaries will not reduce
traffic congestion or contain growth.
By
imposing urban growth boundaries, new urbanists hope to force
higher densities and infill development. No material increase in
density is likely to occur, except where the urban growth
boundaries encompass wide expanses of undeveloped land (as was the
case in Portland when its urban growth boundary was
established).
Even
Portland's draconian policies are projected to increase densities
to a level less than that of Los Angeles. Portland will continue to
have densities barely one-quarter those of Paris, which is highly
automobile dependent except in the inner city. While new urbanist
policies may produce small reductions in average automobile miles
traveled per capita, the increasing traffic congestion is likely to
generate a more than compensating increase in the average hours per
capita traveled by automobile. This will increase air pollution and
retard the quality of life by reducing leisure time.
Urban growth boundaries have a long
history of failure with respect to containing growth.
-
Queen Elizabeth I established an urban
growth boundary in London in 1580. Development continued outside
the urban growth boundaries.
-
King Louis XIII established an urban
growth boundary in Paris in 1638. It failed to contain development,
as did subsequent urban growth boundaries established by Louis XIV
and Louis XV.
-
London imposed an urban growth boundary
by purchasing a "Green Belt" surrounding the city in the 1930s.
Since that time, London's population density inside the Green Belt
has fallen as 1.5 million people have left the city. Inner London's
population dropped 43 percent, while that of outer London (the
pre-1940 suburbs inside the Green Belt) rose 12 percent. Population
in the surrounding counties increased 273 percent as development
"leap-frogged" across the urban growth boundary to exurban areas
beyond the Green Belt (see Chart 7). The 1931
census indicated that 19 percent of the population was outside what
was to become the Green Belt. The 1991 census showed that more than
one-half of the population was in the outer counties.
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM
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 (see Chart 8).
-
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.
The
spacious urban area, with its increased retail competition and more
efficient labor markets, has helped to create a comparatively
low-cost economy in the United States. It is likely that these
advantages have contributed to America's unparalleled standard
of
living.
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. Unless the
automobile is accommodated, traffic can and will get much worse.
Few places in the United States experience the intractable traffic
congestion that is a day-to-day occurrence in the largest centers
of Europe, despite higher densities, rail transit, and strong land
use controls.
The
fundamental problem with the new urbanism is that, despite
aggressive planning policies, it is incapable of either increasing
densities or materially improving the match between origins and
destinations sufficiently to make alternatives to the automobile
viable. Much stronger land use policies and much higher densities
in suburban Stockholm failed to produce the anticipated reliance on
rail transit, as automobile use continued to increase
substantially. It is "neither certain nor self
evident" that new urbanist policies, if they were to occur, would
reduce traffic congestion.
THE NEW SUBURBANISM
The
new urbanist city would be only marginally more dense than today's
spacious city, and travel patterns would be little different. The
overwhelming majority of travel would continue to be by automobile.
Even more than today, American urban areas would remain far below
the "critical mass" that would generate significant ridership and
too dense to avoid intractable traffic congestion. As a result,
consistent with the plans of Portland, the higher density would
worsen traffic congestion. The simple fact is that more cars in a
more compact area mean more traffic and more air pollution, not
less.
A
more appropriate term than "new urbanism" might be "new
suburbanism." At most, new urbanist policies will produce small
enclaves of somewhat higher density surrounded by a sea of
low-density suburbs. New urbanist policies could hasten the coming
of a new suburbanization, with a much less dense urban sprawl than
already has been experienced. More people are likely to choose to
live outside the urban growth boundary, in smaller communities
which gradually will become larger and more urban. More businesses
are likely to locate outside major urban areas. Residents inside
urban growth boundaries will make longer journeys to shop at the
new, larger retail establishments in exurban areas.
New
urbanist policies are being proposed at the very time that
information technology (such as the Internet) threatens to make
urban centers less important. Already, major urban centers have few
advantages over medium and smaller sized urban areas. Generally,
these smaller areas have virtually everything that major centers
have except for international airports.
CONCLUSION
Previous generations of urban planners
imposed their visions of a better city through policies such as
urban renewal and construction of high-rise public housing. These
planners believed in their theories just as devoutly as do today's
new urbanists. It is not impossible that to analysts a
quarter-century from now, the new urbanism will seem every bit as
anti-city as any of the failed policies of the past.
Wendell Cox is Principal, the Wendell Cox
Consultancy, St. Louis, Missouri.