Diarist’s note: That which is presented below was published originally on Jan. 3, 2009 on the progressive “California Progress Report” site. It is republished here with permission.
I don’t believe the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Clean Air Policy could be any more accurate and blunt in assessing how land use and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in many American cities interplay.
Here is what is written on page 7 of the CCAP Transportation [Emissions] Guidebook, Part 1: Land Use, Transit & Travel Demand Management.
“Patterns of urban growth characteristic of post WWII North American development have created cities and regions that are centered upon and are dependent on the car to meet transportation needs. Located largely at the urban fringe, this pattern of suburban, or greenfield, development is typically dominated by housing-only enclaves consisting of single family homes with two-car garages and a hierarchical road system (with one way in and out). Here, land use functions are isolated (residential, commercial, employment), origins and destinations are farther apart, infrastructure design is oriented toward the automobile, and low population densities are not conducive to public transportation. With the automobile as the only realistic transportation mode for suburbanites in these sprawling communities, commuters are faced with increased driving distances and increased congestion. All told, this pattern of growth has resulted in deteriorating urban air quality and human health, increased emissions of greenhouse gases, limited transportation and housing choice, inefficient use of infrastructure, and communities that are less able to meet the needs of their residents.”
Based on my interpretation, I am of the opinion that the above describes the major metropolises of Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, Stockton, and Visalia/Tulare to a tee. Notice they’re all located in the San Joaquin Valley. What’s more, the CCAP as well in Land Use, Transit & Travel Demand Management on page 7 states:
“Smart growth, new urbanism, community energy planning and sustainable city planning are movements that have emerged from within the fields of planning, urban design and architecture in response to concerns over the sustainability of the sprawl pattern of urban development. Smart growth initiatives at both the state and local levels have garnered increased attention due to the escalating environmental, socio-economic and human health impacts of the land use decisions that have typified North American development over the last half century.
“Advocates for environmental, public health, economic and energy interests highlight the need to design communities that reduce inefficiencies in the transportation and land use planning system. The benefits range from reducing greenhouse gases that lead to global warming, improving air quality to addressing the public health concerns caused by physical inactivity and obesity.” (Other benefits are itemized too).
True, perhaps, but after reading Russell Clemings’ Fresno Bee “Valley leaders wary of housing goal: Many question highest-density option in blueprint” article today (January 2, 2009) http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/1103210.html, I’m not sure planners, urban designers, and architects (among others) in the eight-county San Joaquin Valley are paying close enough attention to what Clemings writes about in this story. I hope I’m wrong. They need to get this right.
For instance, as pointed out in the Clemings’ story, there seems to be all this squabbling in Valley communities over what the number of people-per-acre-of-density should be to effectively combat continued status-quo sprawl. That’s but one part of the overall equation only.
Clemings writes: “A move to encourage tight limits on urban sprawl in the San Joaquin Valley is meeting resistance from many of the region’s political leaders.
“As it heads toward a decision that could shape Valley growth over the next four decades, the 2-year-old San Joaquin Valley Blueprint planning process is split between one proposal that calls for an average of 18 people per acre of new development and another for 31 people per acre.
“To the extent that local governments stick to the eventual plan, both versions would result in higher housing densities than the current average, which is 13 people (a little more than four homes) per acre.”
But here’s what we’re looking at if development in the Central Valley remains unchanged.
“By 2050, the Valley would convert 533,000 acres to urban development under current trends,” according to Clemings. On the other hand, “Increasing new development to 18 people per acre would save 135,000 acres. Making it 31 people per acre would save almost twice as much, 262,000 acres,” Clemings writes.
My question is, as long as growth is allowed to continue in uncontrolled fashion without any real plan, direction and consideration for environmental sustainability and improved quality of life, in other words allowing San Joaquin Valley status quo building practices to continue unabated - even if they were to occur alongside newer more sustainable development strategies, those 533,000 acres will eventually be consumed with residences, maybe just not as quickly should the most dense development scenario offered above be adopted.
What’s more, Clemings writes: “In addition, the 18-people-per-acre version would cut energy use by 8% and miles driven by 10%. The 35-people-per-acre version would cut energy use by 25% and miles driven by 27%.
“Greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming, would drop by similar increments, according to computer projections. Still, none of the region’s eight counties supports the more aggressive version,” according to Clemings.
I believe only if development strategies follow rational and effective smart growth practices (SGP) incorporating mixed-use commercial and residential development thereby making developments more pedestrian friendly (read: “creating walkable communities”), transit-oriented development amenities such as high-quality, high-capacity mass transit, and keeping housing, shopping, educational, healthcare-related, recreational and entertainment activities and venues and jobs all in close proximity to one another, will true improvement occur. Higher density in and of itself will do little to change currently [sic] lifestyle or way-of-life habits.
Why are the so-called Valley-centric planners, urban designers and architects not understanding this? I don’t really know for sure. However, I do think I have a pretty good handle on things in my reuse of a common expression here and that is that the left hand doesn’t thoroughly know what the right hand is doing in this regard. Once again, I hope I’m wrong.
