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>.