Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Request for references and resources

Expand Messages
  • urbankit1
    ... A visionary study was conducted by the Intitute for alternative Futures. I pasted it all underneath because you could not find it in the net. It has a lot
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In arcology@yahoogroups.com, "dougleonardi" <dleonardi@...>
      wrote:
      >
      A visionary study was conducted by the Intitute for alternative
      Futures. I pasted it all underneath because you could not find it in
      the net. It has a lot to do with cost of urbal sprawl.
      I do not know if anybody before has mentioned this study, but I
      think it of crucial importance.

      Regards
      Boris Papanikolaou

      Mobility for the 21st Century
      A Blueprint for the Future
      prepared for the American Public Transit Association
      by the American Public Transit Association's
      Mobility for the 21st Century Task Force
      and Robert L. Olson, Institute for Alternative Futures
      October 1996

      Mobility for the 21st Century
      Inspiring possibilities are emerging for expanding our nation's
      mobility options in the 21st century and creating livable
      communities and sustainable patterns of development. Pursuing these
      positive possibilities can head off many of the problems associated
      with current urban development patterns. The American Public Transit
      Association (APTA) created the Task Force on Mobility in the 21st
      Century (M21) to explore both positive opportunities and dangers
      ahead.
      The M21 Task Force used two tools for thinking systematically about
      how transportation and urban development could evolve in the 21st
      century. The first tool is a set of four scenariosof how the future
      might turn out by 2050 -- as far into the future as we are from
      World War II when existing patterns of transportation and urban
      development first became dominant. These scenarios explore a wide
      range of "plausible futures" for urban development in general and
      transportation in particular. The future is highly uncertain, but it
      will probably fall somewhere within the possibilities that these
      scenarios explore. The four M21 scenarios are:
      Boundless Sprawl-- Low-density automobile-dominant development
      continues and the information superhighway spreads everywhere. The
      U.S. stays at the top of the global competitive ladder and avoids
      catastrophes, but central cities decline and many problems worsen.
      Dying Cities-- Problems caused by pursuing low-density development
      contribute to a slow slide into economic paralysis and social
      decline. Central cities are racked with poverty and crime.
      Environmental and economic decline feed on each other in a downward
      spiral.
      Community-Oriented Growth--Growth is not limited, but it takes on
      more community-oriented patterns. Development increasingly occurs in
      the form of infill and mixed-use, pedestrian-scale communities
      centered on transit stations. This strengthens community, expands
      housing and mobility options, and preserves open space.
      Reinventing the City-- The "push" of severe problems and the "pull"
      of an emerging vision of sustainable development create a new urban
      pattern in which nearly every location can be reached conveniently
      by transit. Nearly all development occurs within urban growth
      boundaries surrounded by greenbelts.
      The second tool employed by the M21 Task Force was a process of
      vision developmentthat led to a vision statement which describes
      the "preferred future" of Task Force members. APTA will use this
      vision to help guide and motivate its actions. We hope it will be
      useful to others as well, as people from every area of society come
      to understand the importance of learning together how to shape a
      sustainable future.
      This report sets out the M21 Task Force's analysis of problemsof
      urban development,its four scenariosof how today's problems and
      possibilities could unfold in the future, and its vision of mobility
      and urban development in the 21st century. A companion report,
      Strategic Goals for the 21st Century, sets out specific goals
      derived from the vision and actions to achieve the goals.
      Problems of Urban Development
      Since World War II, our nation's urban development has been guided
      by a dominant vision of how metropolitan areas should grow. It is
      commonly described as low density development, suburbanization, or
      urban sprawl. This development pattern made an attractive new way of
      life available for millions of people. It offered home ownership,
      modern schools, responsive local government, and an uncrowded
      environment of clean air and green lawns. It offered unprecedented
      mobility based on widespread autom obile ownership and a rapidly
      expanding system of interstate highways and urban expressways. This
      vision of personal and social progress became a part of
      the "American dream."
      There is no question that this post-war vision of urban expansion
      contributed to an unprecedented surge of economic growth that
      brought the majority of our nation's population into the middle
      class. However, the achievement of this vision over the past fifty
      years has produced unanticipated problems that at first seemed to be
      manageable "side effects" of growth, but that now loom as serious
      threats to our nation's long-term success. All of the problems
      listed below are directly related to urba n sprawl.
      Costs for maintaining the far-flung highway, sewer and other
      infrastructure systems needed to support low-density sprawl are
      soaring, and will continue to escalate as the infrastructures age.
      While the infrastructure to support new development on the urban
      fringe is becoming enormously expensive to build and maintain over
      the long run, we continue to leave underutilized infrastructure
      behind and build on the fringe because the short-term costs of doing
      so are low for both businesses and home buyers. If this continues,
      our children and grandchildren will face potentially crippling
      costs.
      In the areas where sprawl is worst, costs to business are becoming
      significant. By reducing the quality of life, sprawl makes areas
      less desirable for potential employees and customers. By increasing
      resistance to further suburban development, sprawl makes it
      difficult for businesses to expand or relocate. By requiring longer,
      more stressful commutes and making it more difficult for many people
      to get to where new jobs are, sprawl leads to higher labor costs and
      lower worker productivity.
      Areas of low-density sprawl provide little low- or even moderate-
      income housing. As a result, low-income people are concentrated in
      the cheapest, most deteriorating housing at the centers of cities.
      Often they are without automobiles or adequate transit links to
      reach suburban areas where new jobs are being created. This
      concentration of poverty and isolation from jobs is a major cause of
      inner city unemployment, crime, school breakdown and other social
      problems.
      Low-density sprawl requires extensive automobile driving to achieve
      necessary levels of access. Even the most minor activities such as
      mailing a letter or buying a loaf of bread often require a car.
      Dependency on automobiles severely restricts the mobility of people
      who cannot operate them, including many young people, the elderly,
      and people with disabilities.
      Dependency on automobiles takes a high toll in unintentional
      injuries. Over 40,000 persons are killed and another 5 million are
      injured each year in traffic accidents at a cost to the nation's
      economy of far over $100 billion.
      Peak hour traffic congestion is worsening, especially in the
      suburbs, exacting an economic toll in lost time and productivity.
      Sprawl is swallowing open space, encroaching on environmentally
      sensitive areas, and damaging the viability of large ecosystems.
      Sprawl is causing a permanent loss of prime agricultural land and in
      the process devastating many farm communities. The prospect of
      eventually selling out to a developer reduces incentives to many
      farmers to make long-term capital investments or adopt methods of
      sustainable agriculture that would build soil quality over the long
      run. Sprawl-induced ozone pollution can reduce crop yields by as
      much as 30 percent.
      Travel in single occupancy vehicles is the greatest contributor to
      urban air pollution, which poses health risks for millions of
      people. It is also the single largest factor in the buildup of
      greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which risks causing climate
      changes and global warming.
      Excessive oil consumption, over half of which is used by
      automobiles, makes the U.S. vulnerable to cutoffs by foreign
      suppliers and makes oil imports the biggest item in our foreign
      trade deficit.
      Our society is undergoing a profound disintegration of community
      life. One of the most important developments weakening our sense of
      community is the loss of the human scale in the physical environment
      as development is geared more toward automobiles, roads and parking
      spaces than toward walkable communities where neighbors can meet and
      interact.
      Our dominant vision of low-density development contains no agreed on
      means for resolving conflicts between the welfare of the
      metropolitan area as a whole and the welfare of its many parts.
      Government decision making powers related to land use and
      development are divided among scores of local governments, each
      working in isolation from the others. As a result, it is extremely
      difficult to find a politically acceptable way of bounding or
      channeling growth, siting needed but locally undesirable land u ses,
      or financing new infrastructure fairly.
      These issues are all recognized as serious. Efforts to ameliorate
      many of them by technological fixes and social expenditures have
      been underway for some time, with only limited success. In the past,
      each of these issues usually has been treated as a separate,
      individual problem. Now, however, there is a growing recognition
      that all these individual issues comprise a "syndrome" of interwoven
      problems generated by our pursuit of a particular vision of how
      growth ought to occur. This interc onnected "problem of problems,"
      is one of the greatest threats to our nation's economic
      productivity, environmental sustainability, and social well being.
      We cannot solve these problems and shape our nation's future
      successfully unless we invent new patterns of urban development
      superior to urban sprawl.
      Sustainable Development: A New Vision of the Future
      Fortunately, there is a growing recognition that low-density
      development has shifted from being an engine of growth and progress
      to an economic burden and a threat to the quality of our lives. At
      the same time, a new concept of sustainable development is emerging
      which promises to avoid rather than simply ameliorate many of the
      problems that endanger our future.
      The UN's World Commission on Environment and Development defined
      sustainable development in terms of an intergenerational Golden
      Rule: we must learn to meet "the needs of the present without
      compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
      needs." James MacNeill, who served as the Commission's director,
      stresses that the challenge of sustainable development "is largely
      an urban challenge, given the dominant place of urban areas in
      population distribution... and in the prod uction and consumption of
      goods...."
      Sustainable development breaks out of conventional polarities and
      left vs. right debates. It is not a call for limiting development,
      but a call to be smarter about how we develop so that the result is
      real, qualitative improvement. It does not elevate environmental
      protection over economic well-being. Instead it emphasizes the
      importance of finding more appropriate development patterns and
      technologies that will work over the long run because they
      simultaneously improve the economy, the environment, and the lives
      of people at all income levels. Its concepts are being embraced by
      politicians on both the right (with the movement toward more
      consumption-oriented taxation) and the left (with the focus on
      environmentally sound economic policies).
      Ideas about how to make development more sustainable are being
      generated and applied at every level, from the UN and national
      governments to corporate R&D on new technologies to local community
      efforts. On the urban and regional scale, the result is a new vision
      of how metropolitan areas should grow. While this vision is not yet
      fully developed, many of its outlines are already clear. It involves
      a deliberate shift away from low-density sprawl toward more compact,
      efficient, and community-centered d evelopment patterns. Automobiles
      would still be an important means of transportation in this new
      development pattern, but over time people would become less
      dependent on automobiles. Both fringe and infill development would
      be designed for ease of walking and bicycling, and easy access to
      public transit. Expanded transit systems would connect centers of
      development with each other and with the older urban area. Transit
      would provide the infrastructure backbone for a new urban form in
      which metropolitan area s become networks of human-scale
      neighborhoods.
      Scenarios and Vision: Dealing with Uncertainty
      Today's dominant vision of low-density sprawl is deeply embedded in
      our mindsets, institutional arrangements, regulations, policies,
      practices and investments in existing infrastructure. Changing that
      vision will be neither easy nor quick -- but that change is
      inevitable because present trends in urban development and
      transportation are not sustainable over the long run.
      As a result, we are confronted by true uncertainty-- that is, we
      really do not know what will happen. Enormous changes away from the
      trends of the past are virtually certain, but we do not know when
      they will occur, how serious our problems will become before they
      occur, or how difficult the transition will be. Standard technical
      methods for extrapolating trends and forecasting needs become highly
      unreliable and potentially misleading in the face of such deep
      uncertainty.
      Scenarios and vision development are among the most powerful tools
      available for thinking about the uncertainties of the future.
      Scenarios are "futures for the head" -- compilations of trends and
      potential developments which stretch our imaginations and help us
      think systematically about possible future threats and
      opportunities. Visions are "futures for the heart" - images of the
      preferred future intended to touch us and move us to action.
      The Mobility 21 Scenarios that follow can be used as a lens for
      expanding personal awareness of possibilities ahead. They can also
      be used by communities to stimulate public discussion, and by
      transportation planners for initial exercises in transportation
      planning projects.
      The greatest value of looking at the world through these scenarios
      is that they will make you more aware of your own assumptions, which
      will be highlighted in contrast to other plausible assumptions in
      different scenarios. Instead of operating with a single implicit
      image of where things are probably going, the scenarios will allow
      you to "try on" alternative patterns of interpretation. This will
      expand the range of things to which you pay attention. You will find
      yourself reviewing the news a nd personal experience in a new way as
      you consider whether events appear to be moving toward one scenario
      or another. You will see opportunities and threats that you never
      noticed before because they were outside your "field of view." If
      the range of scenarios developed by the M21 Task Force is
      dissatisfying to you, you will be challenged to think through what
      other scenarios are plausible.
      Thinking in terms of scenarios will also made you acutely aware that
      there is no single, certain future out there -- that there are many
      possibilities -- and that what happens tomorrow will be shaped by
      today's choices and actions. In situations of high uncertainty, the
      best way to "forecast" the future is often to envision a better
      future and work to create it.
      The following Vision of Mobility in the 21st Century is the M21 Task
      Force's effort to imagine possibilities of a kind of 21st century
      future far superior to our own. The Task Force hopes that it will
      inspire others to clarify their own views of the preferred future.
      The 21st century will be better if we move into it pursuing our
      visions and aspirations rather than simply reacting to problems.
      The M21 Scenarios
      Scenario 1: Boundless Sprawl
      The post-World War II vision of metropolitan growth has played
      itself out in 2050, as low-density development and the automobile
      defined 100 years of American society. Suburbs and exurbs have
      become the cultural and economic backbone of the nation, while
      central cities, in the face of plunging tax bases and swelling
      social burdens, have lost most of their political and economic
      relevance. The nation managed to stave off catastrophes such as
      extended recessions, political gridlock, massive envi ronmental
      degradation, and social disharmony. Yet, a disconcerting level of
      public apathy, unresolved class and racial tensions, and "growing
      pains" foster undeniable and widespread feelings of malaise in many
      citizens.
      By 2015, the information superhighway became the primary way people
      communicated, conducted business and entertained themselves.
      Intelligent networks reaching into every business and home triggered
      an explosion of entrepreneurship and, to a large extent,
      decentralized political and economic control. Combined with new
      energy sources, "mass customization" in manufacturing through agile
      factories, and the successful "capture" of global market share by
      U.S. companies, the U.S. maintained its perch at the top of the
      competitive ladder.
      Yet, these very successes helped mask pressing domestic social
      inequities and allowed many communities to avoid tough decisions
      about their future. Despite continuing economic growth, government
      spending has been sharply constrained by costs for health care,
      mobility, social security and debt repayment. Society leaned
      heavily, and often successfully, on technological innovation as a
      buffer to social and economic crises. On-line shopping, banking, and
      medical delivery -- coupled with the "comfortiza tion" of the home
      and cars, low density development, and extended forays into virtual
      reality -- led to a gradual withdrawal from "geographic" community
      connections.
      Over time, this created what social historians termed "the
      responsibility gap," where the nature of how individuals connected
      to the broader society conspired to routinely place personal well-
      being over that of one's neighbors and communities. As a result,
      longer-term solutions were eschewed in favor of quicker, less
      painful band-aids, and festering class, racial, ethnic and other
      social tensions were left to percolate just below public
      consciousness. In 2050, when people talk about their &quo
      t;community," they are usually referring to their on-line friends
      and associates, and not their neighbors or towns.
      Responding to public sentiment, local governments have continued to
      encourage mainly low-density housing, setting stringent limits on
      the construction of new multifamily units. Detached single-family
      homes on spacious lots are the dominant housing type, and most
      people travel in single-occupancy automotive vehicles, chasing jobs
      that are widely scattered among the suburbs. The middle class and
      affluent have populated the thriving exurbs, traveling into the
      suburbs for jobs and the city for occasional cu ltural events.
      Growing numbers of people have migrated out of metropolitan areas
      altogether, using the information superhighway to "commute" to work.
      As a result, prime agricultural land, open space, and
      environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, river basins,
      forests, and the habitats of endangered species have been
      disappearing rapidly over the past five decades.
      Because areas of new low-density growth provided little low- or even
      moderate-income housing, low-income people remain concentrated in
      the cheapest, most deteriorated housing at the centers of cities.
      Without automobiles or adequate transit links to reach the suburbs
      where new jobs are being created, inner city residents continue to
      have high rates of unemployment. And, despite some success in
      reducing welfare dependency, young people still find it difficult to
      escape from the grip of poverty. Low quali ty schools and decimated
      public services deterred any significant new development and
      redevelopment in the city cores, even with the periodic offering of
      tax incentives to encourage residential and commercial renovation.
      Air pollution worsened in many urban areas until after 2010, when
      low- and zero-emission vehicles began to offset growing auto use.
      Despite a stabilization of pollution problems, average vehicle miles
      traveled per household keeps increasing and peak-hour traffic
      congestion continues to cause headaches. But intelligent
      transportation systems, better highway system management and new
      highway construction have prevented gridlock.
      Alternative fuels, improved engines, hybrid fuel-electric vehicles,
      and zero-emission vehicles have replaced the inefficient and
      polluting vehicles that filled the roads of the early 2000s.
      Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) increased the capacity of
      highways, alleviating worsening traffic congestion on main routes.
      By 2035, ITS systems allowed close-spaced flotillas of cars to move
      along major highways at high speeds under automatic control,
      although slight interruptions sometimes caused consider able backups
      and delays. Information technology has had a neutral impact on
      travel demand, both inducing and substituting for travel.
      Modest advances in transit technology were overshadowed by the
      technical revolution in autos and highways. While the quality of
      transit service has held even in most areas, transit leaders are
      slow to recognize and respond to changing customer needs. Major
      initiatives to expand rail transit systems have been rare because
      transit is not cost-effective for predominately low-density housing
      and workplaces. Public transit marginally increased bus service from
      the inner city to suburbs and from suburbs to su burbs, but this
      service is relatively ineffective and heavily subsidized. Even
      though public transit holds on to roughly the same number of riders
      as it had in the late 1990s, its modal split is declining. The
      Golden Age of transit has clearly passed.
      For decades the public has balked at paying the costs of major
      expansions in transportation infrastructure, except for occasional
      technological upgrades when the economy was booming. The bulk of
      transportation spending has been devoted to maintaining the existing
      infrastructure in a state of good repair. The market still tends to
      spread negative externalities like congestion onto the public
      without discretion, marking a consistent failure to compel people
      whose behavior generates significant social cost s to pay for those
      costs directly. As a result, congestion pricing and other "true
      cost" pricing schemes continue to be resisted in most metropolitan
      areas.
      Government leaders at all levels have committed to avoiding waste
      and assessing the cost-effectiveness of government activities,
      making major strides in reducing bureaucracy and red-tape. However,
      through sophisticated polling efforts, government leadership has
      learned to parrot the public and remains largely reactive, with
      continued pandering to special interests and an unwillingness to
      make difficult choices. Decentralized and local control of land use
      continues to make it extremely difficult to foste r development that
      reduces the need for travel.
      Despite improvements in coordination, transportation organizations
      remain compartmentalized and have great difficulty rationalizing the
      use of overlapping networks. Progress toward an integrated,
      multimodal national transportation system is slow, with some parts
      of the country significantly outpacing others. Transportation
      planning, land use planning, anti-poverty efforts and other areas of
      public policy are seldom integrated in a meaningful way.
      The U.S. vision of low density, automobile-dominated urban
      development is widely copied in other countries. Even European
      nations with dense cities and well developed transit systems move in
      this direction. China and other populous developing countries are
      experiencing enormous congestion problems as they reach for U.S.-
      style living and mobility patterns.
      Scenario 2: Dying Cities
      The last fifty years have been characterized by a slow slide into
      economic paralysis and social decline. Many of the nation's cities,
      especially their cores, are racked with crime, violence and poverty,
      while the more affluent shelter themselves walled communities in
      distant exurbs guarded by elaborate security measures like
      cyberdogs. The nation is defined increasingly by its broken
      families, drug abuse, apathy, and loathing of institutions. Gangs
      and criminals literally control and run some parts of major cities,
      overwhelming traditional policing and governance structures. A
      stagnant economy is exacerbated by regional transportation
      bottlenecks and a crumbling physical infrastructure. Predominately
      single occupancy cars clog the roadways, and infrastructure
      deterioration makes four-wheel drive vehicles a necessity to
      traverse most inner city neighborhoods.
      A continuing preference for single family homes, single-occupancy
      vehicles, entertainment and services via the information
      superhighway, and local land use control led to two parallel
      conditions: massive congestion and even gridlock in places, and
      severe individual and family isolation from the "outside world." It
      is not uncommon for exurbians who have to commute to spend one
      quarter of their day working from their cars. The exceptions are
      those who can afford to use the private-subscription I ntelligent
      Transportation Systems that have proliferated predominately on the
      East and West coasts.
      People who can telework exclusively rarely leave their immediate
      neighborhoods and homes. Many teleworkers have moved to rural areas
      where an explosion of unplanned, ultra-low-density growth has
      produced an unprecedented loss of open land, forests, and wild flora
      and fauna. Between on-line services and virtual reality, few need to
      be away from their secure enclaves, and fewer still want to venture
      into the routine urban violence and crime portrayed on newscasts
      every night. This isolation has led to a t remendous sense of
      personal insecurity and callousness that have totally undermined
      responsibility to the larger community. Notions of volunteerism and
      community service have become passé.
      As welfare programs were dismantled in the late 1990s and early
      2000s, the poor remained trapped in inner cities without access to
      transportation to suburban jobs and with little hope to gain the
      skills necessary to keep employed. Inner cities became even more
      segregated by race and income level. Crime, broken families, drug
      abuse, mental illness, disability, children born out of wedlock,
      gang membership and other problems worsened. The middle class and
      businesses fled for exurbia as violent riots and p rotests became
      commonplace.
      In 2050, the predominant economic activity in inner cities stems
      from the illegal drug trade, the sale of weapons, and prostitution,
      where a post-modern Mafia composed primarily of former gang members
      and criminals has created sub- economies and societies in some of
      the major inner city areas. The only significant development and job
      growth in these areas in the last two decades came from investment
      in an increasingly sophisticated distribution infrastructure to
      support these budding illicit enterprises . While some people grew
      richer, many more people fell out of the middle class into poverty.
      These "new poor" also concentrate in inner cities and deteriorating
      inner suburbs, further increasing segregation.
      Environmental deterioration and economic decline fed on each other
      in a downward spiral. Pollution and the loss of environmentally
      sensitive areas have increasingly undermined economically valuable
      functions performed by ecosystems such as water retention, waste
      purification, and fishery productivity. Health-related costs of
      urban air pollution soared, while the climate became increasingly
      unstable as vehicle emissions contributed to a doubling of
      atmospheric carbon dioxide. Economic constraints stopped large-scale
      introduction of low- and zero-emission vehicles and prevented the
      widespread deployment of publicly-funded ITS systems. Information
      and communication systems allowed exurban telework to thrive, but
      they actually induce more travel and worsen traffic congestion.
      Tight government budgets have stymied efforts to fully maintain the
      existing transportation infrastructure. With rare exceptions, public
      highway and transit expansion became economically untenable.
      Strategies to raise revenue like congestion pricing and other market-
      based measures met universal rejection, labeled as unfair to low-
      income drivers and an unwelcome financial burden on all. Some parts
      of the system have simply been abandoned because their maintenance
      and repair costs were astronomical, a fo rm of transportation triage
      that continues to alienate inner city residents and encourage the
      exodus of more affluent citizens and businesses from the city.
      Government officials are reactive and crisis-oriented, with Federal
      leadership, in particular, lacking credibility. Old-line special
      interests have clung to power, slowing technological and social
      change, while citizens have decreasing control of decisions
      effecting their lives. Scapegoating, negative campaigning and
      demagogy have impaired the functioning of democratic institutions at
      all levels of government, and the private sector, for the most part,
      has abandoned any public concerns in the search for profits in the
      exurbs and internationally
      Transportation institutions are increasingly fragmented and
      contentious, fighting with each other for scarce resources. In a
      situation of increasing disarray, efforts to create an integrated,
      multimodal national transportation system were abandoned. There is
      almost no coordination between transportation and land use planning
      or other areas of public policy. Smart cards and related technology,
      once viewed as the key to cost-effective coordination and management
      of transportation systems, worked to a limi ted extent, but
      balkanized proprietary technologies led to massive costs and
      disconnects among U.S. public and private systems.
      Beyond minor improvements, no significant new transit technologies
      were developed. In 2050, public transit plays a very limited role,
      serving merely as a social service for have-nots. Nearly everyone
      who uses transit is a "no choice rider" with no other transportation
      alternatives. Over the years, transit has also served as a work-fare
      program for politicians to provide good-paying, low-skill jobs,
      which contributed to transit's inability to control costs. Both
      ridership and quality levels hav e declined in most areas, and many
      systems collapsed from underuse and zealous budget cutters. Transit
      leaders cling to a dwindling role, failing to connect transit with
      solutions to worsening national and global problems.
      Attempts to move to automobile-dominated low-density development in
      the most populous developing countries proved calamitous, as
      governments diverted investments from more productive uses to fight
      problems like urban air pollution. In China, urban sprawl
      significantly reduced the land area devoted to agriculture. As a
      result, China lost its independence in food production and has
      become a major food importer, driving up prices in global markets.
      Rising food prices contribute to malnutrition and famine i n poorer
      developing countries, and contribute to the global economic downturn
      in many developed nations.
      Scenario 3: Community-Oriented Growth
      A new common vision has emerged of how urban growth should occur.
      The new, widely accepted ideal is to find patterns of sustainable
      community development that will work over the long run because they
      benefit the economy, the environment, social equity, and personal
      quality of life -- all at the same time. The emerging pattern
      concentrates development into compact, pedestrian-scale communities
      centered around transit stations and linked with one another by the
      regional transit system. In this pattern of transit-oriented
      development (TOD), transit systems became a critical element in
      metropolitan planning and design.
      Many metropolitan areas have adopted urban growth boundaries and
      restricted public financing of most additional infrastructure to
      development within those boundaries. Some growth -- often 20 to 30
      percent -- continued to occur outside the boundaries, with
      infrastructure financed by private developers. Low density
      development has not been prohibited, and it continues both inside
      and outside the growth boundaries. Sprawl is limited, however,
      because strong market-based incentives as well as public infrast
      ructure expenditures are used to encourage a voluntary concentration
      of jobs in designated centers built around existing or new transit
      stations.
      This transit-oriented development pattern places jobs, commercial
      areas, parks, civic uses and a substantial amount of housing within
      walking distance of transit stops. It provides a broad mix of
      housing types, densities, and costs that range from high-density
      housing at the middle to low-density detached homes around the
      edges. Unlike conventional suburbs, TODs do not segregate
      residential from retail, commercial and public spaces, but place
      them close together and intermixed. Public spaces are emphasi zed
      and made the focus of building orientation and neighborhood
      activity. The street layouts, building designs, and overall street
      planning maximize the ease and pleasure of pedestrian and bicycle
      movements rather than vehicular ones. These new communities take
      several forms including the construction of new centers, in-fill and
      redevelopment along transit corridors within existing neighborhoods,
      and residential in-fill of the commercial and office space
      dominated "edge city" areas that proliferat ed during the last
      quarter of the 20th century.
      The new vision of urban growth accommodates widely different living
      environments and lifestyles. Many people continue to prefer detached
      single family homes, single occupancy vehicles and a hierarchy of
      neighborhoods that separate middle- and upper-income families from
      low-income ones. However the proliferation of transit-oriented
      development expands choices among alternative modes of
      transportation and broadens the range of options of housing types
      and costs. The physical design of TODs creates a small town-
      like "sense of place" and greater interaction among neighbors,
      helping to revitalize community life, which proves highly attractive
      to many people. TODs offer a much wider range of housing cost
      options than conventional suburbs, so they develop with more
      diversity in income levels and social backgrounds. They also attract
      residents by making high quality schools as central a goal as access
      to transportation.
      As urban patterns changed, social divisions began to heal. The
      concentration of low-income people in inner cities slowly began to
      disperse as new jobs clustered near expanding supplies of low- and
      moderate-income housing. In some areas, governments acted to
      accelerate this dispersal by lowering regulatory barriers that
      increase housing costs (e.g., size standards for new housing) and
      requiring developers to include low-cost units in new and
      redevelopment areas.
      Improved mobility and a less sprawling, less costly, and more
      efficient infrastructure helped spur economic growth. New
      generations of environmentally advanced technology in every area of
      the economy boosted productivity, made U.S. products more
      competitive, and cut business expenditures for energy and materials,
      waste disposal, and environmental remediation. While traffic
      congestion worsened in most urban areas during the early decades of
      the 21st century, transit system expansion, changes i n land use and
      community design, transportation demand management, and market-based
      measures like congestion pricing have prevented highway gridlock and
      improved overall mobility.
      "Hypercar" technology -- light weight materials, hybrid fuel-
      electric propulsion, low emissions, and dramatic advances in fuel
      economy -- emerged rapidly at the turn of the century, providing a
      technological fix for urban air pollution, but not for congestion
      and other problems related to urban sprawl. ITS technology was
      deployed rapidly but selectively to relieve congestion without
      encouraging further sprawl, and Advanced Public Transportation
      Systems (APTS) applications of ITS such as locati on management and
      tracking systems were extensively developed. Technical improvements
      in transit vehicles rivaled those in road vehicles. Clean and
      efficient "superbuses," dual mode vehicles, exclusive way transit
      (busways), high speed rail, and other vehicle innovations came into
      widespread use. Personal rapid transit (PRT) was deployed in the
      redevelopment of "edge cities," in major transit centers, and as a
      feeder and distribution system for other transit.
      Telecommuting in many different forms grew steadily and reduced the
      demand for transportation. Rather than promoting a massive work-at-
      home movement with further low density sprawl, information
      technology had a wide variety of impacts including more off-peak
      commuting, more partial-work-at-home, more use of satellite business
      centers, and more office-to-office teleconferencing. Information
      technology was a key driver in [the continuing deconstruction of
      large corporations (downsizing, de-layering, decen tralizing,
      outsourcing),] the rise of dispersed "virtual corporations," and the
      proliferation of local small businesses.
      These technological developments, combined with changes in land use,
      produced a steady decline in automobile vehicle miles traveled after
      2015. Public transit expanded rapidly and began to increase its
      modal share after 2015, reinforcing and fostering new transit-
      oriented development patterns. A revolution occurred in transit
      service capabilities and customer satisfaction as routes expanded,
      quality improved, and transit providers customized their services to
      different customer groups and trip purposes. A revolution also
      occurred in system efficiency as transit became more
      entrepreneurial, paid its own way, and moved into profitable lines
      of business.
      Public transportation spending was rapidly redirected in the late
      1990s from highway expansion to infrastructure maintenance, improved
      system management, and strategic freight system improvements.
      Capital funds for transit system expansion increased slowly during
      the late 1990s, then increased more rapidly in the early 2000s as
      agreement grew on the advantages of shifting to transit-oriented
      development. National policy increasingly focused on incorporating
      the environmental and social costs of activiti es into market
      prices. A revenue-neutral "green tax shift" was implemented in the
      early 2000s that gradually cut taxes on wages, savings, and
      investment while gradually increasing taxes on fossil fuels, waste
      generation, and environmentally destructive activities. Once the
      principle of paying for social and environmental costs with tax
      shifts was widely understood, it was applied to transportation in
      areas such as congestion pricing, VMT fees, and cashing-out free
      parking.
      ISTEA, federal initiatives to foster an integrated multimodal
      national transportation system, and budget pressures gave an impetus
      to more integrated decision-making, despite entrenched interests and
      organizational cultures that formed in an earlier era of
      transportation planning. States took the lead in creating
      metropolitan and regional approaches to coordinating land use and
      transportation planning. The U.S. transition to transit-oriented
      development helped set a global example for creating more effi cient
      and environmentally sound urban development patterns. U.S.
      development assistance programs encouraged several developing
      countries struggling with the growth of megacities to
      establish "model TODs."
      Scenario 4: Reinventing the City
      By 2050, many of the problems that dominated the headlines earlier
      in the century -- from crime and air pollution to the soaring costs
      of government -- are universally viewed as pathologies caused by
      pursuing a flawed vision urban development. In the 2020s, the
      problems caused by urban sprawl became so severe, and transit-
      oriented development proved so popular, that many regions and cities
      began to move toward the strictly bounded growth pattern common in
      Western European metropolitan areas.
      In this pattern of development, urban growth boundaries are drawn
      tightly around built up areas and strongly enforced to pressure new
      development to occur at higher densities. Nearly all new jobs are
      created in one of two locations: in designated clusters within the
      urban growth boundary, or in smaller new communities outside the
      boundary separated from each other and the older urban area by
      permanent green belts.
      Within the boundaries, new growth is organized whenever possible in
      the form of transit-oriented development (TOD). Most of the new
      communities created outside the boundaries extend from existing
      small towns or small cities. A few are new towns based on
      environmentally superior technologies and the latest concepts of
      sustainable community design. All the new communities are linked
      with each other, and with the older urban areas, by public transit,
      creating a new kind of urban system in which nearly ever y location
      can be reached quickly and conveniently by public transit. Growing
      numbers of people lead active, fulfilling lives without owning
      automobiles.
      In the 2020s, as "minorities" became the majority of the U.S.
      population, healing the social and economic divisions arising from
      our society's unique history of race and immigration became the
      central issue in national politics. Concentrating new jobs in mixed
      income TODs with moderate amounts of low-cost housing proved to be
      the single most popular and effective way of improving access for
      all low-income citizens to educational opportunities, jobs and
      affordable housing.
      Extremely positive experiences with revitalized community life led
      many people to reappraise their highly individualistic and
      consumption-oriented lifestyles. At the same time, dwindling oil
      reserves and sharply rising energy costs created a powerful economic
      incentive for more compact, energy-efficient settlement patterns.
      Some of the motivations for owning large homes and cars disappeared
      as changing values emphasized "better" over "bigger."
      After 2020, transit became the dominant organizer of the emerging
      high-density pattern of urban growth. By 2050, the automobile's
      century-long dominance of urban transportation has ebbed and transit
      has come into its Golden Age. Investment in transit is widely
      perceived as being justified because it provides a simultaneous
      solution for a wide range of national problems -- reducing
      congestion and improving mobility, cutting the health costs of air
      pollution and protecting the environment, coping with hig h energy
      costs, revitalizing community life, and ending the self-defeating
      concentration of low-income people in the nation's inner cities.
      By 2050, densities in many locations have increased to a level that
      supports a wide variety of transit services, from busways for
      electric and fuel cell-powered superbuses to light rail and personal
      rapid transit (PRT). During the past three decades, the number of
      cars per household have declined sharply. The transit industry has
      become highly entrepreneurial, making "customer service" the driving
      force in its evolution. Transit systems have organized on an
      international scale to coordinate re search, development and
      demonstration efforts. They have also undertaken major efforts to
      help transit's labor force become more flexible and upgrade its
      skills for working with high technology applications and
      maintenance. Transportation-related institutions made dramatic
      improvements in coordination, especially after the 2010s when a
      shared vision of transit-oriented development began to shape
      decisions. A seamless, intermodal, national transportation system
      emerged with transit playing a large role.
      To achieve coordination among land use, transportation planning,
      sewer and water systems, and waste disposal systems, many areas
      created elected metropolitan area governments. Some merged the
      governments of a central city, nearby towns, and one or more major
      counties. More frequently, infrastructure planning is put in the
      hands of a regionally chosen body that is not a full-functioning
      metropolitan government, but does have the power to plan basic
      infrastructure and implement its decisions.
      Many developing countries still continue to experience rapid growth.
      The new transportation technologies and patterns of sustainable
      community development pioneered in the U.S. and other industrial
      nations are proving crucial to the workability of the megacities
      that have emerged in highly populous developing nations.
      A Vision of Mobility for the 21st Century
      A generation from now, our nation's communities can be far better
      places to live and work in than they are today. Here is our vision
      of a future worth striving for.
      By 2050, our pioneering efforts to apply principles of sustainable
      development at the metropolitan level have transformed America's
      cities and influenced urban development around the world. The
      potential disaster that sprawling megacities posed to the natural
      environment and the human spirit has been avoided. We are moving
      instead toward urban forms built on livable, human-scale communities
      in balance with nature. The old polarity that pitted development
      against the environment is obsolete. The new, widely accepted ideal
      is to foster a new kind of sustainable community development that
      will work over the long run because it benefits the economy, the
      environment, social equity, community life, and personal quality of
      life -- all at the same time.
      In the U.S., our older cities and suburbs are thriving. Even worst-
      case areas such as former slums and industrial sites have been
      successfully redeveloped. The commercial "edge cities" that emerged
      in the late 20th century have been infilled with residential
      development and remade into real communities. For decades, public
      infrastructure expenditures, urban growth boundaries, and local
      zoning have concentrated suburban infill and new development into
      compact, pedestrian-scale communities. These communities are transit-
      oriented developments (TODs) centered around transit stations and
      interconnected by regional transit networks. The result is a
      historically new metropolitan form that has revitalized community
      life while creating unprecedented ease of access throughout larger
      urban regions.
      Transit-oriented developments (TODs) have replaced low-density
      suburbs as the most sought-after kind of neighborhood. Much of their
      attraction is that they "go back" to the size and traditional
      neighborhood designs that make older European cities and America's
      small towns so appealing. Most jobs and stores and a substantial
      amount of housing are located within walking distance of transit
      stops, and are all near each other or intermixed rather than
      separated. Neighborhoods are designed to maxim ize the ease of
      pedestrian and bicycle movement as well as transit access, so many
      people find it easy to visit friends and neighbors, or shop, or
      travel to work without an automobile.
      Dense but low-rise development and attractive public spaces bring
      neighbors together. There is a constant bustle of neighborhood
      activity because so many people work in community-based small
      businesses or spend at least part of the time telecommuting from
      home. Squares, greens and parks are designed to encourage the
      presence of people throughout the day and evening. Natural features
      such as creeks and steams have been restored and brought above
      ground, with the most dramatic features highlighted in publ ic
      settings. Residents take great pride in giving their communities a
      distinctive character and "sense of place," perhaps a reaction
      against the uniformity of suburban development in the past. Each
      community or cluster of communities has a defined edge such as a
      wildlife corridor or agricultural greenbelt permanently protected
      from development.
      These changes in physical design have helped kindle a renewed
      community spirit. Shorter work hours and briefer commutes give
      people more time to participate in family and community activities.
      The revitalization of community life has had strikingly positive
      effects on social problems ranging from crime, youth gangs and drug
      abuse to depression and family disintegration.
      TODs offer much wider choices of housing types, densities and costs
      than conventional suburbs. They make single family homes available
      for all who want them, but also meet the demand for low- and
      moderate-cost housing. Affordable housing in close proximity to jobs
      proved to be the key to breaking up the concentrations of poor
      people living the cheapest, most deteriorated housing in urban
      centers. That geographical concentration of poverty, isolated from
      job creation in the suburbs, was a major cause of inner city
      unemployment, crime, school breakdown, and other social problems
      that became acute in the late 20th century.
      While we have "gone back" to traditional neighborhood designs, we
      have "gone forward," spectacularly, in developing sustainable
      transportation technologies. When we travel by automobile,
      intelligent transportation systems (ITS) reduce delays and zero-
      emission vehicles minimize air pollution. Advanced transit systems,
      including personal rapid transit (PRT), offer the kind of just-in-
      time, point-to-point service that only automobiles could provide in
      the past. Complete information abou t schedules, routes, and fares
      is available instantaneously, anywhere. Improved payment systems
      such as barrier-free honor fares and universal fare cards that work
      on every mode of transportation make transit more attractive to
      riders. Universal access to the information superhighway has reduced
      the demand for transportation, allowing us to work, learn, shop,
      bank, and obtain medical services without leaving our homes.
      We have come to understand that low density sprawl is enormously
      costly. Only large public subsidies made it possible for states and
      communities to expand and maintain the spread-out networks of
      highways, water and sewer systems, and other infrastructure needed
      to support low-density development. Compact transit-oriented
      development is proving far more cost-effective because it requires
      less new infrastructure and makes better use of existing
      infrastructure. It saves commuting time for many people, cuts urban
      air pollution, and improves energy-efficiency. More compact
      development patterns also protect our farms and rural areas from
      being overrun by sprawl. More natural areas and open spaces remain
      to sustain and uplift us.
      We now insist on full cost accounting and pricing mechanisms to give
      us accurate information on the real costs of transportation and
      development choices. Government subsidies that encourage fringe
      development have been eliminated, and we internalize costs of
      environmental damage into market prices. We do this through revenue-
      neutral tax strategies carefully crafted to protect the economy and
      avoid harming low-income people.
      A less intrusive but more coherent federal government role has been
      essential for creating an integrated, multimodal national
      transportation system and for relating transportation planning to
      other social goals such as environmental quality and inner city
      revitalization. States have taken the lead in creating new
      institutional arrangements for integrating transportation and land
      use planning. Metropolitan areas have pioneered intergovernmental
      agreements in areas such as urban growth boundaries. A renai ssance
      of local leadership in community design and economic development has
      been triggered by the challenge of creating livable, economically
      dynamic communities. Private developers and businesses, working in a
      new framework of clear "rules of the game," have been the engines of
      urban revitalization. There is a widely shared sense of success, a
      realization that we are succeeding in revitalizing our cities and
      creating a way of life that is better from every point of view.
      Utopian? No. A large stretch? Yes... but no more so than the changes
      that have occurred over the past fifty years. Achievable?
      Certainly...when we make our choices on the basis of what will make
      the future work for our children and grandchildren.

      Mobility for the 21st Century Task Force
      Ms. Shirley A. DeLibero, Chair
      Mobility 21 Participants
      Mr. James S. Barbour
      Mr. J. Barry Barker
      Mr. Ronald L. Barnes
      Mr. Hans Baumann
      Mr. G. Stevens Bernard
      Mr. Michael Bolton
      Ms. Edie Bryan
      Ms. Anne Canby
      Mr. Paul Carlson
      Ms. Amy A. Coggin
      Ms. Marlene B. Connor
      Mr. Lawrence Dahms
      Mr. Rod Diridon
      Ms. Dorothy Dugger
      Mr. John A. Dyer
      Dr. Bernard A. Fleishman
      Mr. David Foote
      Bernard J. Ford, Sr.
      Ms. Sharon Goodwin
      Mr. Robert L. Graham
      Mr. Armando V. Greco
      Ms. Carolyn B. Guerra
      Mr. Art Guzzetti
      Ms. Susan J. Hafner
      Mr. Cliff Henke
      Ms. Fran Hooper
      Ms. Julie H. Hoover
      Mr. Jerald L. Hughes
      Ms. Brigid Hynes-Cherin
      Ms. Laura A. Jibben
      Mr. Randy L. Johnson
      Mr. Ronald C. Kane
      Mr. Alan F. Kiepper
      Mr. Ronald J. Kilcoyne
      Mr. Robert G. Lingwood
      Mr. Ed Maurer
      William W. Millar
      Mr. Roland Mross
      Mr. Hubert Murray
      Mr. Roy Nakadegawa, P.E.
      Mr. Charles A. Nelson
      Ms. Tish Nettleship
      Mr. Robert L. Olson
      Mr. Neil Peterson
      Mr. Ted J. Rieck
      Mr. James Rooney
      Mr. Stan Rosenblum
      Ms. Nancy Shevock
      Mr. Paul P. Skoutelas
      Ms. Iona Spencer
      Mr. Robert G. Stanley
      Mr. Paul Taylor
      Mr. John F. Tucker, III
      Mr. William L. Volk
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.