Driving and the Built Environment The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions -- Special Report 298 (2009) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Trends in Development Patterns
2 Trends in Development Patterns
Pages 31-49
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 31... ...
It begins with a review of national and metropolitan area trends with respect to population and land development. The chapter then turns to an examination of spatial trends within metropolitan areas, the primary geographic focus of this study, including changes in population density and employment concentration over time, topics on which the most data are available.
|
From page 32... ...
Population in central cities grew, but only by about 55 percent, from 44 million to 68.5 million, while nonmetropolitan population declined from 63 million to 55.4 million (Giuliano et al.
|
From page 33... ...
was developed in the United States -- approximately one-third of all the land that had been developed by 2003.3 In all, 108.1 million acres was classified as developed in 2003 -- approximately 5.6 percent of the national total. Developed land grew at almost twice the rate of population over this 21-year period, clearly indicating that population densities were declining.4 Population and land development patterns, however, exhibit considerable variation across the United States.
|
From page 34... ...
census. As noted in Chapter 1, however, this measure does not adequately capture development patterns, as some cities and counties contain large amounts of undeveloped land, while others are completely developed.
|
From page 35... ...
Las Vegas, Denver, Phoenix, and Riverside–San Bernardino, for example, all had population growth that exceeded growth in urbanized land according to the NRI data. Using other methods, Galster et al.
|
From page 36... ...
, 0.19 acre; and in Denver, 0.21 acre -- all metropolitan areas defined as higher density. In Atlanta, a metropolitan area noted for its more dispersed land development patterns, the median lot size was 0.58 acre; in Hartford, at the extreme, it was more than 1.5 acres.
|
From page 37... ...
. The model predicts declining and constantly decreasing population density the farther an area is from the CBD or city center as households face the trade-off between lower housing costs (land costs are lower farther from the city center)
|
From page 38... ...
Monocentric models and average measured density gradients, while reasonable for capturing broad trends in urban form, mask internal dynamics that may be more useful in ascertaining the evolution of 11 Various terms have been used to denote employment centers outside the CBD -- activity centers, subcenters, subcity employment centers, edge cities, job concentrations, employment poles, and employment centers (see Guiliano et al. 2008 and Lee 2007 for discussion of each)
|
From page 39... ...
Outside the central city, density levels can vary greatly, from the generally more dense inner suburbs, to the very low densities of many outer suburbs, to housing complexes and communities of varying densities in between -- all with different implications for travel and trip making. Employment Location In the field of economic geography, special attention has been paid to the location of employment, leading to the characterization of employment in metropolitan areas as monocentric, polycentric, or noncentered or dispersed (Lee 2007)
|
From page 40... ...
provide data that support the second view, at least as it relates to the dispersion of office space. In 13 of the nation's largest office markets, for example, most metropolitan rental office space exists either in high-density downtowns or in low-density edgeless cities, not in employment centers outside the CBD.13 Understanding employment patterns, particularly the factors that lead to the formation of employment centers outside the CBD, has particular relevance for the present study.
|
From page 41... ...
Nevertheless, the CBDs of Philadelphia and Portland lost share; jobs dispersed without significant suburban clustering. In comparison, the well-established CBDs of Boston and New York were better able to retain their strength as city centers even as growth occurred on their peripheries.
|
From page 42... ...
While Los Angeles County lost jobs between 1990 and 2000, it still housed the largest number of jobs in 2000 by nearly a factor of three compared with Orange County, which had the next highest employment level. Furthermore, employment centers grew over the period, from 36 centers identified in the 1980 data to 46 and 48 centers in 1990 and 2000, respectively (Giuliano et al.
|
From page 43... ...
For example, the Los Angeles CBD is a mixed-use area with high average employment density and a transit system focused on the downtown, accounting for its high transit share (see Table 18 in Giuliano et al.
|
From page 44... ...
TABLE 2-2 Employment Trends Inside and Outside the Central City, 1980–1990 Northeast Midwest South West Buff NYC Phil Chic Clev Detr Hous Denv LA Port SF Sea Percent change Total employment 13.2 26.7 28.6 20.3 9.1 19.1 34.9 30.9 48.8 34.8 42.1 48.8 Central city 1.2 22.2 7.7 13.3 22.4 4.0 32.7 23.8 23.3 21.8 −4.0 −6.9 Not central city 21.0 30.5 37.2 25.3 14.7 29.2 61.3 56.2 58.4 43.4 46.8 66.5 Central city share (%) 1980 39 46 29 41 30 28 68 49 37 44 20 39 1990 35 45 25 39 26 22 62 39 33 41 17 32 Note: Buff = Buffalo; NYC = New York City; Phil = Philadelphia; Chic = Chicago; Clev = Cleveland; Detr = Detroit; Hous = Houston; Denv = Denver; LA = Los Angeles; Port = Portland; SF = San Francisco; Sea = Seattle.
|
From page 45... ...
The average commute time and distance were shorter in Boston than in Atlanta, reflecting the greater proximity of jobs and housing in the former. Both areas showed an increase in the distance between the average resident and the average job over the period, but this increase did not translate into significantly longer commute distances.
|
From page 46... ...
The 3-mile ring typically represents the central city core; the 10-mile ring typically captures activity out to the beltway of larger metropolitan areas; and the 35-mile ring bounds very large, dispersed metropolitan areas.
|
From page 47... ...
The implications of these development trends for travel are difficult to determine. The lack of fine-grained geographic data and longitudinal studies of population and employment changes within metropolitan areas limits our ability to understand spatial development patterns at the level necessary to determine effects on trip making, mode choice, and VMT.
|
From page 48... ...
2008. Metropolitan Spatial Trends in Employment and Housing: Literature Review.
|
From page 49... ...
2002. National Resources Inventory 2002 and 2003 Annual NRI.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.