Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Land use and automobile dependence: planning for sustainability in urban regions Parker, Anthony H. 1993

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1993_spring_parker_anthony.pdf [ 8.14MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0086153.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0086153-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0086153-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0086153-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0086153-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0086153-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0086153-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0086153-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0086153.ris

Full Text

LAND USE AND AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCE:PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABILITY IN URBAN REGIONSbyANTHONY HAINES PARKERB.Sc., University of Toronto, 1987A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCEinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESSchool of Community and Regional PlanningWe accept this thesis as conformingTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAApril 1993© Anthony Haines Parker, 1993In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of  Community and Regional PlanningThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate April 26, 1993DE-6 (2/88)ABSTRACTThis thesis investigates how planning for urban land use, form, and design can contributeto reducing society's dependence on automobiles. It provides a synthesis of current literature onthis subject and an analysis of this problem within the context of Canadian metropolitan areas.It discusses specific land use and design criteria for reduced automobile dependence, and providesinsights into the implementation of these ideas in the Canadian context. The Vancouvermetropolitan area provides a focus for this work.The thesis concludes that changing existing land use patterns is essential to achievinglong-term reductions in automobile use; that such changes must involve higher densities, greatermixing of land uses, and better design; and that, though there are many strong barriers to change,change can be achieved. It concludes, however, that transforming the auto-oriented built form ofCanadian cities will require not only changes to land use and transportation planning, but alsoinstitutional change, a changed role for the planning profession, and the mutual education of allthe participants in the urban development process.fiTABLE OF CONTENTSAbstract iiList of Tables viList of Figures ^  viiCHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION1.1 Purpose and Context  ^11.2 Scope  ^21.3 Methodology  ^31.4 Assumptions  ^31.5 Definitions  ^41.6 Outline of Thesis  ^5CHAPTER 2 - AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCE AND ITS ASSOCIATED PROBLEMS2.0 Introduction  ^62.1 Problems Associated With Automobile Dependence ^  102.1.1 Direct Problems of Auto Use ^  102.1.2 The Land Use of Automobile Dependence  142.1.2.1 Wasteful Consumption of Land ^  152.1.2.2 Energy and Infrastructure Costs  162.1.2.3 Aesthetic and Social Problems  162.1.3 Congestion ^  182.1.4 The Costs of Automobile Dependence ^  182.2 The Benefits and Advantages of Other Modes  192.3 Conclusion ^  20CHAPTER 3 - URBAN FORM FOR REDUCED AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCE3.0 Introduction ^  243.1 Reducing Vehicle Kilometres Travelled ^  243.1.1 Reducing Distances ^  253.1.2 Encouraging Alternate Modes  253.2 Relationship of Land Use and Transportation Planning ^  263.3 Urban Form and Transportation Use ^  303.3.1 Comparison Studies ^  303.3.2 Modelling Studies  353.3.3 The Requirements of Different Modes ^  363.3.4 Recommended Land Use Strategies  383.4 General Land Use Criteria ^  393.4.1 Regional Urban Form and Structure ^  393.4.2 Density ^  423.4.3 Mixing of Uses ^  463.5 Design Criteria  493.5.1 Open Space Network  503.5.2 Main Streets and Subcentres ^  513.5.2.1 Main Streets  513.5.2.2 Subcentres ^  533.5.2.3 Transformations  553.5.3 Neighbourhoods  573.5.3.1 Density and Land Use Mix ^  573.5.3.2 Circulation System ^  581113.5.3.3 Street Characteristics ^  613.5.3.4 Housing ^  623.6 Pros and Cons of Changing Land Use to Reduce Automobile Dependence ^ 663.6.1 General Pros and Cons  663.6.2 Relationship to Other Environmental Objectives ^  713.7 Conclusion ^  73CHAPTER 4 - BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION4.0 Introduction ^  754.1 Existing Urban Form ^  754.1.1 Origins of Existing Urban Form ^  774.2 Existing Land Use Policies and Regulations  804.3 Existing Transportation Policies and Investment ^  834.4 Lack of Coordination of Planning ^  844.4.1 Lack of Coordination of Transportation and Land Use Planning ^ 844.4.2 Lack of Coordination Among Governments ^  854.5 Market Factors ^  884.5.1 Consumer Preferences for Cars and Single Family Homes ^ 884.5.2 Locational Preferences for Living, Working, and Shopping  934.6 Attitudinal and Political Barriers ^  944.6.1 Politicians ^  954.6.2 The Public  974.6.3 Planners  994.6.4 Others ^  1004.6.5 Overcoming Attitudinal and Political Barriers ^  1014.7 Conclusion  102CHAPTER 5 - IMPLEMENTATION5.0 Introduction ^  1035.1 General Principles  1035.2 Tools for Promoting Land Use Change ^  1065.3 Urban Form Policies and Guidelines  1085.4 Regulation and Negotiation ^  1095.4.1 Facilitating Measures  1105.4.2 Incentive Measures  1115.4.3 Mandatory Measures ^  1135.4.4 Implementation of Changes  1155.5 Provision of Infrastructure  1165.5.1 Joint Development at Transit Stations ^  1185.6 Reform of Institutions, Governance, and the Planning Process ^ 1195.7 Education, Demonstration, and Assistance  1215.8 Other Responses ^  1275.9 Implications for the Planning Profession ^  1285.10 Conclusion  131CHAPTER 6 - PROSPECTS FOR CHANGE6.0 Introduction ^  1326.1 Forces Working for Change ^  1326.1.1 A Growing Crisis  1326.1.2 Demographic and Economic Factors ^  1346.1.3 Changing Attitudes ^  1346.2 Progress in Policy-making and Urban Development  1366.3 Conclusion ^  138ivCHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS7.0 Introduction ^  1407.1 Summary and Conclusions ^  1407.2 Recommendations in the Vancouver Context ^  1447.3 Suggestions for Further Research  147BIBLIOGRAPHY ^  149APPENDIX A - NEO-TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENTA.0 Introduction ^  167A.1 Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk ^  167A.2 Peter Calthorpe  170A.3 Overall Evaluation and Prospects ^  173vLIST OF TABLESTable^ Page2-1. Density of Cars by Country - 1989  ^72-2. Mode Splits in World Cities - 1980  ^82-3. Automobile Emissions and Their Health and Environmental Impacts ^ 112-4. Comparison of Energy Use by Transportation Mode: Estimates for Toronto ^ 212-5. Comparison of Energy Use by Transportation Mode: Estimates for Vancouver^212-6. Selected Vehicle Emission Rate Values (g/km): Estimates for Vancouver ^ 222-7. Selected Emission Rates Per Passenger: Estimates for Vancouver ^ 223-1. Transportation System Elements ^  273-2. Actions Affecting Transportation System ^  283-3. Means to Higher Densities ^  4534. Residential Intensification Processes ^  463-5. Means of Increasing Land Use Mix  48viLIST OF FIGURESFigure^ Page2-1. Impacts of Auto Use  ^93-1. Local Street Design and Transit Stop Location ^  606-1. Single Family Housing Completions as a Percentage of Total HousingCompletions: Vancouver CMA - 1973-1992 ^  133viiCHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION1.1 Purpose and Context The purpose of this thesis is to establish how planning for urban land use, form, anddesign can contribute to reducing society's dependence on automobiles.Concern about the impact of human beings on the biosphere and the "sustainability" ofhuman activities has recently been growing. Although, in the past, much concern about ecologicalimpacts and sustainable development has been directed to the areas outside cities, it is now beingrealized that the sustainability of cities, and human activities within them, is of great importancein the overall context of sustainability. In the urban setting, automobile use is now beingrecognized as a major contributor to the deterioration of the natural environment, the builtenvironment, and the social environment. Automobile dependence is seen as a major barrier tothe sustainability of communities.There is also a growing perception that, for a variety of reasons, the physical form of citiesneeds more attention than it has had recently. The design of communities is becoming a greaterconcern than it has been in the recent past. These trends are reflected in media coverage and inthe fact that the Canadian Institute of Planners now has strategic initiatives in the areas ofsustainable development, healthy communities, and urban design.Unfortunately, while many local and regional governments have made general statementsabout the need for sustainable development, or the need to reduce automobile dependence andurban sprawl, such statements have often not been backed up with specific programs, regulations,and land use decisions. One goal of this thesis is to help to stimulate the implementation of suchspecific measures.The literature dealing with the relationship between land use and automobile dependenceis fairly extensive, but it is scattered. There are few works that tie this literature together, and1none that accomplish this within a Canadian context. This thesis attempts to do just that -- tosynthesize and analyze the current literature while weaving in original observations and ideas.It discusses specific land use and design criteria for reduced automobile dependence, and providessome insight on the implementation of these ideas within the Canadian context.This thesis is directed mainly at planners -- and at planning students in particular. Itaims to provide these readers with a useful introduction to, and coherent synthesis of, the materialin this field. It also aims to increase their understanding of the links among different subjects andissues within the field of planning, and of the connections between urban planning and ecosystems."The First Law of Ecology," according to Barry Commoner (1971: 33), is that "EverythingIs Connected to Everything Else." This thesis aspires to add an ecological perspective to land useplanning and urban design -- and to strengthen the commitment of those who read it to attackingthe problem of automobile dependence, especially by working to change prevailing land usepatterns.1.2 Scope This thesis is limited to what is currently a small area of overlap between the fields ofenvironmental planning, transportation planning, and land use planning. Within transportationplanning, the subject of land use planning to encourage modes other than the automobile isregarded as a subset of transportation demand management. Within land use planning, it hasbeen most often treated as a subset of energy-efficient land use planning. This does not mean,however, that the subject does not have very important implications for land use planning andurban planning in general. Another way of looking at this thesis is that is discusses one way,albeit a very important way, of making cities more sustainable.The emphasis of the thesis is on discussing some substantive objectives of land useplanning and on providing insights relevant to the process of achieving these objectives. Althougha detailed how-to manual on the planning process would be an excellent addition to this work,including it here would be too great a task for one Master's thesis.This thesis is geographically focused on North American cities, and on Canadian2metropolitan areas in particular. It is institutionally focused on the municipal level. Because thisthesis is being written at the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver, many of the examplesthroughout the thesis discuss the situation in the Vancouver area. Vancouver is also used as thecontext for recommendations in the concluding chapter, so that it may be seen how some theconclusions of this thesis would apply to an actual urban area.1.3 Methodology The bulk of this thesis consists of review, synthesis and analysis of current literature inthe form of books, reports, government documents, and articles from journals, magazines andnewspapers. Supplementing this review, and interwoven with it, are personal observations,insights and ideas on the subject.1.4 Assumptions This thesis assumes the following:• Ecosystem health, or environmental quality, is vitally important. The naturalenvironment is what sustains human communities. The disruption of ecosystems musttherefore be minimized.• Accessibility of people to services, jobs, and other needs is an important goal in Canadiansociety. Therefore, to reduce automobile use, accessibility by other modes must beenhanced. Reduced automobile use should not come at the expense of accessibility.• A substantial reduction in automobile use is a reasonable goal at this time; the eliminationof cars is not.• Land use planning is a valuable activity, and it is important to develop objectives for thisprocess.• Canadian metropolitan areas will continue to grow in population for the foreseeable future.In the case of Vancouver, migration from other parts of the country will almost certainlykeep the population growing for some time, even in the unlikely event that foreign3immigration is cut off (see Seelig and Artibise 1991). 11.5 Definitions • Automobile Dependence. The term "automobile dependence" is used in this thesis becauseit contains both the sense of the use of automobiles and of the need to use automobiles.Unless they are extremely coercive, the impact of any measures aimed at reducingautomobile use will depend on peoples' behaviour. Thus it could be consideredinappropriate to talk about reducing automobile "use" through the measures outlined inthis thesis. Nevertheless, the measures are virtually certain to have at least some effect,so it would be unnecessarily cautious to talk merely about reducing the "need" forautomobiles.• Land Use. In this thesis, the term "land use" is used in both in a fairly general sense, andin a specific sense. In its broad sense, it includes everything from urban form at thebroadest scale, to the use and density of land parcels and buildings, to site planning,building orientation and landscaping. It is thus taken to include many aspects of urbandesign, though a distinction is made between "land use" and "transportationinfrastructure," which is taken to include those design elements -- such as pavements,crosswalks, traffic signals, diverters, and so on -- located within transportation rights-of-way. The terms "city form," "urban form," and "land use patterns" are all used to describeland use in its general sense and should be interpreted as having essentially the samemeaning in the context of this thesis. When the intent is to place emphasis on the designcomponents of this concept, the term "community design" or "urban design" is used. Theterm "land use" or simply "use" -- as in "mixture of uses" -- is also used in the specificsense of describing the activity that takes place on a parcel of land. It should be evidentfrom the context which meaning of land use is intended.1 Changing land uses to reduce automobile dependence does not require that urban population growthcontinue, but, since this is by far the most likely possibility, it makes sense to discuss this subject in thiscontext.41.6 Outline of Thesis The thesis begins, in Chapter 2, with an examination of why reducing automobiledependence should be a goal of planning. Chapter 3 discusses the effect of land use on automobiledependence, and outlines specific land use and design criteria consistent with reduced automobiledependence. It also looks at how such criteria relate to planning goals other than reducingautomobile dependence. Chapter 4 examines the barriers to implementing land use change inCanadian metropolitan areas. Chapter 5 outlines actions that should be taken in order tofacilitate and expedite land use change geared to reducing auto dependence. Chapter 6 evaluatesthe prospects for land use change.In Chapter 7, the conclusions of the thesis are summarized and some specificrecommendations for governments in the Vancouver area are given. A small case study on "neo-traditional" development is included as Appendix A. One of the goals of neo-traditionaldevelopment is to reduce automobile dependence. This appendix looks at its potential to do thisand at its potential market -- both of which are important in the context of this thesis.5CHAPTER 2AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCE AND ITS ASSOCIATED PROBLEMS2.0 Introduction In 1989, there were 12,811,318 cars registered in Canada -- one car for every 2.1 peoplein the country (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA) 1991). Canada's rate of carownership continues to increase, and it is higher than almost every other country in the world (seeTable 2-1). This rate provides one measure of our dependence on automobiles. Another measureis modal split. Table 2-2 shows the percentage distribution of commuters by mode oftransportation in the seven largest metropolitan areas in Canada, compared with data for 31 majorcities around the world.According to this measure, Canadian cites rank somewhere between Australian cities andEuropean cities in automobile dependence. Although Canadian commuters use publictransportation slightly more than their Australian counterparts and substantially more thanAmerican commuters, the data from West European cities show that much higher levels of transituse are possible. The western Canadian cities of Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver, inparticular, have considerable room for improvement.These two measures give some indication of the extent of automobile dependence inCanada. With 68% of Canadian commuters using private transportation, one can conclude thatCanadians rely quite heavily on private motor vehicles. This dependence merits concern becauseautomobile use has many negative impacts: energy consumption, acid rain, global warming,consumption of land, and social isolation to name but a few (see Figure 2-1). These problems arediscussed below.6Table 2-1Density of Cars by Country - 1989COUNTRY PERSONSPER CARCOUNTRY PERSONSPER CARNORTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA OCEANIABahamas 3.6 Australia 2.2Canada 2.1 Guam 2.4Costa Rica 18 New Zealand 2.2Honduras 148 Other 9.3Mexico 14 TOTAL 2.3Nicaragua 75Puerto Rico 2.5 AFRICATrinidad/Tobago 4.7 Angola 72U.S.A. 1.7 Egypt 127Other 42 Ivory Coast 72TOTAL 2.5 Libya 9.6Morocco 44SOUTH AMERICA Nigeria 154Argentina 7.9 Senegal 86Brazil 13 South Africa Rep. 12Chile 19 Sudan 230Columbia 35 Tunisia 47Ecuador 150 Zimbabwe 59Peru 56 Other 174Uruguay 18 TOTAL 79Venezuela 13Other 63 EUROPETOTAL 15 Austria 2.6Belgium 2.7ASIA Bulgaria 7.3Arab Emirates 8.0 Czechoslovakia 5.0China Mainland 822 Denmark 3.2Hong Kong 27 Finland 2.6India 408 France 2.4Indonesia 198 Germany, East 4.3Israel 5.9 Germany, West 2.0Japan 3.8 Greece 6.3Korea, South 28 Hungary 6.1Kuwait 4.4 Ireland 4.6Malaysia 12 Italy 2.4Pakistan 206 Luxembourg 2.0Philippines 161 The Netherlands 2.8Saudi Arabia 7.3 Norway 2.6Singapore 10 Poland 7.9Sri Lanka 110 Portugal 7.1Taiwan 13 Spain 3.5Thailand 67 Sweden 2.3Yemen Arab Republic 314 Switzerland 2.3Other 106 Turkey 39TOTAL 58 United Kingdom 2.6U.S.S.R. 23Yugoslavia 7.4Other 20TOTAL 4.9WORLD TOTAL 12Source: MVMA 1991.7Table 2-2Mode Splits in World Cities - 1980PERCENT OF COMMUTERS USING VARIOUS MODESCity PublicTransportPrivateTransportFoot orBicycleU.S. CITIESHouston 3.3 93.9 2.8Phoenix 2.2 94.6 3.2Detroit 4.1 93.1 2.8Denver 6.5 88.1 5.3Los Angeles 7.7 88.0 4.2San Francisco 17.0 77.5 5.5Boston 16.1 74.1 9.8Washington 14.1 80.7 5.2Chicago 18.3 75.5 6.2New York 28.3 63.6 8.1AVERAGE 11.8 82.9 5.3CANADIAN CITIESVancouver 18.1 75.5 6.4Edmonton 18.4 72.7 8.9Calgary 19.6 72.1 8.3Winnipeg 25.1 68.0 6.9Toronto 31.3 62.9 5.7Ottawa-Hull (1979) 28.3 60.8 10.8Montreal 27.0 63.9 9.1AVERAGE 24.0 68.0 8.0AUSTRALIAN CITIESPerth 12.0 84.0 4.0Brisbane 16.6 78.1 5.3Melbourne 20.6 73.7 5.7Adelaide 16.5 77.7 5.8Sydney 29.5 65.1 5.4AVERAGE 19.0 75.7 5.2EUROPEAN CITIESHamburg 41.0 43.9 15.3Frankfurt 19.0 54.0 27.0Zurich 34.0 45.0 21.0Stockholm 46.0 34.0 20.0Brussels 26.7 57.7 15.6Paris 39.8 36.4 23.8London 39.0 38.0 23.0Munich 42.0 38.0 20.0West Berlin 37.0 48.0 15.0Copenhagen 31.0 36.8 32.2Vienna 44.9 40.4 14.7Amsterdam 14.0 58.0 28.0AVERAGE 34.5 44.2 21.3ASIAN CITIESTokyo 59.0 16.1 24.9Singapore 59.6 24.6 15.8Hong Kong 62.2 3.3 34.5AVERAGE 60.3 14.7 25.1U.S.S.R. CITYMoscow 74.0 2.0 24.0Notes: Canadian mode split figures are based on data for commuters using cars, trucks, and vans (private transport);buses, streetcars, subways, and commuter rail (public transport); and walking. Data for commuters usingbicycles, motorcycles, taxis, or other modes (approximately 1% of total commuters in these cities) is excluded.The figures shown for Ottawa-Hull are for 1979 because complete data for 1980 is not available.Sources: Canadian cities - Statistics Canada 1982; other cities - Newman and Kenworthy 1989a.8Greater Travel TimesILoss of Social Contact4?Unattractive EnvironmentsLoss of FarmlandLoss of Natural AreasHigher Energy, Infrastructure,and Servicing CostsFigure 2-1Impacts of Auto UseAuto Use 4^ Urban SprawlReduced Viability of Other ModesCongested Streets 4^I^► Loss of Transport Choice for AllReduced Mobility/Access for Non-DriversUser CostsOther Financial Costs to Society—. Infrastructure Construction,Accidents^ Maintenance, and ServicingImpacts of Auto^--. Land Value of Streets and Parking AreasManufacture and Disposal—4- Policing, Courts, Planning, andOther Government Services—1. Interest Charges on Debt Arisingfrom Automobile-Related ExpendituresEnergy Use--IP Dependence onForeign Countries-, Impacts of EnergyProduction andDistribution'')' Global Warming--4. Ozone Destruction—* Acid Rain—, Local Air Pollution--• Local Water PollutionvRoad Construction•—' Noise and Vibration--* Cleaving of Neighbourhoods--0. Creation of Urban BlightSource: author.2.1 Problems Associated With Automobile Dependence 2.1.1 Direct Problems of Auto Use Automobiles consume a great deal of energy, mostly in the form of fossil fuels, and withnumerous consequences. The exploitation and transportation of fossil fuels has many adverseeffects on the environment, and the more oil that is used, the greater the frequency of ecologicallydestructive oil spills. Reliance on imported oil makes countries vulnerable to the actions of foreigngovernments, and has even recently led, at least in part, to the involvement of several countriesin a war in the Persian Gulf.In large part because they do consume so much petroleum, cars are a major source ofpollution. Motor vehicles are responsible for 64% of the total primary air contaminants in theGreater Vancouver Region (GVRD 1992). Automobile exhaust contains hydrocarbons, nitrogenoxides, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide (CO 2), as well as other pollutants. These pollutantscan damage human health and the health of ecosystems by themselves, but they also react in theatmosphere to form substances that can be even more damaging (see Table 2-3). Hydrocarbonsand nitrogen oxides combine in the presence of sunlight to form ozone and photochemical smog.Ozone pollution is a particular problem downwind of Vancouver in the lower Fraser Valley (BritishColumbia 1992). Nitrogen oxides combine with water to form acid precipitation, which damageseverything from the ecology of remote lakes to the stone work in urban buildings.Cars are also an important source of water pollution. Oil, gas, other automotive fluids,rubber particles, and particulates from vehicle exhaust accumulate on roads and are washed intostreams with each rainfall (TransVision Consultants 1990). Junked automobiles and auto partscontaminate dump sites, and the salt used on roads to melt snow and ice damages roadsidevegetation and contributes to water pollution as well. The extraction of the resources andproduction of the materials that go into automobiles, as well as the manufacture of cars and theircomponent parts, also produce numerous negative environmental impacts (see Pollution Probe1991).Potentially the most serious environmental impact of automobiles, however, is their10Table 2-3Automobile Emissions and Their Health and Environmental ImpactsPOLLUTANT DESCRIPTION HEALTH IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSNitrogenOxides (NO)Nitric Oxide (NO) is themajor NOx component andoxidizes into nitrogendioxide (NO 2) in thepresence of hydrocarbonsand sunlight. Nitrogendioxide reacts withhydrocarbons to form ozoneor with water to formnitrate (NO 3), a significantsource of acid rain.- odour- NO2 is a lung irritant whichcan produce pulmonaryedema at high concentrations- increases susceptibility torespiratory infections inyoung children and theelderly- metal corrosion andvegetation damage throughacid rain- acid rain accounts for anannual loss of $197 billion incommercial forest woodproducts and a further $1.3billion due to recreation andwildlife habitat destruction- NO2 contributes tostratospheric ozone depletionCarbonMonoxide (CO)CO is a colourless,odourless, and tasteless gas.Approx. 2/3 of totalemissions are from gasoline-powered motor vehicles.- dizziness, headache andlassitude- increased cardiovascularproblems in smokers andpersons with heart disease- greater susceptibility torespiratory infections inchildren and elderlyCarbon Dioxide(CO2)CO2 is a gas released by therespiration and decay oforganisms, and through thecombustion of organicmaterials.- CO2 is the most significantgreenhouse gas, contributingto global warmingHydrocarbons(HC)Numerous and chemicallydiverse group of compounds.Non-methane HC, volatileorganic compounds (VOC),are important in theformation of photochemicalsmog.- benzene causes leukaemiain humans- some hydrocarbons fromdiesel emissions arecarcinogenicOzone (0 3) A component ofphotochemical smog, ozoneis formed when NO 2 andVOC combine in thepresence of sunlight.- decrease in lung function- irritation of eyes, nose, andthroat- possible long term role indevelopment of chronic lungdisease- reduced agriculturalproductivity in cropsincluding soy beans, tomatoes,potatoes and corn- estimated loss of between$7-70 million per year to cropgrowers in Southern Ontario;$8.8 million in Fraser Valley- reduced growth rates intress including red spruce,yellow pine, and sugar maple- damage to rubber and paintcontinued...contribution to the build-up of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.Automobiles are a significant contributor to the increasing quantity of carbon dioxide in theatmosphere (Lowe 1990; Pollution Probe 1991). Although some scientists remain sceptical, there11Table 2-3 (continued)POLLUTANT DESCRIPTION HEALTH IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSSulfur Oxides Sulfur oxides are produced - SO2 alone can irritate the - sulfur oxides damage trees(SO.) by the burning of sulfur- respiratory tract, if adsorbed and other plants, especiallybearing fuels. Combines on particulate matter or grains, alfalfa, grapes, whitewith water in the converted into H 2SO 4 can pine, apples; also attackatmosphere to form acidprecipitation (sulfuric acid(H2SO 4).injure lung tissue- prolonged exposure to lowlevels of SO 2 associated withincreased deaths due tocardiovascular disease inolder personsbuilding materialsParticulates Small particles of solid and - small particles can - decreased visibilityliquid matter. Diesel vehicle penetrate lungs and cause - aesthetic damage toproduce 10 times as muchparticulate matter per litreas gasoline-poweredvehicles.respiratory infections- toxic particles can be takeninto the bloodstream- effects vary with the type ofparticulatesbuildingsSources: City of Toronto & the Technical Workgroup on Traffic Calming 1991; Trans Vision Consultants Ltd. 1990;OECD 1986; City of Vancouver 1990.is a broad consensus among climatologists that the build-up of gases such as carbon dioxide andmethane in our atmosphere will lead to global warming. This consensus includes the UnitedNations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- an international body of some1,000 scientists -- and a joint research group of the World Meteorological Association and theInternational Council of Scientific Unions (Kerr 1990; City of Vancouver 1990). The IPCC (1990)predicts that if no special actions are undertaken to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, thenglobal mean temperatures will increase by about 1 °C by 2025 and about 3°C before the end of thenext century. This represents a significantly greater change in temperature than has occurredsince the end of the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago. Since that time, the IPCC (1990)believes, global temperatures have probably fluctuated by little more than 1 °C. There has alreadybeen a rise in global temperature of about 0.5 °C since 1860 and many scientists, including KenHare, Chairman of the Climatic Planning Board of Canada, have concluded that the bestexplanation for this warming is the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to humanactivity (Hare 1988).12The impacts of global warming would include sea level rise -- 65 centimetres by the endof the next century if no actions to lessen emissions are taken (IPCC 1990) -- changes in weatherand rainfall patterns and changes in soil moisture conditions throughout the world. These changeswould cause major disruptions to natural ecosystems, to people living in coastal areas, toagriculture, to forestry, and to navigation and fresh water supply (Kellogg and Schware 1981; Hare1981; Rees 1989; Titus 1990). Having recognized the seriousness of the CO 2 problem, manygovernments have made commitments to reducing CO2 emissions. Canada, Japan, Norway,Sweden and the European Community are committed to a stabilization of emissions at the 1990value by the year 2000 (City of Toronto Special Advisory Committee on the Environment 1991).Also recognizing that Canada, as one of the world's largest contributors of anthropogenic carbondioxide on a per capita basis, has a special obligation to curtail emissions, the City of Toronto andthe City of Vancouver have both pledged to reduce 1988 emission levels by 20% by the year 2005(City of Toronto Special Advisory Committee on the Environment 1991; City of Vancouver 1990).Achieving these targets will require that automobiles are used significantly less than at present.The development and promulgation of cleaner burning fuels would reduce the emissionsof some pollutants but would perpetuate CO 2 emissions and dependence on fossil fuel reserves.Increased use of electric cars would reduce pollution in and around city streets, but it would notdecrease overall energy consumption (Reid 1986), and the current means of generating electricity-- through the use of nuclear plants, hydroelectric power dams and the burning of coal, oil andnatural gas -- are far from environmentally benign. In fact, in the U.S., with the current mix ofpower generation facilities, running an electric car produces on average about the same amountof CO2 as a gasoline-powered vehicle (Renner 1988). As Sewell and Foster (1980b: v) pointed outin their report Energy Conservation Through Land Use Planning, "The energy that pollutes theleast is the energy we save."Improving the fuel efficiency of cars would help to reduce air pollution, but automobilesalso have numerous impacts that are unrelated to their fuel consumption. For example, motorvehicle accidents resulted in 4,221 deaths and 284,234 injuries in Canada in 1989 (Morton 1992).13In the U.S., they were responsible for 47,100 deaths. 7,600 of those killed were pedestrians, and1,100 were cyclists (MVMA 1991). Because pedestrian and cyclist trip distances are considerablyshorter than vehicle trips, these figures translate into much higher fatality rates per kilometre oftravel for pedestrians and cyclists than for motor vehicle occupants (Pucher 1988). Automobilesare thus not only dangerous to the people using them, they also greatly increase the hazardsinvolved with the use of more environmentally-friendly modes of transportation. As well, the noiseand vibration from automobiles and road construction can affect people's health and cause physicaldamage to buildings and other structures (Keefer 1982).2.1.2 The Land Use of Automobile Dependence Another category of automobile impacts is related to the land use pattern that automobileuse has both made possible and encouraged. North American cities now consist mainly of lowdensity, highly segregated land uses, with neighbourhoods and development projects designed withthe automobile in mind, and with little provision for pedestrians. Frequently this developmentseems to be without focus -- it simply sprawls across the landscape. In the postwar suburbandevelopment that occupies most of the space of North American cities, different activities areseparated by long distances, homes and shopping centres are focused inward, apartments,shopping centres and office buildings are surrounded by acres of parking and access roads, andeverywhere much space is given over to the movement and storage of cars. Significant space isalso devoted to large grassy areas whose principal function is to separate stretches of pavementfrom buildings or from other stretches of pavement. Although the situation is more extreme insome cities than in others, and in general is worse in the U.S. than in Canada, all North Americancities have large areas with these characteristics.This pattern makes travel by any means other than the automobile a very arduousexperience. Bob McHugh, writing in the British Columbia Automobile Association's magazineWestworld admits, 'You can't defend the automobile on an environmental basis, but the fact is weneed it," because of "[t]he geography of the Lower Mainland (and urban development of the pastseveral decades)...." (McHugh 1991: 30). The problem with this reasoning is that these14development patterns would not even exist without the automobile. McHugh's comment isintended as a justification for the automobile, but it could easily serve as a good justification forchanging land use patterns.The land use patterns created for an auto-oriented lifestyle have been criticized for manyreasons, and some of these are explored below.2.1.2.1 Wasteful Consumption of Land Roughly one third of the land of North American cities is used directly for automobiles(Van der Ryn and Calthorpe 1986; Morris 1982). Roads, highways, and parking areas consumemuch land by themselves, but the low density development that cars make possible is verywasteful of land as well. As cities expand at low densities they absorb a great deal of land.Unfortunately, cities are often located on the best agricultural land. In Canada, where only 11%of the land is suitable for some form of agriculture (Rostum 1987), over half of the high capabilityagricultural land is located within a 161 kilometre radius of the 23 largest cities (Runka 1990).According to Environment Canada (1985), more than half of the rural land converted to urban usesin this country from 1966 to 1981 was prime agricultural land (Canada Land Inventory Classes1, 2 and 3).Despite the fact that most Canadians now have access to much more food than they couldneed, there are important reasons for preserving agricultural land. Growing food locally isimportant, because it provides people with a connection to the land, because it can provide higherquality produce, and because the energy requirements for transporting locally-grown food arerelatively small. Minimizing the agricultural land consumed by cities is also important fornational security purposes. It is not wise to be vulnerable to disruptions in the foreign supply offood in an era of rapidly increasing world population, environmental degradation, and the threatof global climate change.From 1981 to 1986, 552 square kilometres of rural land were converted to urban uses inCanada (Richardson 1992). Some of this was agricultural land, but some was in a more naturalstate. The loss of natural areas contributes to a reduction in biodiversity, and it diminishes the15opportunity for people to come into contact with nature -- something many would describe asessential to people's overall well-being.2.1.2.2 Energy and Infrastructure Costs Low density development requires people to travel long distances by automobile, and thisconsumes much energy, but low density auto-oriented development is also very costly both interms of energy and in terms of money expended per inhabitant with respect to infrastructure andservices. It involves long lengths of sewer and water pipes, electricity and phone cables, andstreets; it also requires a lot of street lighting per person. This is especially true if lots are laidout with large widths in relation to their lengths. Street cleaners, garbage collectors, and snowremovers must all travel longer distances and do more work per inhabitant than with higherdensity development. The landmark Costs of Sprawl study noted, almost 20 years ago, that"'planning' to some extent, but higher densities to a much greater extent, result in lower economiccosts, environmental costs, [and] natural resource consumption ... for a given number of dwellingunits" (Real Estate Research Corporation 1974: 6).2.1.2.3 Aesthetic and Social Problems Many feel that accommodating automobiles in our cities and towns has also diminishedtheir aesthetic and social environments. Jane Jacobs (1961), for instance, has been very criticalof the problems that occur when emphasis is given to accommodating the needs of automobilesrather than the complex needs of cities. Providing access to downtown for suburban autocommuters by building arterial roads and highways has resulted in the cleaving of urbanneighbourhoods, especially in the U.S. (Pucher 1988). It has also contributed to draining the lifefrom downtowns and creating urban blight. According to Roberta Brandes Gratz (1989: 201):"Unavoidably, the more cars a town or city tries to accommodate, the greater the toll exacted fromcommercial and social activity." Newman and Kenworthy have found a strong negativerelationship between "human attractiveness" and provision for the auto in the cities they havestudied, commenting that "it is hard to perceive hectares of bitumen and freeway overpasses as16attractive urban design" (Newman and Kenworthy 1989a: 83).The automobile-oriented, low density, compartmentalized form of the postwar suburbs hasalso come under frequent and lengthy attack from critics. In the 1950s, David Riesman's TheLonely Crowd and William H. Whyte's The Organization Man characterized the suburbs as placesof boring homogeneity, with a lack of individuality and human interaction (Hall 1988). LewisMumford's criticism of the suburbs was scathing. In The City in History he declared thatsuburbanization tends to destroy both urban and rural environments "without producing anythingbut a dreary substitute, devoid of form, and even more devoid of the original suburban values"(Mumford 1961: 506). "Instead of buildings set in a park," he observed, "we now have buildingsset in a parking lot" (Mumford 1961: 506). It is somewhat ironic that in striving for differentiationand separation of uses in the suburbs, North Americans have produced a landscape which isessentially the same from one part of a city to another, and from one city to another. Mumford(1961: 503) also commented that the developing postwar urban form was leaving "the individualmore dissociated, lonely, and helpless than he probably ever was before."Weaknesses in such works have been pointed out (see e.g. Hall 1988; Jackson 1985), butsuburban areas continue to be criticized for their uniformity and architectural blandness, theirlack of vitality, lack of community, and their isolating and privatizing characteristics (e.g. Sewell1977b; Alexander et al. 1977; Calthorpe 1989b; Solomon 1989; Kluckner 1991; Neuman 1991).Neuman (1991: 346) states "The non-communities formed by sprawl are the dystopias that, in part,cause dysfunctional living arrangements and dysfunctional lives." And there is no doubt thatthose without access to cars in such environments, such as the young, the old, the poor and thedisabled, are at a terrible disadvantage (Cervero 1986a). The young, the old, and the disabled arethus hit with a double blow in an automobile dependent society, because they are precisely thegroups most susceptible to health problems from automobile-generated pollution. Suburban landuse patterns make it virtually essential to have one car per adult in a family, and parents mustspend a good part of their lives chauffeuring their young children around. Family life is affectedas low density suburban development stretches travel distances, forcing workers to spend hours17of their day in traffic rather than with their families.Thus while cars can be said to increase quality of life in some ways, they diminish it inmany others.2.1.3 Congestion Modern suburbs have been designed so that vehicles can move quickly and efficientlythrough them. For a time these features compensated against the increasing distances that peoplehad to travel. But now cities are finding that they cannot or do not want to continue theexpensive, disruptive, and land-consuming process of constructing highways as fast as newdemand occurs. The result is that congestion is becoming a greater and greater problem in NorthAmerica. This is true especially in the suburbs of large American cities. Congestion is now thenumber one concern of people in many U.S. cities (Cervero 1986a; Orski 1985). Though the levelof concern does not appear to be as great in Canada, it does appear to be growing. A recent surveyfound that in some suburban Vancouver municipalities, for example, traffic congestion rankedsecond only to environmental issues in perceived importance (Hardwick, Torchinsky, and Fallick1990).Forcing almost everyone into cars, and most cars on to the same highways and arterialroads, as the urban development patterns of the last few decades do, is in fact proving to be arecipe for congestion. That is, suburban development patterns cannot even deliver on one of theprime reasons for their existence. It is now clear that if automobile dependence is built in,congestion is built in as well.2.1.4 The Costs of Automobile Dependence Many of the negative impacts of automobiles discussed above, from air and water pollution,to accidents, to noise, have very real financial costs -- but these costs are not borne by automobileusers directly. They are externalities. These externalities include the costs of health care and lostproductivity for victims of traffic accidents and air pollution, the costs of crop damage, and thecosts of repairing building facades damaged by acid rain. Such costs constitute a hidden or18indirect subsidy to automobile drivers (Pollution Probe 1991; Litman 1991, 1992; Meyer andGomez-Ibanez 1981).There are, of course, more direct subsidies of automobile use as well, the most obviousbeing road construction and maintenance. Even without automobiles, we would still need roads,but the space beyond which that which would be required by pedestrians, cyclists, public transit,goods movement, emergency services, and so on, can be regarded as a subsidy to personal vehicleuse (Litman 1992). Other subsidies of automobiles and automobile users include: the costs ofparking space, traffic lights and street lights; the costs of planning, policing, and courts; and theopportunity cost of land used for roads (Hanson 1992; Register 1987; Pucher 1988; Pollution Probe1991; Litman 1991, 1992).Peat Marwick Stevenson and Kellogg (1993) estimate that in 1991, in the Lower Mainlandof B.C., private motor vehicles were subsidized by about $2.65 billion. Of this total, $350 millionwas paid by businesses, $580 million was paid by municipal tax-payers, $190 million was paid byprovincial tax-payers, and $1.53 billion was an indirect subsidy paid by society as a whole. Thesefigures represent $331 in municipal taxes per resident of the Lower Mainland, $110 in provincialtaxes, and a general cost to society of $867 per resident. According to Peat Marwick Stevensonand Kellogg (1993), the average fourteen kilometre private automobile trip in the Lower Mainlandreceives a subsidy of about two dollars and ninety-five cents.It is therefore evident that, though they tend not to be regarded as subsidies, both thehidden costs and the direct costs to society of automobiles are substantial. The existence of thesesubsidies is an important reason why North Americans travel so much by automobile (Meyer andIbanez-Gomez 1981; Pucher 1988).2.2 The Benefits and Advantages of Other Modes Up to this point, this chapter has taken an essentially negative approach to the issue oftransportation mode choice by focusing on the problems of automobile use. However, it isworthwhile to, at least briefly, take a more positive approach and focus on the benefits andadvantages of alternate modes of travel.19The benefits of walking and cycling are numerous. They use no fossil fuels, create no air,water, or noise pollution, they enhance our health, and they require significantly less road spacethan do cars (Untermann 1984; Hudson 1978). "In mixed traffic, such as that found in urbancentres, bicycles can move seven to ten times as many people per metre width of lane per hour asautos travelling at the same speed" (City of Toronto & the Technical Workgroup on TrafficCalming 1991: 56). Social contact between people on foot or on bikes is easy, and pedestrians helpto make a neighbourhood more livable, safe, and comfortable to be in (Untermann 1984).Buses are a much safer form of travel than cars. According to the U.S. National SafetyCouncil, the death rate per passenger-kilometre travelled in automobiles is 97 times the rate forpublic transit buses (Lowe 1990: 15). And at reasonable occupancy rates, public transit also usesspace and energy many times more efficiently than cars, and creates far less pollution (Lowe 1990:6) (see Tables 2-4 through 2-7). In 1985, transit accounted for only 1.6% of the vehicles travellingto downtown Vancouver in the morning rush, but carried about 37.4% of the commuters(TransVision Consultants 1990).2.3 Conclusion In summary, it is evident that automobile dependence is a serious problem in this country,and that it has many deleterious consequences. Of particular concern are the impacts ofautomobile dependence and its associated land use patterns on the consumption of resources --particularly energy and land -- and on air quality, and global climate change. It is the premiseof the remainder of this thesis that the threats posed by automobile use to local and globalecosystems are certainly serious enough to justify strong action by planners and by society as awhole to reduce automobile dependence now. The ecological and social impacts of automobiles arenot consistent with a sustainable way of life.Although automobiles will likely be around for some time, they need not continue todominate the transportation system, and as Lewis Mumford put it, to "dictate the whole schemeof living" (Mumford 1961: 509). In The City in History,  Mumford (1961: 509) pointed out that,It is an absurdly impoverished technology that has only one answer to the20Table 2-4Comparison of Energy Use by Transportation Mode: Estimates for TorontoTransportationModeFuel orPower UseNumber ofCommutersEnergy Use(MJ/person-km)Auto 16 L/100 km 1 4.746 0.7910 L/100 km 1 3.164 0.797 L/100 km 1 2.214 0.55Van 20 11100 km 15 0.4210 11100 km 7 0.45Electric Auto 150 km/30 kWh 1 0.724 0.18Electric Van 90 km/30 kWh 6 0.14Diesel Bus 56 11100 km 40 0.52Trolley Bus 2.66 kWh/km 40 0.24Streetcar 3.02 kWh/km 46 (per car) 0.24Subway 2.61 kWh/km 75 (per car) 0.13Go Rail 761 11100 km 810 0.35Note: number of commuters for vans and public transit vehicles is based on the number of seats in each vehicle.Source: City of Toronto & the Technical Workgroup on Traffic Calming 1991.Table 2-5Comparison of Energy Use by Transportation Mode: Estimates for VancouverTransportationModePassengers per Vehicle Energy PerVehicle-km(MJ/km)Energy Per Psgr-kmAverageDailyRushHoursAverage(MJ/km)Rush Hour(MJ/km)Automobile 1.0 1.3 4.16 4.16 3.20Carpool 2.4 3.6 4.16 1.73 1.16Vanpool 5.0 7.2 4.80 0.96 0.67Diesel Bus 20.0 37.0 19.34 0.97 0.52Trolley Coach 20.0 37.0 7.38 0.37 0.20Articulated Diesel 23.0 44.0 24.76 1.08 0.56Articulated Trolley 23.0 44.0 10.66 0.46 0.24Light Rail Vehicle 25.0 63.0 9.00 0.36 0.17Note: passenger figures based on estimates of average passenger loads for BC Transit.Source: TransVision Consultants Ltd. 1990.21Table 2-6Selected Vehicle Emission Rate Values (g/km): Estimates for VancouverTransportationModeHydro-CarbonsHCCarbonMonoxideCONitrogenOxidesNOxSulfurOxidesSOxParticulateMatterPMAutomobile 3.15 23.57 1.91 0.07 0.10Carpool 3.15 23.57 1.91 0.07 0.10Vanpool 3.62 27.11 2.20 0.08 0.12Diesel Bus 2.13 30.00 13.34 1.73 3.40Articulated Diesel 2.73 38.41 17.08 2.22 4.35Methanol Bus 0.21 0.44 9.88 0.00 0.01Trolley Coach 0.006 0.022 0.119 0.008 0.005Articulated Trolley 0.008 0.032 0.171 0.012 0.008Light Rail Vehicle 0.007 0.027 0.146 0.010 0.007Note: pollutant emissions from electric transit vehicles in Vancouver are very low because the bulk of the power theyuse comes from hydro-electric facilities.Source: TransVision Consultants Ltd. 1990.Table 2-7Selected Emission Rates Per Passenger: Estimates for VancouverTransportationModeNumber ofPassengersPollutants (grams/passenger-kilometre)Hydro-CarbonsHCCarbonMonoxideCONitrogenOxidesNOxSulfurOxidesSOxParticulateMatterPMDaily AverageAutomobile 1.0 3.15 23.57 1.91 0.07 0.10Carpool 2.4 1.31 9.82 0.80 0.03 0.04Vanpool 5.0 0.72 5.42 0.44 0.02 0.02Diesel Bus 20 0.11 1.50 0.67 0.09 0.17Articulated Diesel 23 0.12 1.67 0.74 0.10 0.19Methanol Bus 20 0.01 0.02 0.49 0.00 0.00Trolley Coach 20 0.000 0.001 0.006 0.000 0.000Articulated Trolley 23 0.000 0.001 0.007 0.001 0.000Light Rail Vehicle 25 0.000 0.001 0.006 0.000 0.000Rush HoursAutomobile 1.3 2.42 18.13 1.47 0.05 0.08Carpool 3.6 0.88 6.55 0.53 0.02 0.03Vanpool 7.2 0.50 3.77 0.31 0.01 0.02Diesel Bus 37 0.06 0.81 0.36 0.05 0.09Articulated Diesel 44 0.06 0.87 0.39 0.05 0.10Methanol Bus 37 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.00 0.00Trolley Coach 37 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.000Articulated Trolley 44 0.000 0.001 0.004 0.000 0.000Light Rail Vehicle 53 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.000Note: pollutant emissions from electric transit vehicles in Vancouver are very low because the bulk of the power theyuse comes from hydro-electric facilities.Source: TransVision Consultants Ltd. 1990.22problem of transportation; it is a poor form of city planning that permits thatanswer to determine its entire scheme of existence.23CHAPTER 3URBAN FORM FOR REDUCED AUTOMOBILE DEPENDENCE3.0 Introduction This chapter discusses the factors which affect automobile use, and the importance ofurban form as one of these factors. It summarizes the current state of knowledge on therelationship between automobile dependence and various urban form characteristics. It thendescribes in detail land use and design criteria which are consistent with reduced automobiledependence, and it briefly examines some of the physical processes by which such characteristicscan be achieved. The chapter concludes with an examination of the relationship of these criteriato other planning objectives.Achieving many of the recommended land use changes will require changes in policies andregulations, and especially changes in attitudes -- but these aspects of implementation are notdiscussed here. They are dealt with in Chapter 5.3.1 Reducing Vehicle Kilometres Travelled Chapter 2 has established that reducing automobile dependence should be an importantgoal of planning. There are a number of actions that would address one or two or three of theproblems discussed in that chapter -- for example, the development of cleaner burning fuels andmore fuel-efficient engines would help to reduce pollution and flexible work hour policies couldhelp to reduce congestion. But the only way to significantly address all of the problems associatedwith automobile use is to work toward reducing total vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT).There are essentially two approaches aimed at reducing VKT: reducing trip lengths bydecreasing the distances between origins and destinations; and, reducing the total number ofautomobile trips by encouraging the choice of alternative modes.243.1.1 Reducing Distances Trip lengths within an urban region can be reduced by decreasing the need for people totravel long distances to complete their daily activities. This can be accomplished by increasingdevelopment densities and increasing the degree of mixing of land uses. Higher densities producea more compact urban form, and a more compact city obviously uses less land, allowing largeragricultural and natural areas to be preserved. At the neighbourhood level, higher densities willsupport a greater diversity of services within a short distance, reducing trip lengths and makingwalking or biking more of an option. Greater mixing of land uses means closer integration ofhomes, workplaces, recreational facilities, and retail stores and other services. Clustering of uses(for example offices, banks, and restaurants) can eliminate some automobile trips altogether.3.1.2 Encouraging Alternate Modes Reductions in VKT can also be accomplished through the use of modes other than singleoccupant automobiles, such as carpooling, vanpooling, paratransit, telecommunications, walking,bicycling and transit. Such modes can be encouraged both by making the use of automobiles lessattractive and by making the use of other modes more attractive. In addition to the availabilityof different modes, there are a number of factors which influence a trip-maker's choice of mode.Traditionally, these are said to include: in-vehicle travel time; walking time; waiting time;monetary costs (including vehicle operating costs, parking costs, and transit fares); reliability;comfort; and convenience (based on Hutchinson 1991). In this case, "comfort" can be said toinclude safety, although this is sometimes listed as a separate factor.It is important to realize that different people will attach different weights or values tothese factors, depending on what they personally value more. In addition, people will operate onthe basis of their perceptions of the above factors, rather than on some absolute measurablevalues. This fact is most obvious in the case of such factors as safety, comfort and convenience,but it is true to some extent in the case of more quantifiable factors, such as travel time, as well.Peoples' perceptions will be influenced by the prevalence or visibility of different modes in theirenvironment, and by their attitudes toward different modes. To this extent, the widest possible25interpretation of comfort should be used. This would include not only physical comfort, butpsychological comfort as well -- someone's psychological comfort being influenced by such thingsas his or her image of a particular mode, and knowledge of and concern for its impacts.' Comfortmust also be said to include the stimulation that one experiences travelling via a particular mode-- i.e the extent to which a particular mode choice for a particular route is interesting or fun.Making pedestrian routes interesting, for instance, is a key to getting people to walk.Numerous social, economic and physical elements affect the factors listed above. Many ofthese elements can be classed as either transportation system elements or as land use elements.Other elements would include everything from broad socio-economic conditions such as the safetyof neighbourhoods to such specific things as the presence of street vendors, street performers, orpublic art. Transportation system elements are shown in Table 3-1. Governments can influencethese elements through numerous different actions, many of which are outlined in Table 3-2. 2Of course, not all of these actions need to be initiated or carried out by governments. Individuals,non-profit groups, and private industry can clearly play important roles, especially in suchactivities as education and coordination.Land use elements affecting mode choice include density, land use mix andurban/community design, and they influence mode choice by affecting trip distances, which affecttime and costs, and by directly affecting safety, comfort, and convenience.3.2 Relationship of Land Use and Transportation Planning It is, of course, the land use elements that this thesis focuses on. Such an approach canbe justified in several ways. At the very least, it is useful because land use planning is an1 For example, an upper-middle-class person may be reluctant to take transit if he has an image of it beingprimarily for lower income groups -- i.e he may not be comfortable with taking it, or he may not even becomfortable with the idea of taking transit. Another person may be more comfortable bicycling to a storeinstead of driving, because she knows that it is "better for the environment" -- i.e. her conscience is morecomfortable with bicycling.2 For further discussion of the use of transportation planning and traffic management initiatives to reduceautomobile dependence see: City of Toronto & the Technical Workgroup on Traffic Calming 1991; Renner1988; Lowe 1990; Giuliano 1992; and Rees and Roseland 1991. For details on trip reduction by-laws andother traffic impact legislation, in particular, see: Cervero 1986a; Ferguson 1990.26Table 3-1Transportation System Elements• quantity (length, width) of road and highway surfaces, as well as busways, bikeways, andsidewalks and other pedestrian ways• quantity of fixed rail transit lines• location, connectivity, and directness of roads and other routes (this is a function ofphysical infrastructure and regulations controlling turns, etc., but is also a land useelement)• apportionment of roads and highways to general cars and trucks, high occupance vehicles(HOVs), buses and/or bikes• apportionment of road space to through traffic, turning traffic, and parked or stoppedvehicles• number of transit vehicles• quality of infrastructure and general environment:- for motorists (e g quality of road surface, safety of intersections, quality oflighting, etc.)- for transit users (e g quality of road or track, quality of vehicles, comfort of seats,temperature inside vehicles, availability of shelters at bus stops, quality oflighting at bus stops, ease of access to stations, cleanliness of vehicles andstations, availability and quality of bike and ride facilities, etc.)- for cyclists (e.g. quality of bikeway surface, number and safety of intersections,quality of signage, degree of protection from elements, degree of separationfrom pedestrians, air quality, etc.)- for pedestrians (e.g. quality of sidewalks and sidewalk amenities (seating,lighting, planters, trees), degree of protection from vehicles, safety ofintersections, degree of protection from elements, etc.)• efficiency of traffic signal system for various modes• quality and efficiency of transit system operation (e.g. routing, scheduling, vehicleoperation and maintenance, surveillance of station platforms, etc.)• speed limits and other influences on vehicle speed (e.g. speed bumps, stop signs, etc.)• vehicle ownership and operating costs (for cars, bikes) (e.g. gas, maintenance, insurance)• parking availability, security, and cost (for cars, bikes)• transit fares• knowledge and attitudes of people making mode choice decisions• etc.Source: author.important part of the field of planning and it is important for land use planners to have a clearidea of what they should be aiming for. Chapter 2 has established that reducing automobiledependence should be a fundamental objective of planning, and those involved in shaping citiesneed to now how they can help to achieve this. However, a focus on land use is important for morethan that reason. Better city form is not simply one of the many things needed to breakCanadians' addiction to cars -- it is the key to long-term reductions in automobile dependence (see27Table 3-2Actions Affecting Transportation System• design and construction (or elimination) of infrastructure, including: roads; footpaths andbicycle paths; transit lines; parking space; etc.• allocation of infrastructure to various modes (with or without redesign of streets),including: provision of bus-only lanes or high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes;preferential parking for HOVs; provision of bike lanes; pedestrianization ofdowntown streets (e.g. Ottawa); creation of transit malls; creation of slow streets orwoonerven; etc.• management, operation, and maintenance of transportation systems, including: roadrepair; snow and ice removal; maintenance of transit vehicles; provision, routing,and scheduling of transit; etc.• pricing of goods and services, including transit fares and parking rates, and carinsurance rates• levying of taxes and fees, including: gas taxes; carbon taxes; taxes on the purchase ofcars; taxes on parking spaces; license fees; highway, bridge, and tunnel tolls; feesfor road use (known as road pricing); tolls or fees to enter downtown (e.g. Oslo);Area Licensing Schemes (ALS) (e.g. Singapore); etc.• provision of incentives• regulation of movement and use of vehicles, including: regulations governing speed,access, direction of movement, etc.; restriction of automobile use to certain days(e.g. Mexico City); etc.• regulation of the traffic impacts of development, through means such as trip reductionby-laws• enforcement of regulations• education and encouragement• coordination of activities and programs, including: car pooling; bike to work programs;etc.• etc.Source: author. For details on examples see: Roseland 1992; Graham 1990; Pendakur 1987.e.g. Schonfeld and Chadda 1985; Cervero 1991a; Newman and Kenworthy 1989a; City of Toronto& the Technical Workgroup on Traffic Calming 1991). As long as cities consist of unfocused lowdensity sprawl, automobiles -- and often single occupant automobiles -- will be the only viablemeans of transport for most people.Of course, though changes to urban form are necessary to reduce automobile dependence,they are not sufficient. The fact that this thesis is focused on land use should not be taken as anindication that land use actions are the only ones needed to reduce automobile dependence. Othermeasure are needed as well. Supportive transportation planning measures, in particular, areessential for at least three reasons. Firstly, automobile dependence is a rather intractable28problem, so action is needed on as many fronts as possible. Any action that can be implementedwith the aim of reducing automobile dependence is useful. Secondly, transportation planningmeasures have the potential to influence travel behaviour more quickly than can land use actions.According to Hutchinson (1991: 272): "Shaping travel demands through interventions in the landdevelopment process may only be achieved over 10- to 15-year time horizons, while traffic restraintand pricing schemes may be implemented over 2- to 3-year time horizons." Finally, transportation-oriented measures are important for the impact they have on land use patterns (which in turn willaffect transportation behaviour, and so on). Transportation policies which favour walking, cycling,and transit will inevitably contribute to a demand for land use patterns which make these modeseasier to rely on.Reorienting transportation planning from the automobile to other modes means restrainingthe provision of automobile infrastructure and directing resources instead toward the provisionof infrastructure for other modes (Newman and Kenworthy 1989a; 1989b). It means providingwide sidewalks and bicycle routes, and creating "slow streets." It means having "plannedcongestion." As long as roads are congestion-free people will have a great tendency to stick tousing cars (Seelig and Artibise 1991). It also means improving transit service. A good transitsystem is absolutely essential. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the subsidies of automobileuse must be removed (Newman and Kenworthy 1989a; Hanson 1992). Forcing motorists to payfor the hidden costs of automobiles, through such mechanisms as road pricing, tolls, gas taxes,and/or parking taxes or fees is probably the most effective means to reduce automobile use in theshort term (Cervero 1989c).Controls on parking, in particular, are crucial (Newman and Kenworthy 1989a). Theavailability and price of parking at a destination have a great deal of influence on whether or notpeople choose to drive (Cervero 1986a; Lowe 1991). Studies reviewed by Willson and Shoup (1990)have shown that 19 to 81 percent fewer employees drive to work alone if they, rather than theiremployer, pays for the cost of parking. And the Toronto Transit Commission has found that 54%of non-transit riders and light riders in its service area said they drove to work because their29employers provided parking for free or at a reduced cost (City of Toronto & the TechnicalWorkgroup on Traffic Calming 1991). Free parking represents a significant subsidy to commuters.In the U.S., the offer of free parking is often worth more than would be the offer of free gasolinefor those driving to work (Shoup and Willson 1992).Nevertheless, the focus of this thesis is on land use, and therefore the remainder of thischapter is concerned with establishing exactly what physical forms and land use patterns areconsistent with reducing automobile dependence. Note that focusing on land use measures alsomeans focusing on those modes which are most dependent on land use patterns -- particularlywalking, cycling, and transit. Although increased use of telecommunications could potentiallyreduce VKT significantly, it is beyond the scope of this thesis to explore what policies mightencourage this means of "travel" specifically.3.3 Urban Form and Transportation Use There are several approaches to determining which land use patterns are consistent withreduced auto dependence. For instance, one can compare travel patterns for areas with differentland use characteristics, one can attempt to model the transportation requirements of differenthypothetical urban forms, or one can simply look at the characteristics of walking, cycling andtransit operation and use these to determine appropriate land use patterns. Examples of each ofthese approaches are discussed below.3.3.1 Comparison Studies Probably the most famous of comparison studies were done by Pushkarev and Zupan(1977), who investigated the levels of density needed to support transit service. Though this workwas conducted in the 1970s, it is still widely cited. They analyzed a number of land use andtransportation variables for U.S. cities and performed comparisons between and within cities.They found that, in general, residential densities of 2 to 7 dwelling units (d.u.) per acre (5-17d.u./ha) supported only very marginal transit use, and that densities of 7 to 30 d.u./acre (17-74d.u./ha) were needed to sustain significant transit use, in the range of 5 to 40 percent of all trips.30They found that an increase from 7 to 30 d.u./acre produced a substantial increase in transit use,as well as a sharp drop in auto travel.'Pushkarev and Zupan (1977) emphasize, however, that the particular residential densityneeded to support a certain level of bus service in an area will depend on a number of factors,including: the distance from and size of the nearest non-residential concentration; the density ofneighbouring residential areas through which a route passes; and the length of the route. Theyparticularly stress the importance of clustering non-residential activities (i.e. employment andservices) in downtowns and other compact development patterns. They state that high residentialdensity will do little for transit if there is no dominant destination, but that residential densitiesfrom 7 to 15 d.u./acre (17-37 d.u./ha) can support moderately convenient transit if there is(Pushkarev and Zupan 1977; 1982). They also emphasize that, in terms of increasing transitridership, it is more important to increase residential densities near downtown rather than fartheraway.Many other researchers have conducted similar studies. For example, Wilbur Smith andAssociates studied Metropolitan Toronto and found that as housing density increased ten-fold from3.9 to 39.0 d.u./ha, weekday vehicle travel, measured in kilometres of travel per capita, decreasedby 40% (Underwood McLellan 1983, 30).Potter (1984) has studied several English new towns, comparing towns such as Redditchand Runcorn, which have been designed for transit, with the town of Milton Keynes, which waslaid out much more with the automobile in mind. At the time of the study, the gross density ofRedditch was 23 persons per hectare, and that of Runcorn was 32. Milton Keynes' was only 12persons per hectare. The design principles of the Redditch and Runcorn plans also includeddistance minimizing techniques such as locating higher residential densities and non-residentialuses along transit corridors, zoning residential development so that densities increase toward thesecorridors, locating low density uses, such as parks, warehouses, and so on, away from transitIt is worth noting that, as a result of a number of changes in North American society since Pushkarevand Zupan completed their work, including decreases in household size and increases in car ownership, theunit densities required to support transit are likely somewhat higher now.31routes, and generally arranging land uses so that the pattern of development is conducive toproviding transit service. While Milton Keynes does include a system of cycleways, andneighbourhood shops within walking distance, its plans did not incorporate the above principles.Potter notes that in Runcorn a bus service frequency of 5 to 10 min is in operation and in Redditcha 10 min frequency has been achieved, and that, on top of this, these public transit systemsrequire very little subsidy. In Redditch 6% of operating costs are subsidies and in Runcorn onlyabout 5%. This compares with a 42% subsidy in Milton Keynes for a 30 min frequency bus service.Warren (1988) has compared Canberra, Australia with Springfield, Illinois with respectto mass transit use. These two cities have similar sizes, functions, socio-economic conditions andresidential densities, yet transit use is 10 times greater in Canberra. Canberra has 4.3 times asmany miles of routes as Springfield, but the subsidies to the transit system are lower. Warrenconcludes that a major reason for these discrepancies is the different land use morphology.Springfield has developed without much planning control on a grid system, whereas Canberra hasbeen deliberately laid out and developed, with neighbourhood clusters, to support transit. Warrenstates that this first hand observation and comparison of two urban situations makes theargument for more effective land use planning as a causal contributor to enhanced transit servicescompelling. He believes that subsidizing more frequent service, improved transit planning, newbuses, or better PR will never provide more than marginal increases in transit use.In a presentation to the 1990 Ecocity Berkeley Conference, Mattoff, Holtzclaw, andDownton (1990) reported that results from odometer readings taken in the San Francisco areaduring auto emissions inspections clearly show that the more dense the area, the fewer milesdriven per capita per year. They found that, in general, a doubling of residential or populationdensity was associated with a drop in annual auto milage per capita of 25 to 30 percent, and adrop in auto milage per household of around 30 percent.In contrast to most of the studies, Robert Cervero has directed his attention to the impactof workplace land use characteristics on automobile use. He has conducted a detailed analysis ofthe commuting patterns at 50 of the largest suburban employment centres (SECs) in the United32States. His findings indicate that the share of commuters at SECs made in some manner otherthan driving alone increases with the density and variety of land uses at that SEC (Cervero 1989a,1989b). He has observed that "every 20% increase in the share of floor space that is devoted toretail and commercial uses in suburban office developments is associated with a 4.5 percentincrease in the share of trips made by carpool, vanpool, and transit" (Cervero 1991a: 124). Andhe concludes in one article that "high densities, a large concentration of workers, and mixed-usedevelopment appear to be necessary, though probably not sufficient, prerequisites if reasonablelevels of ridesharing, transit usage, cycling, and foot travel are to be achieved in suburbia"(Cervero 1989b: 84). Cervero (1989c) has also found that suburban workplaces with severe jobs-housing imbalances tend to have low shares of workers making walking and cycling trips and highlevels of congestion on connecting freeways.Although the influence of external variables probably accounts for some of the differencesin the above studies -- for example differences in Australian versus U.S. attitudes toward transit,or different climatic conditions, may influence ridership levels in Canberra and Springfield -- theevidence from them is nevertheless compelling.Due to difficulties in data collection, most comparison studies have be relatively limitedin scope. Recently, however, two Australian researchers have undertaken a very large and verythorough comparison study of land use and automobile dependence in many of the major cities ofthe world. Newman and Kenworthy (1989a) compared gasoline consumption in 32 citiesthroughout Europe, Asia, Australia, and North America. They looked at eight urban formvariables, namely: whole city density; central city density; inner area density; outer area density;proportion of the population in the central business district (CBD); proportion of jobs in the CBD;proportion of population in the inner area; and, proportion of jobs in the inner area. They founda strong negative correlation between gasoline use or private vehicle use and all of the densityvariables except central city job density. They also found that the relationship between densityand gas use is exponential, especially at densities under 30 people per hectare -- this beingconsistent with the idea that lower densities do not just create longer distances, they also affect33the feasibility of the use of other modes. Their data suggests that if cities with a populationdensity of 10/ha could move to densities of 30/ha, then fuel consumption could be reduced to a halfor even a third of its current value. This suggests a very large potential for affecting automobileuse through land use change. These researchers did find a correlation between vehicle ownershipand use, but found that if ownership was held constant, that automobile use still varied withdensity.Newman and Kenworthy (1989a) also found a significant positive correlation betweenpopulation and job density and all of their measures of public transportation use, namely: publictransport passenger kilometres per person; proportion of total passenger kilometres on publictransport; public transport service provision per person; annual trips per person; and theproportion of workers using public transport. Notably, they found exceptionally strong correlationsbetween all the density variables and the proportion of total passenger travel on public transport.Similarly, higher densities were also "associated with a greater proportion of people using foot andbicycle to get to work" (p.50).These researchers have found that car use per capita (in terms of VKT) is roughly twiceas large for American cities, which are characterized by sprawling low density land use patterns,than it is for European cities, where land is used more intensively and which are relatively morecompact (Newman and Kenworthy 1989a,1992). This relationship between urban form and autouse us borne out in the mode split data in Table 2-2. With respect to Canada in particular, onecan see that the relatively spread-out cities of Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton have much lowerpercentages of commuters using public transit than do the relatively more concentrated cities ofMontreal, Toronto, and Ottawa.Overall Newman and Kenworthy (1989a) found that: "as land use intensity, orientationto non-automobile modes, level of traffic restraint, degree of centralisation and public transportperformance in cities all increase, the per capita use of gasoline diminishes in a marked way"(p.57). They therefore recommend that policies to reduce auto dependence proceed along theselines. They conclude that a population density of 30 to 40 people per hectare apparently34represents a threshold below which urban areas tend to be automobile based and above which amuch less auto-based system of urban transportation occurs.3.3.2 Modelling Studies Much modelling work in this area has tended to look at aggregate urban form and itsinfluence on energy consumption in a settlement -- research in this area having been stimulatedby the energy crisis or crises of the 1970s. Modelling typically shows that more compact, higherdensity settlements are more energy efficient than sprawling low density settlements, and thatthere is a negative correlation between density and energy used for transportation (Owens 1990). 4Multi-nucleated or polycentric patterns are usually rated as most efficient, though concentratedmonocentric patterns score well, and sometimes even better.For example, Kim and Schneider (1985) conclude from their simulation model that markedreductions in transportation energy requirements can be achieved by altering urban spatialstructure, and that there is a great potential to reduce energy consumption by encouragingpolycentric urban form. They state that: "Compact urban forms consisting of major suburbancenters with a relatively dense residential area surrounding them appear to be both feasible anddesirable urban configurations for an energy-short future" (Kim and Schneider 1985, 50). Afterstudying five scenarios for future energy supply and applying them to four models of spatial formand structure, Van Til (1979) concludes that a "diversified-integrated" (multi-nodal) form is theonly one viable in the energy-short scenarios. Finally, the Metro Toronto Area TransportationEnergy Study (MTATES), done by H.E. Strate and others of Wilbur Smith and Associates, Ltd.,found that a subcentre plan would result in 10% less transportation energy consumption than aregional dispersion plan, as well as lower consumption than a centralization plan (with estimatedtransportation energy use of 93.24 MJ per household for the subcentres plan, 101.79 MJ perhousehold for centralization, and 104.46 for regional dispersion) (Levinson and Strate 1981).Note that in the context of land use planning, reducing transportation energy consumption meansreducing VKT.353.3.3 The Requirements of Different Modes A third way to approach the determination of land use patterns to reduce automobiledependence is simply to look at the requirements of different modes and the factors affecting modechoice.As was pointed out in section 3.1, density and land use mixing make both walking andcycling more attractive by reducing distances. The distances that people will walk or cycle can beused as criteria to determine appropriate levels of density or such land use mix factors as thespacing of neighbourhood services. Untermann (1984) states that walking is the most convenientmeans of transportation for distances up to 500 yards (457m), though he also states that 2,300 feet(700m) -- a ten minute walk -- appears to be the maximum distance that Americans are preparedto walk. A survey of the residents of three Ontario cities (Hawthorne 1989), however, suggeststhat Canadians may perhaps be prepared to walk further. Residents of Metropolitan Torontostated that they believe it is reasonable to walk 21 minutes to work, or 19.5 minutes for an errand.The corresponding figures for Ottawa-Carleton were 23 minutes and 21 minutes, and for ThunderBay were 24 minutes and 22 minutes, respectively. The issue of walking distances will bediscussed further in a later section on neighbourhood design.Density is also very important for transit. It is simply not feasible or worthwhile toprovide good transit service to low density areas. High quality transit provision in areas of lowdensity can easily exceed the costs of automobiles in terms of dollars, energy, and materialsconsumption (Pushkarev and Zupan 1982). Running nearly empty buses certainly does notcontribute to environmental quality. Higher densities allow closer spacing of routes and/or greaterfrequency of service, which makes transit a more attractive option. Thus, higher densities not onlyconcentrate transit riders, they produce more riders; density not only affects the absolute numberof people using transit in an area, but it is also strongly correlated with the percentage of peopletaking transit as well. (Canadian Urban Transit Association and Roads and TransportationAssociation of Canada (CUTA and RTAC) 1985).Yet density and land use mix are not the only relevant factors. Design is important36because it strongly influences travel time, convenience, safety, and pleasure. Design can make theuse of automobiles less attractive through such measures as providing less parking, makingparking less visible, and making automobile access to sites and buildings less convenient. Designis also effective in making the use of other modes more attractive. Design affects the distancestransit patrons must travel to a stop, and the distances pedestrians and cyclists must travel to aneighbourhood store. These distances are a function of street layout and site planning. Toencourage the use of feet, bikes, and transit, design should aim at ensuring directness andcontinuity of routes, and good access to sites and buildings for these modes. Access to transitstations in particular must be designed for convenience.Safety for pedestrians can be enhanced in various ways through good urban design, butespecially through provision for visual surveillance of sidewalks from neighbouring buildings.Pedestrian comfort can be enhanced by a certain amount of protection from the elements, as wellas from noise and air pollution. For instance, careful placement and design of buildings canminimize winds along sidewalks, and awnings can provide protection from rain or the heat of thesun. It must be emphasized that to encourage walking, good design is just as important as shortdistances. If potential routes are inconvenient, boring, or dangerous to travel along on foot, peoplewill continue to use their cars, even if distances are short. Making pedestrian routes interestingand pleasurable means ensuring a high level of visual stimulation (Untermann 1987a). Featuresproviding visual interest and variety include: store windows, sidewalk cafes, historic buildings,public art, vegetation, attractive and distinctive architecture, and attractive views (see e.g.Untermann 1984). Blank walls will greatly discourage pedestrian activity (Whyte 1988).There are, of course, numerous actions -- in terms of programs, policies, legislation, andfacilities -- that can be undertaken to encourage cycling in urban areas (see e.g. Hope and Yachuk1990; Hudson et al. 1982). Land use planning can increase the comfort and convenience of cyclingby ensuring that bicycle routes are provided for travel from one neighbourhood to another or37between different parts of a city,' that good bicycle parking/storage facilities are provided at bothorigins and destinations,6 and that showers and lockers be provided at workplace destinations(Hope and Yachuk 1990). Ideally, bicycle parking should be covered, secure, and easy to access.Facilities for long-term storage by commuters should take the form of enclosed bicycle lockers(Untermann 1984).Note that any design changes that increase the quality of the environment for cyclists orpedestrians will directly encourage the use of transit as well.3.3.4 Recommended Land Use Strategies Predicting the transportation impacts of specific land use measures is very difficult, andtrying to quantify them (in terms of VKT or energy consumption) can be next to impossible.Within the very complex urban land use transportation system, it is very difficult to isolate cause-effect relationships, and the difficulty in predicting people's behavioural reaction to land usechange adds a lot of uncertainty. Changing land use, with the purpose of reducing automobiledependence, obviously attacks the problems of automobile-oriented land use directly, however itsimpact on automobile use, and on the other problems of automobile dependence will ultimatelydepend on people's behaviour. Although "bad" land use patterns can effectively prevent the useof non-automobile modes, there is no guarantee the "good" land use patterns will stop people fromusing their cars so much. Certainly, "good" land use patterns will have some impact on travelbehaviour, but just how much depends on other factors, such as the relative costs of various modes,and on people's attitudes concerning various modes and their impacts.5 When the objective is to encourage cycling as a transportation mode rather than as a recreationalactivity, accommodating bicycles on streets (with extra wide curb lanes, or separate bike lanes, on arterialstreets, or on specially designated and traffic-controlled side streets) is generally agreed to be a more practicalsolution to providing space for cyclists than is providing separate bike paths. According to Lowe (1991: 23):"The effectiveness of bicycle paths and lanes depends on their giving cyclists and drivers equal access tovarious destinations -- not, as often happens, relegating cyclist to out of the way routes, so that motor vehiclescan have free reign of the streets." Separate bicycle paths are valuable, but mostly as routes for recreationalcycling.6 Good secure parking facilities are particularly important at transit stations to encourage people to bike-and-ride, rather than use their cars, for trips longer than a convenient cycling distance. For bicycle parkingrequirements for sample land uses, see Hope and Yachuk (1990).38Nevertheless, there is a great deal of agreement among researchers that land use changecan have a significant impact on transportation use and energy consumption. And there is alsowidespread agreement on the types of changes that need to be made. For example, Owens (1986),after a very extensive review of the studies available on land use and energy consumption,concludes that they provide convincing evidence that significant transportation energy savings canbe gained from land use change, and that planners should be taking action now to encouragehigher densities, especially along transportation routes, as well as clustering of employment andservices. Numerous reports have reached similar conclusions. There is a strong consensus thatin order to reduce automobile dependence planners should aim for compact and contiguous multi-nodal communities, higher densities, greater mixing of land uses, and better community design.These criteria are discussed in detail in the following section.3.4 General Land Use Criteria This section and the following one on urban design set out criteria for urban form that areconsistent with reducing dependence on automobiles. They incorporate many suggestions from theliterature, as well as some original ideas. They also discuss the physical processes by which thesecan be achieved. Although these criteria are mostly intended as a set of recommendations forfuture development or redevelopment, they can also be used as guidelines for evaluating existingdevelopment. In order to reduce automobile dependence, these criteria should be incorporated intopolicies and plans, and where appropriate, they should also be included in zoning and subdivisionregulations.3.4.1 Regional Urban Form and Structure It is widely agreed that in order to discourage automobile dependence and reduce VKTcities need to be compact.' This means that the urbanization of new land in and beyond theurban fringe, particularly the practice of "leapfrogging," must be limited, and development directed' See e.g.: City of Vancouver 1990; Owens 1986; Canada 1982; Levinson and Strate 1981; Lang andArmour 1980, 1982; CIP 1981; Burby et al. 1982; Renner 1988; Van der Ryn and Calthorpe 1986.39instead toward the intensification or "reurbanization" of existing areas (Rees and Roseland 1991;City of Toronto 1990a; Newman and Kenworthy 1988, 1989b). It must be emphasized thatalthough changes are needed to the way new development in greenfield areas is built, it will notbe possible to significantly reduce VKT unless existing areas are changed as well. If new compactdevelopment is isolated from other more concentrated areas by miles of sprawl, then trips out ofthese areas will be long and their impact on regional VKT will be minimal.Hardening the urban fringe and creating an edge to an urban area is a difficult challenge,and can involve a number of growth management techniques. These may include an urbancontainment boundary, such has been implemented in Boulder, Colorado and Portland Oregon(Lewis 1990; Lowe 1991); or it may involve such strategies as green belts, purchase of developmentrights, new towns, and so on. Growth management has become a prominent planning issue in theU.S. in the last few years, and, as of last summer, ten states, including Washington, Florida, NewJersey, Maine, and Oregon, had adopted state-wide growth management legislation (Lewis 1992).Unfortunately, however, discussing these growth management strategies further would be strayingbeyond the scope of this thesis.In terms of the internal structure of metropolitan areas, the consensus is thattransportation energy consumption and VKT can be minimized by concentrating development andclustering trip ends in mixed-use nodes. 8 A "node" would include everything from aneighbourhood centre (minor node) to a large downtown. In order to minimize auto use, minornodes must be linked to major nodes, and major nodes linked together by quick and efficient urbantransit. Providing concentrations of jobs and housing at both ends of a transit line helps to ensuremore efficient use of that line -- i.e. that vehicles will not be close to empty in one direction at rushhours. Transit can be supported by also concentrating development along these links.For small cities, up to a population of perhaps 200,000, a centralized structure -- i.e. onewith the downtown as the only major node -- is efficient (Delcan, Deleuw Cather, Western Ltd.8 See e.g.: Erley, Mosena, and Gil 1979; Harwood 1977; Owens 1986; Lang and Armour 1982; WoodsGordon 1982; City of Vancouver 1990; Reid 1986; City of Toronto 1990a; Newman and Kenworthy 1988; Elkinand McLaren 1991.40(henceforth listed simply as Delcan) 1983). However, for larger metropolitan areas, studies haveusually shown that the travel requirements of polycentric forms are less than for other forms(Schneider 1981; Huth 1983) (see also section 3.3.2). Cushman (1988a) suggests that in order forthese centres to attract respectable transit ridership they should have an employee or studentpopulation of at least 10,000 along with a population density of at least 50 people per netemployment^education acre (124 per hectare). The greater the concentration of activity, the betterthe prospects for transit.The idea behind these nodes is that suburban commercial development should beconcentrated rather than dispersed -- only then will non-automobile modes become viable. Froma transportation demand management point of view, concentration of development in a limitednumber of nodes -- including the central core -- is preferable to having dispersed development.Nodes must be pedestrian-oriented and include both commercial and residential uses. Large onessuch as suburban downtowns should include housing, office, retail and other commercial uses, aswell as community facilities, to cluster trip ends as much as possible. Residential densities shouldform a gradient outward from the node, to put as many people as possible within walking or bikingdistance of the facilities in the node.It should be stressed that the creation of concentrated nodes of development can beexpected to have only a limited impact on automobile dependence unless other policies are pursuedas well. Intervening areas need to be intensified to bring them up to levels capable of supportinggood transit service, and good transit service -- focused on these nodes -- needs to be provided.In North America, Metropolitan Toronto has been very successful in developing a seriesof subcentres, including two suburban downtowns (see Pill 1983; Municipality of MetropolitanToronto 1989). However, Stockholm is probably the most famous example of a multi-nodal city.Since the early 1950s, Stockholm has developed a ring of over 20 satellite mixed-use subcentres,interconnected by rail transit (Cervero 1987). There have been some problems with, and criticismsof, these satellite communities -- especially the newer communities with higher density high-risedevelopment. But according to Peter Hall (1988: 312): "despite the critics, Stockholm works better,41and has more effectively reconciled the conflict between car and urban environment for a longerperiod, than most other cities."3.4.2 DensityIt is almost universally agreed that increasing urban densities is essential to reducingautomobile dependence. 9 Studies have found that as density increases within an urban area thenumber of vehicle trips decreases (Levinson and Strate 1981; Sewell and Foster 1980a; Smith1984; Lang 1985). Density in a city reduces auto ownership and use even after adjusting for othersocio-economic variables (Newman and Kenworthy 1989a). Households living in low density areastravel further and much more frequently by auto than those in high density cities (Keyes 1982).In general, the more intensive the land use in a city, the shorter are the distances travelled, thegreater is the viability of transit, the greater is the amount of walking and biking, the higher isthe occupancy of vehicles, and the smaller is the overall need for a car (Newman and Kenworthy1989b).Most research on densities has focused on what levels of residential density or overallpopulation density are needed to sustain non-automobile modes. Pushkarev and Zupan (1977)state that the minimum net residential density (i.e. density in terms of units per area of land usedfor residential purposes) necessary to support public transit at a reasonable level is 7 dwellingunits per acre (17 d.u/ha), but one can expect that somewhat higher levels would be needed to putmuch of a dent in automobile dependence. Households are now significantly smaller that theywere 15 years ago and thus 7 units/acre likely no longer provides a sufficient population base fortheir definition of reasonable transit service: half-hourly service. In any case, half-hourly busservice is unlikely to entice very many people out of their cars. Martin Crilly, who heads the teamputting together a new transportation plan for the Greater Vancouver, has stated that 15 housingunits per acre (37 units/ha) is necessary to provide for really viable transit (Crilly 1992). This is9 See e.g.: Newman and Kenworthy 1989a, 1989b; Register 1987; Rees and Roseland 1991; Cervero 1986a,1991 a; Lang 1985; Owens 1986; Canada 1982; Levinson and Strate 1981; Lang and Armour 1980,1982; Erley,Mosena, and Gil 1979; Renner 1988; Erley and Mosena 1980; Canada 1982; Woods Gordon 1982; UnderwoodMcLellan 1983; Untermann 1984; Reid 1986; Lowe 1991.42the density of the Solar West development in Vancouver's Champlain Heights, which consists ofmostly semi-detached dwellings, or dwellings joined only by common garages, on small lots(Underwood McLellan 1983).The research of Newman and Kenworthy (1989a) points to a threshold in overall urbandensity of about 30 to 40 persons per hectare for the city as a whole, below which automobile useincreases exponentially. They state that this would fall well within the range of what could beachieved with two-storey townhouses. One can therefore conclude that very high densities are notneeded to make an important impact on automobile dependence -- what is needed is moderatedensity.Of course it would make little sense to have all housing in the form of townhouses.Appropriate densities are achievable with varying mixes of high-rise apartments, low-riseapartments, stacked townhouses, garden apartments, row houses, duplexes, fourplexes, detachedhouses, and so forth. The City of Vancouver in 1991 had a population density of 41.72 persons perhectare (Statistics Canada 1992) with about a 50-50 split between ground-oriented households andapartment households (see GVRD Development Services 1992a). Less emphasis on detached singlefamily homes would allow for a higher percentage of ground-oriented housing. Nevertheless,though large lots and large homogeneous areas of single family homes are not consistent withreduced automobile dependence, this example illustrates that single family homes need not beeliminated. Given people's obvious affection for them, it would be rather unrealistic to try and doso in any case. However, single family homes need to be restricted to smaller pockets, andbalanced and interspersed with higher density housing. Enormous high-rises are not required;in fact, there appears to be a threshold above which increasing densities increases overall energyconsumption (Lang 1985; Owens 1986). Residential buildings of fifty stories or more generallyhave been found to be energy inefficient (Sewell and Foster 1980a).As has already been mentioned, it is not enough for newer areas to be built at higherdensities -- in fact it is more effective (in terms of reducing VKT) to increase densities near thecore than on the fringe of urban areas (Pushkarev and Zupan 1977). Sewell and Foster (1980a)43estimate that doubling the residential density of an area within one mile of a downtown centrefrom 5 to 10 dwellings per acre would result in 17 times as many transit trips as would a similardevelopment 10 miles from the city centre. Locating new housing in the central area cansubstantially cut down on commuting trips -- in Toronto, Nowlan and Stewart (1991) found thaton average, since 1976, for each additional 100 dwelling units added to the central area, there hasbeen a reduction of approximately 120 inbound trips during the three hour morning rush.In order to encourage walking, cycling, and transit, residential densities should beincreased, and apartments should be concentrated, near other employment and activity centresor nodes as well -- especially near transit stations (Burby et al. 1982; Erley and Mosena 1980;Lang and Armour 1980; Levinson and Strate 1981; Untermann 1987a). The same is true fortransit corridors (Levinson and Strate 1981; Erley and Mosena 1980; Burby et al. 1982; CUTA andRTAC 1985; Newman and Kenworthy 1988). Of course non-residential uses, as well, should beconcentrated near transit. Transit works best where high densities are linearly aligned alongcorridors -- ideally with concentrations of development anchoring both ends of the line (Cervero1991 a). This is not to imply that intensification should take place only at and near the core andother centres however -- that would only absorb a limited number of units and would leave largeareas with dysfunctional densities (see e.g. Waterhouse 1989; Zotti 1986). Seriously reducing autodependence means increasing densities throughout urban areas -- not only downtown and at"regional town centres." Significant reductions in automobile dependence are not likely to beachieved simply by creating a few large concentrations of development.There are numerous ways of building at higher densities, including building more multi-family housing, reducing subdivision and setback requirements and increasing floor space ratios(see Table 3-3). Front yards often serve very little purpose except to increase the separation ofdwellings from the street -- they are not normally actively used (Jackson 1985). Likewise, sideyards serve little purpose. But even without reducing lot sizes, subdivision densities can beincreased by using longer narrower lots to reduce the space required per lot for streets and lanes.This will also result in energy, infrastructure and servicing cost savings (Delcan 1983).44Table 3-3Means to Higher Densities• multi-unit / multi-family developments (duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, sixplexes, gardenapartments, row houses townhouses, low rise apartments, stacked townhouses, highrise apartments, other more creative forms)• secondary suites / accessory apartments• flexible houses (designed and built to easily accommodate an accessory apartment)• apartments above stores / housing along main streets• granny flats / alley houses• smaller lot sizes• more efficient lotting patterns (e.g. longer narrower lots)• narrower streets and rights of way; elimination of boulevards between pavement andsidewalks on neighbourhood streets• more efficient use of park space (emphasis on quality not just quantity)• increased f.s.r. and building heights• smaller front, rear, and side setbacks• zero lot line houses and variations on zero lot line houses, such as z-lots, angled z-lots,and zipper lotsSources: Levinson and Strate 1981; Lang and Armour 1980; Canada 1982; Burby et al. 1982; Sewell and Foster 1980a;Van der Ryn 1986; Underwood McLellan 1983; Delcan 1983; Reid 1986; Richardson 1988; Howe 1990.Existing areas can be densified through residential intensification in the form ofconversion, redevelopment, infill and/or expansion of existing buildings (see Table 34). InKingston Ontario, for example, disused space on the second and third stories of older downtowncommercial buildings has been converted to residential use (Roseland 1992). And many Canadiancities, including Vancouver and Toronto, have allowed infill development. There is a potential formany residential units to be added through infill. For example, when the potential for infill inPortland was examined, 5300 substandard lots were identified. It was estimated that 3500 ofthese could be successfully built on with an easing of rigid lot standards (Sewell and Foster 1980a:15).Although this section has focused on increasing residential densities, consolidatingcommercial and industrial uses into nodes and increasing their densities is important as well.This means, for example, using multi-storey, rather than single storey, industrial buildings.It is important to point out that reurbanization does not mean the whole scale demolitionand remaking of existing areas. All areas should be densified -- it is important that the impacts45Table 3-4Residential Intensification Processes• conversion (e.g. of single family homes into two or more units (i.e secondary suites oraccessory apartments); of single family homes into rooming houses; of unused orunderused storage space in commercial buildings to residential use; of industrial orcommercial buildings to residential use)• expansion (e.g. of converted single family homes, of other buildings)• infill (e.g. on backs of single lots (e.g. alley homes or granny flats); on the backs of severallots combined (to allow more flexibility in design); elsewhere on large lots (whichmay be presently occupied by single family or multi-family housing); onsubstandard lots; on other on lots that have been passed over (i.e. any vacantparcels))• redevelopment (e.g. of residential sites at higher densities; of disused or underusedindustrial sites for residential use; of commercial sites along main streets in orderto add residential; of small suburban shopping centres to higher densities andmultiple uses)Sources: Klein and Sears et al. 1983; Burby et al. 1982; Ontario 1984; Woods Gordon 1982; Sewell and Foster 1980a;Canada 1982; Lang and Armour 1980, 1982; Levinson and Strate 1981; Erley and Mosena 1980.be shared and that all areas become more transit and pedestrian friendly -- but this can occur insubtle and gradual ways. There is also a lot of flexibility in the means of intensification, anddifferent approaches will be more suitable in different cities and in different neighbourhoodswithin a city. The people in a community should decide which strategies are appropriate for them.3.4.3 Mixing of Uses As with density, there is virtually universal agreement that more intermixing of usesthroughout our cities is needed to decrease the energy used in transportation and to reduce autodependence.1° Although there remains a justification for the separation of certain noxiousindustrial uses from residents, most commercial and light industrial uses can exist in quite closeproximity to housing today without causing any adverse impacts on the residents. It is verydoubtful that there ever was any grounds in terms of physical environmental quality for the degreeof separation of uses -- separation of residential from commercial and even separation between10 See e.g.: Canada 1982; Cervero 1986a; Levinson and Strate 1981; Lang and Armour 1980, 1982; Erleyand Mosena 1980; Burby et a1.1982; Underwood McLellan 1983; CIP 1981; Chibuk 1977; Erley, Mosena, andGil 1979; Woods Gordon 1982; Sewell and Foster 1980a; Untermann 1984; Lang 1986; Owens 1986; Reid1986; Ontario 1984; Lowe 1991.46areas of different residential use -- that exists in the newer areas of North American cities today.There are several goals in increasing the intermixing of land uses in cities. One is toimprove the balance between jobs and residents in different parts of an urban area. This providesthe opportunity for more people to live and work in closer proximity, and thus to reduce distancestravelled and increase the number of people walking, biking and taking transit to work.Another goal of greater mixing is to increase the variety of activities available at workplacelocations, including shops, restaurants, banks, and so on. This can reduce the number ofautomobile trips for errands at lunch or after work, and by eliminating the need for the automobilefor these errands, it can stimulate people to leave their cars at home, and take transit or carpoolinstead (Cervero 1986a). At the Denver Tech Center, an employment centre in the suburbs ofDenver, the provision of on-site shops, restaurants, cinemas, and a health centre has helped toincrease the share of commuters travelling to work via carpool, vanpool, or bus from under 5percent in the early 1970s to nearly 25 percent in the mid 1980s (Cervero 1987). Mixing of useswhich have requirements for parking at different times of day, such as offices and cinemas, alsoallows for shared use of parking, which decreases the total space needed for parking in an area,and thus increases overall density (Cervero 1991 a).A third goal is to increase the mix of services within walking or bicycling distance ofresidences -- i.e. to have more neighbourhood level services and facilities. This means ensuringthat commercial clusters of facilities such as grocery stores, dry cleaners, drug stores, bankmachines, etc., as well as opportunities for recreation are never too far from someone's home.Unfortunately, locating homes, workplaces, and shops will not guarantee that people willlive close to where they work, or shop close to where they live. There is a multitude of factors thataffect such decisions, of which proximity is only one (see Chapter 4). And thus it is essential fordensities and urban design to support transit, so that even if people do not live near to where theywork, they will not be forced to take their cars. Nevertheless, widely separating uses willguarantee that people travel large distances. Locating uses in close proximity is a vitalprerequisite for reducing trip lengths. There is a need to encourage mixing at all scales, from the47Table 3-5Means of Increasing Land Use Mix• increasing the proximity of homes and workplaces- locating housing downtown- using satellite offices- encouraging work at home, cottage industries• mixing of office with retail and service uses• locating neighbourhood shops and services within walking or biking distance of all homes(including services supporting home office work)• providing community facilities at the neighbourhood level• increasing the proximity of local recreational opportunities• decreasing the size of areas of similar use, and intermingling them more• encouraging mixed use projects and buildings• encouraging greater variety of use in all parts of a citySources: Sewell and Foster 1980a; Burby et al. 1982; Lang and Armour 1982; Erley and Mosena 1980; Woods Gordon1982; Underwood McLellan 1983; Levinson and Strate 1981; Ontario 1984; Lang and Armour 1980; Harwood1977; Canada 1982; CIP 1981; City of Vancouver 1990.region down to the level of the individual building. Specific ideas for mixing of uses are shownin Table 3-5.One of the ideas for increasing land use mix given in Table 3-5 is the use of satelliteoffices. A satellite office houses employees from a particular part of a metropolitan area, ratherthan from any specific section of a company. It may thus serve as a base for employees withwidely differing positions. This allows employees to have the benefits of a separate home andworkplace, as well as contact with other workers, without having to travel to a central facility.Satellite offices are a quite recent innovation. In B.C. the first company to try out this idea wasapparently BC Tel, in the greater Vancouver area (see Gibb-Clark 1991; Mishima 1991). Theprovincial government is now also experimenting with a satellite office outside of Victoria (seeCasselton 1993). This idea appears to have some promise, but the need for satellite offices to belocated at transit accessible locations must be stressed. Otherwise, while they will shorten thedistances workers must travel, satellite offices may cause some of these workers to shift fromtransit use to automobiles.Obviously, increasing the land use mix in our cities will mean changing zoning bylaws tomake them more flexible. Many of the suggestions in Table 3-5 are not presently permitted in48municipal by-laws. Office workers are generally not restricted from doing their work at home, butby-laws do restrict the operation of businesses from people's homes. And, the possibility of the useof satellite offices is affected by the availability of land zoned for offices close to residences.Nevertheless, increasing use of home work and satellite offices is more a matter of changingemployer policies than changing municipal land use policies.3.5 Design Criteria Any complete discussion of land use planning to reduce automobile dependence must dealwith design. Design is vitally important for two reasons: firstly, because higher densities, evenwith mixing of land uses, are not enough to create an environment that supports non-auto modes;secondly, because with higher densities, there needs to be more attention to design in order tocreate a high quality living environment.Places can be very effectively designed to make travel by automobile the only realistictravel option even when they are relatively high density. This is exactly what has been done atmany of the suburban employment centres or, as Joel Garreau (1988) calls them, "edge cities" thathave recently grown up around major cities in the U.S. Buildings are surrounded by huge bleakparking areas and often cut off from one another by wide arterial roads with high speed traffic(Cervero 1991a). In such places, it can be necessary to travel by car from work to a restaurantfor lunch, even when they are just across the street from each other (see Hamblen 1992).Getting people out of their cars means designing with transit, cyclists, and especiallypedestrians in mind. This means incorporating efficient and attractive pedestrian and bicyclingfacilities into communities (CIP 1981; Lang and Armour 1982; Erley and Mosena 1980), but itmeans more than that as well. It means laying out subdivisions for transit and to minimizedistances (Delcan 1983). It means ensuring convenient pedestrian, cyclist, and transit access tosites and buildings. And it also means producing a high quality environment with buildings, sites,and streetscapes that encourage people to walk, and higher density housing that preserves asmany of the qualities of low density housing as possible.In the case of residential areas especially, building at low densities has allowed designers49to be lazy, because at low densities it is relatively easy to create what people would regard as agood quality living environment. As Lewis Mumford (1961: 507) put it: "In the new suburbandispensation, wasteful spacing has become a substitute for intelligent civic design, far-seeingmunicipal organization, or rational economy." Many would argue that it just as possible to createa high quality living environment at higher densities. In fact, many regard higher densities asnecessary to creating a lively and interesting urban living environment. However, producing highquality residential areas at higher densities does require special attention to design. If setbacksare to be narrowed and housing densities are to be increased, attention to design is essential toensure the attractiveness of development, and especially to preserve privacy and people's senseof having some space to themselves. Through careful placement of walls windows, fences, andespecially vegetation, and other elements of good design, many of the potential problems of higherdensities can be overcome.The subsections which follow examine in detail a number of components of the urbanfabric, at varying scales, and suggest characteristics that are consistent with the reduction of autodependence. These components consist of open space, main streets and subcentres, andneighbourhoods. These divisions are not meant to be mutually exclusive -- there is a great dealof overlap between them. However they are a convenient way of ordering the discussion. Thesecomponents cover most parts of a city, and though the central core is not treated specifically, manyof the principles applicable to subcentres and main streets would also be relevant for this area.3.5.1 Open Space Network In providing open space and parkland for an urban area, there are a number of advantagesin developing an interconnected network of linear parks or "greenways" rather than isolatedblockier parks. Greenways can take advantage of linear features such as flood plains andabandoned railway corridors and utility rights-of-way that do not attract other economic activitiesand they are a very efficient way of using urban space, attracting a high level of use per acre, andproviding a great deal more park frontage per acre than more compact parks (Crombie 1992).And, as Charles Little (1990) notes in Greenways for America, a long thin greenway looks much50the same from the edge as a wooded park that might be a kilometre wide. As a result of this "edgeeffect" then, a linear greenway provides a great deal more apparent open space per acre (Crombie1992). Thus, linear parks allow the same level of amenity to be provided with less space and ata lower cost than do blockier parks. They provide a means of increasing overall urban densitieswithout loss of livability. With parkland, quality is in many ways more important than quantity.As Cooper-Marcus (1986) points out, at present, open spaces are often too big and people are"intimidated" by them.By extending thin filaments of park through all parts of an urban area, a whole networkof open space can be placed within walking distance of almost everyone -- cutting down on theneed for people to drive to recreational opportunities. Connecting community services such asshopping areas, schools and community centres to residences with trails through greenways canmake walking or cycling to these places a very attractive alternative to driving. And finally, ifgreenways are oriented to and penetrate the downtown core, the trails through them can provideattractive and efficient pedestrian and cyclist commuter routes (Crombie 1992).According to William H. Whyte (1968: 173):Per acre, ... linear strips are probably the most efficient form of open space,and there are plenty of practical examples on the ground to bear this out. Whenthey are laid out along the routes people travel or walk, or poke into the placeswhere they live, the spaces provide the maximum visual impact and the maximumphysical access.Greenways are in place in Ottawa, Toronto, Boston, New York City, Minneapolis, and many othercities and have generally proven to be very successful (Crombie 1992; Grove 1990). In WashingtonD.C. and Seattle greenways have become major routes for bicycle commuters (Lowe 1991).3.5.2 Main Streets and Subcentres 3.5.2.1 Main Streets It has already been established in this thesis that an important principle in the design ofcities to reduce automobile dependence is that there should be more mixture of land uses. Itshould be stressed, however, that mixing does not necessarily mean dispersion of individual uses.In fact, activities should be clustered where possible, in order that trips may be combined, and in51order to provide the concentrations of activity necessary to support transit. Dispersion of activityclusters throughout an urban area, or of certain uses, such as convenience stores in residentialareas, is useful to minimize trip distances, but isolated commercial development, and particularlystrip development should, in general, be avoided (Burby et al 1982; Woods Gordon 1982; Lang andArmour 1980, 1982; Canada 1982; CUTA and RTAC 1985).Activity clusters can vary in size from neighbourhood subcentres -- perhaps only a 7-11 --to neighbourhood centres, to larger urban subcentres to the central core of an urban area. Thissubsection will focus on neighbourhood centres and the following one will examine larger centresoutside the downtown. Neighbourhood centres should contain uses such as a grocery store, bank,dry cleaners, hardware store, restaurants, drug store, video rental store, post office, barber, andbakery (Untermann 1984). In order to be viable, neighbourhood shopping areas must not beisolated. If possible, they should be located on a through route -- that is, a main street -- muchas was the case with the "street-car suburbs" built in the early part of this century.It goes without saying that auto-oriented strip development is not consistent with reducingautomobile dependence. Main street development should contribute to the overall quality of thepedestrian environment. Buildings should be clustered together and be easy to access forpedestrians. They should also provide stimulation and interest for pedestrians. Motorists benefitfrom decreased complexity, but pedestrians need increased complexity (Untermann 1984). To thatend, buildings should have street-related retail uses at ground level (Greenberg 1987; Whyte1988). Relatively narrow store frontages, and variations in building age, colour, texture, height,and style (within certain boundaries) will increase pedestrian interest. Although wide sidewalksare desirable, buildings should not be set back significantly from the sidewalk, in order to provideeasy pedestrian access and to increase the sense of enclosure.Any parking should be located behind or underneath buildings, to increase theattractiveness of the streetscape, to increase the ease of access for pedestrians, to decreasedistances between buildings, and to decrease the prominence (i.e convenience and visibility) of theautomobile, making it a less likely form of transportation (Lowe 1991; Untermann 1987a, 1990;52CUTA and RTAC 1985). Parking should also be consolidated where possible to avoid the problemof people driving from store to store on the same street. Driveways crossing sidewalks should beavoided, as they are a hazard to pedestrians -- they should be relocated to cross streets or alleyswhere possible. And drive-in establishments should be eliminated completely -- they are obviouslyhostile to pedestrians, and the idling cars associated with them are a needless source of pollution(Untermann 1984).Sidewalk amenities such as paving, pedestrian-oriented lighting, benches, and vegetationwill encourage pedestrian activity (Ontario 1980). Sidewalk bike racks are important to encouragecycling, and, as well, larger buildings should provide secure indoor bike parking, and perhaps evenshowers and lockers. Creating main streets which attract people and encourage them to walk iscertainly not simply an architectural problem -- there are numerous social, economic, and politicalfactors in making main streets lively and vital, but design has a very important role to play in thisprocess.Main street buildings should also contribute to the objectives of increasing populationdensity and, in particular, increasing the concentration of people near activities and transit. Tothat end, they should include at least two stories of office and or residential use above the retailat grade. Focusing residential units on interior courts can help to reduce noise (Untermann 1984).The height of buildings should be determined in relation to the width of streets -- narrower streetsshould have shorter buildings to maintain sufficient light levels and views of the sky. Howeverthree- or four-storey or even taller buildings can provide a very pleasant street environment, andthere are opportunities to reduce the impact of the heights of taller buildings through such designmeasures as setting back the upper storeys.3.5.2.2 Subcentres In larger urban areas, it is appropriate to have not only neighbourhood centres, but largerurban subcentres, with more uses and greater concentrations of residences and commercialactivities, serving as the focus of several neighbourhoods, or perhaps an entire suburbancommunity. These subcentres can evolve gradually from main street development, as have the53centres at the intersections of Yonge and St. Clair, and Yonge and Eglinton in Toronto. Or theymay involve more radical transformations, if they must be created out of Post World War Hsuburban development, as is the case with many of the suburban "regional town centres" in citiessuch as Toronto and Vancouver. They may also be created from scratch, on a greenfield site, asis happening at Reston, Virginia (see Miller 1992).There are many issues connected with the development of major urban subcentres,including how many there should be, how large they should be, and how development can beattracted to them. Unfortunately, it is not possible to deal with all these issues in this paper --the discussion here will be restricted to issues of density, use, and design. Much work remainsto be done in this area. In particular, more design ideas need to be tried out on the ground andstudied as to their effectiveness. It is possible at this point, however, to come up with somegeneral principles for developing subcentres which are consistent with reducing automobiledependence.'Subcentres must be more than shopping centres or strip malls, they should be civic centreswith concentrations of amenities. They should be community focal points, and hence publicfacilities should be consolidated in them. A smaller node might include a library and a communitycentre, while a larger one such as a regional town centre should also include such facilities as amunicipal hall, a court house, a police station, a museum, education facilities, and so on -- thatis, the things traditionally located in a town centre. In addition to civic facilities, they should havea wide mix of uses including retail, restaurant, office, banking and other financial services, healthservices, cultural and recreation facilities, and especially housing (Schneider 1981). There is noreason that they cannot contain many light industrial uses as well.The general density of development must, of course, be higher than is normal in thesuburbs (Schneider 1981). This is especially true for housing. In order to locate as many homeswithin walking distance of jobs and services as possible -- and generate a high degree of activity' Many of the criteria listed in this section are given in Town Centres and the Livable Region: A Strategyfor the 1990s, by Alan Artibise et al. (1990).54in the subcentre -- high density residential uses should be located in and around subcentres.Residential densities should grade outward from the centre of the node.The aim of concentrating development in this way is to cluster as many trip ends aspossible and provide a sufficient concentration of development to support decent transit services.Concentration of development will increase congestion in the short run, but it is essential toincrease the use of non-automobile modes. Robert Cervero's study of suburban employmentcentres (SECs) in the U.S. has shown that as these SECs become more denser and more diversein land uses, the share of commutes by modes other than single occupant vehicles does increase(Cervero 1989b). Subcentres should be focal points of transit for their surrounding areas andshould be linked to each other and to the central core with high quality transit services (Schneider1981). Transit access should be convenient -- transit stops should not be separated from buildingsby acres of parking -- and there should be comfortable waiting facilities.Subcentres should be pedestrian-oriented, and this means that good design is essential(Untermann 1987a). Pedestrian orientation means providing wide, safe, interesting pedestrianroutes and giving pedestrians precedence over cars. It is important to provide defined outdoorspaces. Buildings must not be separated by wide expanses of roadway and parking. Parkingshould be limited and surface parking should be avoided where possible. Where provided, itshould be located behind buildings, rather than between buildings and the street. There shouldalso be a coherent fine-grained street pattern. The idea of setting buildings in superblocks in aso-called "campus-like setting" rarely turns out to be as good as it promises. In fact, the term"campus-like setting" can usually be regarded as a synonym for "urban sprawl." In general, thegoal should instead be to aim for a main street type of development, with outward-orienteddevelopment, rather than enclosed pedestrian malls. Keeping the scale of developments smallwithin a subcentre will ensure more variety and interest.3.5.2.3 Transformations Unfortunately, there is already a great deal of auto-oriented development in place, whichmeans that it is necessary to try to develop ways of transforming existing development into less55auto-oriented forms. Untermann (1984) and Van der Ryn (1986) provide suggestions as to howstrip development can be made more pedestrian friendly. And it is possible to imagine a fairlysmooth transformation of such development to a better form through gradual redevelopment.Larger scale development, however, is obviously more problematic. As a start, large tripgenerators such as suburban office building and shopping centre sites, with buildings ringed bywide expanses of parking, can be modified to improve transit access by providing direct, protectedpedestrian-transit connections, or perhaps by bringing buses onto the site (Bowes, Gravel andNoxon 1991; Cervero 1986a; CUTA and RTAC 1985). Untermann (1984) and Van der Ryn (1986)both discuss how shopping centres might eventually be transformed into mixed-use town centresor suburban downtowns. Untermann (1984) also provides suggestions for pedestrianizingsuburban office parks, and Cervero (1986a) tackles this problem as well, though his suggestionsare perhaps not as radical as Untermann's. Common themes in these suggestions includeincreasing the mixture of uses, eliminating as much surface parking as possible to free up landfor more pedestrian-oriented development and increase densities, redesigning vehicle circulation,and providing bike and pedestrian pathways and convenient termini for bikes and for transit.The transformation of such auto-oriented centres into higher density pedestrian-orientedmixed-use nodes is much recommended (e.g. Barnett 1989; Cervero 1986a; Untermann 1984), butit is certainly far from a simple matter. Although there are presently many attempts to do justthis, or to transform suburban strip development, these, unfortunately, do not yet seem to havemet with much success. Subcentres that have evolved out of pre-World War II streetcar suburbsand main street type development at Yonge and St Clair and Yonge and Eglinton in Toronto seemto have been quite successful. But more suburban centres such as Scarborough Town Centre, andNorth York's downtown in Toronto, and Metrotown in Vancouver -- though they have been quitesuccessful in attracting development -- have not yet developed into interesting, attractivepedestrian-oriented places (see Gorrie 1991; Relph 1991). With time and attention, one wouldhope that this situation will change.563.5.3 Neighbourhoods 3.5.3.1 Density and Land Use Mix Designing neighbourhoods for reduced automobile dependence means, first of all,incorporating higher densities and greater mixing. Underwood McLellan (1983:57) estimates thatat the neighbourhood level, medium densities and mixed land uses can produce transportationenergy savings in the order of 8 to 14 percent over low density suburban development. Theimportance of efficient lotting systems, smaller rights of way and smaller setbacks has alreadybeen discussed. The Don Mills model of wide pavements, wide lots and big setbacks is simply notconsistent with the sustainability of communities.As mentioned earlier, higher densities (multi-family housing, smaller lots, etc.) should beconcentrated near shopping areas and transit stops, and grade away from these. Based on thedistances people will walk, the development in a subdivision should be arranged so that at least85% of the area's population is located within 400m of a transit stop, and 40% are within 200m(Lavalin 1979; Delcan 1983; CUTA and RTAC 1985). 12Consistent with greater mixing of land uses, neighbourhoods should be anchored by aneighbourhood shopping area, preferably within walking distance, but at least within bikingdistance of all parts of the neighbourhood. If shoppers must drive to get to a neighbourhoodshopping district, it may be just as easy for them to drive beyond to a bigger store, or anothershopping district further away (Untermann 1984). A concept that has attracted a good deal ofattention recently, for a number of reasons, is that of planning for urban neighbourhoods as a setof compact, interconnected, mixed-use villages (City of Vancouver 1992; City of Vancouver 1990;City of Toronto 1990a). 13 An important part of this concept is the idea of working at buildingcommunities, not simply subdivisions, in new areas and of strengthening communities in older12 As of a decade or so ago, Canadian municipal guidelines for maximum allowable walking distance totransit service typically ranged from 300-500 metres, but were based on straight-line walking distance to theroute (CUTA and RTAC 1985: 27-18).13 Often neighbourhoods of this sort are referred to as "urban villages", but extreme care should be takenwith the use of this term, because it has been applied to many widely differing forms of development,including highly auto-oriented clusters of office development.57areas. Also contained in this concept is the idea that neighbourhoods should have a certain degreeof self-containment and self-sufficiency. This concept is certainly consistent with reduced autodependence, and more self-containment of neighbourhoods has long been recommended as a meansto decrease transportation energy consumption (see Owens 1986; Woods Gordon 1982; UnderwoodMcLellan 1983).3.5.3.2 Circulation System In addition to increasing densities and land use mixes, reducing automobile dependencemeans providing neighbourhoods with efficient circulation systems for walking, cycling and publictransit (Erley, Mosena, and Gil 1979). Since World War II, the layout of roads in newneighbourhoods has been in a tree and branch pattern, with numerous cul-de-sacs. This patternhas the advantage of providing a quiet, virtually traffic-free environment for many homes, and itis very popular for this reason. However, this pattern has several important disadvantages.Firstly, it funnels all traffic onto major arterials, which produces congestion on these routes, whileresidential roads remain well below capacity. This is a wasteful use of road space. If the onlywalking or cycling routes are also along these arterials, the unpleasant character of many arterialswill discourage many people from choosing those modes (Untermann 1984). Secondly, this sortof pattern increases trip lengths, which also discourages people from walking or cycling, andcauses automobile users to use more energy and create more pollution. Finally, the tree andbranch pattern forces transit vehicles to follow long and circuitous routes, and may prevent themfrom penetrating into the heart of neighbourhoods at all (Lavalin 1979). This certainly does notmake for effective transit service.Such problems have led some to advocate a return to the grid system. A grid patterncertainly allows greater flexibility of travel, but this can lead to the problem of through trafficcutting through neighbourhoods. This becomes an especially serious problem when arterial roadsbecome congested. In fact, neighbourhoods in cities with grid patterns, such as Toronto, havesuccessfully lobbied for the erection of traffic barriers across some streets, to prevent them frombeing used by through traffic (Altshuler 1979; Bousfield 1992).58Clearly, patterns need to be found that increase circulation within neighbourhoods, andperhaps between adjacent neighbourhoods as well, without allowing much cross-town traffic.While a strict grid is probably appropriate for more commercially oriented areas, it is lessappropriate for more residentially oriented areas. In these areas a looser but still interconnectednetwork of streets is more suitable. Curvy streets create more visual interest, and more sense ofenclosure and neighbourhood containment. Such streets could take the form of a modified grid,or other geometrical pattern -- perhaps more of a web, or a loose net of streets -- allowing streetsto follow topography, highlight natural features and so on. By providing fewer links than in astrict grid system, automobile routes through the neighbourhood can be made somewhat less directto discourage through traffic, while at the same time more land can be provided for parks orhousing. In order to ensure that buses, cyclists and pedestrians have direct routes, however, somelinks between streets can be provided which are designated exclusively for the use of one or moreof these modes.Ensuring direct routes for transit through neighbourhoods is very important inneighbourhood design -- transit capable roads should be spaced so that the criteria of a 400mwalking distance to stops can be met (McEachern 1991). There is quite a lot of literature on howto design subdivisions for transit service (see e.g. Miller 1976; Lavalin 1979; CUTA and RTAC1985; Delcan 1983; Bowes, Gravel, and Noxon 1991). It emphasizes not only the importance ofproviding direct transit routes through neighbourhoods, but also the importance of laying out thestreet system so that pedestrian routes to transit stops are direct as well. Routes from houses tostops must not only be short, they must be perceived to be short as well (see Figure 3-1). Thismeans that local streets should be oriented toward transit routes -- a person should not have towalk in opposite directions to reach a stop. If necessary, walkways can be located on easementsto provide more direct routes. The actual energy savings from such design measures are difficultto determine, but the costs would be minimal (Delcan 1983).Providing direct pedestrian connections between homes, neighbourhood shopping, schools,community centres, and so on is essential as well, and it means changing current practice59.... ........BUSSTOP• ;DIRECT•NOT DIRECTSAME WALKING DISTANCEPERCEWED DIRECT NOT PERCEIVED DIRECTFigure 3-1Local Street Design and Transit Stop LocationSource: after Lavalin Inc. 1979.60(Untermann 1984). In newer suburbs it is not uncommon for shopping centres to be surroundedby parking and fenced off from the adjacent neighbourhood so that they are only accessible viaarterial roads. This sort of pattern needs to be changed.In general, the best pedestrian connections within neighbourhoods are sidewalks alonglocal streets. The internal circulation system in the Radburn model of superblocks has not beena great success. These internal walkways are not well used (Pressman 1976). The space used forthem is thus essentially wasted. Internal walkways suffer from a number of problems, not theleast of which is one of safety, due to a lack of surveillance from houses and passing cars.Pedestrian paths should therefore only leave the streets where this is necessary to shorten walkingdistances. This may be the case, for example, in existing subdivisions, where direct pedestrianconnections from one local street to another, or from a local street to a shopping centre might beprovided along property lines by obtaining easements or allowing tax abatements to one or bothproperties (Untermann 1984). Untermann (1984) discusses in detail how existing neighbourhoodscan be adapted to be made more pedestrian-friendly.Within neighbourhoods, it should be possible for cyclists to use the local street system, andit should not be necessary to provide separate bike paths (Calthorpe 1992). It is thus importantto distinguish between the limited internal circulation systems described above and greenwaytrails. Greenways are meant to be part of a city-wide network, and their paths are thus meantmore as an alternative to arterial roads rather than neighbourhood streets. Greenways are notintended to be the focus of a neighbourhood, their role is more appropriately one of providing edgesto neighbourhoods, separating and helping to define them (Crombie 1992). And while their pathsmay not be as safe as streets at night -- and should certainly not be the only pedestrian and cyclistroutes available -- they still have a great potential to link different parts of a city together andreduce VKT.3.5.3.3 Street Characteristics In addition to being lined with sidewalks on both sides, residential streets should bepleasant, interesting and safe to walk along. Such streets need to be oriented more toward61pedestrians and less toward cars. They need to be narrower, in order to slow cars down (but withthe added benefits of saving construction and maintenance energy and allowing higher densities).They also need to have tighter turning radii to slow cars down and to shorten street crossingdistances (Untermann 1984; Duany 1991). On-street parking will also slow traffic down, and itprovides a buffer between cars and pedestrians and helps to ease the transition from driver topedestrian (Untermann 1987b).One of the justifications given for large standards for the widths and turning radii ofneighbourhood streets has been that they are necessary to assure the easy movement of emergencyvehicles, and other large vehicles such as garbage trucks. However, American East Coast citieswith narrow streets have no more accident or fire-related casualties than other cities (Untermann1987b). Traffic engineering and public works departments in several U.S. jurisdictions haverecently set up mock configurations of narrower streets and shortened curb radii and found themto be acceptable (Lerner-Lam et al. 1992). And narrower street standards have recently even beenrecommended by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the National Association ofHome Builders (NAHB) and the Urban Land Institute (ULI). In their book, Residential Streets,these groups argue that rising land development and housing costs make wide neighbourhoodstreets inappropriate and that it is more economical to purchase smaller emergency vehicles thanit is to build all a community's streets to meet the needs of infrequently used large trucks (ASCE,NAHB, and ULI 1990).3.5.3.4 HousingIn designing housing to reduce automobile dependence there are some general goals tokeep in mind: increasing densities, providing good access for pedestrians and cyclists, and creatinga streetscape which encourages walking and cycling. Design for higher densities should be aimedat increasing the variety of housing forms available. People must not feel that their only optionis a choice between a single family home and a low-rise or high-rise apartment, or they may bemore resistant to higher densities. More duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, sixplexes, alley houses,row housing, stacked townhouses, and other more creative forms are needed. An important62advantage of many of these forms is that they allow people to have some private yard space, oryard space that they share with one or two other households. Such forms also blend in well withsingle family homes, and thus provide an excellent means to densify single family areas.Access by foot and by bike from street to housing units should be easy and pleasant, andconvenient and secure bicycle parking should be built into all forms of housing. Obviously thelatter is usually not a problem with single family housing, but it requires careful attention inmulti-family housing (Thom 1983).Buildings and landscaping should contribute as much as possible to making streetsinteresting, attractive, and safe to walk and cycle along. In general, this means that buildingsshould be oriented toward the street. This increases visual interest for travellers, and it increasestheir safety as well, by providing visual surveillance of the street, or "eyes on the street" (Jacobs1961; Newman 1972). Variety in the appearance of buildings will also increase visual interest,and thus large projects, especially ones with the same designer are to be avoided. As well, theimportance of good landscaping cannot be stressed enough. Landscaping can have a tremendousimpact on the attractiveness of a streetscape: it can help to conceal the bulk of large buildings, andit can provide an important buffer from the street. It need not be expensive, and it also need notbe manicured -- in fact there is a lot to be said for providing more natural forms of vegetation andbasically letting it grow -- but every effort should be made to ensure that it is there.In its Energy Brief to the Federal Government, the Canadian Institute of Planners (1981)recommended the promotion and design of a high standard of landscaping, in order to make denserareas more pleasant places to live. With higher density development, it is essential to pay a gooddeal of attention to design to ensure a high quality living environment. Designs should aim atpreserving the amenities of lower density housing -- i.e. privacy, light, ventilation, private outdoorspace, and so on -- to the greatest extent possible. The City of Vancouver has succeeded inproviding very high quality housing for families at relatively high densities at False Creek andelsewhere, and has produced some useful guidelines for housing families at high densities (Cityof Vancouver 1978; Anderson 1991).63In residential intensification, design is particularly important, and it requires sensitivityto the appearance of existing neighbourhoods and the concerns of the people living in them. Newhousing should blend in well with existing neighbourhoods. For example, duplexes can quiteeasily be designed to look like single family homes, if they are to be located in predominantlysingle family neighbourhoods. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's New Housing in Existing Neighbourhoods: Advisory Document (CMHC 1982) provides a good discussion ofimportant site planning considerations for infill housing.A related subject is how to build at higher densities without giving a sense of crowding.There has been limited, but very interesting research on this topic. From his study of theperception of density, Flachsbart (1979) concludes that moderate density development can producethe same level of satisfaction as low density, and he suggests that site planners must transcendobjective densities and begin to work with the physical cues that can influence people's perceptionand satisfaction with density. Bergdoll and Williams (1990) have studied density perceptions onresidential streets in San Francisco. They looked at three streets with similar densities and foundthat three physical characteristics are strongly associated with perceptions of lower density:greater building articulation; less facade area, or smaller buildings; and a greater number of"house"-like dwellings. They conclude that elements affecting visual impact such as facade area,degree of enclosure, and related factors such as floor space ratio have more bearing on people'sperception of density than do density measurements such as persons or units per acre. Theseconclusions are promising.To encourage people to walk and bicycle it is necessary to improve the attractiveness ofsuburban streetscapes and decrease the prominence and convenience of automobiles. This meansputting garages back at the back of houses, or at least setting them back noticeably from the frontfacades. Double garages facing the street are ugly at the best of times, but at higher densitiesthey become downright oppressive. The streetscape consists of almost nothing but a sea of asphaltroads and driveways and a double wall of garage doors -- not an inviting environment for even thebravest of pedestrians. In this sort of environment, and where the car is parked in the house right64next to the living room, driving of course seems to all to be the natural mode of transportation.The automobile has been made so convenient in Canadian society that many people can now travelfrom their living-room to their attached garage to an underground parkade to their office withoutever going outdoors or leaving their own private little worlds. It is worth questioning whether thisis a desirable sort of society.Garages behind houses can be accessed by driveways from the front, or from back lanes.Driveways can even be shared so that they take up less space -- this was common practice inhouses built before World War II in cities such as Toronto -- but this reduces the parking availableon lots and impinges on private ownership somewhat. Back lanes have the advantage of takingup less space than long driveways, of allowing more on-street parking, and of minimizing thecrossings and, thus the conflict, between vehicles and pedestrians and between vehicles andcyclists. According to Ken Sawatsky, president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Homebuildersassociation, building back lanes instead of streetfront garages would help to make for cheaperhouses as well (Sarti 1992).In today's suburbs, not only the single family housing, but much of the multi-familyhousing has a strong auto orientation. It tends not to be directed to the street, but to be focusedinward upon itself. Apartment towers are surrounded by bleak areas of parking and driveways.Obviously, this is a situation to be avoided, from the point of view of density and aesthetics as wellas that of safety for pedestrians and cyclists. In Accommodating the Pedestrian, RichardUntermann (1984) discusses how such auto-oriented apartment complexes can be made morepedestrian friendly.The design of townhouse or row house developments is a serious problem as well. Oftenthese are built so that they are clustered around an internal driveway that leads to the street,with none of the houses oriented to the street. Often, the driveway (one can not call it a street)is the only path for cars, cyclists, and pedestrians, whose only view is of asphalt, garage doors andthe doors of houses. The accessway is made to feel even more like a driveway by the overdesignednature of the public street. It is difficult to imagine anyone wanting to walk along such a route.65In fact, Untermann (1984) claims, private streets in suburban medium density housing are seldomused for anything but driving. Existing developments of this type need to be corrected orenhanced for pedestrian use, and further development of this type prevented. Townhouses shouldbe built on public streets.Why are developments built this way? In part, it must be because they have certainfeatures people find attractive. Perhaps people have been so conditioned to cars that they like theoverwhelming auto-orientation of these projects. However, it is true that developers build higherdensity housing this way in large part because planning regulations force them to do so.Subdivision regulations that set minimum lot sizes, and regulations that mandate excessive streetwidths, rights-of-way and setbacks can make it impossible, or at least uneconomical, to buildhousing in the pre-World War II fashion. Developers are forced to put in private streets, with theabove result. Planning policies and regulations which govern multi-family housing will have tobe changed to allow and encourage better medium density housing if many people are to bepersuaded to live at higher densities. Such problems will be explored further in Chapter 4.Fortunately, it is possible to find examples of good multi-family housing all over thecountry. For example there are many creative examples of infill in Toronto and Vancouver. Thechallenge is to get more of this type of development built. There are also designers nowexperimenting with new forms of suburban development. In North America, the most prominentof these are Peter Calthorpe and the team of Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. Theirideas and experiences are discussed in Appendix A.3.6 Pros and Cons of Changing Land Use to Reduce Automobile Dependence 3.6.1 General Pros and Cons In many cases, the land use and design recommendations in sections 3.4 and 3.5 were infact first proposed as ways to meet goals other than reducing automobile dependence. These goalsinclude increasing urban diversity and vitality, providing affordable housing, preservingagricultural land, lowering infrastructure costs, reducing energy consumption in homes, anddecreasing the subsidies required for transit. Ross (1991: 116) declares that: "Reurbanization66holds promise as a mechanism that supports economic redevelopment, furtherance of socialobjectives, and enhancement of the quality of life." In fact, in planning practice, it would beunwise to try to argue for higher densities, greater mixing of land uses, and better design purelyon the basis of their impacts on transportation. If people are to be convinced to make what manyof them now perceive as sacrifices, they will likely want more reason than that.Many writers have argued that we need higher concentrations of people in order toincrease the livability of cities. Jane Jacobs and Lewis Mumford both insisted residential areasshould be built at much higher densities than the average postwar suburb, in order to promoteurban liveliness and vitality, social contact and sense of community. Mumford (1961)recommended a density of about 100 people per net acre (247/ha), while Jacobs (1961)recommended at least 100 dwelling units per acre (247 d.u./ha). Allan Jacobs and DonaldAppleyard (1987) contend that the minimum neighbourhood net density to support city life isabout 15 dwellings or 30 to 60 people per acre (37 d.u./ha; 74-148 people/ha), but that it is possibleto go as high as 48 dwelling units or 96 to 192 people per acre (119 d.u./ha; 237-474 people/ha) fora very large part of the city and still provide for spacious and gracious urban life. The formerdensity can be achieved entirely with generous town/row houses. The latter density can still allowfor direct access to the ground for dwelling units, and private or shared gardens for most people.It does so in San Francisco.Christopher Alexander, at the University of California, recommends less separation ofhouses and work because this separation "creates intolerable rifts in people's inner lives"(Alexander et al. 1977: 52), and recommends neighbourhood stores because these are one of thetwo most important elements in people's perception of an area as a neighbourhood (Alexander etal. 1977). In fact, greater mixing of uses is often recommended by designers and other urbaniststo increase urban diversity, vitality, and livability (e.g. Mumford 1961; Jacobs and Appleyard 1987;Calthorpe 1986a).In advocating better urban design to create environments that people want to be in andwant to walk around in, this thesis is simply echoing the goals of good practitioners of urban67design, such as William H. Whyte. The difference is that while urban designers have tended tendto focus on the social or psychological justifications for good design, this thesis attempts to addurgency to the call for good design by pointing out its impact on automobile dependence and henceon the health of ecosystems as well.Up until now, the main purposes of people promoting residential intensification have alsobeen social rather than environmental. Residential intensification is regarded as a good way ofincreasing the supply of affordable housing in cities (Klein and Sears et al. 1983), and ofdeveloping "life cycle" communities in which people can live their whole lives (Vischer 1987).Accessory apartments in houses, for example, increase the supply of housing, and the income fromthem can help young home-owners to pay off a mortgage or retired people to stay in their house(Howe 1990). Allowing infill has also been used as one means of encouraging heritagepreservation. In the City of Vancouver this policy, applied in two neighbourhoods, has preventedsome older houses from being replaced by new "monster houses" -- the alternative means of takingadvantage of a site's maximum permitted density (Ward 1992; Kluckner 1991).Because land is such a large component of housing costs, building housing at higherdensities should help to decrease per unit housing costs. Despite instituting an urban growthboundary, Portland Oregon has succeeded in creating affordable housing by increasing alloweddensities (Hales 1991). In fact, a major study conducted in 1991 by the Home Builders Associationof Portland and 1000 Friends of Oregon found that housing was more affordable in Portland thanin other west coast cities (Oliver 1992). Higher densities decrease infrastructure and servicingcosts per unit (less street to build, clean, and plow, etc). They are also consistent with decreasedspace heating needs, because multi-storey and multi-unit buildings have a lower surface area tovolume ratio per unit, and because higher densities make more efficient forms of heating such asdistrict heating possible (Lang 1985). A one story bungalow requires 115% of the energy to heatas a two storey detached dwelling with the same floor area. A semidetached house requires only80% of the energy of a detached house, and an inside unit in a row of townhouses requires only70% of that amount (Ontario 1984: 5).68Thus the land use changes advocated in sections 3.4 and 3.5 to reduce automobiledependence have many other potential benefits. However they have some potential problems ordisadvantages as well. Many might regard the loss of convenience of automobile use inherent inthe proposed design changes as a disadvantage, for example. It can be argued, however, that thisis merely a trade-off for the improvement of peoples lives in other ways, and in particular theaddition of the convenience of not having to use a car so much.Nuisances such as noise or added traffic close to homes are a potential problem withgreater land use mixing such as allowing home work (Ontario 1984). There are definitely sometrade-offs to be made, but many problems can be avoided with careful planning. Noisy or veryhigh traffic generating uses should not be allowed in predominantly residential areas, andobviously uses like abattoirs and homes do not mix.Problems commonly perceived as being associated with higher densities include crime,crowding, noise, loss of privacy and loss of light. In fact, higher densities do not necessarily leadto crime (Newman and Kenworthy 1989a; Lowe 1991). And low density suburban areas can havevery high crime rates. Oscar Newman (1972) has demonstrated that it is not so much higherdensity as bad design -- in the form of building form and height and site design -- which isassociated with greater crime; though he does point out that at densities above a certain limit --approximately 80 units per acre (198/ha) -- effectively prevent the design of "defensible space."As discussed earlier in this chapter, good design can also help to avoid problems such as a senseof crowding, loss of light and so on. Lowe (1991) points out that cities such as Copenhagen andVienna are widely associated with charm and livability, though their densities are much higherthan typical North American cities.Increasing densities in existing areas does run the risk of overloading facilities andservices. For example, in San Diego an policy of infill has worked well, but "What mass transitadvocates might label 'a critical mass capable of supporting public transit' has been perceived byresidents as urban overfill, taxing schools, parks and infrastructure to the breaking point" (Curcio1987: 99). This points out the need for careful planning of densification. Residential69intensification will also increase the traffic and the demand for parking in an area -- plannersmust ensure adequate parking is available, but also do what they can to persuade people to ownfewer cars and to use them less, as should be possible with higher densities.A more serious potential ramification of the recommended land use and design measuresis a loss of freedom of choice, to the extent that they may make it more difficult for people tochoose to live in low density environments. This begs the question whether the built form thatnow exists is a result of the exercise of free choice by members of the public. In fact choice isalready limited by what regulations will allow and what developers will supply. Planners arealready involved in limiting choice. In many ways this thesis urges that choice be broadened. Itadvocates providing a greater choice of living environments for people, and it also advocatesincreasing the range of housing types available in different areas, which is consistent withexpanding the range of choices that people have in deciding where in a metropolitan area theywould like to live. And, of course, all of the suggestions in this thesis are aimed at increasing therange of transportation choices effectively available to inhabitants of metropolitan areas.Finally, the issue of change is an important one. Many would argue that planning shouldaim at the minimization of disruption to people's lives. This author would agree, but within limits.Reurbanization certainly means change. At the very least, it means the introduction of extraresidents to existing areas, and at the most extreme -- in the creation of a regional town centrefrom scratch -- it can mean the almost total transformation of a neighbourhood. Reurbanizationmay lead to more integration of different ethnic groups or class groups," and some may considerthis a disruption to their lives, but planning cannot aim at the maintenance of the segregation ofdifferent groups. It can, however, aim at allowing people to remain in their homes as long as theywould like, and at listening to, and acting on, peoples concerns and helping them to deal withchange. No matter what, some change is inevitable. Planners must work to make it change forthe good. And, as has been demonstrated in chapter 2, Canadians cannot afford to keep things14 Note that Klein and Sears et al. (1983) conclude that the socio-economic impacts of changing land useregulations to permit more conversion and infill in suburban areas would, in fact, be negligible.70the way they are -- change is necessary. In order to minimize the disruptions to peoples lives,however, change must be incremental.3.6.2 Relationship to Other Environmental Objectives Because the principal argument in this thesis for reducing automobile dependence is basedon ecological grounds, any potential negative environmental impacts of the land use changessuggested would be a matter for concern. This section will address some of these potentialconcerns.Audirac, Shermyen and Smith (1990), among others, suggest that compact developmentleads to problems with polluted storm water run-off. A first response to this is that it isimpermeable surfaces such as roads, parking lots, and roofs that are the cause of run-off, and theland use changes advocated are aimed at decreasing the area of all of these surfaces per person.A second response is that in urban areas, much of the pollution in storm-water run-off comes fromautomobiles. It is worth adding that infiltration of storm-water can be aided substantially by theuse of permeable pavements, and that promoting the use of permeable pavements might thus bemore useful than promoting very low densities. The above authors also make the interestingcomment that because compact development is seen as a "taxless" means of protecting theenvironment, it threatens to undermine support for costlier and necessary environmentalprotection measures. It seems very odd to reject a means of environmental protection because itis not costly enough, and though one can understand their argument about the need for strongenvironmental initiatives, it is difficult to see how increasing awareness of environmental problems(i.e. automobile dependence and land use) can be counterproductive for the environment.Another possible conflict with urban intensification is with the use of passive solar energy.It has been shown that it is not difficult to make use of passive solar at densities up to at least35 d.u./ha (Owens 1986, 1990). Nevertheless Delcan, Deleuw Cather, Western Ltd. (1983)recommends that less emphasis be given to solar orientation than to increasing density of landuse, designing neighbourhoods for shorter trips and better transit, and to improving the insulationof buildings. This firm points out that at high latitudes the amount of energy received from the71sun in winter is very small and shadows are very long. They state that designing for solarorientation is worth doing, but only as long as densities do not have to be compromised.Yet another potential area of concern is whether urban intensification interferes with thepractice of urban agriculture. As long as densities are kept to moderate levels, however, thisshould not be a great problem. Urban agriculture obviously requires some space, but moreimportantly, it requires a change in attitudes. In Toronto it is much more common to see peoplegrowing vegetables in ethnic neighbourhoods of Victorian row housing than in single familysuburbs. What one sees in the suburbs are large, well-tended but mostly unused, patches of grass.Even if the densities of Canadian cities were doubled there would still be plenty of space for urbanagriculture, as long as people were willing to live with less grass. The book Bioshelters, OceanArks, City Farming: Ecology as the Basis of Design shows many ways of fitting agriculture intoexisting urban areas, stating that however bizarre the space, some form of agriculture can bedesigned to fit and operate within its constraints (Todd and Todd 1984).Those who enjoy a semi-rural environment often point out that on a given parcel of land,rural or semirural densities will have much fewer impacts on the environment than will urbandensities (Audirac, Shermyen, and Smith 1990; Chinitz 1990). This is true, but it is also not theimportant issue when looking at urban development. What needs to be looked at is how toaccommodate a population with the fewest environmental impacts possible, and given that manypeople like or need to live in, or at least near, cities. Frank Lloyd Wright's vision of a BroadacreCity with every family on a homestead of several acres is simply not viable. It is much too energy-intensive in its transportation requirements and much too isolationist for most people these days,even with easy transportation and communication (Calthorpe 1986b). Accommodating people atlow suburban densities is not a viable option either, especially given Canada's limited base of goodagricultural land, and the concentration of this land around major cities. Concentration of thepopulation is needed not only to reduce pollution and the other direct impacts of cars, but also topreserve the rural and semi-rural areas that so many people enjoy. As William H. Whyte (1968:13) put it: "if we expect to save much more open space in the future, we are going to have to be72equally concerned with finding more compact ways of developing the space that has to bedeveloped." Unless significant changes are made to the current way of developing land, largeareas of rural and semi-rural character in Canada will be obliterated by formless sprawl.In fact, most who have looked at the issue of urban form and sustainability agree that theland use changes outlined in this thesis to reduce automobile dependence are essential to makingour cities more ecologically sound (see e.g.: Roseland 1992; Lowe 1991; Van der Ryn and Calthorpe1986; Rees and Roseland 1991; Fowler 1991; Elkin and McLaren 1991). Those who try to objectto those suggestions on environmental grounds are usually simply trying to find ways to justifythe status quo with respect to urban development. Some environmental writers advocate muchmore radical changes than have been recommended here. Richard Register (1987), for example,in his book Ecocity Berkeley argues for a very radical redesign and remaking of cities so that carsare no longer an integral part of them. Such views were shared by many of the participants atthe First International Ecocity Conference (Canfield 1990). Unfortunately, ideas which are viewedas too radical run the risk of being dismissed completely, or of frightening people away from anychange. The goal of this chapter has been to set out reasonable objectives for land use change toreduce automobile dependence which are consistent with preserving accessibility and people'sfreedom of choice as well as preserving and enhancing the quality of both the ecosphere and theenvironments people create within it.3.7 ConclusionTo sum up: in order to reduce automobile dependence it is evident that many changes inpolicy are needed. Not only physical conditions, but social and economic conditions as well, affecthow feasible and comfortable it is for people to walk in a community. Nevertheless, changes totransportation planning and land use planning are crucial if automobile dependence is to bereduced, and land use change is essential for a significant reduction in the long term. Althoughthis thesis focuses on land use, it recognizes that there is a vital need for a coordinated approachto land use and transportation planning that incorporates a realization of the tightinterconnectedness of these two fields.73There is widespread agreement among researchers on the sort of land use pattern that isnecessary: a compact multi-nodal urban structure with increased densities, greater mixing of landuses, and community design that supports walking, cycling, and transit, rather than automobiletravel. What is not emphasized enough in the literature is that all of these characteristics arenecessary, and that in Canada changes are needed to both greenfield development and to existingdevelopment. A pedestrian-oriented design with a mix of land uses will still incorporate autodependence if its densities are too low. A multi-nodal urban pattern will do little good withouthigher densities, greater mixing, and better design throughout an urban area. Even higherdensities and greater mixing combined will do little to reduce auto dependence if design is gearedto cars.Densities and land use mix can be increased in many different ways, and this chapter hasincluded numerous suggestions. Good community design is especially important and shouldinclude a network of open space; pedestrian-oriented main streets and mixed-use subcentres thatconcentrate civic and commercial functions and provide a community focus; transit-oriented livableneighbourhoods with interconnected, bicycle-friendly streets; and housing design, site planning,and landscaping that support pedestrian activity.These urban form, land use, and design suggestions are not only consistent with reducingautomobile dependence, but are also consistent with creating cities that more attractive, morelivable, and generally more sustainable.74CHAPTER 4BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION4.0 Introduction Automobile dependence and auto dependent urban form have been criticized for a longtime. Lewis Mumford wrote eloquently of these problems in 1961, and he was certainly not thefirst to discuss them. Nevertheless, little progress appears to have been made. Apparently, mostpeople have not agreed with the critics that changes were necessary. This chapter examines someof the barriers to change and evaluates their strength. Although there are some barriers whichare unique to particular policy recommendations -- such as, for example, the fear that developingurban subcentres will lead to the demise of downtown (Schneider 1981; Huth 1983) -- the policiessuggested in Chapter 3 share many of the same barriers to implementation. In order to keep thechapter to a manageable length, the following discussion concentrates on these common barriers.4.1 Existing Urban FormOne of the main barriers to achieving land use patterns consistent with reducing autodependence is existing urban form. In many Canadian cities, especially in western Canada, a verylarge percentage of the urban area has been built since World War II and is very automobile-oriented. The Vancouver suburb of Richmond is a good example of this pattern. This pattern ofdevelopment is characterized by very strict separation of uses. Residential areas tend to consistof single family homes on large lots, located on wide curvilinear streets with numerous cul-de-sacs.The street pattern forms a tree and branch pattern with few links to major arterials. Houses tendto back onto arterials and be separated from them by grassed buffer strips of varying width. Asdescribed earlier, higher density housing tends to be separated from low density housing and tobe located in pods, where the housing is surrounded by large areas of surface parking and accessroads.75Retail and industrial development is generally located in auto-oriented strips along arterialroads or in isolated industrial parks, office parks, or malls. In strip development, buildings areseparated from the roadway and often from neighbouring buildings by parking and/or grassedbuffer strips. The typical suburban shopping mall has one storey of shops focused on interiorpassages, only a few entrances, and blank walls that look out at the acres and acres of parkingthat surround it and separate it from the neighbouring streets. Industrial parks are similar: low-rise with lots of parking.In the past, suburban offices tended to be located in low-rise strip development or officeparks, but in recent years there has been a tendency to move toward high-rise office towers. Thesemay be isolated, as is often true near airports, or in the form of clustered towers or so-called"urban villages" or "edge cities." Although these edge cities may have high-rise buildings and mayhave a certain mixture of uses, they continue to be highly auto-oriented. These complexes are veryinward-focused and buildings are often separated by large parking areas and/or busy streets -- inthe U.S., 3.5 to 4.0 parking spaces per 1,000 sq ft of office space is the norm, separating structuresby the length of several football fields in some cases (Cervero 1986a). Very little provision fortravel by foot or by bike is made in any of these forms -- it is frequently necessary to drive in orderto travel safely from an office to a restaurant across the street.Canadians can take some comfort from the fact that our cities are not as automobile-oriented as those in the U.S. For example, they are denser (Mercer and Goldberg 1986) andsomewhat less strict in their separation of different uses. But in a global context, Canadian andU.S. cities are quite similar, and they share many of the same development trends.Existing urban form is a barrier for several reasons. Firstly, the slow pace ofredevelopment means that existing development will define the shape of cities for some time tocome. Secondly, the state of existing infrastructure can impose limits on intensification. Moreimportantly, however, existing urban form is a barrier because it has a big influence on whatpeople think is acceptable, and on what it is they think they want. Though it has existed for sucha relatively short time in human history, many people have come to think of the current urban76pattern as normal, and they do not even consider alternatives (Fowler 1991). People also have atendency to like or feel comfortable with what they know, and the postwar urban environment iswhat a lot of people know. People have adapted to this environment. As Untermann (1990:180)points out, "There are generations of adults who have never walked to school or to the grocerystore." Thus people remain locked in a certain way of thinking about urban form -- the existingform creates an inertia in the attitudes of residents, public officials, developers, lenders, andconsumers. It acts as a weight working against movement to change. If this weight is to becounteracted, much education will be needed.4.1.1 Origins of Existing Urban Form Examining the forces that created the present urban environment can provide some insightinto what will be needed in order to change it.The initial trend toward suburbanization was a function of technological development andthe desire to escape the unpleasant conditions of Nineteenth Century industrial cities. Thecrowding, lack of privacy, lack of light, lack of greenery, foul air and generally dirty conditions ofcities at this time provided the reason to move to the suburbs and new technology provided themeans (Jackson 1985). Cities gradually expanded as transportation technology progressed fromwalking to horsecars to railways and streetcars to automobiles (Muller 1976). Each advance intechnology made possible progressively lower densities. Thus, the trend toward suburbanizationcertainly began before the widespread use of automobiles -- but the scale remained more human.The "streetcar suburbs" built before World War II provide a good model of fairly integrated, verypleasant walkable environments that made some accommodation for the automobile (Untermann1990). It was not really until after World War II that a radically new form of developmentappeared -- one which is hostile to all forms of transportation except one -- the automobile.Suburbanization proceeded in several waves. The first wave was residential, but this hasbeen followed by a migration of retail uses and then of employment, so that today, most of thefunctions originally found in the old centre cities are now found in the suburbs (Cervero 1989c).A number of different factors contributed to the initial flight of people to suburban homes and77created the postwar suburban expansion (see Jackson 1985; Van der Ryn 1986). Although theconditions of cities had improved since the nineteenth century, negative impressions remained(Lang 1985), and these were combined at the end of the War with a pent-up demand for housing.During the depression, and the war, people had been forced to live in closer proximity than theywould have liked. People had been accumulating savings during the War, but there had beenrelatively little new housing available. The postwar baby boom increased the demand for housingfurther. People longed for more space, more privacy, more greenery. In the U.S., this longing wascombined with a desire on the part of middle and upper class whites for racial segregation. Therelatively cheap and widely available and reliable technology of the automobile, combined withcheap energy, and cheap land made it possible to move outward (Untermann 1990). Cheap massproduction of housing, by large development companies, helped to put suburban homes withinreach of large numbers of people (Jackson 1985). In addition, suburbanization was encouragedby diverse interests, from designers and planners, to governments at different levels, to largecorporations.The garden city ideas of Ebenezer Howard and the Broadacre city ideas of Frank LloydWright were used as justification for spreading things out -- though the postwar suburbs did notreally resemble either of these ideas (Sewell 1977a; Calthorpe 1986b). They were much less densethan Howard had proposed and much denser than Wright had proposed. Governments encouragedsingle family home construction through various programs and housing, lot, and site planningstandards (Pucher 1988; Morris 1982). In the U.S., the Federal Housing Administration providedcheap loans and standards that favoured new construction of single family homes in the suburbsover rehabilitation of older housing in the central cities (Jackson 1985). And the American federalgovernment continues to subsidize home ownership, and by extension low density development,by allowing mortgage interest and property taxes to be deducted from gross income for income taxpurposes (Jackson 1985; Lowe 1990). In Canada, governments did not provide quite as great astimulus to suburbanization, but the Veteran's Land Act, the National Housing Act and the CMHCactively encouraged the construction of single family homes in the suburbs, through the provision78of guaranteed loans, design standards, and other measures (Linteau 1987; CIP 1981; Perks andJamieson 1991). In both countries, marketing by large development companies helped to ensurethat everyone wanted one of these suburban homes.Retail and employment uses moved out to the suburbs partly to be near the people, butfor other reasons as well. For instance, the migration of employment was encouraged by theavailability of cheap land, and made possible by the "white-collarization" of the workforce and byadvances in computer and communications technologies (Cervero 1986a).Of course, however, none of this suburban expansion would have been possible without alarge program of road construction (Pucher 1988; Jackson 1985). Powerful lobbies for car, oil, androad construction companies and the demand of the car-owning public helped to ensure that thistook place (Jackson 1985; Morris 1982; Pucher 1988). Cars and drive-in culture were seen byeveryone as the way of the future (Newman and Kenworthy 1989a). In the U.S., the constructionof the Interstate system provided a major stimulus to suburban expansion, and though freewayconstruction has been on a smaller scale in Canada, it has sped up the process of sprawl here aswell (Linteau 1987). 1Planners used computer traffic models to demonstrate an ever-increasing need for newroads (Hall 1988), as engineers expanded the standard dimensions of these roads. New roadsstimulated further low density development, which created a need for more lanes of roadway,which, in turn, stimulated more low density housing, which created a demand for more lanes ofroadway and so on in a continuous cycle. Meanwhile, another positive feedback cycle began tooperate in most cities. Freeway construction and urban sprawl encouraged people to buy morecars and use transit less, which created a demand for more freeways and less transit, which ledto more freeway construction, less use of non-automobile modes, and so on.Many of these forces are still acting to encourage suburbanization today, but not asstrongly as in the past. Energy is not as cheap as it used to be and governments are not1 It has been noted earlier that Canadian cities are not as automobile dependent in as those in the U.S.It should be evident from this discussion that two important reasons for this fact have been the relativelysmaller highway construction program, and the less aggressive government promotion of suburban singlefamily homes.79encouraging suburban single family housing as actively as they did after the war. Many plannersno longer see low densities as the key to livability. Building more roads is not always seen as thesolution to transportation problems, and more importantly, governments simply do not have themoney to spend on road construction and on servicing new suburban areas with infrastructure thatthey used to. These facts offer some reason to believe that change is possible -- yet lobby groupspromoting auto orientation are still strong (Newman and Kenworthy 1989a; Lowe 1990), and theinertia created by present urban form still presents a formidable barrier.4.2 Existing Land Use Policies and Regulations Of course, existing urban form is not replicated merely because developers like to copywhat has been done before. New development is the product of land use policies and regulations-- and presently these mould development, more often than not, into auto-oriented forms.The principal means of land use control in our society are zoning and subdivisionregulations. From its inception, the purpose of zoning has been to control or prevent nuisances,and hence to preserve property values (Moore 1979). Unfortunately, from its beginnings inseparating noxious industrial from residential uses, zoning has evolved into a system where alltypes of commercial and industrial uses are separated from residential uses, and even differentresidential uses such as single family homes and low-rise apartments are separated into largedistinct zones. One result of this is a wide separation between homes and workplaces.Paradoxically, as Robert Cervero (1989c: 145) suggests, "the congestion produced by jobs-housingimbalances is one of the most serious nuisances today...." The extent of use separation and thevery low density of development that exists today is completely unnecessary from any publichealth point of view. Regulations mandating low densities, the separation of uses, and widesetbacks between uses and structures have created a sterile world where automobiles have becomea tremendous source of nuisance and land use patterns themselves are a nuisance for anyonewithout a car.Although many of these regulations seem to have reasonable purposes on their own, theconsequences of these regulations are not necessarily desirable, and the cumulative effect of them80has often been to create environments that are very automobile-oriented, and often not verydesirable from other points of view as well. Regulations can produce terrible designs -- such asthe townhouse complexes discussed in Chapter 3.Robert Yaro and his associates have pointed out, in a New England context, howrequirements for such things as large setbacks, large minimum parking areas and strictsegregation of uses have in recent years made it impossible to create the type of traditional townsthat everyone seems to love about New England (Dodson 1992; Yaro et al. 1988). Regulations haveactually forced development into a universal sprawl type of pattern. This has occurred not becausethis is what people wanted, but because this was the cumulative effect of all the regulations inplace. The solution of Yaro et al. has been to turn the traditional method of land regulation onits head and begin by looking at what sort of development form is desired, then developregulations which support this (Dodson 1992).Ironically, in encouraging auto dependence, regulations may even be at odds with plansand policy statements. These days, it is not uncommon for plans or policies to have statementssupporting energy conservation, or reduction in automobile dependence, or curbing of urbansprawl. The problem is that, all too often, such policies are not backed up with specifics (Leung1985). Regulations do not reflect and reinforce these policies. The problem may be that theregulations reflect other policies that are at odds with those listed above. Johnston and Tracy(1983) have found that this helps to explain why there has been so little development aroundBART rapid transit stations in municipalities in the San Francisco area. They discuss theexample of Lafayette, which has policies to support transit, but whose Goals and PolicyCommittee's "primary goal" is to "preserve and enhance the character of Lafayette as a lowdensity, semi-rural residential community" (Johnston and Tracy 1983: 109).In already built-up areas zoning is usually aimed at preserving the status quo -- especiallyin suburban municipalities. Unfortunately, however, it also tends to force development even ongreenfield sites into essentially the same mould as 1950s era subdivisions. Part of the problemis that the responsibility for planning urban growth often falls on semi-rural municipalities, which81have little experience in planning for urban growth, and often try to accommodate it with the samesorts of regulations they had previously used to guide formerly limited development (Barnett1989). Truly urban development is of an entirely different form from semi-rural development.Intensifying the semi-rural type of development that exists today just makes for sprawl.Regulations are stifling creativity in the development of more appropriate and moresustainable housing forms (D'Amour 1991). The "Ozzie and Harriet" model of housing needs nolonger applies, but communities are still building subdivisions as though it does. Many zoning andsubdivision regulations and development practices are out of date. They do not reflect the socialrealities of our time, but, perhaps even more importantly, they do not reflect environmental orecological realities either. They do not take account of the important links between land use andenvironmental quality.Regulatory barriers to creating less auto-oriented city form have obvious forms, such therestrictions on use, setback requirements, and so on, discussed above, but they also have moresubtle forms as well. Excessive parking requirements, requirements for recreation space,requirements for elevators, and other such rules may prevent development of sites that wouldotherwise be redeveloped. The City of Toronto has found that such requirements form asignificant impediment to residential intensification in the form of "housing on main streets" (i.e.apartments above stores on major streets) (Cappe 1991). Another problem is excessivebureaucratic red tape. This may discourage experimentation with new designs -- the time, effort,and cost involved in securing approval for new creative forms of development acts as an importantdisincentive for developers to do anything other than the same old thing. Or it may discouragepeople from even redeveloping at all. A report recently completed for CMHC has found that, evenwhere secondary suites are legal, the bureaucratic hassles involved with constructing a suite forma significant impediment to the development these housing units (Regional Real EstateConsultants 1990).Another barrier to higher densities is the use of flat rate development cost charges -- wheredevelopers are charged the same amount for all lots or housing units regardless of their size. Such82charges disproportionately inflate the costs of more compact housing units (Lowe 1991).Perhaps the ultimate problem with municipal land use control is that policies can beignored and regulations can be changed whenever it is felt to be politically expedient to do so(Cook 1980). This seems to be what happened with the Metrotown development in Burnaby. Along planning process had produced good planning and design guidelines for the area, but BurnabyCouncil chose not to apply them (Kemble 1992). Instead of an attractive pedestrian-oriented area,they ended up with three disconnected malls side by side cut off from the main street by parking.Unfortunately, there is no way of guaranteeing that this sort of thing does not happen.Obviously, regulations need to be changed and they need to be made to stick, but this iscertainly no simple matter. In order for this to occur, public officials and the public at large willhave to be convinced of the need for regulations that support non-automobile-orienteddevelopment.4.3 Existing Transportation Policies and Investment Transportation planning has favoured automobiles, and generally ignored pedestrians andcyclists for several decades (Untermann 1984). This neglect is obvious in such recent publicationsas the Institute of Transportation Engineers' A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion (ITE1989) and the American Society of Civil Engineers' Residential Streets (ASCE, NAHB, and ULI1990). By favouring automobiles at the expense of other modes, transportation planning andinvestment has not only contributed directly to automobile use and dependence but also to auto-oriented land use patterns. The traditional approach of transportation planning has been to trysupply enough roads, highways, and bridges to meet perceived or projected demand. The ITE's1989 Toolbox still emphasizes increasing supply over managing demand as the way to cope withcongestion. This approach has only served to create urban areas where the only viable mode oftravel is by automobile, and where, as a result, roads are congested with cars. It has long beenevident that road construction provides only temporary relief from congestion, but transportationplanners have been reluctant to try to manage demand rather than supply (Deakin 1989). Onlyrecently has this begun to change, due in large part to the fact that governments no longer have83the financial resources to continue to supply infrastructure as fast as it can be used.Transport planners' auto-orientation has also been reflected in engineering standards forstreets. In a quest to meet the goal of moving vehicles quickly, safely, and efficiently along streets,street width standards and turing radii standards have been increased to the point where they arenow excessive, and it can be argued that they decrease rather than increase safety. Thesestandards make street crossings longer, and encourage automobiles to travel at speeds that posesafety risks to pedestrians (Lerner-Lam et al. 1992). They also make the street environment muchless pleasant for pedestrians.The argument for focusing transportation planning efforts on cars is that people havedemonstrated that this is where they want them focused, particularly by choosing to use carsrather than other modes. But this argument is based on a self-fulfilling prophesy: by focusingtheir efforts on, and directing resources to, mobility for cars, rather than mobility of people,transport planners have helped to ensure that other modes are so inconvenient or unpleasant thatthey are not used. According to Perks and Jamieson (1991: 503): "the provincial urban roadprograms of the 1950s and 1960s tended to impoverish public transport facilities in all Canadiancities." Thus, as Pucher (1988) points out, one cannot conclude that observed travel behaviour issimply the outcome of consumer sovereignty. Transportation planning and the attitudes oftransportation engineers and planners will therefore have to change if automobile dependence isto be reduced.4.4 Lack of Coordination of PlanningAny effort to create urban form that requires less automobile travel must also overcomethe lack of coordination of planning among different governments and lack of coordination of thefunctions of transportation and land use planning by all governments.4.4.1 Lack of Coordination of Transportation and Land Use PlanningIn the past, too little attention has been paid in urban planning to the land use impactsof transportation planning and the transportation impacts of land use planning. The functions84of land use and transportation planning have been treated separately and been carried out bydifferent government departments (Deakin 1989). Although the relationship between land use andtransportation and land use is now acknowledged, land use and transportation planning continueto be carried out separately in most North American cities (Fowler 1991). Transportation planninghas been done by engineers in an engineering department and land use planning has been doneby planners in the planning department. Boles (1989) notes, for example, that in 1989 not one ofCalifornia's planning departments had a traffic engineer on staff. A related problem is that littleattention has been paid to the role of transit in planning documents, and transit operators oftenhave had little or no input into the land use planning process (McEachern 1991; Bowes, Graveland Noxon 1991).Perhaps because engineering departments have exercised more influence than planningdepartments in municipal governments, the transport engineering approach to transportationplanning -- discussed in the previous section -- has usually prevailed. And since it is often easierto build a consensus for a transportation plan than a long range land use plan, transportationplanning has guided land use (Cervero 1991a).Municipalities (local and regional) deserve some of the blame for the lack of coordinationof land use and transportation planning, but a significant part of the problem is that provincialand state governments have retained much of the responsibility for transportation planning. Thishelps to explain why, currently, in Greater Vancouver, regional land use and transportation plansare being developed by separate groups. Unfortunately it can be very difficult to coordinate thefunctions of land use and transportation planning when they are done by two different levels ofgovernment.4.4.2 Lack of Coordination Among Governments The problem of lack of coordination between governments goes beyond the problem of thelinks between land use and transportation planning, however. It is a fundamental problem withrespect to land use planning in general. In many metropolitan regions, control over land use isvery fragmented, with responsibility for land use planning divided among a number of local,85regional and provincial/state governments or government agencies (Richardson 1992). Within theGreater Vancouver Regional District, for example, there are 18 local Governments, 3unincorporated electoral areas, a separate transit authority and transit board, and so on. In the"Pacific Fraser Region," which stretches from the Sunshine Coast to Hope, and which Seelig andArtibise (1990) regard as the appropriate scale for regional planning in the Vancouver area, thereare 6 regional districts, 31 local governments, 11 electoral areas, and over 200 boards andcommissions. Divided and overlapping jurisdictions can make coordinated planning very difficult(Cervero 1986a; Cushman 1988a).Local governments tend to guard their control over land use planning very closely and bereluctant to surrender it to regional control. Even if a regional government does exist and doesattempt to plan for the region as a whole, it often does not have the teeth to enforce these plans.As a result, the plans and policies of local governments may not reflect those at the regional level.Local municipalities often ignore regional or provincial priorities (City of Toronto 1990a). In B.C.,this problem is made worse by the fact that, since 1983, the regional governments have not hadany actual planning powers.In an environment of insufficient cooperation, or leadership from senior levels ofgovernment, what tends to happen is that each local municipality plans in what it perceives to beits own best interest. The problem is that, all too often, this system does not produce what is inthe best interests of the region as a whole (Cervero 1991a; Johnston and Tracy 1983; Seelig andArtibise 1990). According to Robert Cervero (1986a: 224): "The past 20 years of suburbanevolution have taught us that the collective impacts of individual municipalities operating withintheir own narrow interest can be environmentally disastrous." This problem has become especiallyacute in the U.S. where a number of local municipalities have instituted severe controls ormoratoria on growth. This thesis has shown that higher densities are key to managing congestionin the long run, but because increasing density at a particular location tends to increase congestionthere in the short run, municipalities have attempted to limit congestion within their borders byseverely curtailing new development (Cervero 1986a, 1989b; Porter 1987). Unfortunately, this can86only worsen the problem of congestion in the region as a whole, by preserving an urban formwhich is conducive only to the use of cars, and by forcing development elsewhere -- often fartherout on the periphery of an urban area, where development can continue to take place at very lowdensities and in very automobile-oriented forms (Cervero 1986a; Lowe 1990). This only serves toextend travel distances, increase VKT, and exacerbate the problems of auto dependence in theregion as a whole. As long as governments direct their efforts to trying to stop growth, ratherthan managing growth and directing it into more desirable forms, there can be little progress inreducing automobile dependence.Nevertheless, difficulties can also arise where municipalities are eager to attract growth-- as is often the case with commercial development, because of its contribution to a municipality'sproperty tax base (Cervero 1991 a). Such a situation makes it very difficult for one municipalityto institute stricter regulations aimed at making development less auto dependent, because of thedanger of this driving development away altogether (Cervero 1986a). Development has a tendencyto follow the path of least resistance -- that is to migrate to the municipalities with laxer controls.Of course, even if one municipality is successful adopting land use controls aimed at reducingautomobile dependence, this will have only effect on auto use in the region, if other municipalitiesdo not change as well.In the U.S., in particular, the tendency of some municipalities to concentrate on attractingonly one form of development -- either residential or commercial -- has also helped to create jobs-housing imbalances and wide separations between home and work (see Bookout 1990; Cervero1989c, 1991b).In summary, metropolitan regions are highly interconnected, and therefore the lack ofa regional perspective in most of the land use planning that goes on within these regionsrepresents an important barrier to attaining urban form oriented more to non-automobile modes(Cervero 1991 a).874.5 Market Factors 4.5.1 Consumer Preferences for Cars and Single Family Homes One could argue that it is all very well to recommend the sorts of land use patternsdescribed in Chapter 3, but that in the end there is no point, because it is not what people want.There are two possible arguments here. One is that planners should not be interfering with whatthe market would produce. To argue this, however, is to argue that there should be no planning.This thesis assumes that planning is a worthwhile activity, so this argument will not be discussedfurther. The other argument is that it is pointless to recommend these changes because peoplewill not accept them. This view bears further investigation.There is no denying that current consumer preferences for cars and low density livingpresent many barriers to achieving more sustainable urban form. The question is whether thebarriers are as strong as they might appear to be, and how likely they are to change. Is there anyhope of overcoming the present barriers or not? Determining the answers to these questionsmeans looking at the reasons for the existence of these preferences.Firstly, people's preference for the automobile as a mode of transportation should beexamined, because the chances of changing land use to reduce automobile dependence depend onpeople's willingness to give up the automobile, if not all of the time, at least more often. NorthAmericans are often described as having a love affair with the automobile. The main reasons forthis love for cars are the comfort and convenience they offer, the freedom they offer, and the senseof empowerment they can give people (Jackson 1985; Atkinson 1988). These associations are, ofcourse, continually reinforced by the advertising of car companies.Many people have quite negative associations with transit, and it is frequently looked onto some extent as a means of transportation geared to the "lower classes." Fortunately, however,this perception is not as bad in Canada as it is in the U.S. Transit has an especially good imagein Toronto, where a strong effort has been made to provide a high quality service aimed ateveryone.The negative attitude toward modes of transportation other than cars is also manifested88in the attitudes of drivers toward pedestrians. The author's personal experience, and letters andarticles in the Vancouver Sun suggest that drivers in Vancouver frequently treat pedestrians andcyclists with contempt (see e.g. Morton 1992; Filpenko 1992; Hill 1992; Sandborn 1992), and lookupon those who use transit as somehow deranged (Kuzmickas 1992). In Toronto, a less auto-dependent city, pedestrians appear to be treated better -- perhaps because people there have moreexperience with being pedestrians.Nevertheless, people do at least to some extent perceive cars as a burden -- as things whichdemand money to operate and insure and which must be constantly cleaned and maintained. Thesense of convenience, freedom, and power associated with cars tends to wane when the sheernumber of cars on the road results in the serious congestion problems that face many cities today.One does not feel very free when one is forced to use cars to get around, or very powerful whenone is sitting in a traffic jam. This is not too say that the attraction of cars is still not very strong,but only to say that it is not absolute. In fact, many people state that they would prefer to taketransit more often, and would do so if only the service was better (i.e. quicker, more comfortableand more convenient). 2Pucher (1988) points out that though automobiles are used far more than other modes oftransport, one cannot conclude that observed travel behaviour is the result of consumersovereignty, because in some cases travel choices are so limited that the resulting travel behaviouris practically foreordained -- people have no choice other than to rely on cars. He emphasizes theimportance of corporate special interests and of public policies in such areas as gasoline taxationand land use planning, rather than social or cultural preferences, in determining travel behaviour.There can be no doubt that removing the subsidies that car drivers receive or improving thequality of the environment for pedestrians would affect the level of their "attachment" to cars.Secondly, people's apparent preference for low density suburban single family homesrequires examination. Studies consistently show a strong preference among North Americans for2 Unfortunately, they usually fail to realize the causes of inadequate transit service -- most importantlydysfunctional land use patterns and subsidies to automobile use.89this type of living arrangement (see Altshuler et al. 1979; Audirac, Shermyen and Smith 1990;Pucher 1988; Lorimer 1978; Lang 1985). Low density suburbs offer quiet, privacy and space, andsome writers argue that there is an inherent anglo-saxon cultural preference for single familyhomes surrounded by plenty of grass -- a sort of pastoral image (see Newman and Kenworthy1989a). One could argue that continuing immigration from non-anglo-saxon countries will changethis preference, but these immigrants often tend to aspire to much the same sort of homes as thoseof anglo-saxon heritage (Jackson 1985). Canadian society values the single family home on thelarge lot -- it is a sign of success. And a detached home and garden has been an attainable goalin Canada for the majority of the population, whereas in the Old World the cost of such housinghas put it out of reach (Jackson 1985).There are several reasons why this sort of living arrangement has been affordable in NorthAmerica. A greater availability of land than in Europe or Asia, higher incomes, and massproduction of relatively inexpensive wood frame homes have all contributed to its affordability(Jackson 1985; Lang 1985). But two of the more important reasons that suburban living has beenso accessible have been the continued cheap price of gasoline for cars (certainly relative to the costof a home) and the promotion and subsidization by governments of low density suburban living(Pucher 1988; Jackson 1985). Suburban living is subsidized directly in terms of the infrastructureand services (e.g. roads, transit) that are provided, but also in terms of social and environmentalcosts.The strong demand for single family houses can also be attributed to the lack ofalternatives that have been made available (Jackson 1985; Hall 1988). The tendency of Canadiandevelopers to supply essentially only two types of housing -- single family homes and high-riseapartments -- has been discussed by Lorimer (1978). Preferences for single family homes can alsobe linked to the terrible design and plain unattractiveness of most forms of higher density housingin recent decades. People thus have limited knowledge of the full range of housing alternatives,limited opportunity to purchase such alternatives, and little incentive to choose them if they areavailable.90Preferences for single family homes can also be related to a strong desire for homeownership. But, of course, this can also be achieved with condominiums -- it does not requiredetached houses.Obviously, there are advantages to living in low density suburbs -- indoor and outdoorspace, privacy, quiet and so on -- but there are disadvantages as well. These have been discussedin chapter 2 and include isolation, and the need to drive almost everywhere and to spend asignificant portion of each day in cars. In fact, surveys of suburban residents show substantialdissatisfaction with certain aspects of suburban life (Lorimer 1978). In some senses, then, suburbsrepresent a failed compromise between these two environments.These points suggest that it might not be as difficult to shake people of their preferencefor low density living as it might appear. People might choose other forms of housing if forced topay more of the costs of single family living. They might also choose other forms of housing ifregulations allowed more alternatives and if these alternatives were provided by developers. Thepopularity of alternate housing forms might also increase if people were more aware ofalternatives to the single family home, had more examples of attractive higher densitydevelopment, and knew more about the impacts of low density development.Nevertheless, the preference of buyers for single family homes is just one obstacle.Another problem is the trend towards people demanding more and more living space (Hall 1991;Levinson and Strate 1981). This trend is related to the trend toward shrinking household sizes.As long as people continue to want to consume more and more, sustainable development will notbe possible. Unfortunately, despite having some knowledge of the human impact on theenvironment, most people have yet to realize this.Yet another problem is the tendency of people to be demanding greater and greaterconvenience in their lives. Unfortunately the perception of convenience seems to have a verystrong auto orientation. One manifestation of this has been the progressive movement of thegarage closer and closer to the house, to the point where it has now become an integral part of thehouse and often dominates the facade. Yet the increased convenience of automobiles has not come91without costs. It has come at the expense of the convenience of other modes of transportation, atthe expense of aesthetics, at the expense of clean air, and so on. The point has also been reachedwhere the "convenience" of automobiles has led to serious problems of automobile congestion,which, of course, is not very convenient. As yet, few people seem to fully realize the sacrifices thathave been made in order to increase the convenience of automobiles, but there is no reason toassume that this will never occur, or that Canadians' priorities will remain the same forever.Unfortunately, those connected with the development industry have a tendency to assumethat consumer preferences -- or worse, what they perceive as consumer preferences -- will notchange. Developers, lenders and retailers tend to be quite conservative, and to want to put moneyinto projects they feel they know will work (Bookout 1992c). For example, a number of banks andlenders have frowned on past attempts to introduce below-standard parking facilities in suburbia,based on the position that reduced parking threatens a project's marketability, and thus its long-term potential for success (Cervero 1986a). Developers tend to copy previous development in itsbasic form and to not be very adventurous. They simply make assumptions about people's desires,based on what people seem to have wanted in the past. Many people may, in fact, prefer not tohave their houses look like oversized garages. They may prefer lanes at the back. But it seemsthey are rarely given a chance to demonstrate this preference.Retailers and developers of retail space these days tend to insist that there be largeamounts of parking around any store, and that it be highly visible -- i.e. between the store and thestreet -- in order to attract customers (see Bookout 1992c). Whether consumers are in factattracted by this sort of site design, and not by a more attractive, less auto-oriented form ofdevelopment is open to debate, however. According to designer Harry Dodson (1992) mostshoppers are repeat customers in any case, who should be able to figure out where the parking is,even if it is at the back.In summary, consumer preferences certainly present a formidable barrier to achievingland use patterns consistent with walking, cycling, and transit, but it would be unwise touncritically accept the usual position of the development industry on the these preferences. These92preferences may not be as strong as they appear, and it would be a mistake to regard them aspermanent or immutable.4.5.2 Locational Preferences for Living, Working, and Shopping Consumer preferences for cars and single family home are not the only barrier associatedwith the market, however. As has been mentioned in this thesis already, greater mixing of landuses will not guarantee that people will live close to work, or that they will shop close to wherethey work or live, and hence travel less. People's choice of where to live is based on many factors,including quality of schools, safety of neighbourhood, suitability of particular houses available, andso on. Proximity to work is only one factor, and this factor is complicated by the fact that manyhouseholds now have more than one member working or going to school in different parts of ametropolitan area, and by the fact that these people's employment or school location may changeover time, while they prefer to stay living at the same place (Cervero 1989c; Bookout 1990). Infact, 34% of commuters responding to a recent GVRD survey stated that their place of work didnot influence their choice of residential location (Hardwick, Torchinsky and Fallick 1990). Peoplegenerally like a certain amount of separation between home and work for psychological reasonsin any case (Cervero 1986a). And, even if people do desire to live close to where they work, homesclose to their workplace may not be within their price-range (Cervero 1986a, 1991a; Bookout 1990).People also base their decisions on where to shop on a number of factors, such as theselection, quality and price of the merchandise. They are often willing to travel relatively largedistances to shop at superstores, which they feel have more to offer than do stores closer to home.Increasing the awareness of the costs and impacts of automobile use, and increasing the personalcosts of automobile travel, would encourage reductions in travel, but other factors will continueto prompt people to travel relatively long distances. This points out the need to develop an urbanform which allows people to make such trips quickly and conveniently by transit rather than byautomobile.While providing more sustainable land use patterns and attempting to provide betterlocational balancing of homes and workplaces may not do enough to reduce auto use by93themselves, they are essential to making reductions in auto use possible. Continuing with presentsuburban forms of development will guarantee that people must travel long distances by car inorder to complete their daily activities, even if the out of pocket cost of automobile travel doesincrease.4.6 Attitudinal and Political Barriers Although many people acknowledge that the magnitude of automobile use is a problem,most people have yet to try to do anything significant about it. People enjoy the advantages ofcurrent suburban patterns. They are also very reluctant to change the way they do things, andwill often try to resist change when confronted with it. People want a better and cleanerenvironment, but they also want many of the things that help to destroy this environment. Theywant everything. Few have realized and really admitted to themselves that this may not bepossible -- that there are trade-offs to be made. This was evident at a conference organized thispast November, by the GVRD, to discuss growth management in the Lower Mainland of B.C.Participants -- mainly local planners and politicians -- expressed a desire to reduce sprawl, andyet many also expressed opposition to densification. Even though they probably sensed that thesetwo viewpoints are not compatible, given the difficulty of trying to prevent people from moving tothe region, one could not help but get the sense that many participants were not yet willing to dealwith this contradiction.Most people do not yet realize the extent of interconnections between activities on theplanet, such as the link between local land use and global environmental quality. Even if peoplebelieve reducing automobile dependence is important, they may not make the connection betweenland use and auto dependence, or realize the strength of this connection -- or want to realize thestrength of this connection. People have become very used to the present suburban environment(Fowler 1991). Most just naturally and unconsciously assume that the way things are in suburbiais the way things have to be -- for instance that different uses need a high degree of separation.People have been conditioned to drive rather than walk (Untermann 1984) -- many expect to haveto take a car wherever they go. There is a great deal of inertia for the status quo. All of the94players in the political process act as barriers to change in one way or another.4.6.1 Politicians There are several explanations as to why politicians have not done more to encourage lessauto-oriented land use. One reason is that they do not perceive the effects of automobile use toconstitute a crisis. Since policy-making and policy implementation, especially at the municipallevel, tend to be reactive rather than proactive, this is a definite problem. There was quite a lotof activity -- at least in terms of the generation of reports (see e.g. City of Toronto 1980;Hildebrandt-Young and Associates 1978; Delcan 1983) -- surrounding using land use planning toreduce energy consumption after the energy "crisis" or "crises" of the 1970s. But after the "crisis"passed, little was accomplished (Cullingworth 1990).A second reason is strongly related to the first: politicians are experiencing comparativelylittle public pressure to orient land use planning to reducing automobile dependence. There islittle indication from the public that they want this, or even that they would accept it. Wheresignificant changes to land use planning have been implemented it has often been the result ofsuccessful pressure by public interest groups. In Oregon, the lobbying of the so-called 1000Friends of Oregon was instrumental in obtaining the passage of state-wide growth managementlegislation and the resulting energy-conserving planning in the City of Portland (Oliver 1992).Unfortunately, though there are environmental groups that support changing land use patternsin order to reduce dependence on the automobile -- Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, and PollutionProbe, for example -- there are few groups organized to lobby specifically for this (Sewell andFoster 1980b). Although transit does have its advocates, it has few activists. The same is truefor walking -- though there are a few notable exceptions, such as Ottawalk in the National Capital(see Bradshaw 1990). Certainly the most organized and activist groups are those promotingcycling. Though they have yet to become a force to be reckoned with, they appear to be gainingsupport. Unfortunately cycling groups are usually most interested in immediate improvementsthat will affect the lives of cyclists, such as education, bike lanes, and so on, rather than in long-term land use change. Many architects and other designers have been advocating better design95and higher densities for a long time (e.g. see section 3.6.1), but they are not necessarily perceivedby politicians as representing a wide constituency. What little active support politicians see formore tighter urban form is countered by the intense public opposition that proposals forintensification often generate. Unfortunately, proposals for intensification usually involve muchmore scrutiny than low density development on the urban fringe (Lang 1985).A third problem is that politicians may not be convinced that changing land use planningand community design to reduce automobile dependence is necessary, or that it will have mucheffect. Decision-makers like to have quantitative proof to support their actions, and little has beenprovided by researchers in this case (Canada 1982; Lang 1985; Sewell and Foster 1980a). Thedifficulties in obtaining quantitative data on the impacts of various actions on automobile use havealready been discussed. This is both a political and a technical barrier, and it points out the needfor more research. Politicians need to be convinced not only that land use and design policychanges will lead to reductions in automobile dependence, but also that they will not scare awayeconomic development. And they need to be able to justify any policy changes to the public.The recent work of Newman and Kenworthy (1989a) is an important contribution to theknowledge base in this area, but more research is needed, especially on the impacts of specificpolicy measures, if planning changes are to go beyond general goals to specific regulations. As hasbeen mentioned earlier, it is relatively easy to find planning objectives to do with creatingpedestrian-friendly municipalities and reducing automobile dependence, but it is much rarer tofind these translated into specific policies and regulations.A final problem has to do with the nature of the perspective of politicians. The lack of aregional perspective has already been mentioned, but an equally serious problem is the tendencyfor politicians to take a short-term, rather than a long-term view. There are few incentives forpoliticians to implement a long-term policy that may produce few immediate returns, and that mayeven require some sacrifice in the short term, when they must face reelection every few years(Sewell and Foster 1980b; Cervero 1991a).964.6.2 The Public Since the problem of consumer preferences has been dealt with already in section 4.5, thissection will focus on the barrier resulting from the attitudes of members of the public in their roleas residents or inhabitants of a particular area. The barrier in this case is public resistance to thetypes of land use changes recommended, especially to various forms of residential intensification.This resistance has several sources, including:• concern about nuisances: noise, traffic, parking problems, etc;• concern that neighbourhood services will be overloaded;• concern about neighbourhood change (physical, social, cultural);• concern that the neighbourhood is being forced to shoulder more of the burden of change thanother neighbourhoods;• concern about the possibility of being displaced;• concern about the possibility of a decline in property values;• negative impressions, images, and associations with densification and higher densities ingeneral;• lack of understanding of, or agreement with, the need for and benefits of intensification (Lang1985; CMHC 1982; Klein and Sears et al. 1983).Negative impressions of higher densities are understandable, particularly when one looksat much of the higher density housing built in recent decades. However, reactions to suggestionsfor higher densities can verge on paranoia. Mention higher densities and some people immediatelypicture the West End of Vancouver, or St. Jamestown in Toronto, or Hong Kong. Globe and Maileditor William Thorsell (1989) notes: "Reflexively, we recoil against higher densities as a threatto public health, sanity and the pursuit of happiness, as though Canada were Europe in theeighteenth century...."There are potential problems with intensification, but public health is not likely to be oneof them. As well, the likelihood that conversion or infill in suburban areas would introducesubstantially different income or social groups is minimal (Klein and Sears et al. 1983). Ifresistance is to be overcome planners will have to do their best to address people's concerns, toshow them that have no need for some, to convince them of the benefits of intensification, tominimize the impacts of intensification, and to keep change down to a pace the majority can becomfortable with. Involving people effectively in the planning process, and making sure that theyhave some control over what happens in their neighbourhood, can go a long way toward making97people more comfortable with intensification.It is natural for people to care more about what happens in their particular neighbourhoodthan what happens in the city or region as a whole, and it is natural for people to be worried aboutand try to resist change. But it is a serious problem when these tendencies go too far, to the pointof resisting any and all physical change or to excluding certain groups of people that are perceivedto be undesirable. Planners can only go so far in trying to placate the NIMBYs. Some people willjust resist change no matter what, and will never be satisfied. Such people can be a seriousobstacle to change. Fortunately, however, though they may be vocal, such people often representonly a minority of opinion. The key is for planners to try to work with the more reasonablemajority before the situation gets out of hand, and to channel people's energy into trying to makesure that change is as good as possible, rather than trying to resist it altogether.Interestingly, a recent study of the attitudes of residents of four neighbourhoods in theVancouver suburb of Burnaby (Vischer 1987: 133) has found "... a paradoxical desire on the partof these residents, who have traditionally expressed resistance to various forms of neighbourhoodredevelopment, to want to move to higher density dwellings (that are currently unavailable) inorder to stay in the same neighbourhood [as they grow older]." It has also found that residentsare more opposed to obvious visual change, such as high-rise construction that to densification perse. Residents were not very aware of less obvious forms of densification, such as conversion ofsingle family homes, that were taking place. The author's experience in conducting aneighbourhood workshop on planning for the redevelopment of a large institutional site -- theJericho Lands -- in a residential part of the City of Vancouver, suggests that opposition to higherdensities may not always be as great as one might expect. Residents of this predominantly singlefamily area were quite open to, and even supportive of, having townhouses and low-riseapartments on the site. These findings suggest that there are opportunities for intensification,with a minimum of public resistance, in suburban single family neighbourhoods, if the rightapproach is followed.984.6.3 Planners Unfortunately, the current attitudes and approaches of many planners also form asignificant barrier to achieving land use change for reduced auto dependence. Planners sharemany of the same desires, ignorance and misconceptions as everybody else. They may not feel thatauto dependence is a particularly important problem, or the land use and design changessuggested in this thesis are right or necessary. Some planners still see low densities as thesolution to congestion problems (e.g. Gordon and Richardson 1989). Alternatively, planners mayfeel relatively powerless to affect the attitudes and choices of the public and of politicians (Mathur1991). Or they may feel it is not legitimate for them to try to change these choices -- that theirjob is simply to try to cater to the public's wishes or to provide advice when asked (Sewell andFoster 1980b). Planners can often fall into the trap of trying to please everyone -- an impossibletask given people's conflicting objectives.Planners certainly will not stimulate change if they do not try, and there is a strongargument to be made for trying. No other group is in a better position to push for moresustainable land use patterns -- there is in fact no other group in this society that this tasknaturally falls on. The lack of action by planners is therefore undeniably a barrier, but it mustbe said that this lack of action is not entirely their own fault. Most planning departments arehampered by a lack of resources, which often results in planners being so overwhelmed with theday-to-day activities of development review, that they find it difficult look at larger issues or totake a long-term view (CIP 1981; Fowler 1991; Owens 1986). Overcoming this barrier meansconvincing politicians of the need for more actual planning.Another problem with regard to planners, has been the lack of attention in planningeducation and planning theory to substantive goals and to physical planning, and to design inparticular, in recent decades (Mathur 1991; Levy 1992). After the urban renewal disasters of the1950s and 1960s -- which seem to have arisen out of a belief that not only could physical planningsolve social problems, but that planners knew best what physical planning would do this andcertainly did not have to bother asking the people affected -- physical planning went into a99somewhat of a holding pattern. According to Michael Dobbins, planning director in Birmingham,Alabama, "In the late 1960s, physical planners were being blamed for all sorts of things. And theplanning schools responded, but in the wrong way. ... They threw out physical planning altogether,when the real problem was not physical planning, but the lack of participation in physicalplanning" (Knack 1991a: 12). Planning education focused on social issues and on process.Suburban land use planning thus remained stuck in the mould that had been formed in the 1950s,and planners interfered little in any other way with the operation of the market. As a result,though urban renewal ceased, and though there were concerns about urban sprawl, most urbanexpansion continued to occur in very wasteful forms. Fortunately, however, the remedying of thisproblem has already begun -- more and more planning schools are strengthening their physicalplanning curricula (Knack 1991 a).4.6.4 Others Finally, the attitudes and approaches of other groups connected with the developmentprocess, particularly transportation engineers and the development industry, merit some attention.The attitudes of many transportation engineers is a matter for concern because of the extent oftheir influence on urban form. Engineers unfortunately tend toward conservatism -- a tendencywhich is manifested in the overdesign of automobile infrastructure and in the reluctance ofengineers to change their ideas and standards. This conservatism has an admirable objective --public safety -- but many now argue that engineering standards are excessive, so much so thatthey decrease rather than increase public safety (see section 4.3). The conservatism or inflexibilityof engineers now hinders movement toward transportation demand management and it forms oneof the principle obstacles to implementing neo-traditional development, and more sustainableurban form.The conservatism of the development industry -- developers, lenders, etc. -- is also aproblem. Developers have not felt compelled to develop in an ecologically-conscious way. That isnot there purpose: their purpose is to build what they felt to be good quality development and tomake a profit. Unfortunately, much of what developers have found profitable has not been very100sustainable. This is somewhat unfortunate, particularly because the influence of developers canbe quite strong, especially in smaller municipalities. Developers are often supportive of higherdensities and redevelopment (see e.g. Urban Development Institute 1991), but they also continueto argue for more land to be opened up for new single family development (see e.g. Munro 1992;Bohn 1993).Support in academia for the status quo with respect to land development also representsa barrier to change. The status quo does, in fact, have its defenders (see e.g. Audirac, Shermyenand Smith 1990; and Chinitz 1990). Chinitz (1990), for example, argues, citing Peiser (1989), thatleapfrogging is good because it allows for later infill at higher densities and that local growthcontrol may be beneficial, because developers rejected by one suburban municipality may go toanother or to the CBD and help to build up densities there. He provides little evidence to supportthese assertions, however (Fischel 1991).4.6.5 Overcoming Attitudinal and Political Barriers All of the groups involved with and affected by land use planning share some of theresponsibility for present urban form and design, and there is resistance to change among all thesegroups as well. Creating the political will to implement changes to the physical form of Canadiancommunities will thus require attitudinal and behavioural changes on the part of many differentactors. Changes to urban form will only occur as people are convinced of the connections betweenland use, transportation and the environment, of the seriousness of auto dependence, of the scopeof environmental problems, and so on. People are convinced through education, but it is alsoworth bearing in mind that people are more receptive to change if they are involved in acooperative process to manage it. People can become very resistant to change -- and this appliesas much to developers as to neighbourhood groups -- when they feel that change is simply dumpedon them.1014.7 Conclusion There are numerous obstacles in the way of achieving urban form and design conduciveto reduced automobile dependence. Some are very strong. Others, perhaps, are not as strong asthey might appear. Overcoming these barriers will certainly be a difficult task, but none of themappears to be completely insurmountable. Some of the means to achieving this, and to arrivingat more sustainable urban landscapes are explored in the following chapter.102CHAPTER 5IMPLEMENTATION5.0 Introduction In the previous chapter on barriers, a number of recommendations were made as to thenecessary responses to the barriers -- primarily the need to change regulations, and the need tochange attitudes through education. This chapter discusses the implementation of changes tourban form and design in a more systematic way, and outlines many specific measures forachieving city form which supports and encourages public transit and non-motorizedtransportation. In keeping with the scope of this thesis, the focus of this chapter is on measureswhich have a direct impact on land use. As well, the chapter does not set out a detailed programfor planning land use change -- but the actions outlined in this chapter would form importantcomponents of a program to reduce automobile dependence in any Canadian city.5.1 General Principles From a review of what has been covered in this thesis up to this point, it is possible todeduce a number of general principles that must be adopted in any approach to reducingautomobile dependence through land use planning and community design. For instance, Chapters2 and 3 indicate the following.• There must be a re-orientation of planning from moving vehicles quickly and efficiently toemphasizing access for people to their needs through a variety of modes. As LewisMumford (1961: 507) has said:What an effective network requires is the largest number ofalternative modes of transportation, at varying speeds and volumes, fordifferent functions and purposes.• Land use change is essential in obtaining significant long-term reductions in automobiledependence. Land use change means moving to higher densities, greater mixing of land103uses, and better community design on a large scale (urban structure), and on a smallerscale as well.• It is important to make changes in all areas of urban form: densities, mixing, and design.Making changes in only one or two of these areas is not sufficient. Such changes mustalso take place in all parts of an urban area, not simply those where there is lessresistance, or those that are already quite densely populated. Higher densities, inparticular, must be distributed equitably.• Although changes to land use planning are crucial, there must be action in many policyareas, by all levels of government to bring about significant reductions in automobiledependence. Changes to land use policies and regulations -- though necessary -- are notsufficient to bring about the needed land use change; and land use change alone is notenough to bring about the necessary reductions in automobile dependence. Changes inland use planning must be supported by, and coordinated with, changes in transportationplanning' and economic policies in land use, housing, and the provision of infrastructure(Hanson 1992). Subsidies of automobile use and low density living will have to be reduced(Hanson 1992). However, a focus on social issues is very important as well, in order tocreate livable environments which people find comfortable, safe, and stimulating enoughto walk or bicycle in. The safety of public areas should be a matter for particular concern.Changing land use to reduce automobile dependence will require several broad changesin the attitudes and perspective of everyone involved in this process.• An awareness and understanding of connections is of vital importance: connections betweentransportation, land use, and the environment; and interconnections among actions andeffects at the local, regional, and global scales. A decision by one municipality to allow anew low density residential subdivision or an office park, or the decision of aFor instance Mattoff, Holtzclaw and Downton (1990) suggest that there is a need to rethink the standardconsiderations of transportation planning: safety, comfort and convenience. They recommend that safetyinclude the safety of the land water and biosphere, that comfort also include the comfort of one's conscience,and that convenience emphasize the convenience of denser cities.104neighbourhood not to allow secondary suites, will have impacts on both regional air qualityand on global climate. There is thus a need for both a regional perspective and anecological perspective in local land use decisions. There is also a need for individuals totake the above connections into account in making choices on where to live and shop, andhow to travel.• People living in a large urban area must plan for this reality. Suburban municipalitiescannot plan as though they were isolated towns, because what may work in an isolatedtown (in terms of reducing traffic congestion, for example) may cause serious problems ina municipality that is part of a larger urban region.• People and planning must focus more on the long term than they do at present. Decisionswhich appear to produce benefits in the short term may often not be in the long-term bestinterests of individuals or their children and grandchildren.Achieving land use patterns consistent with reducing automobile dependence will alsorequire a planning process with certain broad characteristics.• Changes in city form aimed at reducing automobile dependence should form part of a largereffort aimed at improving community livability and sustainability.• There is a need to develop a vision of an end product and an approach to achieve this,rather than simply dealing with things on a piecemeal basis and hope that they come outfor the best in the end. This vision should leave room for flexibility in the details of theend product and in implementation, but not in its basic principles. What is needed is aframework for action -- and it should be possible to show how various actions (e.g.encouraging alley homes, increasing parking rates) fit into this whole.• In order to take into account the important connections between land use, transportation,and ecosystems, and between local regional and global scales there needs to be a holistic comprehensive approach to analyzing the problem of automobile dependence and toplanning for its reduction.• Planning must be geared to supporting incremental change. It does not make sense to try105to do everything at once, or to take drastic steps. There is a need to be sensitive topeople's needs and concerns, to try to convince people rather than force things down theirthroats, and to keep the disruption of people's lives to a minimum. Trying to do too muchtoo fast can cause serious negative impacts to people's lives, and be counterproductive.Planning must take into account the social, economic, and equity impacts of intensification.Experience suggests that "successful changes in settlement patterns, form and density ...are likely to be gradual, incremental and accompanied by considerable experimentation"(Lang 1985: 45). Planning for changing urban form must allow for a process of evolutionin attitudes. In summary, there is a need to develop a comprehensive vision andframework that allows for changes to take place in an incremental fashion. Every smallaction to reduce automobile dependence should be identifiable as part of a largerframework.• Within the above framework, there is a need for coordination of transportation and landuse planning.• There is also a need for coordination and consistency of policies and regulations amongdifferent governments, and thus for action from all levels of government. Within ametropolitan region, in particular, there must be a certain uniformity of land use policiesand regulations, if population growth is to be managed in the best interests of the regionas a whole.Finally, achieving the land use changes needed to reduce automobile dependence requiresmore than general principles -- it requires specific actions as well. The following sections outlinea number of such measures. The focus is on municipal development control, and on education,because these are the most obvious tools, but other important measures are discussed as well.5.2 Tools for Promoting Land Use Change Control over land use and built form in Canada rests primarily in the hands of local andregional municipalities. The land use planning tools available to municipalities include:106• official plans and policies:- general or community-wide plans (known in B.0 as Official Community Plans or OCPs)- plans for specific parts of a municipality (e.g. neighbourhood plans)- plans for specific policy areas (e.g. City of Vancouver Comprehensive Bicycle Plan)- other policies;• regulations:- zoning by-laws- subdivision by-laws- design by-laws;• flexible negotiating tools (resulting in various agreements/contracts):- development review- subdivision review- site plan review- design review;• voluntary guidelines;• land purchase and dedication;• taxes and fees;• construction;• financing;• technical assistance;• education.Obtaining urban form consistent with reduced automobile dependence will require municipalitiesto prepare a formal strategy document or plan, and to make use of most, if not all, of these tools.Nevertheless, responsibility does not lie only with municipal governments, particularlysince, as every student of municipal government in Canada learns early on, the municipalities aresimply "creatures of the provinces." Municipalities owe their existence to, and derive all theirpowers from provincial legislation. All of their powers are delegated powers. This fact has twoimportant implications. Firstly, it means it is possible for municipalities to request and forprovincial legislatures to delegate more powers over land use planning than municipalities mayenjoy at present. This should not be necessary for most of the policies recommended in this thesis,but it could be in specific instances. Secondly, it means that it is also possible for provinces toinitiate widespread land use change, by mandating that municipal policies and regulations berevised to meet certain criteria. In this situation, the province would set broad parameters andguidelines defining a preferred scenario for urban form, with the responsibility for implementationremaining with local governments (City of Toronto 1990a). This is essentially what has happenedin the state of Oregon, where the state government brought in growth management legislation.Municipalities are required to demonstrate that their policies are consistent with such state-wide107goals as conserving energy and preserving farmland (Roseland 1992). This approach hasencouraged increases in development densities in the Portland region and helped to keep urbangrowth from invading surrounding rural areas (Lowe 1991).In any case, there are many policies at both the provincial and federal levels of governmentwhich impact on land use patterns and on automobile dependence, so it is important that bothlevels adopt the goal of reducing automobile dependence, adopt policies that support this goal, andmodify others where necessary. Senior levels of government should provide leadership, and theyalso have a role to play in providing funds to municipalities to assist with the implementation ofland use planning to reduce automobile dependence.The next few sections focus on specific measures that should be used to create land usepatterns compatible with reducing automobile dependence. Consistent with the scope and focusof this thesis, the emphasis is mostly, though not exclusively, on municipal government action.5.3 Urban Form Policies and Guidelines In order for reductions in automobile dependence to occur, reducing automobile dependencewill have to be adopted as a goal by all levels of government. Such a goal should fit within andsupport a framework of more general goals dealing with environmental quality and communitylivability, and should be supported by policy objectives consistent with achieving that goal. Suchpolicy objectives would include developing land use patterns that support reduced automobiledependence, developing a high quality transit system, creating a safe environment for cycling,minimizing the hidden subsidies to automobile use, and so on.The policy objective of developing urban form which supports reduced automobiledependence should be supported by the policies discussed in sections 3.4 and 3.5. These aresummarized below.• Promote a multi-nodal urban structure, based on a central downtown, a system ofneighbourhood "urban villages," and possibly larger "town centres" or "regional towncentres," with all nodes linked by fast and efficient public transit.• Encourage higher densities, especially near centres of employment, and transit stations and108stops. Higher densities should be designed to preserve as many of the characteristics oflow density development as possible.• Encourage greater intermixing of uses and promote a jobs-housing balance. This meansencouraging access by proximity rather than by mobility (City of Vancouver 1990). Itincludes encouraging the development of housing close to (or within) downtown andneighbourhood shops, and also providing community facilities at the neighbourhood level(see Table 3-5).• Encourage the intensification or "reurbanization" of existing areas through redevelopment,conversion, and infill (see Table 3-4), and limit new development, especially low densitydevelopment, on the urban fringe.• Promote community design aimed at encouraging pedestrian activity and discouraging thenumber and length of automobile trips. This includes promoting interconnected,pedestrian-friendly streets, attractive streetscapes, linear parks, and pedestrian-orientedbuilding design and site planning (see section 3.5).5.4 Regulation and Negotiation Regulation and negotiation are the most direct tools available to municipalities to influenceurban form, and many regulations and development review criteria need to be changed to reflectpresent social and ecological realities. As discussed in section 4.2, there is a need to for localgovernments to be conscious of the cumulative impact of land use controls when adopting them-- to develop a vision of the end product -- in this case a more sustainable urban form -- and thenestablish the measures that will help to achieve this. The policies recommended in this thesiswould not necessarily require more regulations, just different regulations. There is a need toincrease flexibility in some cases, decrease it in others, and to turn some current regulations ontheir head. In general, there should be more flexibility in terms of use and less flexibility in termsof design. Also, it may often be appropriate to institute requirements for maximum numbers ofparking spaces to be provided, and minimum floor space ratios, not just the other way around.Recommending stricter control of design is somewhat problematic, because governments109can be reluctant to get into areas that might be perceived as trying to legislate taste. Theattractiveness of a building is very much a matter of subjective opinion, and trying to regulate thebeauty of a building is a potential minefield. However, aspects of site and building design suchas the placement of parking areas, driveways, and garages, and the placement of windows andentrances, are readily defined by objective criteria and can be clearly related to concrete goals suchas improving pedestrian environments. As long as this is done, any difficulty with implementingsuch criteria should be minimized.The necessary changes to regulations and negotiating tools fall into three categories:facilitating measures; incentive measures and mandatory measures. These are discussed, in thatorder, below.5.4.1 Facilitating Measures Facilitating measures are those which involve removing existing barriers to better landuse and urban form. In many ways, existing regulations are far too restrictive, drasticallylimiting density and use either directly, or through excessive requirements (e.g. for elevators orparking) that prevent redevelopment. Such regulations need to be changed. More uses should bepermitted as of right throughout urban areas. There is a need to permit more mixed-usebuildings, increase the flexibility of use within zones and/or decreases in the size of zones andintermingle them more. Zones can easily be as small as a block face. Regulations should bechanged to permit more conversion, redevelopment, and infill; to allow secondary suites and multi-family housing in more areas; to increase the number of units permitted on lots; to reduce setbackand lot size requirements; and to allow greater floor space ratios.Lengthy and complicated approval processes, which can prevent the construction ofsecondary suites and creative new forms of development, are in need of streamlining, andcompliance costs must be minimized (Regional Real Estate Consultants 1990). Klein and Searset al. (1983) recommend, for example, that many forms of conversion should be allowed "as ofright" rather than requiring extensive bureaucratic review, which tends to discourage potentialconverters. There also needs to be a process for relaxing certain building and site requirements,110where a development can be shown to support certain objectives (such as reducing autodependence) and/or to have a reduced need for such requirements. In Toronto, for example, astudy has been conducted which shows that only 57% of main street residents own cars (seeMcInnes 1991). They have less need for them, being so close to shops and transit. This hasprompted proposals to reduce the parking requirements for apartments located above stores onmain streets, in order to facilitate the construction of such units. The City of Toronto's Housingon Main Streets initiative proposes relaxing other restrictions as well, and streamlining theapproval process for such housing by allowing more forms of development as of right (see Cappe1991; City of Toronto Planning and Development Department 1991; Proctor 1992; Barber 1992).Klein and Sears et al. (1983) point out the need for introducing more flexibility into awhole host of regulations that currently prevent residential intensification, including thosegoverning location of parking, maximum number of units to be created by conversion, minimumage requirements (aimed at preventing the construction of buildings designed to be converted), etcetera. They stress, however, that requirements in by-laws should be based on studies of actualneed in a particular area, rather than on standard formulae.Finally, the street engineering requirements that result in a wasteful use of land, andfavour automobiles at the expense of pedestrians need to be adjusted as well. In general, widthrequirements need to be reduced, but specifications for major roads should allow space for bicycleson the roadway.5.4.2 Incentive Measures Although they are necessary, facilitating measures may not be sufficient to obtain thedesired changes in urban development. Incentives and disincentives can help to speed up thisprocess. Senior levels of government could provide grants or loans for projects aimed at reducingautomobile dependence. Municipalities are generally not in the position to directly offer moneyas an incentive, but they can assist people with obtaining any available help from senior levels ofgovernment, and they can offer such incentives as density bonuses or speedier processing ofdevelopment applications, which are as good as cash to a developer. Local governments could also111make use of development impact fees or development cost charges to encourage projectcharacteristics consistent with reducing automobile dependence. Fees for developments could beset higher or lower based on certain design and land use criteria. Fees should, at the very least,be smaller for smaller lots. Property tax breaks are another possibility, but one which wouldrequire provincial legislation.Incentives can be used, for example, to encourage high density development along transitcorridors and at stations or planned stations. They can also be used to encourage the provisionof housing in office areas by permitting a higher total floor space ratio (f.s.r.) where a certainamount of the floor space in a development is residential. Incentives can be particularly usefulfor securing design measures that may represent an added expense to a developer, but which cansignificantly improve the quality of the pedestrian environment -- features such as buildingarticulation and better landscaping.A number of local governments have already experimented with density bonusing.Bellevue, Washington -- a suburban municipality that has been one of the most successful in theU.S. at creating a pedestrian-oriented downtown -- has a "Floor Area Ratio Incentive System"designed to attract retail and residential uses into office areas. Under this system, which has hadsome success, those who build new projects in downtown Bellevue can add two square feet of officespace for every square foot of retail they provide, and, in most downtown zones, four square feetof office space for every square foot of housing provided (Cervero 1988).Toronto has also made use of density bonuses to encourage the provision of affordablehousing in its central area, and to obtain better pedestrian amenities (see City of Toronto 1990b;Cook 1980). New York City has tried bonusing of pedestrian amenities as well (see Cook 1980;Whyte 1988). The results in these two cities indicate that although this approach can be useful,there is need for great caution in using it. It is essential for the criteria for incentives to belimited, to be clear, and to demonstrably support certain objectives. Density bonuses should onlybe used where absolutely necessary -- i.e. to obtain amenities that would not otherwise beprovided. There should be little flexibility in the rules; otherwise planners are in danger of being112out-manoeuvred in the deal-making process by more experienced developers.Cupertino, California has taken the novel approach of setting a maximum number of tripsends for proposed developments. Developers then can propose a mixture of land uses that willgenerate trips under that ceiling. Since mixed-use projects generate fewer trips than single useprojects, developers have an incentive to add retail, restaurant, and housing components to officeprojects (Cervero 1988).5.4.3 Mandatory Measures In addition to facilitating and incentive measures, there is a need for mandatory measures,both in terms of rules governing the characteristics of development and rules for the developmentprocess. Municipalities need to ensure that the location and design of developments are consistentwith reducing automobile dependence, and that pedestrian, cyclist, and transit considerations areincorporated in all projects from the outset.It is not enough to change the zoning in one area to permit certain types of developmentto be built there; development must be restricted in other places as well. For example, if officegrowth is to be directed to "regional town centres" or other transit nodes, restrictions must beplaced on new development in office parks and other isolated areas. Likewise, if "main street"shopping areas are to be created or revitalized, then a municipality cannot allow isolated regionalshopping malls to be built. As well, if reurbanization is to occur, development must be restrictedon the urban fringe. Certain forms of development, such as drive-through establishments, needto be prohibited altogether.Regulations may need to require certain types of use in some locations -- for instance, itis extremely important for pedestrian street life to have street-oriented retail on the ground floorof commercial buildings. New York City and Bellevue have requirements of this sort (see Whyte1988). Regulations may also need to require minimum levels of density at some locations. Inorder to support transit, Portland, Oregon has a requirement that new developments withinwalking distance of a transit be built at a certain minimum level of density (Salmon 1991).Other examples of mandatory measures that can be useful in reducing automobile113dependence are housing-employment linkage measures. Some cities now require developers ofoffice projects to build housing on site, or to contribute fees which go toward the construction oflow cost housing nearby, in order to enable lower paid workers to live close to where they work.Boston and San Francisco have both established linkage fees on certain types of non-residentialdevelopment (Cervero 1989c; City of Toronto 1990b).Numerous changes are needed with respect to circulation system, site, and building designrequirements. Because these have already been discussed in Chapter 3, most will not be discussedin detail here. However, because of its importance, the subject of parking is re-examined.Reducing automobile dependence means reducing minimum requirements for car parking andinstituting maximum limits. Traditionally, municipalities have specified minimum parkingrequirements for new developments -- a practice which can encourage automobile use andassociated problems such as congestion (see Pickrell and Shoup 1979). However, a number ofcities have taken the lead in imposing ceilings on the number of automobile parking spaces in newdevelopments. These include Calgary, Portland, Oregon, and Seattle and Bellevue, Washington(see Cervero 1984; Lowe 1991; Eager 1984). Portland has even gone so far as to set a ceiling onthe total number of parking spaces in its downtown, in order to support transit (Salmon 1991).Bellevue, a suburb of Seattle is somewhat famous because of the extent of its about-face onparking. Bellevue was laid out in the 1950s with the driver in mind -- it even won an award forproviding for ample parking long into the future. However, in the late 1970s it began a consciouseffort to transform its downtown into a higher density, pedestrian-oriented place. It drasticallyreduced parking requirements, and undertook a number of other actions as well, includingeliminating setback requirements, providing incentives for ground floor retail and pedestrianamenities, and improving transit service (Eager 1984; Kay 1991; Miles and Hinshaw 1987). Asa result, though it still has far to go, Bellevue now has one of the most pedestrian-orientedsuburban downtowns in North America. Copenhagen has taken the even more drastic step ofremoving parking from its downtown. It has removed 3% per year for the last 25 years. As aresult of this and other actions Copenhagen's downtown automobile traffic has not grown since1141972 (Gehl 1992).Where parking is provided, its location is very important. Encouraging people to walkrather than drive means locating parking behind, or underneath, buildings rather than in frontof them (Untermann 1990; Dodson 1992). Since the development and retailing community seemsto be somewhat reticent about doing this on its own, it is up to municipalities to achieve thisthrough regulation. This can ensure that there is a "level playing field" for all involved.The flip-side of reducing car parking requirements is instituting bicycle parkingrequirements. Approximately 15 bicycles can be parked in the same amount of space as one car(Hudson 1978), and secure bike parking is essential to encouraging people to use bikes. The Cityof Vancouver now has a by-law requiring all new buildings of a certain size to provide bicycleparking, and the larger of these to provide shower and change facilities as well. Othermunicipalities should be following its lead.There is a need for a radical remodelling of subdivision standards. As well, in the designof subdivisions, municipalities should require developers to incorporate public transit, bicycle andpedestrian circulation considerations from the start. It would be appropriate for municipalitiesto specify such design criteria as the maximum permitted distance from a home to a store, or toa neighbourhood centre, or to a bus stop, and to require that applications show suchcharacteristics. Delcan (1983) lists a number of useful criteria for subdivision design. Obviouslythis implies a need for participation of the local planning authority early in the planning process-- an issue that will be discussed in a later section.5.4.4 Implementation of ChangesThis section examines the implementation of changes to development regulations, butmuch of what it discusses is relevant to the process of changing local government policies ingeneral.Although the importance of developing a vision of the end product and gearing regulationstoward that has already been emphasized, there can be enormous political difficulties with tryingto undertake a full-scale revision of zoning and subdivision codes. Generally, such changes must115be undertaken incrementally (Sewell and Foster 1980b; Owens and Rickaby 1983). Those changesless likely to prompt resistance should be implemented first, and, as support builds, strongermeasures can be implemented (Lang and Armour 1980). 2 The City of Toronto, for example, hasfocused on developing housing above stores on its "main streets" as a way of increasing densitiesincrementally throughout the city with the minimum of disruption to existing neighbourhoods (seeGilbert 1991; City of Toronto Planning and Development Department 1991).Unfortunately, no significant changes to regulations or to policies will take place unlessthere is a firm and sustained level of political commitment. This requires education of all theplayers in the political process and it can be greatly aided by the strong leadership of a prominentadvocate within government -- for instance, a local politician, a planning department, or a specialgovernment office. The lack of movement on most of the recommendations on the City ofVancouver's Task Force on Atmospheric Change 1990 report, Clouds of Change, illustrates whatcan happen when this leadership is absent. The Clouds of Change report made a number of veryuseful recommendations aimed at turning the city of Vancouver into a more sustainable city, andit was adopted by Vancouver City Council. Unfortunately, although a "Special Office for theEnvironment" was created as a result of this report, this office has not provided sufficient impetusfor the implementation of the report's recommendations. This example also points out the needto develop strong implementation mechanisms when making policy recommendations, to ensurethat these recommendations do not end up gathering dust on the shelf.5.5 Provision of Infrastructure Regulation is by no means the only government activity to affect development patterns --the provision of infrastructure has a good deal of influence as well. For instance, governments caninfluence the location of urban growth through their role in providing sewer and water services.They can also affect travel patterns through the provision of parks and other community facilities.However, of most interest in the context of this thesis is the provision of transportationSee Lang (1985) for a ranking of measures to increase densities from easiest to most difficult.116infrastructure. To reduce automobile dependence,' governments need to direct resources to theprovision of infrastructure for bicycles, pedestrians, and transit, rather than for cars -- and inplaces to transfer "ownership" of road or parts of roads from cars to these other modes.Transportation planners need to allow for "planned" or "managed" automobile traffic congestionas a means of encouraging alternatives to the automobile. The point of such a change in prioritiesis not only to encourage the use of non-automobile modes in the shorter term, but also to stimulatelong-term land use change.Fixed rail transit systems have often been touted as a means to shape urban form.Experience suggests that it can certainly play a role, but that a city should not expect manychanges in land use patterns if the provision of rail transit is not part of a larger program of landuse and transportation policy actions. The North American city that has been most successful inusing transit to help shape urban growth has been Metropolitan Toronto. Many of Toronto'ssubway stations are now surrounded by high density residential uses, and several station-centrednodes of commercial development have been created (Yonge and St. Clair, Yonge and Eglinton,North York Civic Centre, and Scarborough Town Centre). The factors identified as havingcontributed to this success include:• close coordination of transportation (especially transit) and land use planning;• transit-supportive land use policies, zoning, and taxation at station areas and in the region asa whole;• a rapidly expanding population and a growing economy in which there was a strong demand forhousing and office space;• strong and unwavering support from local decision-makers;• general public support (and relatively little resistance to redevelopment);• a strong transit tradition in the city;• rail routes which followed existing heavily-travelled street car routes;• an emphasis in policy on live and walk rather than park and ride;• the use of joint development at transit stations;• a very effective feeder bus network, providing people with convenient connections to the stations;• relatively limited construction of highways (no "Interstate" system as in U.S. cities); and,• less incentive for people to buy single family homes than in the U.S. (Cervero 1987; Knight1980).Lack of these conditions, especially coordinated and supportive land use planning,' hasThe Canadian Urban Transit Association's Canadian Transit Handbook  lists a number of specific landuse policies for supporting transit (see CUTA and RTAC 1985: 27-49).117been responsible for the failure of many fixed rail transit systems in the U.S to have muchinfluence on shaping development (Cervero 1987). San Francisco's BART system -- a notablefailure in this area -- has suffered from having an alignment along freeway medians and freightcorridors and from the fact that while local municipalities pay lip service to intensification nearstations, their actions are typically directed toward strictly limiting growth (Cervero 1987;Johnston and Tracy 1983).The lesson from this experience is that the important thing in trying to reduce sprawl andconcentrate development is to have appropriate land use policies and regulations. Rail transit cansupport these, but it will not do much by itself (see Green and James 1989).Most experience with using transit to shape development has been with heavy rail, butthere are indications that the cheaper light rail systems that have recently attracted considerableinterest (see Plous 1984), can be effective as well (Cervero 1984). Experience in Ottawa alsosuggests that even buses can be used to shape urban growth, provided that a fixed busway systemis built (Cervero 1986c).5.5.1 Joint Development at Transit Stations Joint development at transit stations can be a very effective tool for public agencies to useto shape development. Joint development is where a transit authority (or other governmentagency) and a private developer get together to build a development over or adjacent to a transitstation. The transit authority leases land or air rights to the developer and ensures that thedevelopment is connected to and integrated with the transit station. In such a situation virtuallyeverybody benefits (see e.g. Cervero 1987; Allen 1986; Keefer 1985; Martz 1988; Cushman 1988b).The developer, his tenants, and those who work in the building benefit from convenient transitaccess. Retail stores and services benefit from a large market of people passing through thedevelopment to and from the station. The transit company obtains revenue from the lease, inaddition to a larger passenger base. And the community as a whole benefits from a strongertransit system that requires smaller subsidies, and from having fewer cars on the roads.Joint development can even be used as a means to finance the expansion of transit118services. More than one half of the cost of extending Edmonton's northeast light rail transit linein 1981 was financed by a special fee negotiated between the city and two developers of theClearview subdivision (Cervero 1984).The main requirement for joint development is a change in thinking on the part ofgovernments and transit authorities, many of whom have been reluctant to become involved withprivate enterprise. They must be convinced that joint development is an appropriate activity forthem (and not to be too conservative in expropriating land around stations), because it is in thebest interest of the community as a whole (Keefer 1985). Many cities have had successes withjoint development, including Toronto, Washington, Miami, Buffalo, Baltimore, and others (Cervero1987; Allen 1986). This success suggests that there could be promise in other public-privatepartnerships as well.5.6 Reform of Institutions, Governance, and the Planning Process It is unlikely that efforts to implement land use change will be very successful unless thereare some fairly fundamental changes to existing institutions and how they function.Chapter 4 has shown that regionally coordinated action, throughout an entirecommutershed, is imperative in any program to reduce automobile dependence. The most obviousway to achieve this is through strong regional government. There is almost always resistance tostrong regional governments from both local municipalities and provincial governments (who areboth concerned about threats to their own power), but past experience with regional governmentin Canada suggests that this would be an achievable goal in this country. The purpose behindhaving such a government is not to have a totally centralized authority for land use decisions --many aspects of land use planning are more appropriately carried out at the local level. Theappropriate role for regional government is to establish a framework of goals and policies, basedon the interests of the region as a whole, within which local governments must operate. Regionalgovernment should have the power to ensure that the policies or actions of one local governmentdo not cause problems for neighbouring localities. Voluntary cooperation of local municipalitiesis a possibility, but if this cannot be achieved, a province could take on the role of setting regional119planning and development parameters, as discussed in section 5.2.Just as governments intervene in the marketplace to prevent or alleviate the problems forsociety that would result from totally unfettered competition among individuals or firms acting intheir own perceived best interests, there is a role for intervention of a public authority to ensurethat the actions of local municipalities do not harm the region as a whole. There must be someforum for consideration of issues from a regional perspective and a mechanism for implementingpolicies which serve the region in its entirety. Regional planning should ensure that urbanintensification takes place throughout a region and that it is distributed equitably, not simply tothose places with less political clout. Equitable distribution of density increases is key toincreasing acceptance of such efforts.In addition to regional planning, there is a need for more integration of transportation andland use planning. Firstly, this means that there is a need for authority for transportationplanning at the regional level, in addition to land use planning. Secondly, it means that planningdepartments need to become more involved with transportation planning. Transferring totalcontrol over transportation planning to planning departments is one option to consider. At thevery least, transportation and engineering departments should acquire some expertise in theother's area and work more closely together. Planning departments should also work closely withtransit authorities. Of course, an expanded role for planning departments would require thedirecting of greater resources to these departments.Another institutional need is a regional transit authority. It is very difficult for a transitauthority to play an effective role in working with regional and local governments to shape thefuture of a region if it is controlled by a senior level of government -- as is now the case inVancouver with B.C. Transit (a provincial agency). The success of transit in Toronto is stronglyrelated to the fact that transit is operated by an agency of the metropolitan government (seeFrisken 1990). A transit authority must cooperate closely with local and regional governments toachieve transit-oriented land use patterns. It should be involved in the early stages of subdivisionreview and development review of large projects, in order to ensure that such projects are designed120with access to transit in mind, and so any changes to transit routes can be planned in advance(CUTA and RTAC 1985; Delcan 1983; Lavalin 1979).In the process of urban planning in general, there is a need to focus not only at theregional level, but at the neighbourhood level as well. With boundaries that in many cases werecreated decades ago in a different era, many municipalities now encompass what in many waysare rather arbitrary chunks of metropolitan regions. The result is that the municipal level maynot be the most appropriate one for the discussion of many planning issues. According to TomHutton, of the U.B.C. School of Community and Regional Planning, "Municipalities are too big forcommunity and neighbourhood planning needs, but too small for regional plans" (see Mason 1992:B3). Consistent with the goal of creating neighbourhood "urban villages", there needs to more ofa focus of planning, and at building community, at the neighbourhood level within a regionalcontext (City of Toronto 1990a).Within this context, public participation is very important, and better ways to involve thepublic need to be found. Public hearings or large public meetings, which set up an "us" versus"them" atmosphere and keep government distant from the people, are not the most best way ofinvolving the public. Workshops and other more informal approaches hold more promise.Involving all interested members of the public early and effectively in regional or in neighbourhoodplanning exercises has the potential to increase support for such actions as urban intensification,and to reduce the likelihood of NIMBY-type reactions. Early involvement allows people to takea proactive, rather than a reactive approach to neighbourhood change. In particular, if residentsof an area can determine the form that reurbanization can take in that area, they will be morelikely to support it.5.7 Education, Demonstration, and Assistance Obviously achieving any sort of significant changes in policy, and ultimately in land usepatterns depends on there being a fundamental shift in attitudes, both inside and outside ofgovernments. Those in any walk of life committed to changing the physical form of cities, reducingautomobile dependence, and to ecologically sustainable development must therefore do their121utmost to convince those who are recalcitrant of the need to change, and of the net improvementsuch changes would have on their quality of life, and that of their children and grandchildren.Education -- of the public, of business, and of government officials -- is key to achieving thetransformations recommended in this thesis.It is certainly not necessary -- or possible -- for attitudes to change all at once. There isa need for patience as people's attitudes evolve a little bit at a time. Small changes in attitudescan lead to small changes in urban form and design, which in turn, can help to bring about furtherchanges in attitudes, and so on.What sorts of changes in attitudes are needed? Specifically, there is a need for anincreased acceptance of land use and design measures geared to bicycles, pedestrians, and transit,and for a greater acceptance of, and enthusiasm for cycling, walking and taking transit. Higherdensities and mixed uses must be given a more positive image in people's minds. More generally,there is a need for a broadened concern and a heightened concern about automobile dependenceand about humankind-ecology interactions.A broadened concern must include consideration for local actions within a regional, andwithin a global, context. As well, sustainability principles must be incorporated into the entireplanning process (D'Amour 1991). Ecological concerns must become a fundamental part ofplanning, especially of land use planning. Planning for environmental quality cannot be put intoa neat little box -- all planning must consider ecological impacts. What is needed is a "ecosystemapproach" to planning, such as has been described and promoted by The Royal Commission on theFuture of the Toronto Waterfront (see Crombie, 1992) -- an approach which emphasizes thelinkages between different planning concerns and between urban planning and ecology.In terms of planning and automobiles, such an approach means looking at all the problemsof automobile dependence together. This is important in building support for physical changes tocommunities. If people consider only one or two of the problems of automobile dependence, theywill be less inclined take action to reduce this dependence, and less inclined to see land use changeas necessary. In the past, concern about particular impacts of automobile dependence (e.g. energy122consumption; freeway construction; smog) has come and gone, but, partly because these wereconsidered in isolation, little has been done to actually reduce automobile dependence. In fact, theworld has continued to use cars more and more.Associated with a broadened perspective on planning issues must be a heightened concernabout the impacts of automobile use, and a heightened realization of the fundamental importanceof ecosystem health to human societies and of human capacity to adversely affect this. Peopleneed to realize that present patterns of resource use and ecological degradation cannot continueindefinitely.Achieving such changes in perspective will require education and persuasion in manydifferent forms and by many different persons and groups. It is certainly not simply a matter ofgovernments "educating the public." The public must also educate government. There is a needfor developers, public interest groups, politicians, planners, lenders, fire officials, individualmembers of the public, engineers, and so on to present information and arguments of the kindoffered in this thesis to any colleagues or other groups or individuals who will listen. It is hopedthat this thesis can make a useful contribution to this education process.Public interest groups have an vital role to play in changing the minds of the public ingeneral and of government officials. According to Peter Calthorpe (1992), the stimulus behind theadoption of his Transit-Oriented Developments concept (see Appendix A) in Sacramento was anenvironmental group, which decided to change its approach from simply opposing new developmentto trying to trying to influence its form. There is a need for environmental groups to become moreactive in promoting reduced dependence on automobiles and in promoting sustainable communitydesign. There is also a need for more coalitions of architects, landscape architects,environmentalists, parents, children, cyclists, walkers, and so on, to form and put pressure ongovernments. Nonetheless, the focus of this thesis is on municipal governments and what theycan do to reduce automobile dependence, so the balance of this section will concentrate on whatpublic officials (planners, politicians, etc.) can do to change people's minds and build support forchanges in public policy.123There is a need for public officials to draw attention -- through such means as publicmeetings and workshops, programs in schools at all levels, displays, literature, involvement of thelocal media (newspapers, radio, television), and so on -- to the interrelationships among urban landuse, transportation, and ecology. There is also a need for them to stress the seriousness of theenvironmental problems faced by the inhabitants of Canadian cities today. In terms of urbanform, all major Canadian cities are heading in the direction of Los Angeles, and they can expectthe associated pollution problems and the health effects that accompany them. Vancouver isespecially vulnerable to smog because, as in Los Angeles, the topography tends to trap airpollution. According to U.B.C. atmospheric scientist T. R. Oke: "if we continue along as we arenow, Vancouver, in 50 years, will have the same air quality as Los Angeles. And that's wheneverybody will regularly start to get sick by breathing the air" (City of Vancouver 1991: 59).Municipal officials need to do more to emphasize such dangers.Officials need to not only tell people of the problems, but let them know what they can doto help, and emphasize the importance of their participation. They should try to motivate peopleto take positive actions. One can even imagine officials setting up a competition between differentcities to see which one can be the "greenest."Public officials must talk more about the trade-offs that need to be made. Everyone hasa tendency to want everything, to have one's cake and eat it too -- to use cars all the time and stillhave a clean environment. Unfortunately it is not possible to have everything -- there are sometrade-offs to be made. Officials should encourage people to think more about the trade-offs theymake, and the costs involved, in such choices as living at low densities and driving automobiles-- the personal costs and benefits in terms of aspects of quality of life, the personal financial costs,and the costs to society as well.'Officials also need to show people that some things which they may perceive as great costs-- such as increased densities and land use mix -- may in fact not represent costs at all, butGovernments also need to transform societal costs into personal costs so that people will be more likelyto take them into account.124benefits. Illustrations can be used to show the effects of different policy scenarios. Robert Yaroet al. (1988) have used drawings very effectively to show the potential results of differentdevelopment policies in the rural landscape of the Connecticut River Valley.People's negative impressions of multi-family housing, and other examples of more intenseland uses, can be changed by showing photographs of well-designed examples -- preferably fromthat same community or a similar community. Examples of the types of built form recommendedin this thesis already exist in many communities. Tony Nelessen, a New Jersey designer, conductsworkshops where he shows slides of higher density traditional-style development together withlower density auto-oriented sprawl-type development. He has found that participants consistentlyrate the former higher in terms of visual preference (Knack 1991b).At the very least, the use of photographs can help to prevent residents from rejectinghigher densities out of hand. Planners trying to encourage residential intensification inBurlington, Ontario, for example, have discovered that using slides of examples of intensificationin that city in meetings with residents focused discussion on urban form and design rather thanon numbers of units per hectare. They found that "The issue of urban design clearly became theavenue for intensification to be addressed in a positive manner" (Pianosi 1991: 51).Governments can also provide on-the-ground demonstrations. Demonstration projects area very useful way of encouraging change, because they show people what is possible, and providethem with tangible images. Demonstrations can be accomplished through the rezoning of selectedareas, or by requiring developers of government-owned land to design and construct projects thatare consistent with lower automobile use. Governments could make use of design competitionsfor such sites, as suggested by the Clouds of Change report for the southeast shore of False Creekin the city of Vancouver (City of Vancouver 1990). Alternatively, governments can actively developprojects themselves, as happened recently in Vancouver when B.C. Housing, the City of Vancouver,CMHC, B.C. Gas and Dovertel Construction joined together to construct a "Convertible House"to demonstrate the advantages of flexible zoning which permits secondary suites in single familyneighbourhoods (Austin 1992).125This last example shows that governments need not be the only ones involved in buildingdemonstration projects. Various profit-oriented and non-profit groups should be as well. In fact,they are already. All of the neo-traditional developments now being planned and built amount todemonstration projects. Another example is the trial of satellite offices by B.C. Tel. Theseexamples show that there is a financial incentive for companies to be innovative. In the first case,the incentive is to cater to a market niche that is not being served. In the second the incentiveis higher employee morale, lower absenteeism and increased productivity (Gibb-Clark 1991).Demonstration projects should not only show how to create better development fromscratch. They should also show how to convert existing auto-oriented development such as linearstrips and shopping centres into pedestrian-friendly forms (Untermann 1990).Governments can also encourage conversion and better forms of new development byproviding technical assistance to developers and home-owners. Klein and Sears et al. (1983)suggest, for example, that municipalities establish a position of housing development processfacilitator to assist home-owners who wish to undertake conversions. Governments can providefinancial assistance as well. Agencies such as CMHC should provide grants or loans to projectshelp to lessen automobile dependence, and cease to provide assistance to projects which worsenit.Recent experience in the state of Victoria in Australia indicates that a great deal can beaccomplished simply by directing education efforts towards developers. There, the stategovernment undertook workshops with developers, and local planners and council members, priorto, during, and after the introduction of legislation requiring better-designed and more sustainablesingle family development. In the workshops, developers learned what type of development thestate planners were aiming at, and realized that there were no technical or economic obstacles tobuilding it. As a result of these workshops, there was very little resistance to the introduction ofthe new design code (Morris 1992).1265.8 Other Responses The previous sections have focused mainly on what municipalities can do to encourage landuse change. This section will focus on actions that, to a large extent, are beyond the power ofmunicipalities, and require the involvement of the provincial and federal governments.These levels of government need to remove barriers and disincentives to, and createincentives for, the forms of urban development recommended in this thesis. They need to changefinancing programs, design standards, and other policies which favour low density developmentover medium density development or favour new development over rehabilitation andredevelopment. One important action would be for provinces to reduce the street width standardsthat govern the provision of provincial funding (see Shipley et al. 1992). Another possible actionmight be for the federal government to amend its current home-ownership assistance programsto allow people to withdraw funds from their RRSPs tax-free only for the purchase of higherdensity housing forms.Senior levels of government also need to pass on the societal costs of sprawl to itsoccupants. One way to do this is to collect money from car drivers through the use of gas taxesor various types of highway user fees. Another way would be for provincial governments to changetheir property tax systems so that taxes reflect the higher societal costs of low density and auto-oriented development. A third possible mechanism would be for governments to examine utilitytariffs for possible subsidies of low density development by customers in higher density areas, andmodify charges for service at the urban fringe to include full marginal costs (Peat MarwickStevenson and Kellogg 1992).Governments, in their role as regulators of financial institutions might also imposeregulations which restrict the lending of money for urban developments to those projects whichmeet certain criteria -- criteria such as those outlined in Chapter 3 of this thesis. This could havea great impact on preventing construction of auto-oriented development.Provincial governments could potentially drastically increase their control over land use,as the British Government did in 1947 with its Town and Country Planning Act. Many countries,127including the Netherlands, Germany, and the Scandinavian nations, have much stronger controlson land development than do Canada and the U.S. (Hall 1988). However, it is extremely unlikelythat such a course of action would be politically feasible without the advent of an extraordinarycrisis.Finally, there is a role for all levels of government in conducting and supporting academicresearch on land use and automobile dependence. There is a particular need for governments togather more detailed data on land use and on travel behaviour within urban areas, in order topermit more sophisticated analysis of the interrelationships of land use and car use. There is alsoa need for governments at all levels to gather data on the effects of their own policies, and formore research into what factors have contributed to the success, or lack of success, of thesepolicies. Additional research needs are discussed in Chapter 7.5.9 Implications for the Planning Profession Up to this point the perspective of this chapter has been on what "governments" or "publicofficials" need to do to change land use patterns and reduce automobile dependence. This sectionchanges the perspective somewhat to what planners, in particular, should be doing. Plannersmust play a leading role in changing policies and regulations, and in the education effortsdiscussed in section 4.7. Such a role implies the need for certain changes in philosophy andapproach within the planning profession.To begin with, planners need to acknowledge their role in helping to create automobiledependence. Then, of course, they must make a commitment to reducing it. Ideally, acommitment to reducing automobile dependence should fit within a set of principles agreed uponby the profession -- a set of substantive goals for planning. These principles should incorporatean ecological focus into planning -- one which stresses the importance of examining issues in aholistic context and which takes account of the connections between all aspects of urban andregional planning and ecosystems at all levels, ranging from the local to the global.To many, the planning profession seems to be lost: anxious about past failures and unsureabout its future (Levy 1992; Witty 1991). An ecological focus would bring a new sense of direction128into planning, while at the same time reestablishing connections with its roots in the conservationmovement. Planners need to incorporate considerations of sustainable development into all thatthey do, and land use planners in particular need to develop an "ecosystem approach" to planning.This is not to imply that other traditional concerns of planning should be pushed aside -- a focuson ecological concerns meshes very much with socio-economic concerns and the issue of communitylivability. Ecological health is very much linked to the health of communities, both physical andsocial. "Community-building" should be an integral part of any ecological approach to planning.Realizing sustainable urban form will require planners to play a more proactive role thanthey have recently. Instead of merely reacting to events, planners will have to develop a visionfor their community, and work to achieve it. This will mean acting as advocates: advocates forpedestrians, cyclists, and transit-users; advocates for the environment and sustainability; andadvocates for better land use. The need for planners to act as advocates for better land use, bothinside and outside government, was pointed out in the previous chapter. In the case of theenvironment, though there are many advocates outside government, within local governmentsplanning departments need to take on this responsibility. Planning departments also need tolobby for more support from municipal councils for strategic planning, as opposed to the simpleprocessing of development applications.Developing visions and working toward substantive goals certainly does not mean ignoringthe views and concerns of the public, but it does mean not always accepting current opinions andpreferences, and not always letting the loudest and most powerful interest groups dictate publicpolicy. There are several reasons for planners not to simply accept current apparent preferencesfor modes of transportation and for types of housing and other forms of urban development.Firstly, such preferences may not always be what they appear to be. For instance, the slow paceof innovations by developers and policy-makers may conceal actual changes in housing preferencesfor some time. Secondly, current preferences are the result of many factors, including the pastactions of planners. Planners have certainly played a role in shaping the current demand for lowdensities. Thirdly, planners do have a responsibility to take a broader perspective than that of129the individual, and to try to do what is in the long-term best interest of society as a whole. Recentland use trends have already had serious impacts on environmental quality and urban quality oflife, and cannot be seen as being in the long-term best interest of society. Taking the above factorsinto account -- especially looking at the consequences of catering to existing demand -- plannershave already begun to implement transportation demand management. It is time that they beganto think in terms of "housing demand management" or "land use demand management" as well.The dictatorship of the marketplace is not acceptable, but neither is the dictatorship ofplanners. Planners need to promote their proposals through reasoned and explicit arguments, nottry to impose them on an unwilling populace. They also need to be extremely sensitive to theimpacts of change on communities. They need to listen closely to citizens -- they will bring thingsto the attention of planners, and generate ideas, that planners have not thought of. Planners mustconstantly strive to develop better ways of working with the public. Public concern for such issuesas traffic congestion and air pollution is already high, and people are becoming more aware ofecological issues in general. Planners need to work to translate such concerns into support foractions to reduce automobile dependence. They need to try to mobilize public support (Lang 1985).There is an important role for the Canadian Institute of Planners in providing directionand support for planners, and in establishing a strong and well-defined mandate for the planningprofession (see Witty 1991). It must work to increase the profile of planning and increase therespect accorded to planning as a profession. Part of this process should be the development ofa code of ethics which stresses the fundamental importance of ecological principles, and the needto consider broad ecological impacts in all planning actions. This code should include a specificset of normative goals. People should know what planners stand for, in terms of "substance" aswell as "process." And planners must be able to rely on their professional organization for supportand encouragement, as do members of other professions. A workshop held in 1990 to discuss theimplications of sustainable development for planning and for the Canadian Institute of Planners(CIP) suggested such support could take the form of position statements, technical information,and direct intervention where necessary (CIP 1990). This workshop also recommended that the130CIP should expand its role as a direct advocate -- targeting politicians, school children, and thegeneral public. Such a role would definitely be useful.There has been some work, following this workshop, toward the development of an ethicalcode for the CIP which would incorporate ecological principles. Witty (1991) has outlined aproposed Code of Ethics in the November 1991 issue of Plan Canada. Although there is room forimprovement in it -- for example more stress on the links between built, social, and ecologicalenvironments -- this code, backed up by enforcement mechanisms as suggested by Mathur (1991),would go a long way toward strengthening the relevance, both perceived and actual, of theprofession.Finally, there is the subject of planning education. Planning schools must do more toemphasize the value of planning as an activity and as a profession, and to motivate students notto accept current problems -- such as unsustainable land use patterns -- as inevitable. Theyshould also incorporate an ecological perspective into their curricula. Doing so would provide amuch needed strengthening of the normative or substantive aspects of planning education, andwould draw attention to the links between seemingly disparate areas of study. As well, there isa need for planning schools to place more emphasis on physical planning -- and to design inparticular -- and to offer specializations in physical planning. Fortunately, many planning schoolshave already begun to do this (Knack 1991 a; Levin 1992). The emphasis on public process thatfollowed the disasters of "urban renewal" has been very worthwhile, but the abandonment ofeducation in physical planning has not. Had physical planning not been so neglected over the past30 years, Canadian cities might not be as automobile dependent as they now are.5.10 Conclusion Arriving at land use patterns which support a variety of transportation modes will requirenumerous actions. Governments will have to change their policies, planners will have to changetheir approach, and everyone will have to change his or her mind. The following chapter examinesthe likelihood that such changes will occur.131CHAPTER 6PROSPECTS FOR CHANGE6.0 Introduction Despite the problems associated with automobiles, automobile ownership and use in NorthAmerica continue to increase. Between 1983 and 1990, vehicle kilometres travelled in the U.S.increased by 41 per cent, while the population increased by only 6 percent (United States 1991).From 1986 to 1991, in greater Vancouver, the number of vehicles insured for driving to and fromwork increased at more than twice the rate of the population (based on data in GVRDDevelopment Services 1992a). Cities continue to expand at low densities, and the strict separationof land uses persists. Single family homes continue to be the dominant form of new housingproduced. In the Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area (CMA), they still account for just underhalf of the new housing units constructed each year, as they have for at least the past 20 years(see Figure 6-1). Although municipalities pay lip service to reducing sprawl, there is stillwidespread construction of development that is highly auto-oriented in design and density.The problems of automobile dependence, and the link between land use and automobileuse have been known for years, but as yet the impetus for change in land use patterns has beeninsufficient to counteract the opposing forces. Is there any reason to expect that this will change?The short answer is: perhaps. There are growing forces for change, and innovative governmentpolicies and urban development have begun to appear. This chapter examines these trends.6.1 Forces Working for Change 6.1.1 A Growing Crisis As the effects of automobile dependence continue to grow worse, there are signs that peopleare beginning to become fed up with them. Traffic congestion consistently ranks as the majorconcern, or one of the major concerns, of urban residents (see Section 2.1.3). In the U.S. the point132Figure 6-1Single Family Housing Completions as a Percentage of Total Housing Completions:Vancouver CMA - 1973-1992Source: CMHC.has been reached where developers are being required to contribute to congestion relief measures.Many people now spend more than two hours a day commuting to and from work. Many arebeginning to question whether this time could not be better used doing other things -- for instance,spending time with their families. Air pollution is also becoming a major concern, and not just inLos Angeles. Smog is of particular concern because it is so visible. Residents of Vancouver, forexample, are dismayed when they look down from the nearby mountains to see their cityincreasingly enveloped in brown haze.The environmental problems associated with automobile use continue to build. Attentionto them may come and go, but the problems themselves are not likely to go away in the shortterm, as happened with the problem of energy supply following the "energy crisis." Unless action133is taken, the problems will continue to build until the become a "crisis" in everybody's mind. Theonly question is when.6.1.2 Demographic and Economic Factors Demographic and economic trends offer some reason to be sanguine about the possibilityof more intense land use patterns. Changes in household make-up -- such as increasing numbersof single parent families -- and the aging of the population should contribute to an increasingdemand for housing forms other than detached suburban single family homes (Newman andKenworthy 1989a; Jackson 1985; Bookout 1992d).Land is becoming more scarce. The average cost of land is rising as a percentage of familyincome (Perks and Jamieson 1991; Jackson 1985). There is thus a strong incentive for developersto make new housing less costly by reducing the size of streets and reducing the amount of landper housing unit. As well, governments are in a fiscal crisis and can no longer afford to spend asmuch money on the roads and other infrastructure necessary to support low density development.6.1.3 Changing Attitudes Most significant, in terms of the prospects for change, is that current attitudes offer reasonto believe that reducing automobile dependence through land use change is possible. First of all,many older communities and neighbourhoods, which incorporate many of the physicalcharacteristics discussed in Chapter 3 are very popular and in much demand (Neuman 1991;Duany and Plater-Zyberk 1992; Calthorpe 1992). People are willing to pay very high prices to livein well-designed, comparatively dense, neighbourhoods that offer proximity to places ofemployment, shops, and services, and have convenient transit service. Early indications are thatneo-traditional neighbourhoods are proving to be popular as well (see Appendix A).Most people do not really want sprawl. Many simply want homes they can afford, andwhich they can own -- usually ground-oriented housing -- with private outdoor space, and so on.They want easy access to places of employment and shops. This does not require sprawl. In factthe auto-orientation of sprawling suburbs is already decreasing accessibility. Many of people's134housing needs and desires can be met without detached single family homes. And a recent surveydone by the Greater Vancouver Regional District indicates that people may be more accepting ofalternative housing forms than is commonly believed (Hardwick, Torchinsky and Fallick 1990).For instance, only 33% of those surveyed disagreed with the statement that "A single family homeis not essential for a true family life." Condominium developer Michael Audin, of the PolygonGroup, argues that there has already been a significant change in people's attitudes and lifestyles,so that the idea of buying and living in condominiums, rather than detached houses, has becomemore appealing (Whysall 1992).Another encouraging trend is the growing awareness of environmental issues andproblems. In the 1990 GVRD opinion survey (Hardwick, Torchinsky and Fallick, 1990), the fiveissues that were rated highest in overall importance by the respondents were all environmentalissues. Air pollution from autos ranked 8th out of 54 issues. The environment also topped the listof concerns expressed in the public process for the new city plan in the City of Toronto (Gladki1991). It appears that although the environment may be displaced from the top of people's list ofconcerns as other problems wax and wane, concern for the environment is not simply a transitoryfad.Not only are people concerned about resource use and environmental quality, they havealso demonstrated that they are willing to take steps to do something about these problems. Thisis shown by the extent to which people have demanded and are participating in recyclingprograms, and it is reflected in the attempts of manufacturers to cater to "green" consumers.Though one can argue about the actual impact of these efforts on resource use and pollution, onecannot deny that they have prompted people to consider the ecological impacts of their actions.Some critics charge that such efforts encourage people to think that all they need to do to ensurehealthy sustainable environments is to separate their trash and buy cars with solar-powered airconditioning systems. While this may be true to some extent, it is also true that it is better tohave people thinking this, than not thinking they have to do anything. People will be more opento other changes in their lifestyles once they have taken the first steps.135People are already becoming more open to cycling as an alternative to driving. Theimproved image of cycling is both demonstrated and enhanced by the fact that a number of NorthAmerican police forces, including Seattle, Vancouver, and Toronto, now have officers on bicycles.A significant number of people now regularly walk to work -- 8.2% of the residents of MetroToronto, 11.4% of the residents of Ottawa-Carleton, and 13.8% of the residents of Thunder Bay,for example (Hawthorne 1989). As well, most people would like to be able to walk to work.Seventy-seven per cent of those surveyed in Metro Toronto, 70% of those in Ottawa-Carleton, and55% of those in Thunder Bay expressed this desire (Hawthorne 1989).Everywhere there are signs that attitudes are changing. For instance, the organizers ofthe City of Toronto's Cityplan public process found participants to be "surprisingly anti-car"(Gladki 1991: 34). Local officials, private sector stakeholders, members of public interest groups,and others present at a May 1992 conference on growth and transportation in the Vancouverregion expressed agreement on the need for regional planning, and on the need to diminishreliance on the automobile, increase densities equitably throughout the region, and to createcommunities that are more mixed and self-sufficient (GVRD Development Services 1992b).Planners, architects, engineers, and other professionals are starting to incorporate ecologicalthinking into their work, and to change their ideas of how suburbs should be designed (seeAppendix A). Although much progress remains to be made, Rees and Roseland (1991) haveconcluded that there has never been as much support as there is now for developing sustainablecommunities.6.2 Progress in Policy-making and Urban Development Planning policies, and to some extent urban development, have already begun to move inthe directions suggested in this thesis. The reports produced by the Royal Commission on theFuture of the Toronto Waterfront (e.g. Crombie 1992) are particularly encouraging. Although noton the subject of automobile dependence in particular, this work goes far in advancing the conceptof planning for the sustainability of urban areas. The final report of this Commission,Regeneration, discusses in detail an "ecosystem approach" to planning which recognizes that136everything is connected to everything else, and in particular that urban planning is very muchconnected to ecological health. The work of this commission is especially encouraging because itscommissioner was an influential former mayor of Toronto and (Progressive Conservative) Memberof Parliament.Other significant recent policy documents include Evaluating the Role of the Automobile: A Municipal Strategy, produced by the Healthy City Office of the City of Toronto (1991), andClouds of Change, produced by the City of Vancouver Task Force on Atmospheric Change (1991).In addition to such documents, there is a growing number of municipal plans which specificallyincorporate an environmental theme and principles. Examples include the City of Ottawa OfficialPlan, and draft plans for Metropolitan Toronto and the City of Toronto (see Nawaz 1991;Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto 1992; City of Toronto Planning and Development Department1991). Both Toronto plans make reurbanization a major policy direction.The GVRD's Creating Our Future policy document (GVRD 1990) incorporates someimportant ideas -- such as a priority on walking, cycling, and public transit, strengthening ofregional town centres, and working to create more pedestrian-oriented development -- but this isonly a preliminary policy document, and, as such, is somewhat vague. Significantly, it has littleor no discussion of reurbanization.There is undeniably a danger that such reports may end up gathering dust on the shelf,or that the policies outlined in community plans will not be backed up with specific actions. Theexperience of the Clouds of Change report is certainly not very heartening. Although the reportwas adopted by City Council, very few of its recommendations have actually been followed up on.Nevertheless, some progress is definitely better than none. It is an accomplishment merely tohave environmental principles incorporated into municipal plans policies at all. Commitments tothe environment can be strengthened as time goes on.There are indications that as problems of sprawl and traffic congestion become moreserious in Canada, governments will be prompted to take action. In the U.S., governments havealready begun implementing actions to mitigate these problems, in the form of Growth137Management and Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Growth Management legislationattempts to promote better designed and more efficient urban development and to confine it tolimited areas (see e.g. Florida 1989). Transportation Demand Management programs in U.S. citiesgenerally require developers and/or employers to reduce peak loads on roads through flexible workhours policies and to promote ridesharing and transit use through such means as on-site employeetransportation coordination and parking management provisions (Ferguson 1990; Cervero 1986a).Though such TDM efforts are no substitute for changes in transportation pricing and landdevelopment policies, they do represent an important change in approach for transportationplanning.A final sign of progress on the path to reducing automobile dependence through land usechange is the popularity of so-called neo-traditional developments (see Appendix A). Suchdevelopments are being proposed all over the continent, and quite a few are actually in the processof being built. In Canada, for example, compact mixed-use developments of this type are in theworks for Oakville Ontario's "Uptown Core" (see Planning 1991), new towns in Queensville andMarkham, north of Toronto (see Bogdan 1992; Freedman 1992; Alaton 1992), a new town calledBamberton north of Victoria (see Plan Canada 1992; Norbury 1991), and a project in the Calgaryarea (see Lerner-Lam et aL 1992). Although designers and developers have experienced manyobstacles in their quest to built these projects, most of these have been overcome. Though suchprojects may make only a small contribution to reducing automobile dependence, they do representanother sign of progress.6.3 Conclusion In evaluating the prospects for achieving sustainable land use patterns which significantlyreduce automobile dependence, one must bear in mind that in modern societies change is aconstant. It is extremely doubtful, for example, that today's shopping malls surrounded by acresof parking represent the ultimate culmination of the retail experience. The question is whetherthings are going to get better from the standpoint of automobile dependence or worse.The forces working against improvement in the situation are certainly formidable, but they138are not insurmountable, and there are some forces working for improvement. Although changingland use patterns does not promise to be easy or quick, it is possible. People will eventuallyrealize that an automobile dominated society is untenable, because it is based on assumptions oflimitless resources and limitless sinks for pollution. How quickly this happens will depend to alarge extent on how rapidly the problems of automobile dependence worsen.To many people low density auto-oriented sprawl is the normal expected urban pattern.They have no reason to believe that it will ever change. And yet, this type of land use has beenaround for less than a century -- a tiny blip in human history. It only became dominant about 50years ago -- just before the start of the Cold War -- another feature of human history that mostpeople expected would be more or less permanent.The success of Metro Toronto in developing transit-oriented land use patterns (see Frisken1990; Pill 1988; Newman and Kenworthy 1989a; Kenworthy 1991) shows that progress is possiblein Canadian municipalities if enough coordinated and sustained effort is put into the process. Thefact that great improvements in land use patterns can be made at little direct economic cost tomunicipalities also offers reason to be hopeful about the prospects for increased densities, greatermixing of land uses, and more pedestrian-oriented design.Land use change is indeed possible, but it is a very slow process. Therefore, concertedefforts to bring it about must begin now.139CHAPTER 7CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS7.0 Introduction This chapter summarizes the main points and conclusions of this thesis. Then, in orderto provide a clearer indication of how the conclusions of this thesis can be applied in a real urbanarea, it lists a series of specific recommendations, for various governments, aimed at changingurban form to reduce automobile dependence in Greater Vancouver. Finally, it includes somesuggestions for further research.7.1 Summary and Conclusions Automobile dependence is a serious problem in Canadian cities, with many deleteriousimpacts. Automobiles are responsible, either directly or indirectly, for such problems as smog,traffic accidents, water pollution, and global climate change (see Figure 2-1). These problemsthreaten human health and the livability of cities and impose real financial costs on society. Thephysical and governmental infrastructure needed to support automobile use also represents asignificant financial cost to society. Action to reduce automobile dependence is therefore stronglyjustified, and reducing automobile dependence should be an important goal of urban and regionalplanning.The only way to address all of the problems associated with automobiles is to reducevehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) -- and long-term reductions in VKT will require land usechange. As long as the physical form of cities remains auto-oriented, people will remain verydependent on their automobiles.Land use change is necessary but not sufficient to change travel behaviour. Also neededare coordinated changes to the out-of-pocket costs of travel (a reduction in the subsidy ofautomobile use), as well as changes in the provision and allocation of transportation infrastructure,140and other changes aimed at making communities healthier, safer, and generally more livable.The necessary changes to city form are known. A review of published research reveals thata metropolitan area designed to minimize automobile dependence would have the followingcharacteristics:• compact shape and form;• polycentric form - with retail and office uses, high density housing, and community facilitiesconcentrated in a mixed-use pedestrian-oriented CBD and similar subcentres linked by fastand convenient public transit service;• densities high enough to support good transit service throughout the metropolitan area, but withhigher densities closer to downtowns and near transit routes and stations;• an overall residential density equivalent to two-storey townhouses, but a mixture of housingtypes (including low-rise apartments, granny flats, triplexes, row houses, detached houses,etc.) (see Table 3-3);• a reasonable balance of jobs and housing in its component parts;• greater mixture of compatible and mutually-supporting uses than at present (e.g. conveniencestores located throughout residential areas) (see Table 3-5);• pedestrian-orientation throughout -- designed to keep walking distances short and walkingroutes safe and pleasant;• network of linear parks and other open spaces, with public pathways;• neighbourhoods forming an interconnected pattern of "urban villages" focused on pedestrian-oriented mixed-use "main streets" containing neighbourhood services;• main streets and larger mixed-use centres designed with cyclists and pedestrians in mind:- buildings flush against and oriented to sidewalks- buildings close together, not separated by parking or grassed buffer strips- retail uses with windows at grade- store entrances facing sidewalks- narrow frontages- variety of building age, colour, texture, height, and style- absence of drive-through facilities- limited amount of car parking, with parking located to the rear or underground, andwith access from side streets or back lanes- secure bicycle parking facilities- shower and change facilities for cyclists in larger buildings- sidewalk amenities;• neighbourhoods designed with pedestrians, cyclists, and transit in mind:- interconnected network of streets, designed to make both actual and perceived distancesto transit stops short- direct pedestrian routes (preferably sidewalks) through neighbourhoods to neighbourhoodschools and shopping areas- relatively narrow street widths and small curb radii- higher densities closer to transit stops and neighbourhood centres- buildings oriented to public streets rather than private streets or other internal areas- buildings sited and designed, and front yards landscaped, to provide easy access forpedestrians, surveillance of the street, and an attractive streetscape- higher density buildings designed to preserve the amenities of lower densities as muchas possible- garages set back from the fronts of houses, with access via back lanes, at least fornarrower lots- parking for multi-family housing located to the rear or underground.141Higher densities, greater mixing of land uses and better, more pedestrian-oriented designare all needed. One or two of these characteristics alone will be unlikely to affect automobiledependence very much.Change is needed in new development on greenfield sites, but there is a much greater needto direct growth, instead, to existing urban and suburban areas. Reurbanization or intensificationof all parts of a city, through conversion, infill, and redevelopment, should be the main priority.In addition to decreasing automobile dependence, such land use changes would have manyother benefits; i.e., they would support many other planning goals. These benefits includeincreasing the provision of affordable housing, creating "life-cycle" communities, improving thevitality of existing urban areas, decreasing space-heating energy requirements, and so on. Suchchanges are widely agreed to be not only consistent with, but essential to, making cities moresustainable.Such changes would have some costs; i.e., they would conflict with some planning goals.They would cause a certain amount of disruption to existing neighbourhoods and would make itmore difficult for people to own detached single family homes. There is little evidence, however,for many of the other potential costs predicted by critics, such as, for example, the exacerbationof pollution and crime problems.Achieving land use changes consistent with reducing automobile dependence will not beeasy. There are numerous obstacles, including: existing urban form, existing land use andtransportation policies and regulations, a lack of coordination of planning, consumer preferences,and other attitudinal or political barriers. There is inertia and resistance to change among all thegroups connected with urban development: politicians, planners, engineers, developers, lenders,builders, and other citizens. Nevertheless, though the obstacles are formidable, they are notinsurmountable.All the actors connected with the development process need to change their attitudesregarding urban development and, as the City of Vancouver's Urban Landscape Task Force(1992:7) has put it, to "Think ecology in the planning, design, and decision-making processes." All142governments need to recognize and acknowledge the interconnections among land use,transportation, and social and ecological health, and make sustainability a primary goal of policy-making. Governments must make the sustainability of urban areas an important priority, makereducing automobile dependence a key component of that priority, and support land use changeas an essential means to reduce this dependence.Changing land use will, of course, require changing land use plans, policies andregulations. There is a need for increased flexibility in some policies and regulations, decreasedflexibility in others, and the use of incentives and disincentives. Specifically, action should betaken to:• limit new development on the urban fringe, particularly "leapfrogging" of development;• encourage higher densities and greater mixing of uses, both in new development and especiallyin already developed areas through processes of reurbanization (see Section 3.4);• direct most forms of commercial development, high density residential development, andcommunity facilities to mixed-use pedestrian-oriented subcentres;• prevent the construction of isolated office and industrial parks, shopping malls, and auto-oriented strip development;• reduce the provision of parking for automobiles, and require the provision of secure parking forbicycles, as well as showers and change facilities where appropriate;• develop a network of linear parks and other public ways;• support the creation of neighbourhood "urban villages";• require new design to be oriented to pedestrians, cyclists, and transit, and encourage thegradual redesign of existing development (see Section 3.5);• etc.However, changes to land use planning are not enough. What is needed is acomprehensive approach coordinating land use and transportation planning within a frameworkaimed at increasing the overall livability and sustainability of a metropolitan area. Changes mustbe made in economic and social policies to support the reduction of automobile dependence. Inparticular, governments should act to pass on the societal costs of sprawl to its occupants and toprice automobile use to reflect both its direct and indirect costs to society.Changes to institutional frameworks are needed as well to ensure that rules are consistentacross an urban region, that growth is directed and managed in the best interests of the regionas a whole, and that residents are given significant input on the future of their region and theirneighbourhoods.Creating and sustaining the political will necessary to change city form and to reduce143automobile dependence will not be easy. It will require a process of mutual education, and it willrequire early and creative involvement of the public. All persons and groups committed to thesetransformations will need to do their best to convince others. Public interest groups will have tolobby governments -- and planners will have to devise effective methods of demonstrating the needfor and advantages of such changes. The CIP could help to bring about change by activelypromoting the goal of sustainability and by playing a more active role as an advocate forsustainable land use patterns.Maintaining support will also require an incremental approach to change that is sensitiveto people's concerns. An incremental approach allows for a gradual evolution of attitudes as peopleadjust to small changes in policy and urban form.There are some trends working in the direction of the changes proposed in this thesis, andsome signs of change already taking place. The problems resulting from automobile dependenceare becoming more obvious and concern is growing. As well, land is becoming more expensive andpeople's housing needs and wants are changing. People have demonstrated, by their participationin recycling programs, and in other ways, that they are willing to make at least some effort toimprove environmental quality. Ecologically based urban policy documents are appearing.Pedestrian-oriented neo-traditional suburban development is attracting a market. These are smallsteps, but they do offer reason for optimism.With concerted action, progress can be made, but reducing automobile dependence throughchanging urban form is bound to be a gradual, long-term, and complicated process. It is thereforeessential to be prepared for this reality, and to start work on this process now.7.2 Recommendations in the Vancouver Context Recommended actions with regard to changing land use patterns to reduce automobiledependence have already been stated in a generic way in Chapter 5 and reiterated in the previoussection. All of these general recommendations regarding policies, institutional arrangements andthe planning process would apply to the Vancouver situation. This section provides only somespecific examples of how these recommendations should be applied in the Vancouver context. It144does not provide a complete list of all the actions that governments in the Vancouver area shouldundertake, as this would be unnecessarily repetitive.It is recommended that the government of the Province of British Columbia undertake thefollowing actions:• Delegate regional land use and transportation planning powers to the Greater VancouverRegional District. Give the GVRD the authority to create a binding land use andtransportation plan for the region as a whole, and require local municipalities toharmonize their plans, policies, and regulations with the regional plan.• Expand the boundaries of the GVRD to better reflect the commutershed. Expand theboundaries to encompass at least all the municipalities currently in the Vancouver CMA.(This would entail adding Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge.)• Study the reform of governance within the GVRD. Look into whether the current formsof government and municipal boundaries could be changed to better reflect the needs anddesires of the inhabitants of the region.• Transfer control over the transit authority (BC Transit) to the GVRD from the ProvincialGovernment, to allow for better coordination of its activities with those of the GVRD andits members. Require local governments to consult with the transit authority in their landuse planning, zoning and subdivision processes.• Investigate the potential use of various economic means of discouraging automobile travelin the GVRD: e.g. gasoline taxes, road pricing, tolls, parking taxes, etc.The Greater Vancouver Regional District and the local governments within it shouldundertake the following actions:• Revise plans and policies to incorporate the goal of reducing automobile dependence andthe objective of developing an urban form consistent with this. Support these aims withthe specific policies and criteria for urban form and design outlined in this thesis (seeSection 7.1).• Make reurbanization a priority and the primary means of accommodating growth in the145region. Support the development of Regional Town Centres and the provision of higherdensity housing adjacent to downtown Vancouver. Make these, and other areas presentlywell-served by transit, such as the area in the vicinity of all Skytrain stations, a focus ofintensification efforts -- but not the only focus. Attempt to intensify all parts of the GVRDand make them pedestrian- and transit-oriented. Limit new development on the urbanfringe.Specifically, the GVRD should do the following:• Develop a regional plan which truly integrates regional land use and transportationplanning. This plan should set out where exactly the long-term growth the region canexpect will be accommodated, what physical form it should take, and what transportationimprovements are planned to serve it.• Equitably distribute projected growth over the near term within the GVRD, based onconsultations with local municipalities, and bearing in mind the location of Regional TownCentres and projected transit improvements.• Work with the Provincial Government and BC Transit to improve transit service, andattempt to use rapid transit as a catalyst for land use change.• Develop and maintain a central Geographic Information System containing annual dataon land use, density, and trip-making behaviour for small sectors of the GVRD.Finally, local municipalities in the GVRD should:• Aim to achieve densities comparable to the present density of the City of Vancouver (orhigher, especially in the case of the City of Vancouver itself).• Revise plans and policies to include specific measures aimed at reducing automobiledependence. Develop a broad plan for the structure of the municipality, which sets out anequitable sharing of growth among the various parts of that municipality. Include specificdesign guidelines.• Rewrite regulations, standards, and procedures governing new development to ensure that146it is pedestrian-, cyclist-, and transit-oriented -- not auto-oriented. Limit isolatedcommercial uses.• Work closely with neighbourhood residents to plan different gradual reurbanizationscenarios in all neighbourhoods. Rewrite regulations governing conversion, infill, andredevelopment.7.3 Suggestions for Further Research This thesis has covered a lot of ground and touched on many different issues. It wouldtherefore be possible to provide a very long list of subjects in which further research is required.For the sake of brevity, however, this section will highlight only those subjects for further researchwhich are most important and which are most directly related to land use planning.There is a particular need for better information, and quantitative data in particular, onthe relationship between urban form and design characteristics and automobile use. It would beuseful to have more data on travel behaviour in many different environments, ranging from thescale of the neighbourhood to that of the metropolis, and on what factors affect this. This researchmight take the form of a survey of the walking habits of the residents of various neighbourhoods,including neo-traditional neighbourhoods. Or it might take the form of a more sophisticatedcomparison of world cities than has been performed by Newman and Kenworthy (1989a). Evenan extension of Newman and Kenworthy's analysis to include Canadian cities in addition toToronto would be valuable. More study is also needed of the effectiveness of specific designs anddesign elements in encouraging pedestrian or cycling activity.There is a need for a better understanding of consumer preferences related to land use andtransportation, the reasons for these preferences, and the potential for them to change. How muchmarket potential is there for neo-traditional development in its current form, or in less car-oriented forms?Planners need to know more about how to encourage desired forms of development, suchas a wider variety of housing types, and desired changes to existing development, throughprocesses such as residential intensification. How can public support for reurbanization be147encouraged?Planners also need to know better how to transform existing automobile-orienteddevelopment into forms oriented to sustainable modes of transportation -- what changes shouldbe involved, and how this process can be encouraged. How, for example, can the sprawl along No.3 Road in Richmond, B.C. be transformed into a pedestrian-oriented Town Centre? Growing acentre in a suburb is a complex process that presents many problems, and about which muchremains to be learned.There is a need for further research on the most effective strategies for implementingpolicies and actions to reduce automobile dependence and change urban form. Greater analysisof the implementation experiences of various jurisdictions would be useful in devising these.Finally, there is a need for further research on the best strategy for reducing automobiledependence in greater Vancouver specifically, and the development of a detailed step-by-stepprogram for achieving change in this region.148BIBLIOGRAPHYAlaton, Salem. 1992. Reviving the Suburbs. Globe and Mail (Toronto Edition), 16 May, Dl and D4.Alberta Municipal Affairs. 1985. Energy Conservation Through Land Use Planning: Resource Kit.Edmonton: Alberta Municipal Affairs.Alexander, Christopher, Sara Ishikawa, and Murray Silverstein, with Max Jacobson, IngridFiksdahl-King, and Shlomo Angel. 1977. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press.Allen, John G. 1986. Public-Private Joint Development at Rapid Transit Stations. TransportationQuarterly 40, 3: 317-331.Altshuler, Alan, with James P. Womack, and John R. Pucher. 1979. The Urban Transportation System: Politics and Policy Innovation. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.American Planning Association (APA). 1989. New Traditionalism in Suburban Design. ZoningNews, (June): 1-2.American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders, and Urban LandInstitute (ASCE, NAHB and ULI). 1990. Residential Streets. Second Edition. n.p.:American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders, and UrbanLand Institute.Andersen, Kurt. 1991. Oldfangled New Towns. Time 137, 20: 52-55.Anderson, Susan. 1991. High-Density Housing Guidelines: Vancouver Accommodates Familieswith Children. Canadian Housing 8, 3: 26-30.Artibise, Alan F.J., Jay Wollenberg, Norman Hotson, and Arthur Fallick. 1990. Town Centres and the Livable Region: A Strategy for the 1990s. Burnaby, B.C.: Greater Vancouver RegionalDistrict. April 1990.Atkinson, Simon. 1988. Introduction. In Transit, Land Use & Urban Form, ed. Wayne Attoe, 1-6.Austin: Center for the Study of American Architecture, School of Architecture, TheUniversity of Texas at Austin.Attoe, Wayne, ed. 1988. Transit, Land Use & Urban Form. Austin: Center for the Study ofAmerican Architecture, School of Architecture, The University of Texas at Austin.Audirac, Ivonne, Anne H. Shermyen, and Marc T. Smith. 1990. Ideal Urban Form and Visions ofthe Good life: Florida's Growth Management Dilemma. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation 56, 4: 470-482.Austin, Janet. 1992. B.C.'s Social Housing Programs. PIBC News 34, 1: 6-8.Barber, John. 1992. City Hall Crosses Main Streets. Globe and Mail (Toronto Edition), 30 April,D8.149Barnett, Jonathan. 1989. Redesigning the Metropolis: The Case for a New Approach. Journal ofthe American Planning Association 55, 2: 131-135.Bergdoll, James R., and Rick W. Williams. 1990. Density Perception on Residential Streets.Berkeley Planning Journal 5: 15-38.Bogdan, Joseph. 1992. The Design of Queensville New Town. Plan Canada, (May): 14-15.Bohn, Glenn. 1992. Every Breath We Take - Part Two: A Quiet Killer Spews from the Tail Pipe.Vancouver Sun, 16 June, Al and A16.^. 1993. Warning: We're Fouling Our Nest. Vancouver Sun, 6 February, B1 and B7.Boles, Daralice D. 1989. Reordering the Suburbs. Progressive Architecture 70, 5: 78-91.Bookout, Lloyd W. 1990. Jobs and Housing: The Search for Balance. Urban Land 49, 10: 5-9.^. 1992a. Neotraditional Town Planning: A New Vision For the Suburbs? Urban Land 51,1: 20-26.^. 1992b. Neotraditional Town Planning. Cars, Pedestrians, And Transit. Urban Land 51,2: 10-15.^. 1992c. Neotraditional Town Planning: Bucking Conventional Codes and Standards.Urban Land 51, 4: 18-25.^. 1992d. Neotraditional Town Planning: The Test of the Marketplace. Urban Land 51, 6:12-17.^ 1992e. Neotraditional Town Planning: Towards a Blending of Design Approaches. UrbanLand 51, 8: 14-19.Boothroyd, Peter. 1976. The Energy Crisis and Future Urban Form in Alberta. Plan Canada 16,3/4: 137-146.Bousfield, J.R. 1992. New Avenues to Draft Approval. Plan Canada, (May): 17-20.Bowes, W., M. Gravel, and G. Noxon. 1991. Guide to Transit Considerations in the Subdivision Design and Approval Process. Ottawa: Transportation Association of Canada.Bradshaw, Chris. 1990. Making Ottawa More Walkable. City Magazine 11, 2 & 3: 13-14.British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1992. Ensuring Clean Air: Developing a Clean Air Strategy for British Columbia. Victoria: Province of BritishColumbia. April 1992.Burby, Raymond J., Janice A. Higgens, Edward J. Kaiser, Cynthia L Matthews, and Mario N.Stanco. 1982. Saving Energy in Residential Development: A Report for Local Government.Chapel Hill, N.C.: Center for Urban and Regional Studies, The University of NorthCarolina at Chapel Hill. November 1982.Calthorpe, Peter. 1986a. The Urban Context. In Sustainable Communities: A New DesignSynthesis for Cities, Suburbs, and Towns, ed. Sim Van der Ryn and Peter Calthorpe, 1-33.San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.150^.1986b. A Short History of Twentieth Century New Towns. In Sustainable Communities: A New Design Synthesis for Cities, Suburbs, and Towns, ed. Sim Van der Ryn and PeterCalthorpe, 189-234. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.^. 1989a. Introduction: A Reverse Definition. In The Pedestrian Pocket Book: A NewSuburban Design Strategy, ed. Doug Kelbaugh, 3-5. New York: Princeton ArchitecturalPress.^. 1989b. Pedestrian Pockets: New Strategies for Suburban Growth. In The Pedestrian Pocket Book: A New Suburban Design Strategy, ed. Doug Kelbaugh, 7-20. New York:Princeton Architectural Press.^. 1992. Urban Design and Quality of Life. Lecture presented by the Urban DevelopmentInstitute in Vancouver, B.C., 23 October.Calthorpe Associates, in association with Mintier & Associates. 1990. Transit-OrientedDevelopment Design Guidelines. Prepared for Sacramento County Planning & CommunityDevelopment Department. November 1990. (Cited in Roseland 1992.)Calthorpe Associates. 1992. City of San Diego Land Guidance System: Transit-OrientedDevelopment Design Guidelines. May 1992.Canada. Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. 1982. A Guide to Municipal EnergySavings. Ottawa: Energy, Mines and Resources Canada.Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). 1982. New Housing in ExistingNeighbourhoods: Advisory Document. Ottawa: CMHC.Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP). 1981. Energy Brief to the Federal Government. Ottawa:CIP. December 1981.^. 1990. Reflections on Sustainable Planning: The Implications of Sustainable Developmentfor Planning and the Canadian Institute of Planners: A Discussion Paper Based on a Workshop Held In Montreal, September 7-9, 1990. Ottawa: CIP.Canadian Urban Transit Association and Roads and Transportation Association of Canada (CUTAand RTAC). 1985. Canadian Transit Handbook. Second Edition. [Toronto]: CanadianUrban Transit Association and Roads and Transportation Association of Canada.Canfield, Christopher, ed. 1990. Ecocity Conference 1990: Report of the First International EcocityConference, March 29 - April 1, 1990, Berkeley, California. Berkeley: Urban Ecology.Cappe, Lorne. 1991. Setting the Stage for Main Street Housing. Places 7, 2: 76-79.Casselton, Valerie. 1993. At Home With Work. Vancouver Sun, 16 February, Dl and D4.Cervero, Robert. 1984. Light Rail Transit and Urban Development. Journal of the American Planning Association 50, 2: 133-147.^. 1986a. Suburban Gridlock. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research.^. 1986b. Curbing Traffic in Fast-Growing Suburbs. ITS Review 9, 3: 4-8.^.1986c. Urban Transit in Canada: Integration and Innovation at Its Best. Transportation 151Quarterly 40, 3: 293-316.^. 1987. Transportation and Urban Development: Perspectives for the Nineties. WorkingPaper No. 470. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley. August 1987.^. 1988. Land-Use Mixing and Suburban Mobility. Transportation Quarterly 42, 3: 429-446.^. 1989a. America's Suburban Centers: The Land-Use Transportation Link. London:Unwin-Hyman.^. 1989b. Suburban Employment Centers: Probing the Influence of Site Features on theJourney-to-Work. Journal of Planning Education and Research 8, 2: 75-85.^.1989c. Jobs-Housing Balancing and Regional Mobility. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation 55, 2: 136-150.^. 1991a. Congestion Relief: The Land Use Alternative. Journal of Planning Education and Research 10, 2: 119-129.^. 1991b. Jobs/Housing Balance as Public Policy. Urban Land 50, 10: 10-14.Chibuk, John H. 1977. Energy and Urban Form. Ottawa: Ministry of State for Urban AffairsCanada. June 1977.Chinitz, Benjamin. 1990. Growth Management: Good for the Town, Bad for the Nation?. Journal of the American Planning Association 56, 1: 3-8. rChristy, Hazel. 1987. Town Centre Development in Edmonton. Research Paper No. 17. Edmonton:Statutory Planning Unit, Long Range Planning Branch, Planning and BuildingDepartment, City of Edmonton. January 1987.City of Toronto. Planning and Development Department. 1980. Proposed Energy Policies: City ofToronto Official Plan. Toronto: City of Toronto.^. 1990a. The City in the Region: A Background Report on Regional Planning Issues.Cityplan '91 Background Report No. 13. Toronto: City of Toronto. December 1990.^. 1990b. Housing Employment Linkage Study. Cityplan '91 Background Report No. 18.Toronto: City of Toronto. December 1990.^. 1991. Cityplan '91 Proposals Report. Toronto: City of Toronto. June 1991.City of Toronto. Special Advisory Committee on the Environment. 1991. The ChangingAtmosphere: Strategies for Reducing CO, Emissions: Policy Overview. Toronto: City ofToronto. March 1991.City of Toronto & the Technical Workgroup on Traffic Calming and Vehicle Emission Reduction.1991. Evaluating the Role of the Automobile: A Municipal Strategy. Toronto: Healthy CityOffice, City of Toronto. September 1991.City of Vancouver. Planning Department. 1978. Housing Families at High Densities. Vancouver:City of Vancouver. October 1978.152City of Vancouver. Task Force on Atmospheric Change. 1990. Clouds of Change: Final Report ofthe City of Vancouver Task Force on Atmospheric Change. Vancouver: City of Vancouver.June 1990.City of Vancouver. Urban Landscape Task Force. 1992. Urban Landscape Ideas Paper: InterimReport of the Urban Landscape Task Force. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. March 1992.Commoner, Barry. 1971. The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and Technology. New York: Alfred A.Knopf.Cook, Robert S., Jr. 1980. Zoning for Downtown Urban Design. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath andCompany.Cooper-Marcus, Clare. 1986. Design as if People Mattered. In Sustainable Communities: A NewDesign Synthesis for Cities, Suburbs, and Towns, ed. Sim Van der Ryn and PeterCalthorpe, 121-129. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.Crilly, Martin L. 1992. Greater Vancouver: Transportation Implications of a "Business As Usual"Pattern of Urban Development. In Shaping Our Communities: The Challenges of Regional Growth and Transportation: Proceedings of a Conference in Surrey, B.C., 23 May 1992, bythe Greater Vancouver Regional District. Burnaby: GVRD. July 1992.Crombie, David (Commissioner, Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront). 1992.Regeneration: Toronto's Waterfront and the Sustainable City: Final Report. Toronto: RoyalCommission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront.Cullingworth, J. Barry. 1990. Introduction. In Energy, Land, and Public Policy, ed. J. BarryCullingworth, 1-10. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.Curcio, Paul D. 1988. Transit and Planning Techniques in San Diego. In Transit, Land Use &Urban Form, ed. Wayne Attoe, 89-100. Austin: Center for the Study of AmericanArchitecture, School of Architecture, The University of Texas at Austin.Cushman, King. 1988a. Exploring the Land Development and Transit Connection. In Transit,Land Use & Urban Form, ed. Wayne Attoe, 9-36. Austin: Center for the Study of AmericanArchitecture, School of Architecture, The University of Texas at Austin.^. 1988b. Joint Development at Transit Stations. In Transit, Land Use & Urban Form, ed.Wayne Attoe, 179-188. Austin: Center for the Study of American Architecture, School ofArchitecture, The University of Texas at Austin.Daly, Herman E., and John B. Cobb, Jr. 1989. For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economytoward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Boston: Beacon Press.D'Amour, David. 1991. The Origins of Sustainable Development and Its Relationship to Housingand Community Planning. Sustainable Development and Housing Research Paper No. 1.Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. January 1991.Deakin, Elizabeth. 1989. Land Use and Transportation Planning in Response to CongestionProblems: A Review and Critique. Transportation Research Record 1237: 77-86.Delcan, Deleuw Cather, Western Ltd. 1983. A Strategy for Energy Efficient Residential Land Use for the City of Lethbridge. Edmonton: Innovative Housing Grants Program, AlbertaMunicipal Affairs. September 1983.153Delsohn, Gary. 1989. The First Pedestrian Pocket. Planning 55, 12: 20-22.Dillon, David. 1989. Las Colinas Revisited. Planning 55, 12: 6-11.Dodson, Harry L. 1992. Regional Design Based on Traditional Patterns. Lecture in Akan Lectureson Architecture series, presented by the Vancouver League for Studies in Architecture andthe Environment in Vancouver, B.C., 3 November.Duany, Andres. 1991. Traditional Neighbourhood Development. Proceedings and Summary of aSeminar and Workshop in Vancouver, 24 & 25 September. Vancouver: Urban DevelopmentInstitute Pacific Region and Greater Vancouver Regional District.Duany, Andres, and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. 1992. The Second Coming of the American SmallTown. Plan Canada, (May): 6-13.Ducote, Frank. 1990. Making Cities Walkable. PIBC News 32, 4: 3-4.Eager, William R. 1984. Innovative Approaches to Transportation for Growing Areas. Urban Land 43, 7: 6-11.Elkin, Tim, and Duncan McLaren, with Mayer Hillman. 1991. Reviving the City: Towards Sustainable Urban Development. London: Friends of the Earth.Environment Canada. Lands Directorate. 1985. Urbanization of Rural Land in Canada. Fact Sheet85-4. Ottawa: Environment Canada. December 1985.Erley, Duncan, and David Mosena. 1980. Energy-conserving Development Regulations: CurrentPractice. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 352. Chicago: American PlanningAssociation. August 1980.Erley, Duncan, David Mosena, and Efraim Gil. 1979. Energy-Efficient Land Use. PlanningAdvisory Service Report No. 341. Chicago: American Planning Association. May 1979.Ferguson, Erik. 1990. Transportation Demand Management: Planning, Development, andImplementation. Journal of the American Planning Association 56, 4: 442-456.Filpenko, J.D. 1992. Letter to the editor. Vancouver Sun, 24 January, A14.Fischel, William A. 1991. Good for the Town, Bad for the Nation?: A Comment. Journal of the American Planning Association 57, 3: 341-344.Flachsbart, Peter G. 1979. Residential Site Planning and Perceived Densities. Journal of theUrban Planning and Development Division, American Society of Civil Engineers 105, UP2:103-117.Florida. Governor's Task Force on Urban Growth Patterns. 1989. Final Report. Tallahassee,Florida: Governor's Task Force on Urban Growth Patterns.Forester, John. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of California Press.Fowler, E.P. 1991. Land Use in the Ecologically Sensible City. Alternatives 18, 1: 26-35.Freedman, Adele. 1992. Hot Miami Duo Takes a Step Forward, Albeit Back in Time. Globe andMail (Toronto Edition), 2 May, C6.154Frisken, Frances. 1990. The Contributions of Metropolitan Government to the Success of Toronto's Public Transit System.  Urban Studies Working Paper No. 14. North York: York University.Fulton, William. 1991. Winning Over the Street People. Planning 57, 5: 8-11.Garreau, Joel. 1988. Edge Cities. Landscape Architecture  78, 8: 48-55.Gehl, Jan. 1992. Make One City, And Make It A Good One. Plan Canada, (May): 31-34.Gibb-Clark, Margot. 1991. Satellite Office a Hit with Staff. Globe and Mail (National Edition),  18November, B4.Gilbert, Richard. 1991. The Imperative for Housing on Main Streets. Places 7, 2: 74.Giuliano, Genevieve. 1992. Transportation Demand Management: Promise or Panacea? Journal of the American Planning Association  58, 3: 327-335.Gladki, John. 1991. Cityplan '91: Leaving the 20th Century. Plan Canada 31, 2: 30-34.Gordon, Peter, and Harry W. Richardson. 1989. Gasoline Consumption and Cities: A Reply.Journal of the American Planning Association  55, 3: 342-346.Gorrie, Peter. 1991. North York's Instant Downtown. Canadian Geographic  111, 2: 66-73.Graham, Michael. 1990. Down Shifting. Planning 56, 6: 24-25.Gratz, Roberta Brandes. 1989. The Living City. New York: Simon and Schuster.Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). 1990. Creating Our Future: Steps to a More Livable Region. Burnaby: GVRD. September 1990.^. 1992. Let's Clear the Air: Air Quality Management Plan: Discussion Paper.  Burnaby:GVRD. May 1992.Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). Development Services Department. 1992a. GreaterVancouver Key Facts: A Statistical Profile of Greater Vancouver, Canada.  Burnaby: GVRD.June 1992.^. 1992b. Shaping Our Communities: The Challenges of Regional Growth andTransportation: Proceedings of a Conference in Surrey, B.C., 23 May 1992.  Burnaby:GVRD. July 1992.Green, Rodney D., and David M. James. 1989. Can a Rapid Rail Transit System Limit SuburbanSprawl? Impacts on Employment Location of the Washington D.C., Area Metrorail System.In Suburbia Re-examined, ed. Barbara M. Kelly, 69-77. Westport, Connecticut: GreenwoodPress.Greenberg, Ken. 1988. Transit and Changing Urban Character. In Transit, Land Use & UrbanForm ed. Wayne Attoe, 47-54. Austin: Center for the Study of American Architecture,School of Architecture, The University of Texas at Austin.Grove, Noel. 1990. Greenways: Paths to the Future. National Geographic 177, 6: 76-99.Haines, Valerie A. 1986. Energy and Urban Form: A Human Ecological Critique. Urban Affairs155Quarterly 21, 3: 337-353.Hales, Charles A. 1991. Higher Density + Certainty = Affordable Housing for Portland, Oregon.Urban Land 50, 9: 12-15.Hall, Peter. 1988. Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design inthe Twentieth Century. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.^. 1991. Managing Growth in the World's Cities. Berkeley Planning Journal 6: 19-35.Hamblen, Matt. 1992. Frontierland. Planning 58, 4: 16-21.Handy, Susan. 1991. Neo-Traditional Development: The Debate. Berkeley Planning Journal 6:135-144.Hanson, Mark E. 1992. Automobile Subsidies and Land Use: Estimates and Policy Responses.Journal of the American Planning Association 58, 1: 60-71.Hardwick, Walter, Raymon Torchinsky, and Arthur Fallick. 1990. Greater Vancouver UrbanFutures Opinion Survey 1990: Technical Report. Burnaby: Greater Vancouver RegionalDistrict. May 1990.Hare, F. K. 1981. Future Climate and the Canadian Economy. A Separate from the ClimateChange Seminar Proceedings, Regina, Saskatchewan, March 17-19, 1981. Ottawa:Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service.^. 1988. Jumping the Greenhouse Gun?. Nature 334, 6184: 646.Harwood, Corbin Crews. 1977. Using Land to Save Energy. Environmental Comment, (July): 9-10.Hawthorne, Wendy. 1989. Why Ontarians Walk, Why Ontarians Don't Walk More: A Study IntoThe Walking Habits of Ontarians. Toronto: Energy Probe. June 1989.Hildebrandt-Young and Associates. 1978. Energy: A Background Paper on the Energy Crisis and the City of Winnipeg. Winnipeg: Winnipeg Tri-Level Committee on Urban Affairs.Hill, Marcel. 1992. Rolling Anarchy Haunts Roadways. Vancouver Sun, 31 July, A3.Hope, Daphne, and Dwight Yachuk. 1990. Canadian Institute of Planners Community CyclingManual: A Planning and Design Guide. Ottawa: Canadian Institute of Planners. March1990.Howe, Deborah A. 1990. The Flexible House: Designing for Changing Needs. Journal of theAmerican Planning Association 56, 1: 69-77.Hudson, Mike. 1978. The Bicycle Planning Book. London: Open Books/Friends of the Earth.Hudson, Mike, Caren Levy, John Nicholson, Richard Macrory, and Peter Snelson. 1982. Bicycle Planning: Policy and Practice. London: The Architectural Press.Hutchinson, Bruce G. 1991. Metropolitan Transportation: Patterns and Planning. In CanadianCities in Transition, ed. Trudi Bunting and Pierre Filion, 263-285. Toronto: OxfordUniversity Press.156Huth, Mary Jo. 1983. Toward a Multi-Nodal Urban Structure. Transportation Quarterly 37, 2:245-262.Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 1989. A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion.Washington, D.C.: ITE.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 1990. Climate Change: The IPCC ScientificAssessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Jackson, Kenneth T. 1985. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. NewYork: Oxford University Press.Jacobs, Allan, and Donald Appleyard. 1987. Toward an Urban Design Manifesto. Journal of theAmerican Planning Association 53, 1: 112-120.Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books.Johnston, Robert A., and Steve Tracy. 1983. Suburban Resistance to Density Increases nearTransit Stations in the San Francisco Bay Area. In The Social Constraints on EnergyPolicy Implementation, ed. Max Neiman and Barbara J. Birt, 89-118. Lexington, Mass.:Lexington Books.Kay, Jane Holtz. 1991. Building a There There. Planning 57, 1: 4-8.Keefer, Louis E. 1982. Environmental Concerns Affecting Future Urban Transportation. In UrbanTransportation: Perspectives and Prospects, ed. Herbert Levinson and Robert A. Weant,71-80. Westport, Connecticut: Eno Foundation for Transportation Inc.^. 1985. Joint Development at Transit Stations in the United States. Transportation 12:333-342.Kelbaugh, Doug, ed. 1989. The Pedestrian Pocket Book: A New Suburban Design Strategy. NewYork: Princeton Architectural Press.Kellogg, William W., and Robert Schware. 1981. Climate Change and Society: Consequences ofIncreasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Kemble, Roger. 1992. Revisiting the Canadian City: St. John's to Victoria: A Critical Commentary.Plan Canada, (May): 21-25.Kenworthy, Jeffrey R. 1991. The Land Use and'Transit Connection in Toronto: Some Lessons forAustralian Cities. Australian Planner 29, 3: 149-154.Kerr, Richard A. 1990. New Greenhouse Report Puts Down Dissenters. Science 249, 4968: 481-482.Keyes, Dale L. 1982. Reducing Travel and Fuel Use Through Land Use Planning. In Energy andLand Use, ed. Robert W. Burchell and David Listokin, 214-232. New Brunswick, N.J.:Center for Urban Policy Research.Kim, Kwang-Sik, and J.B. Schneider. 1985. Defining Relationships Between Urban Form andTravel Energy. Transportation Research Record 1049: 43-50.Klein & Sears, Environics Research Group, Clayton Research Associates, Lewinberg Consultants,and Walker, Poole, Milligan. 1983. Study of Residential Intensification and Rental Housing157Conversion. Part 1: Detailed Summary of Findings and Recommendations. Toronto:Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Association of Municipalitiesof Ontario. March 1983.Kluckner, Michael. 1991. Paving Paradise: Is British Columbia Losing Its Heritage?. Vancouver:Whitecap Books.Knack, Ruth Eckdish. 1989. Repent, Ye Sinners Repent. Planning 55, 8: 4-13.^. 1991a. Let's Get Physical. Planning 57, 9: 8-12.^. 1991b. Tony Nelessen's Do-It-Yourself Neotraditionalism. Planning 57, 12: 18-22.Knight, Robert L. 1980. The Impact of Rail Transit on Land Use: Evidence and a Change ofPerspective. Transportation 9: 3-16.Kulash, Walter. 1991. Neo-Traditional Development -- Will the Traffic Work?: Outline of Findingsand Conclusions. Written summary of a lecture presented by the Urban DevelopmentInstitute in Vancouver, B.C., 5 December.Kuzmickas, Nijole. 1992. Trying to Break Addiction to Cars. Vancouver Sun, 23 January, A3.Lang, Reg. 1985. Energy and Density. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. June1985.Lang, Reg, and Audrey Armour. 1980. Energy Conservation and the Municipal Planner. Ottawa:Conservation and Renewable Energy Branch, Energy, Mines and Resources Canada.February 1980.Lang, Reg, and Audrey Armour. 1982. Planning Land to Conserve Energy: 40 Case Studies from Canada and the United States. Land Use in Canada Series, No. 25. Ottawa: LandsDirectorate, Environment Canada. January 1982.Lang, Reg, and John Lounds. 1979. Information Resources for Municipal Energy Planning andManagement. Working Paper No. 1. Downsview, Ontario: Faculty of EnvironmentalStudies, York University. September 1979.Langdon, Philip. 1990. Pumping Up Suburban Downtowns. Planning 56, 7: 22-28.Lavalin Inc. 1979. Subdivision Design Guidelines to Facilitate Transit Services. Ottawa: Ministryof State for Urban Affairs, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and TransportCanada. March 1979.Leccese, Michael. 1990. Next Stop: Transit-Friendly Towns. Landscape Architecture 80, 7: 47-53.Lerner-Lam, Eva, Stephen P. Celniker, Gary W. Halbert, Chester Chellman, and Sherry Ryan.1992. Neo-Traditional Neighbourhood Design and Its Implications for Traffic Engineering.ITE Journal 62, 1: 17-25.Leung, Hok Lin. 1985. Towards a Subjective Approach to Policy Planning and Evaluation: Common-Sense Structured. Winnipeg: Ronald P. Frye & Company.Levin, Melvin R. 1992. We Have Met the Enemy -- and It Ain't Us. Planning 58, 5: 26-27.158Levinson, Herbert S., and Harry E. Strate. 1981. Land Use and Energy Intensity. TransportationResearch Record 812: 67-74.Levy, John M. 1992. What Has Happened to Planning? Journal of the American PlanningAssociation 58, 1: 81-84.Lewis, Sylvia. 1990. The Town That Said No to Sprawl. Planning 56, 4: 14-19.^. 1992. Goodbye Ramapo. Hello, Yakima and Isle of Palms. Planning 58, 7: 9-16.Linteau, Paul-Andre. 1987. Canadian Suburbanization in a North American Context: Does theBorder Make a Difference? Journal of Urban History 13, 3: 252-274.Litman, Todd. 1991. Transportation Efficiency: An Economic Analysis. Unpublished paper.January 1991.Litman, Todd. 1992. Transportation Cost Survey. Unpublished paper. May 1992.Little, Charles E. 1990. Greenways for America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Lorimer, James. 1978. The Developers. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company.Lowe, Marcia D. 1989. The Bicycle: Vehicle for a Small Planet. Worldwatch Paper No. 90.Washington: Worldwatch Institute. September 1989.^. 1990. Alternatives to the Automobile: Transport for Livable Cities. Worldwatch PaperNo. 98. Washington: Worldwatch Institute. October 1990.^. 1991. Shaping Cities: The Environmental and Human Dimensions. Worldwatch PaperNo. 105. Washington: Worldwatch Institute. October 1991.MacBurnie, Ian. 1992. Reconsidering the Dream: Alternative Design for Sustainable SuburbanDevelopment. Plan Canada, (September): 19-23.Martz, Jon F. 1988. Infrastructure Financing and Joint Development. In Transit, Land Use &Urban Form, ed. Wayne Attoe, 161-170. Austin: Center for the Study of AmericanArchitecture, School of Architecture, The University of Texas at Austin.Mason, Gary. 1992. Government Needs Injection to Clean Civic Blues. Vancouver Sun, 7December, B1 and B3.Mathur, Brijesh. 1991. Realizing Old and New Agendas: The Challenge Within. Plan Canada 31,6: 3-8.Mattoff, Tom, John Holtzclaw, and Paul Downton. 1990. Future of Urban Transportation. InEcocity Conference 1990: Report of the First International Ecocity Conference, March 29 -April 1, 1990, Berkeley, California, ed. Christopher Canfield, 40-41. Berkeley: UrbanEcology.McCloud, John. 1990. Sacramento Suburbs to Try 'Pedestrian Pockets.' New York Times, 4 March,Y33.McEachern, Wayne L. 1991. Transit-Friendly Land-Use Planning: A Key Ingredient SupportingUrban Environmental Quality and Economic Development. Plan Canada 31, 5: 15-17.159McHugh, Bob. 1991. Clearing the Air about Auto Emissions. Westworld 17, 4: 30-33.McInnes, Craig. 1991. Strike Fans Debate Over Transit Role. Globe and Mail (Toronto Edition),21 September, A8.Mercer, John, and Michael A. Goldberg. 1986. Value Differences and Their Meaning for UrbanDevelopment in Canada and the U.S. In Power and Place: Canadian Urban Developmentin the North American Context, ed. Gilbert A. Stelter and Alan F. J. Artibise, 343-394.Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Meyer, John R., and Jose A. Gomez-Ibanez. 1981. Autos, Transit, and Cities. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press.Miles, Don C., and Mark L. Hinshaw. 1987. Bellevue's New Approach to Pedestrian Planning andDesign. In Public Streets for Public Use, ed. Anne Vernez Moudon, 221-231. New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.Miller, L.E. 1976. Community Planning for Public Transit. Victoria: Transit Services Division,Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Province of British Columbia. May 1976.Miller, Robert L. 1992. Dropped In On Suburbia. Landscape Architecture 82, 3: 54-57.Mishima, Carrie. 1991. The Computer Commuters. Vancouver Sun, 6 November, D2.Monk, Katherine. 1990. So Long Suburbs -- High Density Living Is Taking Over. Vancouver Sun,8 June, Dl and D5.Moore, Peter W. 1979. Zoning and Planning: The Toronto Experience, 1904-1970. In The UsableUrban Past: Planning and Politics in the Modern Canadian City, ed. Alan F.J. Artibise andGilbert A. Stelter, 316-341. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada.Moore, Robin C. 1987. Streets as Playgrounds. In Public Streets for Public Use, ed. Anne VernezMoudon, 45-62. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.Morris, David. 1982. Self Reliant Cities. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.Morris, Wendy. 1992. Urban Design for Sustainable Development. Lecture presented by the Schoolof Community and Regional Planning, University of B.C., in Vancouver, 19 October.Morton, Brian. 1992. Russian Roulette on the Streets of Vancouver. Vancouver Sun, 17 January,Bl.Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. (MVMA). 1991. MVMA MotorVehicle Facts and Figures '91. Detroit: MVMA.Muller, Peter 0. 1976. The Outer City: Geographical Consequences of the Urbanization of theSuburbs. Resource Paper No. 75-2. Washington: American Association of Geographers.Mumford, Lewis. 1961. The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects.San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Planning Department. Policy Development Division. 1989.Centres and Office Areas. Metropolitan Plan Review Report No. 9. Toronto: Municipalityof Metropolitan Toronto.160Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. 1992. The Liveable Metropolis: The Municipality ofMetropolitan Toronto Draft Official Plan. Toronto: Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.September 1992.Munro, Harold. 1992. Surrey Mayor Blamed for Urban Sprawl. Vancouver Sun, 10 February, A7.Nawaz, Rasheda. 1991. Sustainable Urban Development for Ottawa: Planners Can Make aDifference. Plan Canada 31, 6: 54-58.Neuman, Michael. 1991. Utopia, Dystopia, Diaspora. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation 57, 3: 344-347.Newman, Oscar. 1972. Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. NewYork: The Macmillan Company.Newman, Peter W.G., and Jeffrey R. Kenworthy. 1988. The Transport Energy Trade-off: Fuel-Efficient Traffic versus Fuel-Efficient Cities. Transportation Research A 22A, 3: 163-174.Newman, Peter W.G., and Jeffrey R. Kenworthy. 1989a. Cities and Automobile Dependence: ASourcebook. Aldershot, U.K.: Gower Publishing Company.Newman, Peter W.G., and Jeffrey R. Kenworthy. 1989b. Gasoline Consumption and Cities: AComparison of U.S. Cities with a Global Survey. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation 55, 1: 24-37.Newman, Peter W.G., and Jeffrey R. Kenworthy. 1992. Is There a Role for Physical Planners?Journal of the American Planning Association 58, 3: 353-362.Norbury, Keith. 1991. Malahat Land Claim Clouds Plan for Environmentally Sound Town.Vancouver Sun, 8 November, B6.Nowlan, David M., and Greg Stewart. 1991. Downtown Population Growth and Commuting Trips:Recent Experience in Toronto. Journal of the American Planning Association 57, 2: 165-182.Odam, Jes. 1992. Surrey Doesn't Rate Fringe on Top in Study of '91 Census Information.Vancouver Sun, 6 June, B6.Oliver, Gordon. 1992. 1000 Friends Are Watching. Planning 58, 11: 9-13.Ontario. Ministry of Housing. Project Planning Branch. 1980. Main Street: Planning and DesignGuidelines. Toronto: Community Renewal Branch, Ontario Ministry of Housing. February1980.Ontario. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 1984. Land Use Planning For EnergyConservation. Toronto: Ontario Government Publications.Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 1986. Environmental Effects of Automotive Transport: The OECD COMPASS Project. Paris: OECD.Orski, C. Kenneth. 1985. Suburban Mobility: The Coming Transportation Crisis? TransportationQuarterly 39, 2: 283-296.Owens, Susan. 1986. Energy, Planning and Urban Form. London: Pion Limited.161^. 1990. Land Use Planning for Energy Efficiency. In Energy, Land, and Public Policy, ed.J. Barry Cullingworth, 53-98. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.Owens, Susan, and Peter A. Rickaby. 1983. Energy and the Pattern of Human Settlements. BuiltEnvironment 9, 2: 150-159.Peat Marwick Stevenson and Kellogg. 1992. Determining the Cost of Transporting People in theBritish Columbia Lower Mainland: Draft Project Report. Burnaby: Transport 2021. 1December 1992.Peat Marwick Stevenson and Kellogg. 1993. The Cost of Transporting People in the BritishColumbia Lower Mainland. Transport 2021 Working Paper. Burnaby: Transport 2021. 3March 1992.Peiser, Richard B. 1989. Density and Urban Sprawl. Land Economics 65, 3: 193-204.Pendakur, V. Setty. 1987. Taming the Automobile: Lessons From Singapore. Plan Canada 27, 8:208-214.Perks, William T., and Walter Jamieson. 1991. Planning and Development in Canadian Cities. InCanadian Cities in Transition, ed. Trudi Bunting and Pierre Filion, 488-518. Toronto:Oxford University Press.Pianosi, Karen. 1991. Intensive Care: Public Participation and Urban Design. Plan Canada 31, 6:46-53.Pickrell, Don H., and Donald T. Shoup. 1979. Land Use Zoning as Transport Regulation.Discussion Paper D79-13. Cambridge, Mass.: Department of City and Regional Planning,Harvard University.Pill, Juri. 1983. Emerging Suburban Activity Centres in Metropolitan Toronto. Journal ofAdvanced Transportation 17, 3: 301-315.^. 1988. Toronto: Thirty Years of Transit Development. In Transit, Land Use & UrbanForm, ed. Wayne Attoe, 57-62. Austin: Center for the Study of American Architecture,School of Architecture, The University of Texas at Austin.Plan Canada. 1992. Bamberton: A Different Kind of New Town. Plan Canada, (May): 16.Planning. 1991. Oakville Uptown Core. Planning 51, 1: 29-29.Pious, F.K. 1984. A Desire Named Streetcar. Planning 50, 6: 15-20.Pollution Probe. 1991. The Costs of the Car: A Preliminary Study of the Environmental and SocialCosts Associated with Private Car Use in Ontario. Toronto: Pollution Probe. October 1991.Porter, Douglas R. 1987. The Future Doesn't Work. TR News, no. 133: 14-15.Potter, Stephen. 1984. The Transport Versus Land Use Dilemma. Transportation Research Record964: 10-17.Pressman, Norman E.P. 1976. New Communities: Utopian Roots and Contemporary Expectations.In New Communities in Canada: Exploring Planned Environments, ed. Norman E.P.Pressman, 15-38. Waterloo: CONTACT, Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of162Waterloo.Proctor, Don. 1992. Living Over the Store in Toronto. Planning 58, 8: 16-17.Pucher, John. 1988. Urban Travel Behavior as the Outcome of Public Policy: The Example ofModal-Split in Western Europe and North America. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation 54, 4: 509-520.Pushkarev, Boris S., and Jeffrey M. Zupan. 1977. Public Transportation and Land Use Policy.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Pushkarev, Boris S., and Jeffrey M. Zupan. 1982. Where Transit Works: Urban Densities forPublic Transportation. In Urban Transportation: Perspectives and Prospects, ed. HerbertS. Levinson and Robert A. Weant, 341-344. Westport, Connecticut: Eno Foundation forTransportation, Inc.Real Estate Research Corporation. 1974. The Costs of Sprawl: Executive Summary. Washington:Council on Environmental Quality; Office of Policy Development and Research,Department of Housing and Urban Development; and Office of Planning and Management,Environmental Protection Agency.Rees, William E. 1989. Atmospheric Change: Human Ecology in Disequilibrium. UBC PlanningPapers Discussion Paper No. 17. Vancouver: School of Community and Regional Planning,University of British Columbia. October 1989.Rees, William E., and Mark Roseland. 1991. Sustainable Communities: Planning for the 21stCentury. Plan Canada 31, 3: 15-26.Register, Richard. 1987. Ecocity Berkeley: Building Cities for a Healthy Future. Berkeley: NorthAtlantic Books.Regional Real Estate Consultants. 1990. Accessory Apartments: Characteristics, Issues, Opportunities. Ottawa: CMHC. November 1990.Reid, Fred A. 1986. Real Possibilities in the Transportation Myths. In Sustainable Communities: A New Design Synthesis for Cities, Suburbs, and Towns, ed. Sim Van der Ryn and PeterCalthorpe, 167-188. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.Relph, Edward. 1991. Suburban Downtowns of the Greater Toronto Area. The CanadianGeographer 35, 4: 421-425.Renner, Michael. 1988. Rethinking the Role of the Automobile. Worldwatch Paper No. 84.Washington: Worldwatch Institute. June 1988.Richardson, Nigel H. 1992. Canada. In Sustainable Cities: Urbanization and the Environment in International Perspective, ed. Richard Stren, Rodney White, and Joseph Whitney, 145-167.Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Richardson, Walter J. 1988. Designing High-Density Single-Family Housing: Variations on theZero-Lot-Line Theme. Urban Land 47, 2: 15-20.Rickaby, P.A. 1987. Six Settlement Patterns Compared. Environment and Planning B: Planningand Design 14: 193-223.163Roseland, Mark. 1992. Toward Sustainable Communities: A Resource Book for Municipal and Local Governments. Ottawa: National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.Ross, Catherine. 1991. Responses to Suburban Highway Congestion: An Overview. Journal ofPlanning Education and Research 10, 2: 115-117.Rostum, Hussein. 1987. Human Settlements in Canada: Trends and Policies 1981-86. Ottawa:CMHC.Runka, G. Gary. 1990. Greater Vancouver Agricultural Overview. Burnaby: Greater VancouverRegional District. March 1990.Salmon, Guy. 1991. Unpaving The Way: Portland Tackles The Private Car. Maruia 1, 1: 1-3.Sandborn, Calvin. 1992. Out of My Way! Vancouver Sun, 12 April, A15.Sarti, Robert. 1992. Commission to Study Building Cheaper Homes, Blencoe Says. Vancouver Sun,3 June, B12.Schneider, Jerry B. 1981. Transit and the Polycentric City. Washington: U.S. Department ofTransportation. September 1981.Schonfeld, Paul M., and Himmat S. Chadda. 1985. An Assessment of Urban Travel ReductionOptions. Transportation Quarterly 39, 3: 391-406.Seelig, Michael Y., and Alan F.J. Artibise. 1991. From Desolation to Hope: The Pacific FraserRegion in 2010. Vancouver: School of Community and Regional Planning, University ofBritish Columbia.Sewell, John. 1977a. Where the Suburbs Came From. In The Second City Book: Studies of Urbanand Suburban Canada, ed. James Lorimer and Evelyn Ross, 10-17. Toronto: JamesLorimer & Company.^. 1977b. Why Suburbia Hasn't Worked. In The Second City Book: Studies of Urban andSuburban Canada, ed. James Lorimer and Evelyn Ross, 31-40. Toronto: James Lorimer &Company.Sewell, W.R. Derrick, and Harold D. Foster. 1980a. Analysis of the United States Experience inModifying Land Use to Conserve Energy. Working Paper No. 2. Ottawa: Lands Directorate,Environment Canada. March 1980.Sewell, W.R. Derrick, and Harold D. Foster. 1980b. Energy Conservation Through Land UsePlanning: A Synthesis of Discussions at a Symposium Held in Montreal 26-28 March 1980.Working Paper No. 6. Ottawa: Lands Directorate, Environment Canada. August 1980.Shipley, Robert, Ray Tomalty, Doug Baker, Judy Walker, and Mike Crechiolo. 1992. Neo-traditional Design Can Work in Canada! Plan Canada, (September): 37.Shoup, Donald C., and Richard W. Wilson. 1992. Employer -Paid Parking: The Problem andProposed Solutions. Transportation Quarterly 46, 2: 169-192.Smith, Wilbur S. 1984. Mass Transport for High-Rise High-Density Living. Journal ofTransportation Engineering 110, 6: 521-535.164Solomon, Daniel. 1989. Fixing Suburbia. In The Pedestrian Pocket Book: A New Suburban DesignStrategy, ed. Doug Kelbaugh, 21-33. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Spielberg, Frank. 1989. The Traditional Neighbourhood Development: How Will Traffic EngineersRespond? ITE Journal, 59, 9: 17-18.Statistics Canada. Education, Science and Culture Division. Travel, Tourism and RecreationSection. 1982. Travel to Work: 1976-1980. Catalogue 87-503. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.March 1982.Statistics Canada. 1992. Census Metropolitan Areas and Census Agglomerations: Population and Dwelling Counts. Catalogue 93-303. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. June 1992.Thom, Robert G. 1983. Residential Land Use Patterns and Bicycle Use. Ottawa: Canada Mortgageand Housing Corporation. January 1983.Thompson, J. William. 1991. Rethinking Suburbia. Landscape Architecture 81, 4: 64-67.Thorsell, William. 1989. Why Urbanites Should Learn to Live at Closer Quarters. Globe and Mail (Toronto Edition), 30 September, D6.Titus, James G. 1990. Strategies for Adapting to the Greenhouse Effect. Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association 56, 3: 311-323.Todd, Nancy Jack, and John Todd. 1984. Bioshelters, Ocean Arks, City Farming: Ecology as theBasis of Design. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.TransVision Consultants Ltd. 1990. Transit and the Environment. Vancouver: BC Transit.Underwood McLellan Ltd. 1983. An Introduction to Energy Conservation in Residential Development. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Office of HighwayInformation Management. 1991. 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Study.Washington: U.S. Department of Transportation. August 1991. (Cited in Bookout 1992.)Untermann, Richard K 1984. Accommodating the Pedestrian: Adapting Towns and Neighbourhoods for Walking and Bicycling. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.^. 1987a. Can We Pedestrianize the Suburbs? In Public Streets for Public Use, ed. AnneVernez Moudon, 123-131. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.^. 1987b. Changing Design Standards for Streets and Roads. In Public Streets for PublicUse ed. Anne Vernez Moudon, 255-260. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.^.1990. Why You Can't Walk There: Strategies for Improving the Pedestrian Environmentin the United States. In The Greening of Urban Transport: Planning for Walking andCycling in Western Cities, ed. Rodney Tolley, 172-184. London: Belhaven Press.Urban Development Institute Pacific Region. 1991. Planning for Tomorrow: The Next Generations.Vancouver: The Urban Development Institute Pacific Region. September 1991.Van der Ryn, Sim. 1986. The Suburban Context. In Sustainable Communities: A New DesignSynthesis for Cities, Suburbs, and Towns, ed. Sim Van der Ryn and Peter Calthorpe, 34-16553. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.Van der Ryn, Sim, and Peter Calthorpe. 1986. Sustainable Communities: A New Design Synthesis for Cities, Suburbs, and Towns. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.Van Til, Jon. 1979. Spatial Form and Structure in a Possible Future: Some Implications of EnergyShortfall for Urban Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 45, 3: 318-329.Vischer, Jacqueline C. 1987. The Changing Canadian Suburb. Plan Canada 27, 5: 130-140.Ward, Robin. 1992. Vancouver Sun, 19 December, C14.Warren, William D. 1988. Impacts of Land Use on Mass Transit Development: A Comparison ofCanberra and Springfield. Transportation Quarterly 42, 2: 223-242.Waterhouse, Alan. 1989. Hit Urban Sprawl Where It Hurts. Globe and Mail (Toronto Edition), 27October, A6.Whysall, Steve. 1992. Changing Times Mean Denser Developments, Builder Says. Vancouver Sun,11 July, Cl and C4.Whyte, William H. 1968. The Last Landscape. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc.^. 1988. City: Rediscovering the Center. New York: Doubleday.Willson, Richard, and Donald C. Shoup. 1990. Parking Subsidies and Travel Choices: Assessingthe Evidence. Transportation 17: 141-157.Winburn, William A., IV. 1992. The Development Realities of Traditional Town Design. UrbanLand 51, 8: 20-21, 47.Witty, David R. 1991. Reinvigorating Canadian Planning Practice: A Practitioner's View. PlanCanada 31, 6: 89-95.Woods Gordon. 1982. Community Development Patterns and Energy Conservation Study: Technical Appendix. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. August1982.Yaro, Robert D., Randall G. Arendt, Harry L. Dodson, and Elizabeth A. Brabec. 1988. Dealing withChange in the Connecticut River Valley: A Design Manual for Conservation and Development. Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachsetts.Zotti, Ed. 1986. Dreaming of Density. Planning 52, 1: 4-9.166APPENDIX ANEO-TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENTA.0 Introduction In the past few years, designs for suburban development have begun to appear that goagainst the trend of the past few decades. Several designers are now actively involved inpromoting what has been called "neo-traditional" development. The goal of neo-traditionalists isto create pedestrian-oriented livable communities that provide people with a higher quality of lifethan do conventional subdivisions. Neo-traditional designs aim to reduce automobile travel,increase social interaction, and enhance both sense of place and sense of community.The most famous designers of neo-traditional development are the Florida-based husbandand wife team of Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Peter Calthorpe, who is basedin California. This appendix focuses on the work of these designers. It describes their ideas,critiques these with respect to their potential to influence automobile dependence, and discussesthe obstacles developers have come up against in attempting to bring their work to fruition. Itconcludes with an overall evaluation of neo-traditional development and an assessment of itsprospects.A.1 Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk The most well-known neo-traditional designers are Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. They first gained widespread attention with their design for the town of Seaside inFlorida, and now have over 40 projects in various stages of planning or construction (Freedman1992). Duany and Plater-Zyberk call their plans Traditional Neighbourhood Developments(TNDs). TNDs have the following characteristics:• grid-based, or at least interconnected, street systems with streets that are narrower than inconventional suburbs and have tighter turning radii;• garages accessed by alleys or lanes behind houses;• higher densities than conventional suburbs (apartments above garages and above stores are167encouraged);• community facilities and shops in a town centre within walking distance of all homes;• community focal points and landmarks, well-defined public space, and attractive architecture,to provide a sense of place;• attractive pedestrian-friendly streetscapes with homes that are oriented to the streets and haveporches, in order to provide streets that are safe and comfortable to walk along;• possibly some offices or light industrial uses located near to homes; and• parking lots located at the side or rear of office, multi-family, and commercial uses, rather thanin front (see e.g. Knack 1989; Boles 1989; Spielberg 1989; APA 1989).In order to facilitate the development of TNDs, Duany and Plater-Zyberk have developeda model Traditional Neighbourhood Development Ordinance which sets out very detailed designguidelines and which is intended to serve as the basis for the development code in TND areas.Part of the rationale for this ordinance is that TNDs would require so many changes to currentdevelopment regulations that it is simpler to start from scratch than to attempt so many revisionsto the existing code (Bookout 1992b; Spielberg 1989). Developers attempting to build TNDs have,in fact, run into a fair amount of resistance from local officials, particularly transportation officials(Winburn 1992; Bookout 1992c). Public works departments, for example, have objected to therelatively narrow streets because of concerns about the movement of snowplows and fire trucks(Knack 1989).TNDs do appear to represent important progress in suburban design. Densities are higherthan in the typical American suburb, and the designs are much more pedestrian-friendly. Thedesign of the streets and the street network are consistent with reducing VKT -- and Kulash(1991) reports that studies show the traffic "works" (i.e. is not congested or unsafe). Travel timeswithin the developments are similar to conventional developments, because, though the speed oftravel is slower, trip distances are shorter.However, TND designs suffer from a number of inadequacies. In general, they seem to bepreponderately residential -- very little provision for employment is included in the plans (Boles1989; Knack 1989). As well, the densities proposed are still quite low -- generally too low tosupport, on their own, more than a very limited retail component within walking distance. Therealso appears to be relatively little consideration of transit in the designs. This likely reflects thereality that many TNDs have been planned for the outer fringe of metropolitan areas, beyond vast168areas of existing sprawl, and beyond the reach of reasonable transit service (see Bookout 1992b).Hence, though the number of automobile trips should be lower in TNDs than in conventionalsuburban development, people living in TNDs will likely have to drive long distances to jobs, anddrive outside of the development for much of their shopping. The potential effect of TNDs onregional VKT would thus appear to be minimal.As has been mentioned, many TNDs have been planned, but because of the slow natureof the development process most TNDs are still in their early stages. This, unfortunately, makesa proper evaluation of their acceptance to consumers, or of their impact on VKT, difficult. Theproject the farthest along is the town of Seaside, on the Florida panhandle. Seaside has provedto be a success from both a design and marketing standpoint, but Seaside's remote location, high-end house prices, and resort flavour, disqualify it as a good test of the mass market's acceptanceof neo-traditional planning theory (Bookout 1992d). Its experience cannot really be generalizedto the suburban areas of large cities.The most advanced of Duany and Plater-Zyberk's suburban projects is Kentlands, a 142hectare development in Gaithersburg, Maryland, about 32 kilometres north of Washington D.C.Plans call for 1,600 housing units to be built (Bookout 1992d). But instead of having a traditionaltown centre, this housing will be built next to an enclosed regional mall (Knack 1989). Onedeveloper in this joint venture flatly refused to include a parking structure, a day care centre, orapartments above the shops. Its only compromise was a shift in the site plan that allows the mallto connect with the main street of the new town, enabling residents to walk to the shops (Knack1989).Where the developers of this project wished to depart from the status quo, they ran intoa lot of resistance from the "standards people" (Winburn 1992). They had to battle with the city'sengineering and public works departments for on-street parking. They had to settle for larger curbradii than originally planned. And they had to battle with the fire marshal over narrow streetwidths. They had to provide sprinklers in some houses in order to gain approval for such streets.Winburn (1992) states that it cost a year's worth of interest payments and legal and design fees169to try to do things in a new way.Nevertheless, from a market perspective, the housing in Kentlands has been verysuccessful. As of the summer of 1992, 300 housing units were occupied and residential sales werebrisk (Winburn 1992). Sales staff report that the development is especially attractive to those whohave lived in mixed-use environments and become dissatisfied with suburbia, and that people areexcited about the prospect of living in a walkable community (Bookout 1992d). Unfortunately, thedestinies of some important components -- the traditional town centre and office components -- arestill undecided, though a child care centre and general store appear to be under way (Winburn1992). While the uncertain destiny of such elements is discouraging, the level of interest in thisproject is encouraging. This is one of the first major attempts to change contemporary suburbandesign and should be judged in this context.A.2 Peter Calthorpe Peter Calthorpe is somewhat less well-known than Duany and Plater-Zyberk.Significantly, however, his roots are more ecological. He has been involved in designing built formto make use of solar energy, and he co-authored the book Sustainable Communities in 1986.In the late 1980s, Calthorpe developed the idea of the Pedestrian Pocket, which he definesas "a simple cluster of housing, retail space, and offices within a quarter-mile [(0.4 km)] walkingradius of a transit system" (Calthorpe 1989a: 3). He states that it should have homes for"approximately 5,000 people with jobs for 3,000 on no more than 100 acres [(40.5 ha)] -- the areawithin walking distance of a transit station" (p.4). The goals behind the Pedestrian Pocket ideainclude: blending "the convenience of the car and the opportunity to walk in an environment inwhich the economic engine of new growth -- jobs in the service and information industry -- isbalanced with affordable housing and local stores"; reducing "automobile traffic without increasingdensity in existing neighbourhoods"; allowing "people a choice of walking, driving, carpooling, orriding mass transit"; and accommodating "regional expansion with minimal environmental impact"(p.3). The main components of a Pedestrian Pocket include:• computerized "back office" uses to provide employment;170•• a focus on low-rise higher density housing forms such as three-storey walk-up apartments andtwo-storey townhouses;• a transit station at the heart of the Pocket, preferably light rail, with links to other Pockets andolder centres;• linear parks which provide pathways to the station area, and which are overlooked by housesto increase safety; and• a mixed-use "main street" on which is located the station, retail uses, offices, theatres, library,post office, etc. -- commercial buildings on this street having retail at grade, facing thestreet, and offices above (Calthorpe 1989b).Calthorpe has since refined this concept somewhat, so that he now talks about Transit-Oriented Developments or TODs, rather than Pedestrian Pockets. The basic idea and goals aresimilar. He has discovered, however, that Pedestrian Pockets as conceived were not sufficient tosupport a light rail line. He now speaks of having a network of "Urban TODs" on a light rail line(or an express bus line) surrounded by "Neighborhood TODs" on feeder bus lines (See CalthorpeAssociates 1990, 1992; Roseland 1992). Calthorpe has prepared "Transit-Oriented DevelopmentDesign Guidelines" for Sacramento County and the City of San Diego (see Calthorpe Associates1990, 1992).' Sacramento County adopted these guidelines in November of 1990 (Lerner-Lam etal. 1992).The design guidelines prepared for the City of San Diego provide the following descriptionof TODs:Transit-Oriented Developments are mixed-use neighborhoods, up to 160acres [(65 ha)] in size, which are developed around a transit stop and corecommercial area. The entire TOD site must be within an average 2,000 foot [(610m)] walking distance of a transit stop. Secondary Areas of lower density housing,schools, parks, and commercial and employment uses surround TODs for up to onemile [(1.6 km)] (Calthorpe Associates 1992: 4).TODs are intended to have an interconnected system of local streets which are lined with treesand buildings. "Neighborhood TODs" are intended to be at most a 10-minute bus ride from a lightrail or express bus station. "Secondary Areas" are intended to consist primarily of single familyhousing. The TOD concept is meant to be applied to a variety of settings, to be used as a guidelinefor infill, revitalization and redevelopment, as well as for new urban growth (Calthorpe Associates1 It is interesting to note what prompted the development of these guidelines in these jurisdictions.According to Peter Calthorpe (1992), in the case of Sacramento, the stimulus was an environmental groupthat decided to stop simply opposing new development and instead work for better new development. In thecase of San Diego, the catalyst was a visionary planning director.1711990, 1992; Calthorpe 1992).Pedestrian pockets and TODs are similar to TNDs in having higher densities thanconventional suburban development, in being walkable and community-oriented, in having aninterconnected street network rather than cul-de-sacs in a tree structure, and in placing emphasison the importance of an attractive streetscape, with narrower streets, and with back lanes wherepossible. Calthorpe's proposals differ from TNDs in having higher residential densities and higherplanned concentrations of jobs. Additionally, of course, the consideration of transit is much greaterin the Transit-Oriented Development concept than in the TND concept. According to Bookout(1992b: 13):The primary characteristic that distinguishes between the two concepts is transit.TODs are predicated on convenient access to transit -- such as light rail -- whereasmost TNDs do not necessarily have a transit orientation.Duany and Plater-Zyberk also focus more on architectural details and less on ecologicalimplications.Calthorpe's first Pedestrian Pocket type development is at Laguna West, a 324 hectare site19 kilometres south of Sacramento (Delsohn 1989; Bookout 1992b). Characteristics of thisdevelopment include:• a town centre with 1,000 higher density housing units, 8,400 m2 of retail space, and 13,900 m 2of office space;• 2,300 housing units in a broad range of types and prices in five neighbourhoods (though morethan half of the units are detached single family homes);• a town hall/community centre in a central square, connected to residential areas by walkwaysand bike paths;• narrow streets, with trees in the parking lane;• houses closer to sidewalks than is usual -- only 3.8m from sidewalks rather than the usual 6mor more;• regular "production", not high-end, homes;• front porches on half the homes;• for most houses, garages located to the side of the house, or behind it and accessed via a backlane;• "granny flats" above garages facing back lanes with many houses -- providing 30 units perhectare (12 units/acre) with the same home-ownership patterns as in regular subdivisions;• large office buildings -- unlike traditional towns, TNDs, or "streetcar suburbs" (Apple Computershas already become a tenant);• retail and entertainment uses within easy walking distance of the offices; and• parking behind buildings, rather than between buildings and the street (Calthorpe 1992;Bookout 1992b; Fulton 1991; Andersen 1991; Leccese 1990; McCloud 1990; Delsohn 1989).Unfortunately there is no light rail heading to Laguna West at present, but the County has172reserved a corridor heading there (Leccese 1990), and Calthorpe (1992) says a light rail extensionis planned. In the meantime the community will be linked to Sacramento by bus.This development experienced opposition from local officials over several of itscharacteristics. Engineering officials objected to the narrow streets, to the number and locationof trees, and to what they felt would be excessive retail-related traffic on the neighbourhood streets(Delsohn 1989). However, they eventually relented on most of their objections (Fulton 1991).Nevertheless, Laguna West is a true Pedestrian Pocket only in the design of its core(Delsohn 1989). Its retail area incorporates large auto-oriented superstores, and builders andretailers have forced some deviations from the original plan. Some of the builders and theirlenders have been reluctant to use back lanes for access to garages, and the retailers insisted thatthere be more parking visible from the roadways near their stores (Bookout 1992c). Calthorpe(1992) stresses, however, that the stores are still a convenient and pleasant walk from many ofthe homes.Calthorpe, like Duany and Plater-Zyberk, has obviously had to make some compromisesin order to get his ideas realized. However, his plans do seem to have more potential to reducetravel. Densities are higher, more jobs are planned, and there is more consideration of transit.Unfortunately, the emphasis of Calthorpe's work, like that of Duany and Plater-Zyberk, has beenon new development at the urban fringe. Calthorpe, himself, feels that his ideas are suitable forredevelopment and infill, but, because of the strength of the NIMBY forces, he is pessimistic aboutthe prospects for much of this to occur (Calthorpe 1992).Laguna West does appear to be a significant improvement on most contemporary U.S.suburban development. One can only hope that it, and Calthorpe's other work, will stimulatefurther advances.A.3 Overall Evaluation and Prospects There appears to be a growing number of developers interested in neo-traditionaldevelopment. These developers face an array of obstacles, however. They face resistance amongthe whole "infrastructure of the development industry: homebuilders, lawyers, fire marshals, local173transportation officials, financiers, school boards, local governments, utilities, the postal service,and so forth" (Winburn 1992: 20).The standards of the engineering profession have been one of the more serious obstacles(Spielberg 1989). However, with persistence, development teams seem to have succeeded inobtaining exemptions from standard codes. Peter Calthorpe, for instance, succeeded in locatingtrees in the roadways at Laguna West. And there are signs of increased flexibility on the part ofthe engineering profession. A recent article in the ITE Journal, by the vice-chair of the Instituteof Transportation Engineers' committee on Traffic Engineering for Neo-Traditional NeighbourhoodDesign clearly states that one of the primary objectives of neo-traditional development -- "thereduction of dependence on the automobile -- makes good sense from a traffic engineeringstandpoint" (Lerner-Lam et al. 1992: 20). This article supports back lanes, on-street parking inresidential areas, and parking located behind stores in commercial areas. It shows flexibility onstreet widths and turning radii, and it urges that "traffic engineers should not hide behind safetystandards as a means to avoid direct discussion of a specific project" (Lerner-Lam et al. 1992: 19).The greatest obstacle to realizing neo-traditional development may turn out to be thelending institutions, which, according Bookout (1992c:19), "are wedded to planning principles thathave proved their financial viability in the past." Bookout (1992c: 24) states that such institutions"have never been particularly adventuresome about lending on development outside themainstream. And in today's tight financing market, they are being extra cautious."It is very early to try to judge how successful neo-traditional developments will be inattracting residential and commercial tenants. Neo-traditional development is only just startingto come on stream, and the real estate market has been in a slump in most places in NorthAmerica during the recent recession. Yet the early signs are encouraging. Both Kentlands andLaguna West seem to be proving attractive to home buyers. It appears that a market niche doesexist for neo-traditional development. The question is how big this niche is (Bookout 1992e).It is also too early to evaluate the influence of these developments on travel patterns.Vehicle miles travelled within these developments should be diminished, both because automobile174trips within the neighbourhood are shorter and because fewer trips will be made by automobile.A computer simulation done for the ASCE indicates that a TND design could produce only 57%of the internal VKT of a comparably sized project laid out in more conventional style (Bookout1992b: 14). However it appears that residents will still travel frequently and long distances bycar, in order to travel to shopping, recreation, and work locations outside the development. Mostneo-traditional developments under way are located in remote areas or at the fringes of existingmetropolitan areas, and are not well-served by transit (Bookout 1992e).In concept, Calthorpe's TODs have more potential to reduce vehicle travel than do TNDsbecause of the higher planned densities, the greater mixing, and the greater orientation to transit.But if they are not linked to other areas with good transit service, many of their potential benefitswill not be realized.In the end, however, better forms of greenfield development, alone, will never producesignificant changes to regional VKT. There is a danger that neo-traditional development will beseen as the solution to reducing automobile dependence, when what is really needed is infill andredevelopment, not expansion at the urban fringe. Neo-traditional development as it now standscould distract people from the more essential task of reurbanization, and this is a problem.On the other hand, the advocates of neo-traditionalism have already succeeded in providinga forceful critique of current development standards and in stimulating interest in designs orientedmore to people and less to automobiles. If they can succeed in stimulating a general improvementin greenfield development, they will have made a significant contribution. With luck, neo-traditional development could also help to build support for reurbanization by demonstrating theadvantages of more compact and integrated development patterns and of pedestrian-orienteddesigns. There is also the potential that others will build and improve upon the work of currentpractitioners. In Canada, MacBurnie (1992), for instance, has already begun this process with hisidea for a "Metropolitan Purlieu." Current neo-traditional proposals could be used as a first steptoward the development of significantly less auto-oriented communities.175

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0086153/manifest

Comment

Related Items