This panel was part of the third annual Sustainability Summit at MIT today. Critical discussion of ideas presented below is highly encouraged; feel free to expand this post into an open forum for your ideas about transport, environment, and urban development.
Sustainability in the built environment
Integrating transport planning with land use and building design
For much of the post-World War II era, transport policy focused on 'the concrete commons' has resulted in land use patterns that are not only energy and space intensive, but also dependent on continued economic growth for their viability. Recently however, the convergence of the lingering impacts of recession, demographic shift, and increasing environmental awareness has provided an opportunity to develop new paradigms and strategies for urban development and land use planning that are economically resilient, environmentally sustainable, and socially equitable. How can and should transport policy be leveraged to promote such development patterns, given its inseparability from land use policy as demonstrated throughout the history of cities and regions in the United States and abroad?
Focusing questions
- In the context of urban and regional development, how do you define 'sustainability'?
- Since the 1950s, the 'green commons' movement founded initially on opposition to road construction has increasingly drawn the attention of policy-makers; their strategy has since evolved into one based on ecological integrity and environmental justice, though not without conflict amongst different stakeholders. What barriers amongst these stakeholders do you believe need to be overcome in order to implement principles of sustainable urban development more effectively, and what strategies might be particularly effective in building political will in both the near term and the long term?
Speakers
Joseph Coughlin, Director of MIT AgeLab, Lecturer at MIT ESD and DUSP - moderator
Yonah Freemark, graduate student at MIT DUSP, editor of The Transport Politic
Susanne Rasmussen, Director of Transportation and Environmental Planning, City of Cambridge, Massachusetts
Vivien Li, Executive Director, The Boston Harbor Association
Summary of presentations:
With case studies of Dallas and northern Virginia exemplifying the context, the discussion was centred primarily on increasing the modal share of transit and non-motorized transport through changing land use policy, neither one separable from the other. Dallas was presented as a case of building transit infrastructure without accompanying it with zoning revisions and other incentives for higher density of development, thus resulting in low passenger volume relative to population and jobs (about 0.07 trips per person per day, compared to roughly 0.25 for denser cities such as Boston and 0.5 or more for dense European cities) even though mileage of permanent way for rail transit increased rapidly. Arlington County in northern Virginia was presented as an opposite case, in which the development of neighbourhoods around Metrorail stations enabled increased population and employment growth unaccompanied by increasing auto usage. All panellists agreed that changes in parking infrastructure regulations such as ending free or subsidized parking (presented such that people are aware of costs of parking versus costs of riding the bus or train, rather than believing that they lost an entitlement that was never actually present) and improvement of bus service (rather than continuing to build rail lines in ignorance of the transport-land use interaction) will be necessary to leverage transit infrastructure to its full potential for improving quality of life and reducing environmental impact. It will also be crucial to provide sufficient amenities in dense urban areas to attract a wider demographic, namely families with children whose preference for auto-oriented suburbs is based on availability of schools and recreational opportunities as opposed to predilection towards auto-dependent lifestyle. Building new transit lines seem easy and popular; ensuring that they enable achieving goals of sustainability requires a carrot-and-stick approach towards promoting transit-oriented development and the pre- and post-requisite behaviour change.
Summary of audience Q&A (and responses from panel):
- Opposition towards changing the current land-use patterns in the United States might stem from a philosophical basis (not entirely the case, as very few actually 'prefer' motoring for every occasion -- people desire options and utilize alternatives as long as convenient and attractive).
- While the panellists implicitly assume continued urban expansion in the foreseeable future, high cost of energy will compel abandonment of the industrial food system, leaving small-scale agriculture as the only viable alternative and therefore encouraging migration back to rural areas (possible, but since small farms have also undergone technology-induced efficiency improvements, labour needs for agriculture will likely remain low -- assumption of urban growth seems reasonable).
- Transit is not very popular in the United States due to poor user experience (improvements possible using off-the-shelf technology and integration of transit systems -- national system ideal but unlikely due to fragmented nature of politics in the US).
- Higher-density inner cities and lower-density outer suburbs might require different types of bus service for particular needs, and the same applies to different regions of the US (Northeast Corridor clearly not representative of the entire US; however, MIT and its peer institutions play a crucial role towards developing the capacity for leadership in addressing transport-related sustainability challenges within the US and around the world).
It was emphasized that no new transport project will realize its potential at transforming behaviour and land use patterns as long as a more-convenient and user-friendly alternative exists. For example, within the last decade, a water taxi system for accessing Logan IAP and points along Massachusetts Bay directly from Boston Harborfront was shut down only a few years after its initial start of operation since potential passengers preferred using existing transit services and the new MBCR line to Hingham.
How would you respond to the concerns raised by both the panellists and the audience? What are some of your ideas for developing a sustainability-oriented paradigm for urban and regional transport planning?
No comments:
Post a Comment