As our population continues to increase, our demand for automobiles and in turn our demand for oil increases. As a result, more greenhouse gasses are emitted into our atmosphere damaging the quality of our waters, air, and land. It is estimated that there will be as much as 1 billion automobiles on planet earth by 2010. Careful planning for a growing population will be crucial to future developments and growth. Transit oriented development (TOD) provides just one part of the solution to accommodate growing cities and populations. As living in the first classified urban century, it’s predicted that 70% of humans will live in cities by mid-century. TOD takes into account the damaging affects of urban sprawl and encourages the use of alternate transportation methods by planning developments around transit hubs. One of the main transportation sources advocated by TOD is the use of high-speed rail lines.
The goal for the US high-speed rail line is to set 17,000 miles of a rail network to be completed in four phases. The phases would be start on 2015 where they plan to have rail lines extending from major cities like, Washington D.C. to New York and from San Diego to Sacramento, just to name a few. By 2020 lines are to be expanded to the Midwest. 2025 connects the US coast to coast, and by 2030 a completed high-speed rail network is to be completed, connecting the majority of the US.
Transit Oriented Development provides alternative modes of transportation and in addition provide for increased economic growth and output. In a Los Angeles high-speed transit system plan, it is estimated that it will generate $32 billion over the next 30 years. Included in this plan is the expected creation of 210,00 jobs. Centering around a transit hub also increases the preservation of green space, agricultural land, and makes public transit more easily accessible. Copenhagen for example, has a city plan that is based on a radial plan that encourages those benefits.
In my opinion, I agree that reducing urban sprawl is important to the growth of future cities. TOD is an excellent solution, which provides multiple benefits. On the other hand, TOD depends on mass consumption of natural resources. It seems a little outlandish when bike bus walk programs consider walking as an alternate form of transportation. Although TOD takes a lot of resources to produce, it provides just one piece of the puzzle that can help reduce GHGs, automobile use, and improve our environmental conditions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Rodrigo,
ReplyDeleteI am definitely on the same page as you on importance and urgency of this , with the US population growing and having to deal with all the transportation issues. I agree the TOD is a great solution, opening many jobs (in a economy that needs it), creating a alternative to the car to reduce emissions, and overall create a different mindset of acceptable and environmentally friendly ways to actually get around to places people need to go. In the end is it cost efficient to do this?
-Alex Athans
I think that transit oriented development is something the United States should focus on for future growth. Making mass transportation more available and more convienent is one way in which we can promote its use. I feel as though there also needs to be a combination of transportation networks in order to accomodate older housing areas or suburban sprawl areas. There are some negative drawbacks to creating an extended network of high speed trains, but I feel that in the end they will be of greater benefit connecting the country and decreasing individual vehicle miles traveled. Most transit oriented developments are based around high density housing hubs, which are generally mixed use so that walking or biking to these transit hubs is actually practical.
ReplyDeleteRachel Capito
While I agree with the statement that Bus Bike Walk is the cleanest way to get around, the way our country has developed has practically ruled that out. Though the high speed line is a great idea, though very capital intensive, they reduce the number of cars on the highways for long trips. But personally I feel that TODs should focus more on how people can get around from within as opposed to connecting cities. The majority of travel takes place within a locality, so the day to day travels will produce more GHGs over time. To form a transportation like the Metro in DC or the subway system in New York is not rational for most areas to implement because of the astounding up-front costs which must be put up to plan, build, and implement the plan. Localities should focus on light rail lines and higher density developments.
ReplyDelete