Jonathan Levine contends critics on urban design based on accessibility.
Urban sprawl influences on travel patterns to have long travel distances, and it
creates cities in United States as a more automobile dependent society. Negative
impacts of urban sprawl include congestion, inefficient gas consumption, air
quality, equity issue, and etc. Jobs-housing balancing, transit villages, and
New Urbanism are designed to focus on accessibility rather than mobility. This
article refutes critics on these new ideas on urban design, and proclaims that
urban design focusing on the ease of access would provide various ways of life
styles associated with land uses and travels to accommodate households' needs
and preferences .
The first critic is regarding the limit of people's choice
by applying new alternative urban designs. Levine argues current local
government regulations exclude some urban development design, and it constraints
various choices of some households regarding land uses. Current some local land
use policies need to be loosened. The
second, it is argued that the new alternatives for some cases increase congestion.
New alternatives provide better accessibility, and it might not reduce
congestion although it would reduce vehicle mile travel. Levine contends that there
are better valuable goals than automobile movement at free flow speed, and if there
are demands for new alternative land use options, it should not be regulated,
and let market choose it. Third, some researches regards neighborhood
self-selection as an example of invalidating alternative land use, because it
is hard to prove the effect of urban design on travel behavior. Levine thinks
self-selection would be desirable behavior because it shows how households
react to alternative transportation oriented urban design although it is not
easy to be estimated.
It is quite a interesting debate regarding association
between land use and transportation. I am agree with Levine in a sense that traditional
urban designs triggers people to choose only automobile as their primary mode. It
is hard to consider other ways to live without automobiles in sprawl urban form
because both accessibility and mobility will be reduced without vehicles. Traditional
urban form might restrict various needs and preferences of households having different
lifestyles. Several alternative travel modes including a bus, light rail, a
bicycle, and walk are not competitive to automobiles in terms of travel time
and convenience. Households might suppress other values except travel time and
convenience because the gap between automobile and other modes regarding these values are quite large which
means there might be no room to think about other values. Recently, people are
aware of negative effects of automotive
dependent travel patterns such as air pollution, physically low activity level,
and inefficient energy use compared to other alternative ways of life style. Alternative
urban form might not satisfy all needs and preferences of households who seek for
a more healthier life style rather than constraining their values only on
efficiency in terms of travel time and monetary value. However, it would work
as alternatives for traditional urban form. Also, as Levin discussed, market
would prove whether urban form focusing on accessibility is what they want and
need.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.