Planning and Density: Who’s Forcing Whom?

Today we’re talking development and density. Greater Greater Washington has a post about zoning policies and traffic congestion in Montgomery County, Maryland, where a debate over growth policy that would encourage in-fill development near existing transit is getting heated.

David Alpert’s post asks why planning for "low-traffic growth" is so often seen as coercive, whereas policies that encourage sprawl and car dependency are not:

18464893_57a2ebdbce.jpgPhoto by Dean Terry.

Somehow…the way elected officials, reporters, and
others discuss development has become turned around. Instead of
worrying about policies that force people to live far away, they worry
that accommodating more people near their jobs will worsen congestion.
And when anyone dares to suggest that that ought not be the overriding
public policy consideration, they’re accused of trying to "force people
out of their cars."

If an airline sells more seats on a flight so you can’t get an empty
seat next to you, should we ban that because it’ll "force people out of
their extra elbow room"? When stores have special Thanksgiving sales
that bring a lot of people to the store, do we decide to ban them
because it would "force people out of the aisles"? Do we outlaw special
events like inaugurations because the extra people drinking will "force
people out of their bars?"

Where did we get the idea that people in a neighborhood have
an inalienable right not to share their roads with anyone new, but new
people don’t have a right to live where they want to? Well, we got that
idea because the existing residents vote and the new ones don’t. But
the whole idea is fallacious. The new residents are going to clog up
the roads just the same. Instead of driving from a house near Rockville
to a job in Bethesda, they’ll drive from a house in Clarksburg to a job
in Bethesda, which is worse. Plus, they really have no choice but to
drive, unlike the person living in infill development.

Ryan Avent and Matthew Yglesias address similar issues as they’re playing out in Tysons Corner, Virginia.

Better news from the D.C. area comes from The WashCycle, which has a sneak preview of the city’s forthcoming Bikestation.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Arizona DOT Study: Compact, Mixed-Use Development Leads to Less Traffic

By Angie Schmitt |
Does walkable development really lead to worse traffic congestion? Opponents of urbanism often say so, citing impending traffic disaster to rally people against, say, a new mixed-use project proposed in their backyards. But new research provides some excellent evidence to counter those claims. A recent study by the Arizona Department of Transportation [PDF] found that […]

“No More Cars” vs. “Not More Cars”

By Sarah Goodyear |
Today on the Streetsblog Network, David Alpert at Greater Greater Washington counters the accusation that, just because he believes in less autocentric development, he hates cars. In an extremely eloquent and thoughtful post, Alpert makes the distinction between "no more cars" and "not more cars": Photo by lizjones 112 via Flickr. Advocates for more walkable, […]

Urban Density and a Pocketbook Plea for Congestion Pricing

By Aaron Donovan |
Of the ten largest cities in the United States, New York has far and away the greatest population density: 26,402.9 people per square mile, more than double the second densest big city, Chicago. The chart at right shows how the largest metropolitan areas stack up in terms of core population, overall population and core population density.  […]

Revisiting the Peak Car Debate

By Tony Dutzik |
Cross-posted from the Frontier Group. I’ve never liked the term “peak car.” First, it was always unclear exactly what was supposed to be peaking – total vehicle travel, per-capita travel, car ownership, or all of the above? Second, like peak oil before it, “peak car” applies a catchy name to a collection of concepts that […]