Risks of Job Sprawl and Progress on Regional Planning
Who will you meet?
Cities are innovating, companies are pivoting, and start-ups are growing. Like you, every urban practitioner has a remarkable story of insight and challenge from the past year.
Meet these peers and discuss the future of cities in the new Meeting of the Minds Executive Cohort Program. Replace boring virtual summits with facilitated, online, small-group discussions where you can make real connections with extraordinary, like-minded people.
Cities, People, and Jobs
Sometimes cities are faced with disasters that strike unpredictably and quickly, leading to long recovery and many resources focused on future preparation. Other times cities create the conditions for disaster through a buildup of decisions that compound over time. Urban sprawl is often decried for causing traffic congestion, blight, and environmental degradation, to the detriment of a city’s quality of life. Job sprawl might be just as detrimental and even dangerous for a city according to Paul Krugman in his comparison between Detroit’s recent bankruptcy and Pittsburgh, a city which is rebounding from the recession.
As the Brookings Institution pointed out in a report released in April, job sprawl around Detroit created inequitable access for primarily low-income residents living in the urban core. With 77% of jobs found from 10 to 35 miles outside the city, the highest percentage in the nation, and only 22% of jobs within a 90-minute ride on public transit, there was a dearth of opportunity. Essentially this one-two punch of urban and job sprawl led pension obligations to outpace a drastically declining property and income tax base, as sprawl drew people out of the city. This cautionary tale highlights the need for coordinated planning and infrastructure—otherwise smart cities can leave themselves vulnerable to downward spirals.
Sustainable Communities lead to resiliency and improved public health
As last week’s passage of the regional Plan Bay Area demonstrates, when agencies and cities work together they can succeed in developing an integrated housing and transportation land use plan to handle an influx of 2 million residents over 30 years. With no new sprawl, preservation of open space, reduction in greenhouse gas intensity, and incentives for inclusive, transit-oriented and transit-innovative development, this plan definitely moves in the right direction. Certainly it could target greater greenhouse gas reductions. But the important step is in setting a vision of vibrant downtown communities sprinkled throughout the region, which will no doubt lead to further greenhouse gas reductions. Cultural transformation won’t change overnight, but by designating 160 priority development areas in the Bay Area, the Sustainable Communities Plan for the region is a standout among those already completed among the 18 metropolitan areas of California.
Bringing people closer to job and transit centers in this way is critical. The San Francisco Bay Area faces $18 billion in budget shortfalls simply to maintain the current transportation systems, including streets and transit, over the next 25 years. Walkable, integrated communities can help mitigate this budget shortfall, though of course they won’t be able to solve it.
Consequences of sprawl
Increasing recognition that urban sprawl leads to negative health effects also supports the case for walkable, transit-centric cities and communities. Effects of urban expansion in general are leading to record air pollution and resource depletion as shown in China’s mounting environmental costs. As our desk-based, sedentary lifestyles have created a panoply of medical conditions, people are turning to anything that gets us moving, from treadmill desks to company competitions between groups armed with flashy new pedometers. Meanwhile, according to a study by the Journal of Injury Prevention, the further you live from the city center, the higher your risk of injury-related death, almost up to threefold in the most rural areas.
With development occurring in a more focused manner, people may be more inclined to live car-free, but how do products and services reach them? A recent report points out that self-driving trucks potentially present a bigger business opportunity than self-driving cars (and arguably are a more sustainable alternative). Improvements in truck safety and efficiency could help reduce the 116,000 annual fatalities and injuries in the U.S. from truck and bus crashes (costing $87 billion). For some reason, tanker trucks have been especially visible in causing large damage and congestion for the very drivers they are fueling, as depicted by the 2011 tanker truck crash on I-880 in Oakland and last week’s tanker crash on I-5 in Los Angeles.
It’s a good reminder that smart growth can ensure cities grow and prosper in ways that improve the health and safety of their residents. However, cities will continue to face both financial and practical challenges in serving increasingly mobile and dense populations, and the search continues for cost effective and integrated solutions.
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.
Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
People seem frequently to assume that the terms “sustainability” and “resilience” are synonyms, an impression reinforced by the frequent use of the term “climate resilience”, which seems to enmesh both concepts firmly. In fact, while they frequently overlap, and indeed with good policy and planning reinforce one another, they are not the same. This article picks them apart to understand where one ends and the other begins, and where the “sweet spot” lies in achieving mutual reinforcement to the benefit of disaster risk reduction (DRR).
As extreme weather conditions become the new normal—from floods in Baton Rouge and Venice to wildfires in California, we need to clean and save stormwater for future use while protecting communities from flooding and exposure to contaminated water. Changing how we manage stormwater has the potential to preserve access to water for future generations; prevent unnecessary illnesses, injuries, and damage to communities; and increase investments in green, climate-resilient infrastructure, with a focus on communities where these kinds of investments are most needed.
A few years ago, I worked with some ARISE-US members to carry out a survey of small businesses in post-Katrina New Orleans of disaster risk reduction (DRR) awareness. One theme stood out to me more than any other. The businesses that had lived through Katrina and survived well understood the need to be prepared and to have continuity plans. Those that were new since Katrina all tended to have the view that, to paraphrase, “well, government (city, state, federal…) will take care of things”.
While the experience after Katrina, of all disasters, should be enough to show anyone in the US that there are limits on what government can do, it does raise the question, of what could and should public and private sectors expect of one another?