Across the United States, urban sprawl, its impacts, and appropriate containment policies have become the most hotly debated issues in urban planning. Today's debates have no anchoring definition of sprawl, which has contributed to their unfocused, dogmatic quality. Efforts to measure sprawl and test for relationships between sprawl and transportation outcomes are described. This is the first use of the newly minted Rutgers-Cornell sprawl indicators. Sprawl is operationalized by combining many variables into a few factors representing density, land use mix, degree of centering, and street accessibility. This consolidation of variables is accomplished with principal component analysis. These factors are then related to vehicle ownership, commute mode choice, commute time, vehicle miles traveled per capita, traffic delay per capita, traffic fatalities per capita, and 8-h ozone level. These associations are made with multiple regression analysis. For most travel and transportation outcomes, sprawling regions perform less well than compact ones. The exceptions are average commute time and annual traffic delay per capita, which do not clearly favor compactness over sprawl. The main limitation of this study has to do with the data it uses. By necessity, the study uses highly aggregate data from a variety of sources that are not always consistent as to the area under study and time period. They are simply the best data available from national sources with sufficient breadth to provide a panoramic view of sprawl in the United States. Results will have to be validated through follow-up work of a more focused nature.Publication of this paper sponsored by Committee on Transportation and Land Development.

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.

No abstract

The Section 8 voucher and certificate program potentially allows recipients to choose better neighborhoods than they might otherwise be able to afford. This article compares the location of households using Section 8 vouchers and certificates with the location of other renter households, both low-income renters and all renters.In 1998, Section 8 users were 75 percent as likely as other poor tenants to live in distressed neighborhoods but 150 percent more likely than all renters to live in such tracts. These national averages obscure substantial variation among metropolitan areas. Section 8 users concentrate in distressed neighborhoods when rental housing concentrates there, but they avoid distressed neighborhoods with very low rents. Concentration also hinges on race; when assisted households are mostly black and other residents are mostly white, assisted households are much more likely to live in distressed neighborhoods.

Low-density urbanization, also known as urban sprawl, has accelerated in the United States in recent years, In this article I will test the cumulative influence of locally adopted (municipal) land-use controls on sprawl. Land-use controls that shift the cost of development onto builders and away from the general public are found to reduce sprawl; those that mandate low densities are found cumulatively to increase sprawl, whereas urban containment systems have limited cumulative effects. Further, regions whose local governments rely on ad valorem property taxes to fund services and infrastructure tend to sprawl more than those that rely on a broader tax base.