Title:

Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? By: Ewing, Reid, Journal of the American Planning Association, 01944363, Winter97, Vol. 63, Issue 1

Database:

Academic Search Premier

Abstract:

Focuses on the characteristics, causes and costs of compact development. Distinction from high density or monocentric development; Indications of poor accessibility and lack of functional open space; Market-related causes; Result of market failure; Consumer preference on compact centers; Energy consumption and air pollution; Infrastructure and public service costs; Impact on cities and downtowns.

The only policy intervention endorsed by G & R is the imposition of congestion charges and emissions fees as shadow prices for external costs of auto use, specifically for delay and air pollution imposed on others. This is a safe endorsement for sprawl lovers. While congestion pricing and emissions fees have been touted by economists for decades, those in political power have not exactly rushed to meter their constituents' travel (Orski 1992; Arrillaga 1993).

The first federal demonstration program on congestion pricing, 1973-1978, produced no demonstrations. The current Congestion Pricing Pilot Program, started five years ago, has produced one limited pilot project (and many planning studies) (FHA 1996). Millions of dollars of spending authority were recently rescinded. Most candidates for future congestion pricing are individual bridges or expressways that already charge tolls, but would charge a premium at peak hours. Areawide congestion pricing is a good idea whose time has apparently not come.