Comprehensive Plan Amends Transportation

The Comprehensive Plan is a long-range land use plan that indicates the community’s desires and preferences regarding how the communities accommodate population and employment growth over a 20-25 year period.  This plan usually includes physical development and provides direction for the region's decision making on issues such as land use, transportation, sewer, and water system.

“Researchers seem to agree that local government regulation works to shape metropolitan development patterns. Local policies include zoning that limits densities and mandates land use separation, transportation standards that call for wide streets and generous parking requirements, and fiscally motivated practices that restrict development of alternatives to the large lot and single-family house. But there is less acknowledgment of one implication of this regulatory regime: these policies prevent some households from getting the transportation and land use options they prefer” opens Jonathan Levine’s section covering transportation options in “Access to Choice.” Levine forms the argument that local comprehensive plans and their zoning limit citizens to certain transportation costs. Can amending comprehensive plans encourage many types of transportation?

            Comprehensive plans will often include transportation plans attached as a way to cover in more detail the standards and goals of a local city. Setting standards for travel lanes, bike and pedestrian paths, and the physical environment relating to the roadway. These plans are created to guide the city in a desirable path, while in perfectly hypothetical world bikes, public transportation, and pedestrian transportation would be heavily favored. However, as a culture that heavily favors the automobile, it is not likely amending comprehensive plans or transportation plans would have a strong impact on people’s method of transportation.  

            In “The Transportation-Land Use Connection Still Matters,” “Giuliano contends the main reason for much longer average commutes is choice (for example, people may want privacy and better schools), not force.” Giuliano believes that despite their environment people will continue to choose to drive, favoring the flexibility and independence the automobile offers. Utilities are also used to create this point. Using Los Angeles as the primary example, drivers who feel very little individual impact from the externalities are much more likely to value physical improvements, such as curbs and improved surfaces (Cervero and Landis, 1995). People are much more likely to encourage automobile friendly development, so even if a simple amendment or revised transportation plan could impact the distribution of transportation numbers, it is unlikely to attract many supporters. 

(Edited by Sara Urbina)

References: 

·      The Transportation-Land Use Connection Still Matters – ACCESS Magazine. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-1995/the-transportation-land-use-still-matters/

·      The Weakening Transportation-Land Use Connection – ACCESS Magazine. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.accessmagazine.org/spring-1995/the-weakening-transportation-land-use-connection/