I’m fulfilling one of my course requirements at Fels by doing an independent study this summer. I’ve decided to look at transit-oriented development and smart growth initiatives in
“Transit-oriented development” and “smart growth” are oft-misunderstood buzzwords in the field of economic development. They both argue for high-density, mixed-use development, as a better alternative to suburban sprawl with its far-flung developments and cookie-cutter designs, which are not only aesthetically boring but deleterious to the environment and high in cost because of the need to build new infrastructure, pave over natural resources, and force commuters into ever-longer drive times.
What interests me in the topic is that here is something that makes sense to me: save money, save the environment, and improve everyone’s quality of life. And yet such initiatives need to be justified from a political and financial standpoint. Politically, public transportation and land development are items that get people lathered up, because they involve lots of money and affect lots of people. Financially, I want to show the tree-huggers that these projects have to make fiscal sense to justify doing them, and I want to prove to the bean-counters that these projects do pass a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, particularly if you factor in gains in environmental conservation, quality of life, and economic equity.
I’ve read about 1000 pages of research so far, and all I’ve learned is how little I know on the subject. But I’m eager to digest the next 1000 pages of research. And eventually, I’ll be able to say a thing or two about the politics and the finances behind transit-oriented development and smart growth initiatives, to make a contribution to a body of research and an ongoing discussion that can lead to better public investments, better environmental stewardship, and better communities.
Comments