Transportation Planning And Urban Form Environmental Sciences Essay

“Transportation planning should be about more than concrete and steel. It should be about building communities.” – Rodney Slater

The topic of my paper is Transportation planning and urban form. It is well known fact that urban form is highly correlated with the evolution of transportation systems. There exist complex relationship between transportation, land use and urban form. City development patterns are highly correlated with the evolution of transportation systems. As we glanced through the history of transportation Planning in US we see that there has been rational comprehensive approach in the beginning which than with environmental concerns and sprawl changed to another perspective of advocacy. In this paper I am going to focuses on rational approach and Advocacy Planning paradigm for issue of urban form and Transportation and contrasts and compare two different approaches through case studies.

History of Transportation Planning and Urban Form1

Transportation planning in the 20th century grew up with the success of automobile industry. According to Rick Adams, “Comprehensive plans that included rail transit, such as Forest Hills Gardens, New York, quickly proved to be the exception. Transportation planning soon became the handmaiden of the automobile, taking it where it wanted to go, often regardless of the consequences. By the early 1920s, the popularity of the automobile had largely displaced interest in planning for public transportation, which faced declining rider ship and loss of profits”1. Public transit failed to pass public voting. The automobile quickly became the future and national progress. According to Rick, “The planners’ preference was certified at the 1924 National Conference on City Planning when the way of the “horizontal city of the future” was declared-by the automobile. The sudden tidal wave of auto mobility swept over cities throughout the 1920s.”2 As result of this suddenly, suburbs began to grow at a much faster rate than cities. As early as 1923, some cities were debating the banning of cars downtown because of congestion. Commuters by automobile quickly outnumbered those by transit. The single answer for congestion was to build more roads, usually in straight radial lines from the center of the city into territories of developable land at the city’s edge. The “good roads” movement gained in popularity. The concept of a continuous national system of highways was instituted in the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1921 with the adoption of a numbered U.S. highway system composed of routes extending across the nation. According to Rick Adams, “No one was more aggressive at road building than Robert Moses, who, from 1924, amassed unprecedented power in New York to steamroll thousands of miles of highway building projects.”3 The Regional Plan Association of America (RPAA), composed of the era’s most reform-minded planners, including Lewis Mumford, Clarence Stein, and Henry Wright, proposed the idea of the “townless highway,” thoroughfares that would “encourage the building of real communities at definite and favorable points off the main road.” With the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1934, Congress authorized funds to state governments for surveys, plans, engineering, and economic analyses for future highway construction projects. By 1940 Los Angeles soon became the world model of up-to-the-minute modernity in its enthusiastic embrace of transportation planning for the automobile. Congress passed the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1944, financing an interurban system of 32,000 miles that bypassed urban areas. The act immediately created a debate: transportation planners, such as Harold Bartholomew, and power broker Robert Moses wanted to use new roads to attack “urban blight,” charting expressways through urban residential areas to entirely redevelop them. Once again, the debate over “roads fight blight” came to center stage, with many planners insisting that the new highways must penetrate to the center of urban areas to remove slums and improve the connection between outlying suburbs and downtown offices and retail areas. In June 1956, the Interstate Highway Act was passed with only a single vote in opposition. The $41 billion bill became the largest public works program in the history of the world, and which set imbalance that favored the private automobile over public transit. By the early 1960s, the automobile was essentially putting other forms of transportation out of business. It soon became apparent to transportation planners that an undue reliance on the automobile was creating as many problems as it was eliminating. As each new interstate was completed, fresh new problems of displacement, pollution, and congestion arose. Although an well-established group of planners continued to argue for more highway building, other voices began to be heard in support of the idea of “balanced transportation.” In the article Rick Adams4 says that in 1962, for example, the San Francisco Bay Area passed a voters’ referendum for a 71-mile rail transit system after a prolonged “freeway revolt” had voiced popular dissatisfaction with more and more highway building. The year 1962 also saw the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act, which mandated local transportation planning. According to John Edward6 “The Urban Mass transportation Act of 1964 (UMTA) was the first significant effort of the century to recognize the need to improve and expand public transit. Expenditures increased from approximately $100 million in 1964-65 to approximately $1.3 billion at the end of the 1970s”. Under the program, a type of balance was anticipated against the huge federal subsidy for highway building by offering matching funds for capital acquisitions of local transit, and the principal aim was to attain congestion relief by making public transit faster and more comfortable. However, the act also promoted plans for new rail transit, such as the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) in the San Francisco Bay Area. The ironic consequence of most of these public transit efforts, however, was to spread decentralization of urban downtowns and frequently contribute to the deterioration of central city neighborhoods, often increasing racial segregation. Many of the public transit improvements only facilitated suburban commuting in place of intracity transportation. BART, for example, became a high-speed conduit for financial district office workers from the East Bay suburbs of Contra Costa and Alameda. San Francisco residents were seldom to be found on the bright futuristic cars that sped beneath the city streets. In city after city, the main beneficiaries of the new systems or extensions were suburban commuters, not residents of central cities. After 1970, pollution in urban areas became a major federal concern, and the EPA sought to develop plans that would diminish traffic in urban areas to reduce pollution, although planners generally continued to ignore the automobile’s contribution to urban sprawl. The shift in focus from reducing congestion to reducing pollution brought about certain restrictions on automobiles in central areas, converted downtown streets into pedestrian malls, and reduced downtown speed limits. Although critics continued to argue that the federal role in transportation planning was only codifying the decentralization of urban areas or providing Band-Aids to the problems of automobile pollution, the notion of balanced transportation continued to be advanced. Increasingly, the federal role in transportation planning grew more inconsistent during the 1980s. Public transit advocates complained that the government was not doing enough, local jurisdictions complained that it was requiring too much, and congressional representatives increased their opposition to what they termed “big-government intrusion into local affairs.” A kind of deadlock expand throughout the 1980s, with mounting opposition to freeway building by quality-of-life advocates and suburban home owners on the one hand and by public transit advocates faced with reduced federal subsidies for public transit development on the other. Although there were some notable successes of locally funded transit programs, such as in San Diego, California, and a number of other cities that cobbled together funding for new light rail vehicle systems, congestion and sprawl continued to increase as a new phenomenon of “edge cities” grew into the planners’ purview with the most far-reaching requirements for automobile commuting yet. The 1990s saw the influence of numerous state growth management plans that for the first time addressed the comprehensive relationship of urban growth to balanced transportation principles. As state growth-management plans began to extend the idea of what balanced transportation meant, federal transportation planning was also influenced. Passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act attempted to put the highway-only approach to transportation planning to rest forever. For the first time, federal transportation planning included significant provisions to balance local land use planning, the environment, historic preservation, and mobility for children, the elderly, and the disabled.

The pessimist would point to the stranglehold of the automobile on everything from the shape of cities to the air we breathe and conclude that transportation planning has only contributed to the problem. The optimist, however, might point to the incremental progress that is apparent in transportation planning over time, including the increasing interest in what is often called “smart growth” legislation that attempts to address the relationship of transportation planning and land use, and the increased use of public transportation. As the century ended, public transportation rider ship was again on the rise, with an equivalent of a million new trips of public transportation rider ship, increasing by percentages greater than any other travel modes, including motor vehicle travel. Significantly, these gains were evident in central cities, suburbs, and even rural areas, and the idea of a comprehensive approach to transportation planning shows evidence of spreading with increased levels of influence and acceptance. Hence through out the century transportation has been detrimental factor defining the urban form and vice versa. Urbanization has been one of a dominant trend of economic and social change since the second half of the 20th century.

paradigms

Comprehensive Rational Planning: There were major criticism of post-war planning thought that emerged in 1950’s and 1960’s. “Planning theory had failed to understand the empirical relationship of planning. The planners did not comprehend the understanding of the relationship between social planning and physical planning”4. Criticisms of physicalist bias of post war town planning theory were criticized at two levels. At level one it was criticized for concentrating on physical environment to the extent of ignoring social environment. And at another level, to the extent that town planner did not consider social environment in their plan making. Another criticism of early planning was lack of consultation and public involvement and hence was viewed as ‘political’ nature of planning. The early physical and blue print planning was criticized not to be aware of reality of the living space. So common theme of all criticisms was the accusation that planners were insufficiently informed about the nature of the reality they were tampering with. Planners had lack of understanding of cities which was exhibited in their normative ideals. In its Utopianism, its anti-urbanism, its simple tree like models of urban structure and its assumptions about consensus over what ideals of good planning should be, traditional town planning thought failed to grasp the complexity and richness, as well as undoubted problems of human social life and its manifestations in cities. So in respond to this criticisms new Planning theories were developed. This type of planning was described to be technical, abstract and highly mathematical. The systems view of planning arose in criticism to the physical design which is substantive theory, while rational process view was clearly procedural theory of planning. This was a more quantitative approach. Both theories are viewed as sharing certain fundamental assumptions about nature of world and possibilities for human progress within it. The general rational planning process involved the steps of defining a problem, identifying alternatives, evaluating them, implementing plans and policies and monitoring their effects. The rational planning theory had a certain methodology that could be applied to smaller problems and in a modified form. The drawbacks to this theory would be the impossibility to grasp all variables and the lack of resources and time to collect information. So from new planning theories, we see that planning has been process of trial and error and that has given rise to so many paradigms in field of Planning. Both Gunton and Hodge note that Rational Comprehensive Planning (RCP) rose in response to problems brought on by urban growth in the Nineteenth Century when scientific methods were applied to find solutions to urban problems (Hodge a, 83). Most planners now style themselves as using RCP. This is evident in Official Plans and the plan-making process which involve scientific instruments like forecasts, analyses of issues and concerns, studies of anticipated social and environmental impacts and goal statements (Perks & Jamieson, 490).

As its name implies, this theory applies rational decision-making to planning. “The four typical elements of RCP are: goal setting, identification of policy alternatives, evaluation of means against ends, and implementation of decisions with feedback loops and repetition of steps (Hudson, 388). Using this method requires exhaustive information gathering and analysis. It stresses objectivity, the public interest, information and analysis which allow planners to identify the best possible course of action. “

Requirements for Rational Comprehensive Planning are it assumes that decision makers have well defined problem, full array of alternatives to consider, they are well informed, they have full information about the consequences of each alternative, and they are well equipped with resources and skills.

The ideal-typical decision-making model in planning has seven identifiable “stages” (source Freidman):

Formulation of goals and objectives;

Identification and design of major alternatives for reaching the goals identified within the given decision-making situation;

Prediction of major sets of consequences that would be expected to follow upon adoption of each alternative;

Evaluation of consequences in relation to desired objectives and other important values;

Decision based on information provided in the preceding steps;

Implementation of this decision through appropriate institutions; and

Feedback of actual programme results and their assessment in light of the new decision situation.

RCP approaches problems from a systems (integrated) viewpoint, using conceptual or mathematical models that relate ends (objectives) to means (resources and constraints) with quantitative analysis (Hudson, 388). It attempts to side-step the issue of conflict by presuming a discernable public interest. Here there is assumption that community’s various collective goals can be measured in some effective or quantitative way (Altshuler, 194)”6.

The method strives to be objective, technical and exclude subjective and emotional discussion. It attempts to separate planning from politics by ignoring the political considerations of public interest. (Hudson, 390).

The major advantage of RCP is its simplicity. Following a logical, deliberate process, it is easily grasped, its analytical techniques are standard applications of social science, and its intentions are straightforward (Hudson, 389). It has wide applicability and incorporates the fundamental issues, ends, means, trade-offs, and action-taking which are part of most planning activities (Hudson, 389).

The major weakness of RCP is that it is unrealistic. As a methodology, it can only be applied to relatively simple problems and then only in modified form. It is more of procedural theory than substantive. In the real world, inherent limitations on resources, information and time make it impossible to use RCP in its purest form. Lindblom comments that its non-implementability takes away any point in using it (Faludi, 117).

Simon and March critiques of decision making process in RCP are that it is ambigious, planners consider themselves to be well informed but infact they are not. ( Forester, 1989.)

Its demands are considerable and require more than decision-makers are capable of giving. The impossibility of predicting all consequences or grasp all variables and the lack of resources and time to collect information needed for rational choice limit its practicability (Etzioni, 219). Lindblom further notes that the costs of being more comprehensive often exceeded the benefits (Gunton, 406). Lastly, it relies heavily on a particular model of a clear, unitary notion of the public interest which is impossible to achieve in the real world. Interests in reality are pluralist: citizens, politicians and administrators have differing and conflicting values and objectives. This makes it difficult for planners to ascertain the majority’s preference and public debate is rarely wide enough to accomplish this (Lindblom, 156). The rational planning theory came into emergence after the physical planning theory. The rational planning theory which came along on the bases of the systems theory, had actually originated in highly technical fields of operations research and cybernetics. The rational planning approach follows a certain methodology to the planning process and the planners need to be answerable to any questions that might come up. The renewed faith of the application of science was on of the chief reasons for the start of rational planning theory. The rational planning process is practiced in the planning field even today to a great extent. The benefit-cost analysis done for execution of various projects is a major part of the procedural planning theory. The criticism of the rational planning theory is that in identifying and defining problems, something that is assumed to be a problem is actually a problem. Also the different alternative proposed and the selection within them should not favor a particular group. The rational planning theory persists in the planning field today with the specialized consultants practicing planning. They are hired to solve a certain problem with quantitative analysis, technical approach to problem solving and other analytical skills. The rational planning also persists in the form of academic courses. Some of the schools have a curriculum that focus on the more technical and analytical approach towards planning problems and the others are public policy and social economically oriented. Thus, as academics emphasizes on the procedural planning theories, this in turn leads to planners perception and approach towards planning to be rationalistic. Thus, there have been arguments about whether the rational planning approach is the most comprehensive approach to planning.

Advocacy planning: The numbers of public policy decisions that are made in planning seem to be favoring a certain group of individuals who are involved in the planning process and not the underprivileged or the minority groups. The very technical and analytical way of planning did not seem to be concerned with human feelings or the opinions of the ordinary people, who were also a major part of the society. Accordint to Paul Davidoff “Planning decisions were influenced by political steering, they seem to be neglecting the most disadvantaged”7. Advocacy planning, as initiated by Davidoff, is an attempt to incorporate the voices or values that would not otherwise be represented by the incremental approach. Through advocacy planning, planners can advocate the interests of those who are out-of-reach and powerless to represent their own interests. Thus, advocacy planning is a representation of certain social groups by advocacy planners, using the applied techniques of law.

Advocacy planning has its origins that such groups needs planners to make their case, thus leading the planners to search for a new kind of clientele. Advocate planner take the view that any plan is the embodiment of particular group interests, and therefore they see it as important that any group which has interests at stake in the planning process should have those interests articulated. They start to reject the notion of general welfare in other words. The clientele is mostly the low income communities. It talks about the slums not having any community association or leaders that could voice their opinions. Thus, they need a support of the planners of the society to improve their needs. The concept of advocacy planning could be reasoned with an understanding that if the lowest needs are taken care of, the higher needs are taken care of and this leading to the over all improvement of the quality of life of the society. There is analogy made between the legal representatives and the advocate planners. Thus, advocacy planning appears to be a new kind of politics. It is considered to be an apparatus by which the society is humanized over the technical apparatus. In the early 1970’s advocate planners started working with the city governments that shared their commitment to real pluralism. The criticism of advocacy planning was that if the shift of planners concern was from one group to another. Even though advocacy planning favored the disadvantaged group, it totally was considered to be not concerned with the other groups. The planning process thus started to occupy the rational comprehensive approach. This was trying to create a balance between the loopholes of the two planning process to achieve a better and effective functioning of planning in general. Theorists suggested that since planning was ‘for the people’, by all means it should be ‘by the people’ and ‘of the people’ too. So was born ‘Advocacy planning’ wherein even a laymen with the slightest knowledge of planning could voice his expressions regarding planning policies that could have direct or indirect effects on his life. Advocacy planners felt that “any plan is the embodiment of particular group interests and therefore it is important that any group which has interests at stake in the planning process should have those interests articulated”. This view of planning was also considered as a boon for the poor, low income communities and the under represented groups, because the advocacy planning groups proposed to help people from every fraction of the community to voice their interests.

Case Study I: “Study of De Moines Metropolitan Area”9

As discussed in introduction to this paper it is well known that urban form is highly correlated with evolution of transportation systems. This case study focuses on developing planning tools that are responsive to the complicated interaction between transportation and land use, which is helpful to identify the typical characteristics of development of urban form. The historical development of Des Moines area is reviewed to see how urban form is accommodated by transportation evolution and conventional transportation modeling process is reviewed to see how urban form is implied in transportation modeling process. Spatial measurements are used to quantify urban form of Des Moines and its existing transportation network.

Historical Development of Des Moines Area: Review of historical development of Des Moines area is given to provide pictorial description of how transportation and urban form have accommodated each other.

The above table summarizes different phases of Des Moines development, its corresponding transportation systems and transportation eras. We see that the since From the table above we see that in the year 1968 planning approach for Des Moines Metropolitan areas has been Comprehensive and Rational. Transportation system can be considered an expression of urban spatial pattern during the historical development of the city.

Conventional Transportation Modeling Process: Transportation models are computerized procedures used to estimate changes in travel patterns in response to changes in development. Table 2 summarizes how urban form is implied in conventional, sequential transportation modeling processes of trip generation, trip distribution, modal split and traffic assignment. Urban form of Des Moines metropolitan area is measure by seven spatial criteria such as homogeneity, directionality, connectivity, design pattern, density gradient, concentricity and sectorality. From the table 3 below we see that the elements of modeling process were land use, socio-economic, demographics, travel impedance, Transportation policy, Residential density, income, distance from CBD, Geometrics, Capacity of roadway and transportation network. So we see that there has been no consideration for personal preference or public involvement at any stage of modeling.

Data has been collected for different social areas and transportation network in Des Moines metropolitan area, for number of housing units, relative location of CBD, the city and Metropolitan area centers. Finally based on this data, results of CBD and Corridor study are summarized. The outcomes of the rational planning process for Des Moines Metroplolitan Area are as follows:

Population density gradient shows that the central part of Des Moines metropolitan area has highest population density. The city of Des Moines is still focal point for employment and population in the metropolitan area. The other cities are bedroom communities, even though they are beginning to show significant commercial and retail development. The development largely follows interstate highway development along I-235, I-80 and I-35. The urban pattern of Des Moines metropolitan area is radial in terms of trip attraction.

The location of CBD of the city of Des Moines was largely influenced by Raccoon River and Des Moines River. Development in the city of Des Moines has since shifted southward. With metropolitan area, new development is located northwest of the geometric center of metropolitan area, which is close to the cities of Urbandale, Clive, West Des Moines and Windsor Heights. It is assumed that new developments tend to shift to the geometric center of city or region to over come the friction of distance or space. People tend to make tradeoff between transportation costs and land values. It thus suggests that when examining the development trend for city or region, the geometric center or its vicinity may be first measure that should be considered.

Based on census data, bicycle trips comprise only 0.2% of total work trips while walk trips make up 3.2% and bus trips are 2.9%. Future urban design would consider more use of these modes to make Des Moines more walkable and more bicycle and transit friendly.

Assess the importance of life style as a determinant of urban form.

Measure more cities with different urban patterns and cities of different sizes to determine the statistical relationship between density gradient, urban pattern and transportation networks.

Finally realizing that not all transportation networks and investments are rational, truly understanding the relationship between transportation and urban form helps to make more rational decisions. The purpose of this research is part of the planning process to provide better transportation networks and make more efficient investments on existing networks to provide residents a better place to live and work and make more livable and sustainable city based on existing transportation network.

Case Study II: “Fruitvale Transit Village Project The Unity Council, Bay Area Rapid Transit District, City of Oakland”10

The Fruitvale Transit Village is the result of broad partnership among public, private and non profit organizations working together to revitalize a community using transit oriented development. Transit oriented development is planning concept that uses mass transit stations as blocks for economic revitalization and environmental improvement. In 1999, groundbreaking took place on a $ 100 million mixed use development adjacent to Fruitvale Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) station in Oakland, California. Fruitvale, one of the Oakland seven communities is predominantly minority community with low income, experiencing economic stress. Fruitvale Transit Village is brainchild of Unity Council, a community development corporation (CDC) formed in 1964 by activists who wanted to create forum for working on issues important to Fruitvale’s Latino community.

In June, 1991 BART announced plans to construct a multi level parking facility adjacent to Fruitvale BART station. The community agreed that new parking was necessary, but the design and location of the facility did not sit well with Fruitvale residents and business owners. Members of community were concerned that proposed structure would increase traffic and pollution and further separate Fruitvale neighborhood from BART station. The Unity council which was CDC galvanized the neighborhood’s opposition to the parking structure design and location, arguing that any development around BART station should be guided by broad based community planning process. Faced with strong community opposition BART withdrew its proposal and agreed to work with the Unity Council on plan for the area. In February 1992, City of Oakland awarded Unity Council $ 185,000 in Community Block Grant (CBDG) funds to initiate community planning process for revitalizing the area around Fruitvale BART station. During next couple of years Unity Council engaged local stakeholders in comprehensive visioning and planning process that laid out the parameters for Fruitvale Transit Village. Impressed with Unity Council community involvement strategy, the US DOT awarded agency a $470,000 FTA planning grant in 1993 for Fruitvale Transit Village. The vocal and sometimes contentious meetings between BART and community representatives gave birth to idea for Fruitvale Transit Village. The project is consider reducing traffic and pollution in and around the community as residents of neighborhood would have easy access to goods and services within waling distance of transit station. Unity council organized workshops to help community reach on consensus and to identify both positive and negative qualities of Fruitvale Community and to indicate their development preferences. There were about 30 people who participated in this workshop. Participants identified crime, lack of retail business and community services, the area’s negative image, and lack of connection between BART station and community as issues of concern. Plan included mixture of housing, shops, office, library, a child care facility, pedestrian plaza and other community services all surrounding BART station. This project had strong commitment to public involvement by lead agencies involved. Typically, either city officials or private developers represent driving force behind large scale development projects. Series of workshop were conducted and they showed increased number of participation. Normally residents are usually in position of responding to plans that are initiated by others. Whereas here during third workshop, participants were asked to provide feedback on two alternative land use plans prepared by the project design team. In this case under Unity Council who represented the community, played leader role in the project. It helped and ensured community’s own vision for transit station and its surrounding area served as guiding principles for planning and design. Finally, the planning effort behind the Fruitvale Transit Village represent an innovative strategy for using mass transit as lever for revitalizing an urban community and hence determine the urban form. Fruitvale Transit Village has set an example of transit oriented development in lower income inner city community when transit oriented development has been successful in affluent suburban locations. The final project components of Fruitvale Transit Village were to locate village on the existing BART station parking lot, a nine acre site adjacent to station. The centerpiece of project would be an elegant, tree lined pedestrian plaza connecting BART station entrance with 12th street business district one block away. The plaza would be lined with restaurants and shops and serve as venue for neighborhood festivals and concerts. The surrounding would include a mixture of retail development, housing and social service agencies, all easily accessible by foot from BART station. By mid 1990’s, considerable progress had been made on planning and designing of Fruitvale Transit village, yet the project faced number of significant hurdles. Chief among these were issues of land assembly, that is need to assemble all parcels of land within the development site under single ownership. BART still owned much of development site and due to long standing policy requiring the agency to retain ownership of land around transit stations for effective long term planning, it could not easily part with the property. The challenge for Unity Council was to persuade BART to make an exception to this policy and accept a fair market price for the property. Hence once again BART exhibited considerable flexibility. There was land swap by Fruitvale Policy committee, which awarded the FDC a 96 year lease on the property and in turn BART received parcel behind the transit station owned by Unity council and several nearby vacant parcels owned by City of Oakland. Second hurdle was issue of BART parking facility at station. BART policy required that every parking spot removed for a project replaced elsewhere. Ultimately Unity council helped to negotiate an agreement allowing BART to construct parking garage on property owned by Union Pacific Railroad west of station. Finally, in order to maintain the pedestrian oriented character of Transit Village and to support community preferences of less traffic congestion and better air quality, Unity council petitioned the City of Oakland for zoning ordinance that would ban construction of any additional parking spaces within the area of Transit Village. Finally city passed that ordinance.

Figure below shows Plan by Architect which reflects translated ideas from community workshops into plan for station area.

Figure below is Plan for station area incorporates the community’s desire for better connection between community and transit station.

Compare and Contrast of two Case studies:

As discussed both case studies were related to transportation planning and urban form. There is complex relationship between transportation, land use and urban form.

Project Definition: Project definition in the first case study of Des Moines Metropolitan area is to prepare Transportation and Land use plan. It has been observed that over the period of years the urban development has been along the transportation corridor in this metropolitan area. This case study is about the plan for the Des Moines Metropolitan Area in 1995. The objective was to locate new commercial developments and transit facilities to achieve goal of sustainable development and also transit oriented development and pedestrian friendly. While in another case study of Fruitvale Transit village project the project definition was economic development of community by transit oriented development. The issue was uplift of economically weak and minority neighborhood adjacent to BART station.

Planning Process: Both case studies are of same time period where there have been enough innovations in planning theory and technology. The similarities between both case studies are to plan transportation oriented development and pedestrian friendly and also commercial and economic development. The approach in case study of Des Moines Metropolitan area in my view was Rational Comprehensive. It was more technical and quantitative approach. During the planning process, in case of Des Moines metropolitan area transportation modeling was carried out based on past trends to understand the urban form of the area. The elements in modeling process to come up with the future land use and thorough fare plans were existing land use, demographics, travel time, transportation policy, income, distance from CBD, Geometrics transportation network and capacity of roadway. There was no public involvement involved at any stage of process. Based on the results of the modeling, spatial measurements and Des Moines Urban form came up with the location of freeway and future land use plan. Again at the stage of implementation there was no public involvement process involved. So this was comprehensive approach where they looked at metropolitan area as system whole. Planners were the ultimate decision makers during the process. This was also procedural theory which justifies Rational Comprehensive approach as the results and outcomes of the plans were proposed land uses and proposed thoroughfare plan. During this process planners were considered to possess all related information about the resources. In this process they looked at the past trends to project the further developments and type of urban form which would be determined by transportation network. The process of planning is technical and quantitative since it involves past trends and data analysis for predicting future urban form and land use plan. Goals and objectives are identified by the planners themselves since they knew the success of urban form for the area from the past trends and modeling results. During the criteria for evaluation were decided by the planners and which were homogeneity, directionality, connectivity, density pattern, density gradient, concentricity and sectorality to measure urban form. Also based on Census data they came up with the alternative for modes of transportation for Des Moines to achieve one of the goals of making it more walk able and more bicycle and transit oriented.

Whereas, in my view another case study of Fruitvale Transit Village in my view was advocacy planning process. BART proposed multi level parking adjacent to BART station in Fruitvale based on their long range and short range plan to accommodate the parking demand. Fruitvale is primarily low income minority community who are underprivileged group. Unity council (CDC) advocated for the ideas and vision of the Fruitvale community and objected to the proposal of multilevel parking adjacent to BART station. The whole planning process was a political as there was citizen participation at all levels. By series of workshops Unity council helped community to set their goals and objectives. Ideas of community were translated in plans and were again laid to community for decision to make final choice of plan. Unity council helped the community to organize themselves and represented this underrepresented group to have their say into the process of planning for their own community. There was strong participation during this process of planning and that is reflected from the number of participants during the workshops. In true words planning in this case study was “by the people and for the people”.

Hence there has been different approach to same issue of economic development and transit oriented development. The other difference is the type of the community for which plans are made and also the level at which the planning was carried out. In case of Des Moines the planning was at metropolis level whereas in case of Fruitvale it was at the neighborhood or community level.

Planning Outcomes: In case of Des Moines metropolitan area transportation and land use plan based on the statistical analysis and rational approach , proposed development to largely follow the interstate highway along I-235, I-28 and I-35. They also proposed extension of I-235 to enhance development of out lying cities of city of Des Moines. They also assessed the importance of life style as determinant of urban form of the area. Also they proposed more transit friendly development in West Des Moines along the Raccoon River. To evaluate their plans they analyzed the statistical relationship between density gradient, transportation network and commercial development along the transportation corridor for other cities with different urban pattern to compare with the city of Des Moines. So from the outcome it seems to be more procedural than being substantive.

While in case of Fruitvale Transit Village, during the implementation process Unity council played important role in coordinating and over coming all the hurdles to see the community vision come true. Fruitvale was converted into the dream come true project for the residents of this neighborhood and was one of the first low income neighborhood to set mark in transit oriented development. BART constructed parking garage on property of Union Pacific Rail road west of station which was accomplished with the help of Unity Council.

Conclusion

Land use, urban form and Transportation are complexly related to one another. Over the period of time we have seen that urban form is determined by Transportation system and network. In my paper I have tried to study same complex relationship and process to plan these complex interrelated issues by using two different case studies with different planning approach. In my view both processes are right in their place as they talk about success stories for both regions. As mentioned in the two paradigms the rise of two theories were product of their time. In my view taking particular planning approach is also circumstantial. Various planning paradigms have evolved over the period from the beginning of 1900 till change of century. The approach to particular issue of planning also depends on the values, concepts and perception of the Planner. But often when Planner is considered to be the ultimate decision maker there are chances of process getting political rather than public interest. Advocacy planning which arouse from the criticism of the Rational comprehensive planning involved the citizens, community of neighborhood residents into the process of planning and hence reducing the chances of process getting political. But again the level of public participation and response also determine the planning approach and process. In case of Des Moines Metropolitan area the process is carried out at larger scale, so in my view even if the process of public participation was included I doubt on the turnout of the residents during such meetings. Even in the process of public involvement it is not always the correct representation of the sample of community. Most often the community leaders set the goals and objectives for their community considering themselves to be aware of requirements of the community as whole. So in such process there are changes of planning process to become value laden or political. Again in advocacy planning as we saw in case of Fruitvale Transit village it was CDC who advocated for the community requirements, goals and objectives. They helped the community to oppose the location of parking lot adjacent to BART station. They advocated for this underrepresented community and made representation on their behalf to BART. Also they helped community to organize themselves and also helped them to get grants and funds for successful completion of the Transit village dream of the community. In my view in planning there is no single way of approaching the issue so knowledge of all paradigms enables us to understand the situation and context in which they were used and evolve our own theory to practice as successful planner. I have really enriched myself from this term paper and have made my values and concepts of planning clear and have shown me the way to approach issues in planning and to built upon my ethics. It has also helped me to organize my knowledge of planning so far through various project experiences and courses and shown me direction to approach profession.