California, i costi della diffusione insediativa
città pedonabili o città di autostrade? I costi della mobilità sono pagati dalle famiglie

(fonte: Alt-Tranp 12/2000)
indietro  |  Webstrade home site | elenco dei casi studioavanti  |

Un recente rapporto pubblicato in America conferma che la diffusione insediativa ha degli alti costi di trasporto che sono pagati  direttamente dalle famiglie, senza considerare i costi indiretti, ambientali, economici, sociali del modello di vita suburbano che sono pagati dall'intera collettività. Tali costi pare che annullino i vantaggi dei costi più  bassi delle abitazioni negli insediamenti suburbani. Infatti, gli abitanti dei quartieri suburbani, costretti a spostarsi quotidianamente in macchina per andare al lavoro, ma anche per andare a scuola, per gli acquisti, per il tempo libero ed i servizi, spendono tra i 2.000 e di 4.000 dollari in più all’anno di quelli che abitano nelle città, sia piccole che medie o grandi, ma più concentrate, servite dal trasporto pubblico, e con una buona offerta di attrezzature urbane, servizi e infrastrutture, tali cioè da ridurre la necessità di mobilità motorizzata. Si parla di “walkable cities”, “bikefriendly cities”, “transit oriented development”. Urbano è bello, oltre che comodo e conveniente.
Un altro colpo al mito americano ?
. . .
da:  alt-transp list
ripreso da
Los Angeles Times
data: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 

Archivio Webstrade 12/2000


LA Times,  Dec. 1, 2000

Study Finds Suburbs Drive Up Cost of Living Comparison of transportation expenses says residents of urban core cities like Santa Ana spend thousands less than those in Tustin or Irvine.

By DOUG SHUIT, MONTE MORIN, Times Staff Writers

The costs of driving a car rise dramatically the further you get from Southern California's urban core cities and may partially offset the lower housing costs of the far-flung suburbs, according to a study released Thursday. 
A first-ever study comparing automobile costs incurred in different cities found that residents of cities close to shopping, jobs and good public transportation spent from $2,000 to $4,000 less than the average for the region. 
The study was done by researchers for the Surface Transportation Policy Project and the Center for Neighborhood Technology. The researchers are advocates for growth and environmental policies aimed at reducing sprawl. They draw their statistics from a variety of federal and regional data collection agencies. 
In Orange County, the study shows newer and wealthier communities ranking far ahead of older and more urban county cities when it comes to household transportation costs. 
Residents of certain neighborhoods in Irvine, Tustin, Aliso Viejo and Coto de Caza can spend up to $4,325 more than the national average on fuel and other expenses just getting to work, running errands and taking their children to school. In sharp contrast, however, families in older, more urban cities such as Santa Ana, Costa Mesa and Westminster spend as much as $2,000 a year less than the national average for transportation. 
The savings, the study concluded, were due to the availability of public transportation and city layouts more amenable to walking. 
The study found that in the entire Los Angeles -Riverside -Orange County area annual auto costs per household were lowest in Los Angeles, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Long Beach, Glendale and Pasadena, where households spent from $3,200 to $5,000 a year on cars. The national average was roughly $6,300. 
According to the study, some households in the Antelope Valley spent the most, from $7,600 to $12,300 a year. Orange County's high end was not far behind. 
Some local officials challenged the notion that increased driving
costs offset the significantly lower housing costs in distant suburbs. 
"Obviously someone who owns a Lexus is going to spend more on average for vehicle costs," said George Urch, a spokesman for the Orange County Transportation Authority. "I'm not sure what the relevance of this study is." 
In Santa Ana, City Manager David N. Ream said many residents must rely on public transportation. 
"In some of our older neighborhoods, people don't have the
discretionary income to spend on [cars]," Ream said. "We have the highest bus ridership in the county." 
In Irvine, a city that has prided itself on construction of
pedestrian and bicycle paths, Mayor-elect Larry Agran said residents were still dependent on vehicles. 
"If you're a 15-year-old and you want to visit your friend five miles away, you could bike, but you'll probably get a ride from your
parents," Agran said. "And when you're 16, you're probably going to drive yourself." 
The notion that increased driving costs offset the lower cost of
homes in suburban areas was difficult for some officials to accept. 
"We are probably the most affordable area in Southern California and people are willing to make the commute to live here," said SanBernardino city spokeswoman June Durr. She cited a survey showing the average cost of a three-bedroom home in the city was $90,000. 
Durr said a major goal of the city was to spur business expansion so that more city residents can find high-paying jobs at home, and avoid higher commuting costs. 
The annual household expenditures on transportation were calculated by combining research data on the cost of vehicle purchases; car-related expenses, such as insurance and repairs; and money spent on public transportation. 
In Southern California, the study found that spending on
transportation ranked second on a typical family's budget, ranking behind only housing and ahead of food. 
The national survey found that drivers in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria region in Texas spent the most during the two-year period, $8,840, followed by Atlanta, $8,513, and Dallas-Fort Worth, $8,717. 
Correspondent Jenifer Ragland in Ventura County contributed to this report. 

. . .
da Mobilizing the Region
e-magazine New York 
data: December 11, 2000

Families pay thousands more per year on transportation in spread-out, centerless metropolitan areas with few choices for getting around, reports a recently released study by the Surface Transportation Policy Project.  The analysis, called "Driven to Spend",  probes data for 28 American metropolitan regions, finding that households spend a higher percentage of their yearly expenditure on transportation in cities with sprawl development 
characteristics and a low ratio of public transit service to 
highway miles.

According to the 1997-1998 U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Expenditure Survey, daily transportation costs are highest in Houston, Atlanta, and Dallas, followed by other sprawl capitals, Miami and Pheonix.  The least expensive metro areas to travel in are New York City, Honolulu, and Baltimore, then Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, and Washington D.C.

Families in Houston spent 27% more on transportation than the national average of $6,312 per year and almost 46% more than those living in the New York City metro area. Even accounting for additional taxes due to governmental outlay for transit, tri-state residents do better, paying roughly $2500 per year less by household than their Houston counterparts. 

The report found this pattern repeated within cities as well. Families in outlying areas of Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles must in some cases spend  twice as much annually on transportation than those living in walkable neighborhoods or near active transit lines. Although the NYC metro region was not considered at this level of detail, household transportation expenses in Manhattan or its boroughs must be significantly less than the $5,950 annual expenditure attributed to a statistical area that includes Long Island and suburban Connecticut and New 
Jersey (MTR #286).

Another significant finding is that household transportation expenditure increased over the last ten years in metro areas that pursued significant highway expansion over the same period, while the cost of transport dropped in places where the number of highway miles built decreased (see graph).

For every private dollar spent in America, 18 cents pays for transportation, a larger share than what is spent on education, health care, or food. In 1998, 84% of the over $800 billion Americans spent on transportation was borne by individuals. The correlation described above show that investment choices made by Federal and state governments for the remaining 16% have a large impact on the amount that families are required to spend to get around. In particular, road building strategies cost residents twice, 
once in taxes and, again, in additional, often uncounted, increased personal transportation costs.

The full report is available on the Surface Transportation Policy Project  website at

torna su .