(fonte: Alt-Tranp 12/2000)
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 ?
Los Angeles Times
data: Fri, 1 Dec 2000
Archivio Webstrade 12/2000
|.||ABITARE NEI COMUNI SUBURBANI FA ALZARE I COSTI
DI VIAGGIO IN AUTOMOBILE
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.
e-magazine New York
data: December 11, 2000
|.||STUDY: HIGHWAY HEAVY PUBLIC INVESTMENT DRIVES
UP PERSONAL SPENDING
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
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
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
The full report is available on the Surface Transportation
Policy Project website at http://www.transact.org