The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Urban Sprawl is leading to grave environmental consequences worldwide, but especially in the United States due to the historical nature of development. Unprecedented outward growth has occurred much more quickly in a couple of centuries compared to traditional European cities who have had hundreds of years to evolve. The expansion of American cities has paralleled the industrial revolution and creation of the automobile. Both the cultural dependency on the car, as well as a fleet from oppressive conditions of city centers during industrialization have led to enormous proportions of the built environments of cities in comparison to density. In the face of peak oil and global warming, our society and the spatial development of our cities is causing serious consequences for developing future modes of transportation aside from the automobile.
As the fifteenth most populous city in the United States with the third highest growth rate for large cities between 2000 and 2006, Austin, Texas is an interesting study area in terms of spatial development and transportation. This analysis will explore and attempt to explain the drive of spatial development in the city as well as problems for Austin’s future public transportation system. We will review specific trends in suburban development and automobile dependency and the policies that are contributing to them.
Austin has experienced periods of population booms and continues to grow rapidly, a basis for the urban sprawl occurring here. Early attractors for living, including beauty and recreation, state government jobs, and the University of Texas at Austin, provided for initial growth as a city. A business climate favored by the state and non-heavy industry favored by the Chamber of Commerce enabled the technology concentration known as “Silicon Hills.” The geographical features of the area have led to an anomaly in the spatial distribution of municipally incorporated areas as well as in the greater metropolitan area. Important areas of research in the Austin metropolitan area include: changes in home and job density, land value, municipal development in relation to geographical restraints, industrial accessibility in terms of the technology sector, trends in annexation and regional growth over time.
Originally a small Spanish mission, Austin was founded as the capital of Texas because of its beautiful surroundings and water sources. As the center of government for the state, Austin’s growth was based largely around governmental job concentration, but also as a center of education. From a study done in 1984 by the Lyndon B. Johnson School for Public Affairs, Austin’s largest employer at this time was the state government—still holding true at the present time shown by the figure below—and governmental business employed 19 percent of the labor force. This same study shows 182 state or federal agencies located in the city, further attracting 329 regional, state, and national associations as employment. In addition being named the state capitol, the University of Texas was founded in 1883 and Austin became home to a large center of education. Government concentration and the University of Texas have provided a stable economy for Austin throughout its history and have greatly influenced its growth.
In terms of spatial layout, development has continuously occurred along the north-south boundary, mainly due to geographically constraining features such as elevation and land slope. Presently, this north-south corridor is facilitated by Interstate Highway 35 and Texas Highway One. Austin served as crossroads between farmland in the eastern sections of Texas and the “Hill Country” of the west. However, topology and elevation variation to the west of Travis County has prevented the development of an east-west major highway corridor, restricting the area to mostly private development and less urbanization. The presence of the Edwards bedrock Aquifer has also significantly influenced spatial push of private development by deciding where private wells can occur the most cheaply.
Also, Austin’s waterways were central to the geographical shaping of the city as they provided a source of shipping. However, the river’s unpredictability kept it from being an economic asset for heavy industry and trade (Kearl 1995). In addition, Austin traditionally lacked deep water transportation and nearby mineral resources that prevented heavier industries oriented towards petrochemicals, refining, chemicals, or steel to cause environmental and social problems that had occurred in other cities (LBJ School of PH). This sets the stage for economic decisions regarding what type of industry was attracted by city policies, discussed later.
Austin’s growth has depended on its natural amenities as well as its natural boundaries. The Colorado River and Shoals and Waller creeks initially restricted Austin’s growth on three sides. In the 1940s and 1950s a series of dams were built in order to “tame” the Colorado River and enable growth because frequent flooding of it and droughts forced the south side of town to rebuild and repair its constructions and roads every 10 to 20 years. In 1960, Austin built the Long-Horn dam, which created the town lake and helped define the city’s core. After all of the dams were created, stability in the waterways ensued through flood management and hydroelectric power (Kearl 1995). This development combined with secured road and bridge infrastructure allowed for economic expansion to occur. These dams also enhanced residential development along the Colorado River since citizens no longer had to fear flooding and housing destruction. This stable source of water attracted more businesses, increasing the economic prosperity and development of the city.
The prosperous period after the Great Depression marked the start of elevated technology presence in Austin. In the 1950’s, several research laboratories and think tanks were already present, and these continued to attract more technology industry (Biruta, 1995). From 1960 to 1975, Austin’s job opportunities improved as the electronics industry relocated from the Northeast to the Southwest of the country (LBJ School of PH). The city continued to boom as part of the national trend in Sunbelt prosperity as the South and Southwest became the fastest growing US region form 1970-1980. The Silicon Hills nickname developed as more companies, such as Data General, Digital Equipment, Intel, Tandem Computers, and Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation relocated to Austin (LBJ School of PH).
As high tech business interest grew, and economic activity became dominated by government, education, and emerging technology industry, the proportion of white-collar workers grew (Swearingen 2010). The lack of manufacturing or heavy industry in Austin due to the original economic restrictions shows a demographically disproportionality between the middle and lower working classes. This leads to increasing income levels and high concentrations of those affiliated with the university and government in the high-priced residential areas of central Austin. Recent times have been characterized by more rapid growth and expansion. This paper will focus analysis on the growth that occurred in the decades after 1960 as a result of the technology boom.
Databases related to the Austin area were created to model historical changes in through space and time to learn more about the development of a city using specific drivers of growth in Austin, Texas. The data for this analysis was collected for the city of Austin, the Austin-Round Rock metropolitan area, the Central Texas Region, and Travis County. Major sources of data were the U.S. Census Bureau, the City of Austin, and the Capital Area Council of Governments.
It is important to explain the area of study under speculation. Levels of analysis vary from the Central Texas Region down to zoning areas and industry points within the city limits. The Central Texas Region includes the ten counties of Bastrop, Blanco, Caldwell, Fayette, Hays, Lee, Llano, Travis, and Williamson. Travis County is central to this area, and its spatial growth along the I-35 corridor calls for a regional analysis. Envision Central Texas is an organization committed to the sustainable development of the region of study. Their classification of Town, City, and Regional centers database was used to create representations of drivers of sprawl in the surrounding areas of Austin, Texas.
The U.S. Census Bureau was widely used to capture basic topological layers as well as data for employment and residential statistics. The Longitudinal Employment Data On the Map was used to import shape files and raster images of job density in 2002 and 2009. The data viewer interface is shown below. We also imported densities for residential area in 2002 and 2009. The search area chosen was the entire Austin-Round Rock metropolitan area to show outlying growth, especially those along the I-35 highway corridor.
This data collection method provides three major steps within which certain types of analyses can be chosen. The Data Settings step allows us to choose either work place or home area for certain years ranging from 2002 to 2009. In order to model the maximum temporal change considering the restraints of this dataset, we chose to focus on the differences between 2002 and 2009, so only layers for these two years were imported into Arcmap. For the Study Area Selection step, we used normal area selection, but it was possible to do an advanced area selection which pairs employment area and home area to show where people work and live in the same area. This was outside the scope and time limits of this project, but could be used for future analysis on this subject. The Map Overlay and Report Options step allowed us to choose between a simple Work/Home Area Profile Analysis, with simple demographic statistics or a Labor/Commute Shed Analysis. We chose to do Labor and Commute Shed analysis where Labor Shed shows where people are employed who live in the metropolitan area and Commute Shed shows the opposite, where people live who are employed in the metropolitan area.
The City of Austin website was extremely useful for land use, parcel data, and growth by annexation. Land use and land cover are important factors in analyzing development trends and were widely consulted as a major part of explaining growth. The parcel database was used mainly to model land values and how this relates to where spatial change is occurring for residential areas. An annexation history shapefile was used to calculate the amount of annexation from each decade since 1960. Goals for this analysis included using data from before this date, but data before this time period was unable to be found. It turns out that this is the period when the most expansion occurred economically since all major bridges and dams had been built between 1940 and 1960.
This section will explain what Geographic Information Systems methods were used to create output maps figures. Small versions of these figures are included in the analysis and discussions sections to partner as a visual representation of main points. They are, however, included at the end in a larger format for reference. As a note, most raster conversions were found to produce best results with an output size of 100 or 300, due to the nature of our study area.
For Job and Home Density: Vector point data and thermal files of home area and primary jobs were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s LED On the Map. We used the raster data thermal files to keep data volumes low and analysis of the data easier. The thermal files were also reclassified and used in raster calculations to show spatial infringement through time using differences in the two years chosen. Lastly, an interpolation of the point data for job density was created to explain certain concentrations of employment.
Change in Job Area: To map the change in job area, we imported LED shapefiles of (1) job area labor shed analysis from 2002 and 2008 and (2) LED on the map data for points of occupation and thermals. From the thermal files, we reclassified the raster data and changed density to one value. We used the raster calculator to show the outer ring representing the difference in spatial distribution of jobs between 2002 and 2008. It is important to note that here, by reclassifying the raster thermal files, we wanted to focus attention on the spatial growth of job area, and specifically where jobs were created in previously space not containing jobs. By doing this, we did not focus attention on areas that are increasing in density where there were previously jobs, but is important to iterate that this is an important characteristic of the data.
Change in Home Area: This was mapped using techniques similar to job area, but it is now classified as a commute shed analysis. With this, we are able to see the spatial infringement of home area upon other land. By combining the two previously created maps and comparing them, concentric rings of home development can be seen around the areas of job development.
Home Change and Land Values: These were mapped by layering difference in home area and land value. By analytically looking at the data, it can be noted that as development occurs, land value is changing. Specifically, areas of land that are in high demand have higher land values. These high demands include where job and home growth is occurring and will most likely occur in the future. The zoomed insert of boundaries shows how closely the land values and prices match.
Regional Development Centers: The goal for this map was to visually represent preferred future growth patterns according Envision Central Texas and model developed by Fregonese Calthorpe Associates. Shapefile data was converted to raster and overlaid by I-35 to show highway corridor influences on the growth of region and its centers of development.
Percent Growth by Annexation: The annexation history shapefile was the database for this output map. Vector layers were created by selecting by attributes for polygons annexed within certain date values to represent the city limits over temporal intervals of 10 years. By selecting by location, the areas annexed within the decade intervals of 1960-1970, 1970-1980, 1980-1990, 1990-2000, and 2000-2010 were each created as layers and converted to raster representation. Percent growth was calculated by finding total acres for each and dividing by the total amount of change in area from 1960-2010. Annexation plans were included for up until December 31, 2010, so this annexation history is very up to date.
Wells and Land Slope: By clipping vector data from state well locations, we were able to layer private wells within the city limits of Austin on top of land slope data for Travis County. A correlation between was noted between the locations of wells and the slope of the land. Steeper land is more difficult to access and drill wells as opposed to gentler land.
Wells and Single Family Homes: Using similar methods to Wells and Land Slope, we were able to use the well data and layer it on top of land use data. Only the single family homes were mapped from the various classes of land use. From this we were able to see a correlation between privately owned wells and the location of single family homes.
Working Points Interpolation: A working profile density was created and layered with job points. Using spatial analysis, we were able to use the shapefile of points and interpolate to form a raster to represent density of jobs. This shows the two major concentrations of jobs, government and emerging technology centers, as previously discussed.
Industrial Service Area: A Network Analyst Service Area calculation was used to map service area. To do so, we selected major employers in the technology industry from a database of all employers in Austin. The network analysis represents service area according to the roads shapefile used to create the network database. Service areas were provided in terms of radial distance in meters and the road network.
In Austin, Texas, the elongated spatial networking caused by suburban living environments is straining the reaches of public forms of transportation. Citizens have increasingly less access to a sustainable way to get from where they live to where they work. This is only leading to more dependency on the automobile; as the most frequently used form of transportation, the amount of trips taken by car is only increased by the amount of strictly residential areas that exists on the outskirts of the city. This section will assess the city of Austin’s policies affecting the future ability of public transportation to serve the metropolitan area.
Transportation potential is largely dependent upon land use and travel demand models. Employment and household distribution are very important to analyzing which transportation systems are best for an area. Spatial growth in and around Austin during the technology boom are incredibly important for understanding the creation and drive of problems for Austin’s future public transportation system. These economic changes are showing an effect on residential and industrial expansion inside and outside the city limits. Growth of outlying areas in both employment and population are decreasing chances of an effective public transportation system being able to evolve. Austin annexation, zoning, and infrastructure policy changes, originating in the 1980’s, each have significant effects on development pattern in terms of residence and employment.
Annexation in Austin has traditionally been thought of as a growth management tool. “It is the city’s belief that properly planned annexations with extensions of city services and facilities will encourage development in annexed areas while discouraging it in more distant areas” (LBJ School of PH). A fundamental question in this policy is if annexation actually discourages uncontrolled growth by encouraging higher quality growth around the cities fringes. All four policy options for annexation in the early 1980’s were expected to encourage growth in areas that already have existing infrastructure, mainly in proximity to the North South corridor (LBH School of PH). The map below shows annexation over time, the most change occurring during the 1980’s.
Suburban explosion in Austin can be linked to policies attracting a high proportion of technology industry. Austin Chamber of Commerce has used a recruitment plan to select mainly non-polluting high income industries to prevent the pollution and social problems that had historically occurred in other cities. This attraction of high-end business has contributed to the concentration of a certain type of employment in technology, and the location of them is very important. In the early 1980s, firms such as IBM, Motorola and 3M encouraged the population boom of Austin because of the many jobs these firms provided (Swearingen 2010). A study done by Market Street Services reflects this high proportion of technologically and governmentally oriented jobs compared to other types of occupations (Market Street Services). The figure below shows the top employers for the city according to Austin’s Chamber of Commerce.
Whereas governmental educational employers are in the top percentile, these are situated in central districts of the city, and do not compromise transportation options. However, the large technological employers, including Dell (located far north in Williamson County), IBM Corporation, Freescale Conductor, Flextronics, and Advanced Micro Devices, are all relatively removed from downtown and can be considered attractors for development based on job opportunities.
A clean job base by attracting non-polluting industries to Austin has decreased the negative effects that normally infringe upon inner city life, but this does not seem to be the only reason people are taking up residence in the outskirts. While popular residences in central Austin continue to exist, they are largely single residence and not a major area for families with children. An interesting situation in city policy has arisen regarding home size and location. A large reason people are moving to the outskirts is that there are not many affordable housing options downtown. The “McMansion” ordinance was passed because residents were interested in protecting their neighborhoods in central Austin, explained by a recent article from New Geography website.
“The title was a clever bit of marketing. The word “McMansion” evokes an enormous, pretentious structure – and who wants that? But Austin’s stringent ordinance takes aim at much more modest homes. …. A homeowner who wants to add a second story, for example, must ensure that the second story fits within an elaborate “building envelope” – a complicated calculation unless the addition is centered in the lot… (Bradford 2009)”
There is much evidence for Austin being a largely elitist city consisting of a large proportion of white collar jobs, but there is also an increasing trend of two “largely successful cities, a central core left to small households or singles, and suburbs of single family homes that offer either larger housing, or smaller housing at much cheaper prices (Bradford 2009).” The left hand figure below, a map from New Geography website, shows the starch contrast between residences in the center and those outside the black line that outlines central Austin. This figure can be compared to the zoomed view of our future Centers of Development map on the right. The lower density neighborhoods in pink correspond with the outlying concentrations of families with children in the left hand map from New Geography website.
The percentages are out of total residences in each area, so this simply illustrates that Austin does not have adequate variability in residence sizes and equal opportunities for all that may want to live in the center. It is obvious that the student concentration downtown could have a lot to do with the size of housing options offered, but part of the city’s policies should include improvement of affordability as well as availability of homes that support families with children.
The location of a large water supply has had a large effect on the outward spread of private suburban development. The Edwards-Trinity aquifer lies on the western half of Travis County, enabling municipal water lines to be more easily extended and private wells to be more easily drilled. Personal wells are expensive, roughly 4,500 dollars, and unwanted in large communities. This has caused a desire for new developments to establish themselves around easy-access aquifers (Burchfield et al). In Austin and Travis County, the best water source is the Edwards bedrock aquifer, present in the north-west section of the city.
The geographical amenity has increased low-density growth in that area. The southern section of the city has no cheap water source to tap into, so growth is naturally more highly concentrated around municipal water lines. Therefore, more scattered development with an increasing distance from downtown occurs in the upper portion (Burchfield et al). The lack of the aquifer in the eastern part of the city has led to a more compact development from the city in this area, and less urbanization, as shown in the two figures below. Austin is in the
upper right hand corner of the left hand figure, and the figure on the right shows our map of Private wells and Single Family Homes, where well points are more developed on the eastern side of the city. Often, a city will annex areas after they have increased in population density. This is often first residential development, a result of the encouragement of private wells by the bedrock aquifer supply. As stated earlier, residential types of land use are able to extend where there is not yet municipal infrastructure. The effect is an increased necessity for inhabitants to rely on personal transit from their suburban homes to the inner city where public transportation does not exist. In our map, only 3.75% of privately owned wells are located in the center of the city as opposed to the outskirts where suburban areas have developed. This denotes the trend of families moving to the periphery of Austin. An assumption was made that privately owned wells were associated with single family homes, and it should be noted that 6.34% of privately owned wells are not associated with single family homes.
Many citizens in Austin have opposed a policy for traffic decongestion believing that the decongestion plans were primarily amenities and not a viable solution to the problem (Gregor 2010). These citizens also argued that people paying inner city taxes would be paying for residents outside of the city limits, who do not pay the inner city taxes, to get to and from downtown (Swearingen 2010). This is direct cause of what parts of the city are annexed compared to where major highways will be built.
People strongly rely on personal transportation because Austin has no rail or bus options for public transportation to the East and West of the municipally incorporated areas. Recent trends in development show a concentration of municipal, commercial, and industrial activity on the North South boundary and more private, residential development to the East and West. If annexation is not improved to the East and West, these areas will continue to be only automobile dependent in terms of transportation, because public transportation lines are unlikely to develop in non-incorporated areas.
To conclude, Austin’s development trends have led to dependency on the automobile and less viable public transportation systems. General annexation, zoning, and economic policies are leading to sprawling development that is not accessible by public transport. Higher income levels enable more people to be able to afford driving to work. The north-south highway corridor shows municipal, industrial, and commercial development and areas to the east and west are mostly residential without municipal infrastructure and underserved by bus routes. Widening highways is known to only increase traffic congestion, and there are issues concerning the citizen tax base being burdened with the costs of connecting outlying suburban areas. Another driver to outlying development seems to be lack of affordable housing as well as a residence that encourages walking for transportation. The Discussion and Interpretation section will provide some suggestions for improving these issues with Austin’s sprawl and public transportation.
DISCUSSION AND INTERPRETATION
In response to Austin’s auto dependency and low-density spatial spread, there are many possible solutions to prevent greater auto dependency and create more transportation alternatives. As seen in the figures below, Austin’s technology industrial concentration has created a second job concentration north of the already governmental and university job concentration in the center. Although high density corridor development is happening through rail systems and transit oriented development as shown in the left hand figure, the jobs are only showing linear growth along I-35, and no east-west corridor, as shown in the right hand figure.
Accessibility to and location of specific technology industries further exemplifies this point in accounting for this second ceoncentration of jobs, shown in the figure below. This is a map of service areas of major employers in Austin, specifically in the technology sector. It can explain how job concentration has developed as a function of service areas of technology firms.
As shown below in the next set of figures, home density change is in proportion to job density change and seems to follow in an outer ring. However, home density change has also led to more spatial infringement in previously undeveloped areas to the east and west. Increasing jobs along an east-west corridor could help improve home density around these areas, rather than increasing the spread of single family home developments into further outlying areas, shown in the third figure. This would also improve radial growth and prevent linear growth from happening solely from north to south without a similar east-west pattern.
The two maps below explain a driving factor of private development in the east and west directions rather than municipal development. Land value is higher to the east and west of the corridor, most likely because of being closer to a natural environment and more desirable for living. It also could be higher simply because this is where the most spatial change is happening for home density, as shown in the left hand figure. The right hand figure shows private wells in terms of city limits. It is compared to slope of the land to show that elevation factors can play a role in the cost of development and municipal growth could be occurring to the north and south because this is the cheapest area in which development can occur and infrastructure be provided. Wells data shows the increasing trend of moving away from this linear form of growth. The areas with the highest slope are seeing the least wells drilled due to difficult access to the land. We can predict that these will be the last areas to see well development.
This leads us to the next point that will consider growth of the city by annexation history and centers of development. Changes in annexation are important for modeling the growth of a city and what type of development is likely to be incorporated in the future. In the map below, the purple center is annexation that had occurred before 1960. Outside of this boundary is the amount of annexation occurring for each decade since 1960. The figure can show that the largest amount of growth since 1960 occurred in the 1980’s since the percentages are calculated compared to change since 1960. The rate of change in percentages was very positive from the 1960’s to the 1980’s, but from the 1980’s to the present, it was slightly negative. This corresponds with the technology boom that occurred between 1960 and 1980 when many industries and firms were locating to the area. The rate of annexation increased during this period, and decreased from the 1980’s onward.
The second map above on the right shows a future model for 2003 of distribution of centers of development, as defined by Envision Central Texas, an organization committed to the sustainable development of Central Texas. Centers of regional development are important for deciding what outward pulls exist on the extension of a city and better serving the transportation and growth trends of the greater metropolitan area of Austin. This map can be explained by Walter Christaller’s Central Place Theory, which explains the distribution, amount, and size of settlements in an urban system. It asserts that a very large city would be surrounded by proportionally smaller cities or settlement centers, equally distributed from each either in terms of size, number, and location in a web-like fashion. These smaller urban settlements would then be surrounded by another web of cities on a proportionally smaller scale.
In our figure, the central urban system core is situated according to this theory. In the legend, the city centers are the most dense, followed next by regional centers, and finally town centers. The city centers are fairly equally distributed towards the Southeastern portion of the map, coinciding with more compact development around the cities and less annexation towards this direction by Austin. Two of them also occur directly on Interstate 35. The regional centers are located mainly in the northern part, are also located close to I-35, and correspond with higher spatial spread from annexation in the left hand figure. Town centers uphold central place theory the most, with very equal distribution across Central Texas, and being much smaller in size and larger in number in comparison to the other two types of centers.
Based on our analytical work, the following overall conclusions that can be drawn:
Employment has increased where the technology industry has increase. Also, the technology industry has increased, and therefore employment has increased, where land prices are lowest.
Geographically, slope and groundwater availability from the Edward’s bedrock aquifer influences where wells can be placed and also influences sprawl in terms of single family homes.
Land prices are highest where there is the most spatial growth in jobs, with residential development occurring in proximity to this, but .
Service areas of Technology Industry are covering those areas with the most growth in jobs and population density. The technology Industry is emerging as second concentration of jobs besides governmental.
The most growth in expansion of the city limits after 1960 occurred in the 1980’s, accounting for 36.2% of total area change between 1960 and 2010.
A future preferred scenario for growth in the region related to the Central Place Theory can model centers of development compared to the I-35 highway corridor.
This study could be expanded in the future by adding in bus routes and light rail line to look at accessibility for workers. Plans outside the scope of this project were to continue with network analyst by adding in suburban points to calculate the best transport routes between major residential areas outside of city and technology employer points.
More future analyses could include buffers of existing and future corridors of development to find percentages of land use within and without. Buffers could also be used to relate regional development to I-35.
Considering our interpretation of spatial growth based on GIS data, a major solution for Austin’s sprawl would be to promote an East-West development corridor to provide public transit options for these mainly residential and auto-dependent areas. While alternatives have been provided for some residents of Austin, the city needs to focus on improving east-west bus routes and expanding access to public transit in these areas of town. Encouraging commercial and industrial development here as well would increase mixed-development and potential for transportation lines. Because these areas are not all municipally incorporated and lack city transit, a corridor should be developed around the road in best proximity to residences. This could be a solution to the city tax base problem and traffic congestion. The tax base of suburban areas would be expanded here as a result of incorporating areas near this corridor. Then, the city could promote these east-west bus routes and public transit to improve desirability of development in the region. This would in turn promote more radial growth of the city, rather than the simple linear growth that it is currently experiencing, hopefully leading to a more central urban core of the city as well as less traffic congestion on the existing highways.
Not only will this reduce the continuing outward spread of the city, but it will also provide for easier access to public transit options. If Austin does not increase public transit access to these sectors, people will continue to rely on personal auto travel and sprawl will only increase. Thus, Austin should consider building further transit oriented development stations in both the eastern and western suburban areas in coordination with future municipal incorporation of a corridor. This will reduce traffic congestion, provide more public transportation through bus routes and urban rail, and provide mix-used development in these mainly residential areas. This solution could widely ameliorate future urban sprawl problems in Austin, Texas.
OUTPUT MAPS AND SUPPLEMENTAL FIGURES
Figure 1, by Madaline Young
Figure 2a, by Madaline Young
Figure 2b, by Madaline Young
Figure 2c, by Madaline Young
Figure 3, by Madaline Young
Figure 4, by Madaline Young
Figure 5, by Madaline Young
Figure 6, by Erin Fink
Figure 6, by Erin Fink
Figure 7, by Yuan Li
Austin City Council. (2009, April 20). Downtown Austin Plan. Draft Transportation Framework Plan Executive Summary.
Biruta, K. (1995). City of Austin – Austin History Center. Retrieved from http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/library/ahc/briefhistory.htm
Bradford, C. (2009). How Austin’s Rise Became a Tale of Two Cities. New Geography. Retrieved from http://www.newgeography.com/content/00781-how-austin%E2%80%99s-rise-became-a-tale-two-cities
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, . (2010). All Systems Go Long-Range Transit Plan. Retrieved Nov. , 2010, from Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://allsystemsgo.capmetro.org/facilities.shtml
Neighborhood Planning & Zoning Department, . (2006). Transit-Oriented Development Guidebook. Retrieved Oct. , 2010, from City of Austin, Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/planning/tod/downloads/tod_guidebook.pdf
Gregor, K. (2010, June 25). City Announces “Miltimodal” Bond Package. The Austin Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A1044421
Long, J. Weird City. Published in 2010 by the University of Texas Press.
Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. Policy Research Project Report. A Matrix Analysis of Growth Policies in Austin.
Kearl, B. 1995. Brief History of Austin. Austin History Center. Retrieved from http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/library/ahc/briefhistory.htm
Koch, A. 1873. Bird’s Eye View of the City of Austin Travis County Texas. Retrieved from http://www.birdseyeviews.org/zoom.php?city=Austin&year=1873&extra_info
Swearingen, W. Environmental City, published in 2010 by the University of Texas press. Chapter 2, “The Landscape Emerges” pages 36-44.
Burchfield, Marcy et al "Causes of Sprawl: A Portrait from Space." Quarterly Journal of Economics 121.2 (2006): 587-633. EBSCO Host. Web. 9 Oct. 2010. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=103&sid=cd612aa7-3a8f-4a17-896f-9c78cc2f39c2%40sessionmgr112