Week 7 Reading Blog

As an undergraduate I have had the opportunity to take the DURP Transportation Planning course for my minor, and in that class we learned how land values noticeably coincided with infrastructure quality and helps determine the spatial-physical landscape. I was reminded of this upon reading Clifton’s case study on the mobility and shopping options open to low-income residents in Austen, Texas.  She discusses how transportation plans fail to consider the mobility needs of low-income individuals to conveniently access quality food, which affects their food security.

Like we have discussed in class already, lower-income, urban areas are usually lacking in access to healthy foods for its residents, as grocery stores are moved out of these areas to better serve higher income residents who have also moved away from the poorer urban center. This is the case with Austin, whose lower-income residents have incurred the increased cost for living for the city’s expanding high-tech workforce and low-density infrastructure development. This low density- development does not help those of lower income, as they can only afford housing in areas they can afford, which are usually not in close range of the shopping centers where they must get food. And it does not add to the value of their neighborhoods, so as money is put into richer areas of the city, it prevents investment from entering poorer neighborhoods whose property values continue to decrease and decrease.

The lower income residents of Clifton’s case study reported that they had longer commute times, for employment as well as non-work trips for those who owned cars, due to the low-density development and long distances from employment. Those who did not own a car used transit or walked, but the majority of them planned to buy a car, even those who already owned one. Many of them saw car-ownership as rite of passage, and of course as an economic win that would increase their livelihood in Austen. I have been to Houston, Texas, and if Austen is like Houston, then I know one would have a very hard time living there without a car. Every drive we went on in that city literally took at minimum forty minutes, I could not understand why the development was so disperse or how people could stand to have to drive so much. Especially for those of low-income, as they usually have more hectic schedules and less money available for gas and auto expenses. I offer this question: how can we turn around our American idolization for the car to offer more multimodal transportation infrastructure to better serve lower-income individuals.