Accessibility / Report Error

Integrating transportation and land use planning at the metropolitan level in North America: multilevel governance in Toronto and Chicago

Integrando o planejamento de transporte e de uso do solo em escala metropolitana na América do Norte: governança multinível em Toronto e Chicago


This article compares the policies and processes by which transportation and land use planning are integrated in metropolitan Toronto, Canada, and Chicago, in the United States. Using twenty-four semi-structured interviews with key informants, it describes the array of interventions undertaken by governmental and non-governmental actors in their respective domains to shed light on how the challenge of integrating transportation and land use planning is addressed on both sides of the border. Evidence concerning the political dynamics in Toronto and Chicago demonstrates that the capacity of metropolitan institutions to adopt and implement plans that integrate transportation with land use fundamentally depends on the leadership of the province or the state government. Although the federal government of each nation can bypass the sub-national level and intervene in local affairs by funding transportation projects that include land use components, its capacity to promote a coherent metropolitan vision is inherently limited. In the absence of leadership at the provincial or state level, the presence of a policy entrepreneur or a strong civic capacity at the regional level can be a key factor in the adoption and implementation of innovative reforms.

Transportation planning; Land use planning; Multilevel governance; Case study; Metropolitan organizations

Este artigo compara as políticas públicas e os processos pelos quais o planejamento de transporte e uso do solo estão integrados na área metropolitana de Toronto (Canadá) e de Chicago (Estados Unidos). A partir de 24 entrevistas semiestruturadas com respondentes chave, descreve-se a sequência de intervenções efetuadas por atores governamentais e não governamentais em seus respectivos domínios, para esclarecer como os desafios de integrar o planejamento de transportes e do uso do solo são geridos em ambos os lados. Evidências da dinâmica política em Toronto e em Chicago demonstram que a capacidade das instituições metropolitanas de adotarem e implementarem planos que integrem transporte e uso do solo dependem essencialmente da liderança da cidade polo ou do governo estadual. Embora o governo federal de cada país possa passar sobre o nível subnacional e intervir em questões locais através do financiamento de projetos de transporte que incluam o uso do solo como componente, sua capacidade de promover uma visão metropolitana coerente é inerentemente limitada. Na ausência de liderança no nível da província ou do estado, a presença de um empreendedor da política pública ou uma forte capacidade cívica regional podem se consolidar como elementos chave na adoção e implementação de reformas inovadoras.

Planejamento de transporte; Planejamento de uso do solo; Governança multinível; Estudo de caso; Organizações metropolitanas

  • ALEXANDER, L. The promise and perils of 'New Regionalist' approaches to sustainable communities. Fordham Urban Law Journal, v. 38, n. 3, p. 629-674, 2011.
  • BLACK, W. R. Sustainable transportation: problems and solutions. New York: Guilford Press, 2010.
  • BRENNER, N. Decoding the Newest 'Metropolitan Regionalism' in the USA: a critical overview. Cities, v. 19, n. 1, p. 3-21, 2002.
  • BROWN, D. Comparative climate change policy and federalism: an overview. Review of Policy Research, v. 29, n. 3, p. 322-333, 2012.
  • CALTHORPE, P.; FULTON, W. The regional city: planning for the end of Sprawl. Washington: Island Press, 2001.
  • CERVERO, R.; DUNCAN, M. Which reduces vehicle travel more: job-housing balance or retail-jousing mixing. Journal of the American Planning Association, v. 72, n. 4, p. 475-490, 2006.
  • DEAL, B.; KIM, J. H.; CHAKRABORTY, A. Growth management and sustainable transport: do growth management policies promote transit use? Journal of Public Transportation, v. 12, n. 4, p. 21-40, 2009.
  • DOWNS, A. New visions for metropolitan America Washington: Brookings Institution; Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1994.
  • FORSYTH, A.; OAKES, J. M.; SCHMITZ, K. H. Does residential density increase walking and other physical activity? Urban Studies, v. 44, n. 4, p. 679-697, 2007.
  • GIULIANO, G. The Weakening Transportation-Land use connection. Access, n. 6, p. 3-11, 1995.
  • HAMILTON, D.; HOKKANEN, L.; WOOD, C. Are we still stuck in traffic? Transportation in metropolitan areas. In: HAMILTON, D.; ATKINS, P. (Ed.). Urban and regional policies for metropolitan livability London: M.E. Sharpe Publishers, 2008. p. 266-295. PMid:18314276.
  • HANDY, S.; CAO, X.; MOKHTARIAN, P. Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, v. 10, n. 6, p. 427-444, 2005.
  • HORAK, M.; YOUNG, R. (Ed.). Sites of governance: multilevel governance and policy making in Canada's big cities. Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2012.
  • JOHNSTON, R. The urban transportation planning process. In: HANSON, S.; GIULIANO, G. (Ed.). The geography of urban transportation New York: Guilford Press, 2004. p. 115-140.
  • KRAWCHENKO, T. Regional special purpose bodies for transportation and transit in Canada: case studies of translink and metrolinx. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, v. 34, n. 1, p. 1-18, 2011.
  • LEWIS, P.; SPRAGUE, M. Federal transportation policy & the role of metropolitan planning organizations in California San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 1997. Available at: <>. Accessed in: 13 Feb. 2014.
  • LITTMANN, T. The New transportation planning paradigm. ITE Journal, v. 83, n. 6, p. 20-28, 2013.
  • MAAS, A. Area and power: a theory of local government. Glencoe: Free Press, 1959.
  • MARGERUM, R. et al. Regional transportation and land use decision making in metropolitan regions: finding from four case studies. Portland: Policy Consensus Initiative, 2011. Available at: <>. Accessed in: 3 Mar. 2014.
  • NELLES, J. Cooperation and capacity? Exploring the sources and limits of city region governance partnerships. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, v. 37, n. 4, p. 1349-1367, 2013.
  • NEUMAN, M. The compact city fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, v. 25, n. 11, p. 11-26, 2005.
  • NORTON, A. International handbook of local and regional government: a comparative analysis of advanced democracies. Chenltenham: Edward Elgar, 1994.
  • ONTARIO. Ministry of Infrastructure. Growth plan for the greater golden horseshoe Toronto, 2006. Available at: <>. Accessed in: 4 Oct. 2013.
  • ORFIELD, M. Metropolitics: a regional agenda for community and stability. Washington: Brookings Institution Press; Cambridge: The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1997.
  • PIERRE, J.; PETERS, G. Urban governance. In: MOSSBERGER, K.; CLARKI, S.; JOHN, P. The Oxford Handbook of Urban Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
  • PORTER, D. R. State and regional initiatives for managing development: policy issues and practical concerns. Washington: Urban Land Institute, 1992.
  • RUSK, D. Cities without suburbs Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1993. PMid:8456829.
  • STATISTICS CANADA. Census profile Ottawa, 2012. (Statistics Canada Catalogue, 98-316-XWE). Available at: <>. Accessed in: 30 Sept. 2013.
  • SWANSTROM, T. What we argue about when we argue about regionalism. Journal of Urban Affairs, v. 23, n. 5, p. 479-496, 2011.
  • THE FRIENDS OF THE GREENBELT FOUNDATION. Ontario's Greenbelt map Ontario, 2013. Available at: <>. Accessed in: 4 Oct. 2013.
  • TIEBOUT, C. A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, v. 64, n. 5, p. 416-424, 1956.
  • TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD. Driving and the built environment: the effects of compact development on motorized travel, energy use, and CO2 emissions. Washington: National Academy Press, 2009. (Special Report, 298).
  • URBAN TORONTO. Downtown and the centers, city of Toronto Toronto, 2012. Available at: <>. Accessed in: 13 Oct. 2013.
  • U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. Great Lakes Basin (Canada & U.S.A) Detroit, 2007.
  • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. HUD FY2011 sustainable communities grantees Washington, 2011. Available at: <>. Accessed in: 31 Oct. 2013.
  • WEIR, M. Coalition building for regionalism. In: KATZ, B. (Ed.). Reflections on regionalism Washington: Brookings Institutions Press, 2000. p. 127-153. PMid:10625287 PMCid:PMC1117382.
  • WEIR, M.; RONGERUDE, J.; ANSELL, C. Collaboration is not enough: virtuous cycles of reform in transportation policy. Urban Affairs Review, v. 44, n. 4, p. 455-489, 2009.
  • WHEELER, S. The new regionalism: key characteristics of an emerging movement. Journal of the American Planning Association, v. 68, n. 3, p. 267-278, 2002.
  • WOOD, R. 1400 governments Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961.

Publication Dates

  • Publication in this collection
    04 June 2014
  • Date of issue
    Aug 2014


  • Received
    01 Jan 2014
  • Accepted
    20 Mar 2014
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná Rua Imaculada Conceição, 1155. Prédio da Administração - 6°andar, 80215-901 - Curitiba - PR, 55 41 3271-1701 - Curitiba - PR - Brazil