Megaregions: Literature Review of the Implications for U.S. Infrastructure Investment and Transportation Planning
Section IV. Conclusion
The megaregion is a new perspective on defining regionalism, creating a new spatial strategy for those areas hosting a significant portion of the country's population and economic activities and thus confronting intense traffic congestion and a constrained environment. At the same time, the idea of the megaregion also represents a new and potentially fruitful context for American transportation planning. These regions are characterized as networks of urban centers and their surrounding areas, connected by existing economic, social, and infrastructure relationships. With the expanding global economy, more economic and social interactions will be taking place beyond political boundaries.
In order to frame the next steps for transportation and infrastructure planning at the megaregional scale in the United States, this report summarizes previous and current literature relevant to the planning perspective of megaregions, focusing on regionalism, globalization, global climate changes, economic geography, spatial planning, governance, infrastructure planning, and regional boundary delineation methods. The report also analyzes regional planning efforts and infrastructure provision beyond the metropolitan scale both inside and outside the United States.
Historically, while there have been numerous strategies put forward outlining the importance of regional planning in infrastructure investment planning, it has been difficult to accomplish multi-jurisdictional and multi-state transportation and infrastructure planning. Transportation, shared environmental resources, and economic development have spurred inter-state cooperation, but the most influential attempts at regional planning in the United States have originated at the federal level. The major challenge for future regional efforts will be to combine the effectiveness of federally-proposed initiatives with the cooperative nature of interstate compacts driven or undergirded by local support.
The effective transportation infrastructure, which links towns, cities, and neighborhoods to regions, regions to megaregions, and megaregions and countries together, is essential to economic growth in a global economy. In contrast to current planning, which is either nationally directed or limited to individual metropolitan areas, megaregional planning for infrastructure to support economic functionality is critical in ensuring regional competitiveness in a global context. Within a megaregion, metropolitan areas linked by transportation corridors can work together to strengthen their own competitive advantage while contributing to the economic capacity of the extended region. Thus the megaregion approach may provide a more effective strategy for spatially-based development, taking into account key regional issues: transportation, natural environment, land use, and economic competitiveness.
Although the support of transportation infrastructure is essential to maintain and enhance the economic competitiveness of the United States, past efforts have not met the increasing demand, in particular, of fast growing metropolitan areas. Megaregions, emerging agglomerated areas of population and economic activities, have not been sufficiently considered in infrastructure planning. In fact, many portions of international trade as well as domestic trade is taking place in megaregions. More than half of exporting goods were moved by trucks in 2002. The reliance on trucking is higher in megaregions than non-megaregions. The congestions caused by truck traffic on highways may negatively affect the economic productivity, increasing the costs of goods movements and generating problems of production schedules. Since these trends are estimated to continue or to be even worse in the future, a strategic approach to incorporate the freight transportation infrastructure in megaregions into the infrastructure planning should be considered.
The national high-priority corridors (which are eligible for the National Corridor Planning and Development (NCPD) Program with a discretionary fund for planning, construction, and maintenance) have been designated in significant areas across the country. However, these exclude several strategic areas in megaregions. While proposed HSR networks are mostly crossing state lines, the appropriate governance to coordinate and lead them is absent. In addition, even though there is consensus on the necessity of developing a high-speed railway system to relieve increasing congestion in existing highways and to reduce energy consumptions and negative environmental effects of fossil fueled transportation modes, the proposed networks have been determined by existing corridor related plans or financial criteria focused on the demand side. However, the nationwide transportation infrastructure planning should consider future changing environments in social and economic aspects of the regional and global economy as well as the past trends of transportation patterns.
The United States has started to explore the megaregion approach as a strategy to face the challenges inherent in a global economy. Efforts to define and plan for megaregions are taking place throughout the United States. Since Gottmann (1957) offered the idea of a "Megalopolis" in the northeast region from the north of Boston to the south of Washington, D.C., researchers have identified megaregions across the country. Some of these regions have already begun research and outreach efforts to examine the relationships, challenges, and opportunities and understand their role in an evolving national framework for planning and public investment. While megaregions differ in size, demographics, and competitive advantages, they are similar in that they are defined by agglomerations of similar economic activity, transportation links, and cultural similarities. The power of a megaregions framework is that it can be adapted to various places so that they may pursue different strategies to address current challenges and enhance future competitiveness.
Outside the United States, regional coordination of infrastructure investments is increasingly regarded as a way to enhance the productivity of the entire region while preserving elements that would lead to greater quality of life. This is occurring in places with vastly different economic and political systems, suggesting that the appeal of regionalism is greater than any one particular economic or political set of ideas. Many European and Asian countries have already established strategies in terms of transportation and infrastructure investment at a megaregional level to respond to rapidly increasing transportation demands and to promote economic growth while preserving "green" environments. The European Union (EU) is investing in a transport policy that includes all members because it regards transport policy, economic growth, and sustainability as interlinked. As a result, EU member countries are engaged in much more extensive investment in infrastructure and economic development than they might pursue under their own auspices. In China, cities such as Shanghai and its neighbors are beginning to move towards a more regional approach in recognition that each metropolitan area might benefit from regional cooperation and planning. These cases show that actors and funding sources of megaregional planning and its implementation vary depending on the political, institutional, and geographical environment.
Thus it is critical to delineate megaregions, since each megaregion will have its own advantages and particular challenges. Spatial planning can play a key role in coordinating policy and practice at multiple scales by addressing a change in the understanding of megaregions; developing effective, widely-supported governance arrangements; and requiring more coordination of public-sector investment and expenditure over the long term to provide benefits and incentives for inter-jurisdictional cooperation. The criteria used to date in delineating the boundaries have been categorized with "essentialist" factors, such as population size, proximity, contiguity, growth, settlement patterns, land consumption, and political boundaries, and "relational" factors, such as commuting patterns, industrial flows, international passenger traffic and information flows to examine the interactions between regions.
In a broader context, future infrastructure planning should pursue both expanding the current system and reducing the growth of demand in highways (AASHTO, 2007), in fast growing metropolitan regions, which make up many of the megaregions, by improving transit and high-speed railway systems. Since these goals may not be achieved by only transportation infrastructure planning itself and each state or regional agency, future efforts need to be in line with quality growth principles which address economic competitiveness, desirable land use pattern, quality of life, environments, and global climate change. These issues are already taking place in areas beyond traditional political boundaries and should be planned for and managed in an appropriate geographical scope, megaregions. Thus, future infrastructure planning and investments could be targeted toward these metropolitan regions, while green infrastructure in and around the regions should be considered in a broader scope.
For these reasons, many researchers embrace the megaregion concept and divide it into two parts: core urban corridors and larger spheres of influences. They have used diverse criteria to identify both components of the megaregions. However, the methodologies used to delineate these boundaries need to be improved. In particular, the procedure to effectively identify the spheres of influence of core areas should be developed because these areas form the boundaries of megaregions and could be the setting for future population and economic growth.
Megaregions: Literature Review of the Implications for U.S. Infrastructure Investment and Transportation Planning shows how the megaregion has been used or conceived of to spatially shape and encourage quality growth. By exploring historic and current efforts, as well as United States and international examples of regional infrastructure planning and investment, this report provides a foundation for continued research to make the megaregion more useful to planners and policy-makers.
References
Aitch, I. 2007. Megacity mix and match. Forum For The Future. Last accessed June 30, 2008, from http://www.forumforthefuture.org.uk/greenfutures/articles/megacity-mixandmatch.
Amekudzi, A., L. Thomas-Mobley & C. Ross. 2007. Transportation Planning and Infrastructure Delivery in Major Cities and Megacities. Transportation Research Record, 17-23.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2007. Transportation Invest in Our Future: Future Needs of the U.S. Surface Transportation System.
American Lung Association. 2004. State of the Air: 2004. Last accessed March 26, 2008, from http://lungaction.org/reports/sota04_full.html.
Appalachian Regional Commission (a). ARC Members, Partners, and Staff. Retrieved February 7, 2008, from http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=6.
Appalachian Regional Commission (b). Local Development Districts. Retrieved February 7, 2008, from http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=14.
Appalachian Regional Commission (c). Moving Appalachia Forward: ARC Strategic Plan, 2005-2010. Retrieved February 7, 2008, from http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=2299.
Arizona State University. 2006. The Sun Corridor Seminar.
Arroyo, G. M. 2006. State of the Nation Address.
Arroyo, G. M. 2007. State of the Nation Address.
Longworth, R.C.. 2008. Can the Midwest regain its economic clout? Chicago Tribune January 6, 2008.
Baker, N. F. 1927. The Problem of the Metropolitan Area or Region. The University Journal of Business, 5(1), 35-52.
Banister, D. 2005. Unsustainable Transport: City transport in the new century. New York: Routledge.
Barnes, W.R. & L.C. Ledebur. 1998. The New Regional Economies: The U.S. Common Market and the Global Economy. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications, Inc.
Benedict, M.A. & E.T. McMahon. 2002. Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century. Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse Monograph Series. 31 pp. Washington, D.C. http://www.sprawlwatch.org.
Bressi, T. 1991, June. Round Three at the RPA. Planning, 57, 18-21.
Brown, L. A. & J. Holmes. 1971. The Delimitation of Functional Regions, Nodal Regions, and Hierarchies by Functional Distance Approaches. Journal of Regional Science, 11, 57-72.
Bullard, K. 2007. Economic Development Opportunities For U.S. Mega-Regions. http://www.angeloueconomics.com/megaregions.htm (last accessed Feb. 28, 2008).
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). 2007. National Transportation Atlas Database. U.S. Department of Transportation.
Calthorpe, P. & W. Fulton. 2001. The Regional City: Planning for the End of Sprawl. Washington: Island Press.
Camagni, R., M.C. Gibelli & P. Rigamonti. 2002. Urban mobility and urban form: the social and environmental costs of different patterns of urban expansion. Ecological Economics, 40(2), 199-216.
Cambridge Systematics. 2005. Multistate Corridor Planning. NCHRP 8-36, Task 45.
Campbell, J. 1972. Growth Pole Theory, Digraph Analysis and Interindustry Relationships. Tijdschrift voor Econ. en Soc. Geografie, MAART/APRIL, 79-87.
Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development. 2006. Emerging MegaRegion Efforts.
China Automotive Industry Yearbook. 1985-2003. China Statistics Press.
Choe, S.-C. 1996. The Evolving Urban System in North-East Asia. In Emerging World Cities in Pacific Asia, eds. F.-c. Lo & Y.-m. Yeung. Tokyo-New York-Paris: United Nations University Press.
Chu, D. K. Y. 1996. The Hong Kong-Zhujiang Delta and the World City System. In Emerging World Cities in Pacific Asia, eds. F.-c. Lo & Y.-m. Yeung. Tokyo-New York-Paris: United Nations University Press.
Cisneros, H. 1996, December. Regionalism: The New Geography of Opportunity. Cityscape, 35-53.
Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New York. Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New York. Retrieved February 13, 2008, from http://www.civic-alliance.org/.
Clayton, C. 1974. Communication and Spatial Structure. Tijdschrift voor Econ. en Soc. Geografie, 65, 221-227.
Collier, C. R. 2007. River Basin Commissions: An Alternative to Interstate Water Wars. Retrieved February 13, 2008, from http://www.nj.gov/drbc/CRC12-07OpEd.pdf
Commission of the European Communities (CEC). 2006. Keep Europe moving--Sustainable mobility for our continent: Mid-term review of the European Commission's 2001 White Paper. Brussels: European Commission.
Contant, C., C. L. Ross, J. Barringer, C. Blengini, K. L. d. Nie, L. Lyman, E. Sundquist, K. Smith-Davids, L. Valletti, J. McQueen, K. Royal, E. Keysar & J. Lombard. 2005. The Piedmont Atlantic Megalopolis (PAM). In Working Paper Series. College of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Council of Europe. 1984. European Regional/Spatial Planning Charter (Torremolinos Charter), Strausbourg.
Cox, W. 2000. The Anti-Sprawl War on the Suburbs: False Diagnosis, Hopeless Policies. A Quarterly Publication of Public Policy in Texas, 1, 18-31.
Davoudi, S. 2003. Polycentricity in European Spatial Planning: From an Analytical Tool to a Normative Agenda. European Planning Studies, 11, 979-999.
Delgado, E., D. Epstein, Y. Joo, R. Mann, S. Moon, C. Raleigh, E. Rhodes & D. Rutzick. 2006a. Methods for Planning the Great Lakes MegaRegion. Ann Arbor: Urban and Regional Planning Program, University of Michigan.
Delgado, E., D. Epstein, Y. Joo, R. Mann, S. Moon, C. Raleigh, E. Rhodes & D. Rutzick. 2006b. Through a Wider Lens: Re-envisioning the Great Lakes MegaRegion. Ann Arbor: Urban and Regional Planning Program, The University of Michigan.
Démurger, S. 2001. Infrastructure Development and Economic Growth: An Explanation for Regional Disparities in China? Journal of Comparative Economics, 29, 95-117.
Derthick, M. 1974. Between State and Nation: Regional Organizations of the United States. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Dewar, M. & D. Epstein. 2007. Planning for "Megaregions" in the United States. Journal of Planning Literature, 22, 108-124.
Dietvorst, A. G. J. & E. Wever. 1977. Changes in The Pattern of Information Exchange in The Netherlands, 1967-1974. Tijdschrift voor Econ. en Soc. Geografie, 68, 72-82.
Douglass, M. 2000. Mega-urban Regions and World City Formation: Globalisation, the Economic Crisis and Urban Policy Issues in Pacific Asia. Urban Studies, 37, 2315-2335.
Dreier, P., J. Mollenkopf, & T. Swanstrom. 2001. Place Matters, Metropolitics for the Twenty-first Century. Kansas: University of Kansas Press.
Economist.com. 2007, October 3. Asia. view: Credibility deficit. Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9896259.
Edgington, D., A. Fernandez, & V. Hoshino. 2001. New Regional Paradigms. Greenwood Press.
England, R. W. 2007. Motor fuel taxation, energy conservation, and economic development: A regional approach. Ecological Economics, 61(2-3), 409-416.
Ekbladh, D. 2002. "Mr. TVA": Grass-Roots Development, David Lilienthal, and the Rise and Fall of the Tennessee Valley Authority as a Symbol for U.S. Overseas Development, 1933-1973. Diplomatic History, 26(3), 335-374.
ESPON (European Spatial Planning Observation Network) 2006. Governance of Territorial and Urban Policies from EU to Local Level. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://www.espon.eu/mmp/online/website/content/projects/243/374/file_602/3.ir_2.3.2_final.pdf .
ESRI. 2006. ESRI Data & Maps (GIS data).
European Commission. 2001. White paper -- European transport policy for 2010: time to decide. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Commission. 2005. Trans-European transport network: TEN-T priority axes and projects 2005. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission.
European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT). 2005. Trends in the Transport Sector 1970-2003.
Federal Highway Administration. 2008. The National Highway System. U.S. Department of Transportation. Last accessed April 17, 2008, from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/nhs/.
Federal Highway Administration. 2007. NHS High Priority Corridors. U.S. Department of Transportation. Last accessed April 17, 2008, from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/nhs/hipricorridors/index.html.
Federal Highway Administration. 2006a. Map: Congressional High Priority Corridors on the National Highway System. U.S. Department of Transportation.
Federal Highway Administration. 2006b. Map: Future Interstates on the National Highway System Designated by Section 1105 of ISTEA as amended (Congressional High Priority Corridors). U.S. Department of Transportation.
Federal Highway Administration. 2006c. Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) Version 2.2, User Guide: Commodity Origin-Destination Database: 2002-2035. U.S. Department of Transportation.
Federal Highway Administration. 2006d. The Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) Commodity Origin-Destination Database.
Federal Highway Administration. 2001. Highway Statistics 2001. U.S. Department of Transportation.
Federal Highway Administration. 2000. Our Nation's Highways. U.S. Department of Transportation.
Federal Railroad Administration. 2005. Chronology of High-Speed Rail Corridors. Last accessed April 17, 2008, from http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/618.
Federal Railroad Administration. 1997. High-Speed Ground Transportation for America. U.S. Department of Transportation.
Federal Register: February 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 30) / Rules and Regulations.
Forkenbrock, D. J. 2001. Comparison of external costs of rail and truck freight transportation. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 35(4), 321-337.
Fujita, M, P. Krugman, & A. Venables. 1999. The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.
Garreau, J. 1981. The Nine Nations of North America. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin.
Gauthier, H. L. 1973. The Appalachian Development Highway System: Development for Whom? Economic Geography, 49(2), 103-108.
Giuliano, G. & K. Small. 1991. Sub-centers in the Los Angeles Region. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 21, 163-182.
Glaeser, E. 2007. Do Regional Economies Need Regional Coordination? In The Economic Geography of Megaregions, ed. K. S. Goldfeld. The Policy Research Institute for the Region, Princeton University.
Glassman, H. 2005. MPOs: A Primer: Metroplan Orlando.
Goldman, T. & E. Deakin. 2000. Regionalism Through Partnerships? Metropolitan Planning Since ISTEA. Berkeley Planning Journal, 14, 46-75.
Gottmann, J. 1957. Megalopolis or the Urbanization of the Northeastern Seaboard. Economic Geography, 33, 189-200.
Government of the Philippines. 2006. Formation of the "Super" Regions and Mandate of the Superregional Development Champions, Executive Order No. 561.
Graham, J., B. Amos, T. Plumptre. 2003. Governance Policy Brief: Institute of Principles for Good Governance in the 21st century, Institute of Governance, Ottawa, No.15 .
Grant, D. R. 1955. The Government of Interstate Metropolitan Areas. The Western Political Quarterly, 8(1), 90-107.
Grazi, F. & J.C.J.M. van den Bergh. 2008. Spatial organization, transport, and climate change: Comparing instruments of spatial planning and policy. Ecological Economics, In Press, Corrected Proof.
Green, N. 2005. Towards a definition of polycentricity in terms of network theory, and the visualization of polycentricity using a GIS. Paper presented at the Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management conference, London, June 29—July 1. Retrieved on February 2, 2008. from http://128.40.111.250/cupum/searchpapers/papers/paper134.pdf.
Green Highways Partnerships. http://www.greenhighways.org/
Gyourko, J., 1997. Regionalism: The Feasible Options — National Implications. [Online] Philadelphia, PA. Zell/Lurie Real Estate Center Working Paper Series. Available from: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/paper.cfm?paperid=338
Harding, A., S. Marvin, B. Robson. 2006. A Framework for City-Regions. London [e-book]. ODPM Publications. Available from: http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1163565 [cited: 16 October 2006]
Healey, P. 2004. The Treatment of Space and Place in the New Strategic Spatial Planning in Europe. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28.1, 45-67.
Hoover, E.M., 1971. An Introduction to Regional Economics. New York, NY. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Valencia, Spain.
Isard, W.,I. Azis,,R. Drennan, R.E. Miller, S. Saltzman, & E. Thorbecke. 1998. Methods of Interregional and Regional Analysis. Brookfiled USA : Ashgate Press.
Isserman, A. & T. Rephann. 1995. The Economic Effects of the Appalachian Regional Commission: An Empirical Assessment of 26 Years of Regional Development Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61(3), 345-364.
Jensen, O. B. & T. Richardson. 2001. Nested Visions: New Rationalities of Space in European Spatial Planning. Regional Studies, Vol. 35.8, pp. 703-717.
Jones, C. 2007. Perspective on Freight Congestion. Public Roads, 71(1), Available from: http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/07july/06.htm.
Kern County Council of Governments, San Diego Association of Governments & Southern California Association of Governments. 2005. The Southern California Mega-region: A Case Study of Global Gateway Regions: America's Third Century Strategy.
Kim, C. S. & M. Woo. 2000. The Hierarchy of Centers and Their Characteristics in Seoul. The Journal of Korea Planners Association, 35, 17-29.
Kipnis, B. A. 1985. Graph Analysis of Metropolitan Residential Mobility: Methodology and Theoretical Implications. Urban Studies, 22, 179-187.
Krizek, K., & Power, J. 1996. A Planners Guide to Sustainable Development: Planning Advisory Service Report 467. Chicago: American Planning Association.
Lambregts, B. 2002. Global city-region ambitions in the Netherlands: from Randstad to Deltametropolis. Paper presented at the ERSA 2002 Congress.
Lang, R. & P. K. Knox. 2008. The New Metropolis: Rethinking Megalopolis. Regional Studies, 41.
Lang, R. E. & D. Dhavale. 2005. Beyond Megalopolis: Exploring America's New "Megapolitan" Geography. In Metropolitan Institute Census Report Series.
Lee, B. 2007. "Edge" or "Edgeless" Cities? Urban Spatial Structure in U.S. Metropolitan Areas, 1980 To 2000. Journal of Regional Science, 47, 479-515.
Lepawsky, A. 1950. Water Resources and American Federalism. The American Political Science Review, 44(3), 631-649.
Levine, J. N. 2001. The Role of Economic Theory in Regional Advocacy. Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 16, No. 2.
Lin, G. C. S. 1999. State Policy and Spatial Restructuring in Post-reform China, 1978-95. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(4), 670-696.
Luard, T. December 9,2003. Shanghai ends reign of the bicycle. . BBC News Online. . Retrieved February 27, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3303655.stm.
Macleod, S. & T. G. McGee. 1996. The Singapore-Johore-Riau Growth triangle: An emerging extended metropolitan region. In Emerging World Cities in Pacific Asia, eds. F.-c. Lo & Y.-m. Yeung. Tokyo-New York-Paris: United Nations University Press.
McMillen, D. P. & J. F. McDonald. 1997. A Nonparametric Analysis of Employment Density in a Polycentric City. Journal of Regional Science, 37, 591-612.
McMillen, D. P. & J. F. McDonald. 1998. Suburban Subcenters and Employment Density in Metropolitan Chicago. Journal of Urban Economics, 43, 157-180.
McMillen, D. P. 2001. Nonparametric Employment Subcenter Identification. Journal of Urban Economics, 50, 448-473.
McQueen, M. & E.T. McMahon. 2003. Land Conservation Financing. Island Press. Washington, D.C.
Mehlbye, P. 2000. Global integration zones-Neighboring metropolitan regions in metropolitan clusters. Informationen zur Ramentwicklung, 11/12, 755-762.
Mertz, W. L. 2005. Our Cities Their Role in the National Economy. Retrieved from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/ourcities.htm (last accessed February 12, 2008).
Mertz, W. L. 2006. Origins and Construction of the Interstate System. Retrieved from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/origin.htm (last accessed January 29, 2008).
Metcalf, G. & E. Terplan. 2007. The Northern California Megaregion. In Urbanist, 4-25. San Francisco Planning & Urban Research (SPUR).
Meyer, M. D. 2007. Toward a Vision for the Nation's Surface Transportation System: Policies to Transcend Boundaries and Transition to a New Era. In The National Roundtable on Surface Transportation, 7-18. Tarrytown, New York: Regional Plan Association & Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Mintek. 2006. Detailed Profiles of Portfolio of Possible SDIs: NEPAD.
Muniz, I., G. Anna & M. A. Garcia. 2003. Cubic Spline Population Density Functions and Satellite City Delimitation: The Case of Barcelona. Urban Studies, 40, 1303-1321.
Nadin, V., 2002. Visions and Visioning in European Spatial Planning. In Faludi, Andreas. Ed., European Spatial Planning, Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Pp. 121-137.
National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. 2007. Transportation for Tomorrow.
New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). 2006a, April 28. NEPAD in Brief. Retrieved February 26, 2008, from http://www.nepad.org/2005/files/inbrief.php.
New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD). 2006b. An Indicative Assessment to Determine Prospects for a NEPAD Spatial Development Programme.
Nitoi, A. M. & C. Ilie. 2008. Road test: Romania's absence of motorways has been holding the country back from speeding up its progress. The Diplomat, 4.
NL/EU: from Randstad to Delta Metropolis. A contribution to the discussion of the cooperation in the Delta Metropolis by the Queen's Commissioners of the provinces of South Holland, North Holland, Utrecht and Flevoland and the mayors of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht. 2001. Utrecht: Regio Randstad.
Nystuen, J. D. & M. F. Dacey. 1961. A Graph Theory Interpretation of Nodal Regions. Papers and Proceedings of The Regional Science Association, 7, 29-42.
O'Toole, Jr. & J. Laurence. (Ed.). 2000. American Intergovernmental Relations. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Office of the President of the Philippines. 2007. PGMA orders transfer of gov't agencies to super regions where they are needed most. Manila, Philippines.
Orfield, M. 2002a. American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality. Brookings Institution Press.
Orfield, M. 2002b. A Comparative Analysis of Segregation, Fiscal Inequality, and Sprawl, American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality, Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, pp. 49-64.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2007. Randstad Holland, Netherlands: OECD Publishing.
Pabico, A. P. (2005, October 3-4). NIGHTMARE AT NORTH RAIL: Cost of Resettling 40,000 Families Deliberately Hidden. Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.
Passenger Rail Working Group (PRWG). 2007. Vision for the Future: U.S. Intercity Passenger Rail Network through 2050.
Petit, T. 2002. The Socio-Economic Profile of the Randstad. Cahiers de l'IAURIF(135), 54-58.
Porter, M., 2001. Regions and the New Economics of Competition. In Scott, A.J. (Ed.). Global City-Regions: Trends, Theory, Policy. Oxford. Oxford University Press. Pp. 139-157.
Presidential Management Staff. 2007. 2007 State of the Nation Address: Technical Report. Manila, Philippines: Office of the President, Government of Philippines.
Puebla, J. G. 1987 Spatial Structures of Network Flows: A Graph Theoretical Approach. Transportation Research B, 21B, 489-502.
Puentes, R. 2008. A Bridge to Somewhere: Rethinking American Transportation for The 21st Century. Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution.
Regio Randstad. 2004. Economic Strategy Randstad Holland.
Regio Randstad. 2007. Statistics: Randstad Holland in Europe.
Regional Plan Association. 2006. America 2050: A Prospectus. New York.
Regional Plan Association. 2007. Annual Report 2007.
Regional Plan Association. 2007. Northeast Megaregion 2050: A Common Future.
Ross, C. L., A. Amekudzi & J. R. Barringer. 2007. Mobility in the Megaregion. In 2007 Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning Conference. Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Ross, J. F. L. 1998. Linking Europe: Transport Policies and Politics in the European Union. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
Salet, W., A. Thornley, & A. Kreukels. 2003a. Institutional and Spatial Coordination in European Metropolitan Regions. In W. Salet, Thornley, A, Kreukels, A. (Ed.). Metropolitan Governance and Spatial Planning Comparative Case Studies of European City-Regions. London. Spon Press. Pp. 3-19.
Salet, W., A. Thornley, A., & Kreukels. 2003b. Practices of Metropolitan Governance in Europe: Experiences and Lessons. In W. Salet, Thornley, A, Kreukels, A. (Ed.). Metropolitan Governance and Spatial Planning Comparative Case Studies of European City-Regions. London. Spon Press. Pp. 377-390.
San Francisco Planning Urban Research Association. 2007. Planning for the Northern California Megaregion.
Sanchez, T. W., & J.F. Wolf. 2005. Environmental Justice and Transportation Equity: A Review of Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Paper presented at the conference Racial Equity in Transportation: Establishing Priorities for Research and Policy.
Sassen, S. 1994. Cities in a World Economy. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Pine Forge Press.
Sassen, S. 2007. Megaregions: Benefits beyond Sharing Trains and Parking Lots? In The Economic Geography of Megaregions, ed. K. S. Goldfeld. The Policy Research Institute for the Region, Princeton University.
Schade, W. 2006. Assessing economic impacts of large-scale transport infrastructure projects: the case of the Lyon-Turin corridor. In Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting.
Schwieterman, J.P. & J. Scheidt. 2007. Survey of Current High-Speed Rail Planning Efforts in the United States. Transportation Research Record. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1995. Railways 2007. 27-34.
Seltzer, E., D. Chi, M. Coffman, S. Gao, D. Hale, T. Johnson, S. LoGiudice, M. Lustig, K. Lyman, L. McTighe, A. Owings, J. Recker, T. Reid & K. Voros. 2006. CASCADIA ECOLOPOLIS 2.0. the Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University.
Seltzer, E., S. Malik, T. Moes, J. Sladek, C. Smith, M. Steele, J. Swae, B. Vanneman, T. Wall, J. Wallace, L. Weigand, A. White & N. Wolters. 2005. Ecolopolis: Making the case for a Cascadian Supercity. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University.
Shen, Q. 1997. Urban Transportation in Shanghai, China: Problems and Planning Implications. International Journal of Urban & Regional Research, 21, 589-606.
Slater, R.E. 1996. The National Highway System: A Commitment to America's Future. Public Roads On-Line (spring 1996) 59 (4).
Smith, R. 2002. Freight Issues and Trends - An Upper Midwest Regional Perspective. Midwest Regional University Transportation Center.
South Florida Regional Planning Council. 2006. Demographic and Economic Characteristics of the South-Central Florida Mega-Region.
Southern Growth Policies Board. Regional Objectives. Retrieved February 13, 2008, from http://www.southern.org/about/objectives.shtml.
Storm, E. 2004. Managing Randstad Holland. Paper presented at the 40th ISoCaRP Congress.
Swanstrom, T. 2001. What We Argue About When We Argue About Regionalism. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(5), 479.
Synge, R. 2007. Infrastructure: New Connections. The Africa Report. No. 8, 116-120.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 2007. TVA at a Glance.
Tennessee Valley Authority. TVA Economic Development. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http://www.tvaed.com/index.htm.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2003) Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) Official Journal L 154, 1 - 41.
The U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 Geographic Terms and Concepts.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (TRB). 2008. Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation (Special Report). Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. (2006, August 27-29). Conference Proceedings 39: The Metropolitan Planning Organization, Present and Future. Washington, D.C.
Transrapid Nederland. Randstadrapid. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from http://www.randstadrapid.nl/.
Taylor, W. R. 1938. Regionalism in Practice. The American Journal of Sociology, 44(3), 379-390.
University of Pennsylvania. 2005. Reinventing Megalopolis: The Northeast Megaregion. School of Design, Department of City and Regional Planning.
University of Pennsylvania. 2006. Uniting People, Places & System: Megalopolis Unbound. School of Design, Department of City and Regional Planning.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Decennial Census.
U.S. Congress. 1995. The Technological Reshaping of Metropolitan America, OTA-ETI-643, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Valley in the shadow of debt. (2003, July 17). The Economist.
van Dijk, T. M. 2005. Public transport for a competitive Randstad. Nyenrode Business University.
van Veen-Groot, D. B. & P. Nijkamp. 1999. Globalisation, transport and the environment: new perspectives for ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 31(3), 331-346.
Vicino, T. J., B. Hanlon & J. R. Short. 2007. Megalopolis 50 Years On: The Transformation of a City Region. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31, 344-367.
Wang, J. J., & B. Slack. 2004. Regional governance of port development in China: A case study of Shanghai International Shipping Center. Maritime Policy & Management, 31(4), 357-373.
Weiner, E. 1997. Urban Transportation Planning in the United States: An Historical Overview. U.S. Department of Transportation.
Weingroff, R. F. 2000. The Genie in the Bottle: The Interstate System and Urban Problems, 1939-1957. Public Roads, September/October.
Weitz, J., & Seltzer, E. 1998. Regional Planning and Regional Governance in the United States 1979-1996. Journal of Planning Literature, 12(3), 361-392.
Wheeler, Stephen M., 2002. The New Regionalism: Key Characteristics of an Emerging Movement. Journal of the American Planning Association. Vol. 68, No. 3.
Williams, R. (1996) European Spatial Policy and Planning. Paul Chapman Publishing,
London.
Williamson, K. 2003. Growing With Green Infrastructure. Heritage Conservancy. Doylestown, PA. http://heritageconservancy.org/news/publications/pdf/green_infra.pdf.
Woo, M. 2007. Impacts of Urban Containment Policies on Urban Growth and Structure. In City and Regional Planning. Columbus: The Ohio State University.
Wu, F., & J. Zhang. 2007. Planning the Competitive City-Region: The Emergence of Strategic Development Plan in China. Urban Affairs Review, 42, 714-740.
Xu, J., & A.G.O. Yeh. 2005. City Repositioning and Competitiveness Building in Regional Development: New Development Strategies in Guangzhou, China. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(2), 283-308.
Yang, J. 2006. Transportation Implications of Land Development in a Transitional Economy: Evidence from Housing Relocation in Beijing, China. Journal of Transportation Research Board, 1954, 7-14.
Yang, J., C. Feng & G. Cao. 2007. Land and Transportation Development in China: An Economic Analysis of Government Behavior. Journal of Transportation Research Board, 2038, 78-8.
Yoder, S. 2006. presentation material for Detroit River International Crossing Study. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Resource Center.
Zhang, M., F. Steiner & K. Butler. 2007. Connecting the Texas Triangle: Economic Integration and Transportation Coordination. In The Healdsburg Research Seminar on Megaregions, 21-36. Healdsburg, California: Regional Plan Association & Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Zhang, T. 2006. From Intercity Competition to Collaborative Planning: The Case of the Yangtze River Delta Region of China. Urban Affairs Review, 42(1), 26-56.
To provide Feedback, Suggestions or Comments for this page contact Supin Yoder (supin.yoder@dot.gov).
