Can urban growth patterns take advantage of economies of scale in infrastructure by relying on fewer and larger treatment plants? Estimates of potential cost savings from alternative wastewater treatment consolidation strategies for the metropolitan Chicago region suggest that the timing of consolidation is important. Carefully timed consolidation, even consolidation that takes place after development has occurred, might yield present value savings on the order of US$170 million in capital costs. These potential savings are large enough that such strategies should be considered when planning for metropolitan growth.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BahlR WJr, 1963, “A bluegrass leapfrog”, Bureau of Business Research, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
2.
BurchellR WShadN AListokinDPhillipsHDownsASeskinSDavisJ SMooreTHeltonDGallM, 1998, “The costs of sprawl—revisited”, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC
3.
ChangS-YBrillE DJrHopkinsL D, 1982, “Use of mathematical models to generate alternative solutions to water resources planning problems”Water Resources Research18, 58–64
4.
DeiningerR ASuS Y, 1971, Regional Wastewater Treatment System, paper presented at The Institute of Management Science National Conference, Washington, DC; copy available from Professor Hopkins
5.
FrankJ EFulconerM K, 1990, “The measurement of capacity: Theory, data structure, and analytics”Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems14, 283–297
6.
FreidenfeldsJ, 1981Capacity Expansion: Analysis of Simple Models with Applications (Elsevier, Amsterdam)
7.
HopkinsL D, 2001a, “Should additional land be serviced for urban development? When? Where? How much?”, in Land Supply and Infrastructure Monitoring for Smart Urban Growth Ed. KnaapG J (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA) pp 139–163
8.
HopkinsL D, 2001bUrban Development: The Logic of Making Plans (Island Press, Washington, DC)
9.
KaiserE JGodschalkD RChapinF S J, 1995Urban Land Use Planning (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL)
10.
KnaapG JDingCHopkinsL D, 2001, “Managing urban growth for the efficient use of public infrastructure: Toward a theory of concurrency”International Regional Science Review24, 328–343
11.
NakamuraMBrillE DJr, 1977, “Mathematical methods for use in planning regional wastewater treatment systems”, University of Illinois Water Resources Center, Urbana, IL
12.
PeiserR B, 1984, “Does it pay to plan suburban growth?”Journal of the American Planning Association50, 419–433
13.
Segoe and Associates L, 1958Master Plan Supplement: City – County Planning and Zoning Commission of Lexington and Fayette County, KentuckySegoe and Associates, Cincinnati, OH
14.
SpeirCStephensonK, 2002, “Does sprawl cost us all? Isolating the effects of housing patterns on public water and sewer costs”Journal of the American Planning Association68, 56–70
15.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 1978a, Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants: 1973–1977Washington, DC, United States Environmental Protection Agency
16.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 1978b, Analysis of Operation and Maintenance Costs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment SystemsWashington, DC, United States Environmental Protection Agency
17.
ViessmanW JHammerM J, 1998Water Supply and Pollution Control (Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc., Menlo Park, CA)
18.
WindsorD, 1979, “A critique of the costs of sprawl”Journal of the American Planning Association45, 279–292
