SPRAWL FORMULA

Developer Driven Growth =
Auto-Dependent Sprawl =
More Roads & More Lanes

What is Sprawl?

Sprawl is a pattern of land use that is characterized by dispersed, automobile-dependent development outside of compact urban and village centers, along highways, and in the rural countryside. Sprawl is typically characterized by...

Excessive land consumption

Low densities in comparison with older centers

Lack of transportation options

Fragmented open space, wide gaps between development and a scattered appearance

Lack of choice in housing types and prices

Separation of uses into distinct areas

Repetitive one story development

Commercial buildings surrounded by expansive parking

Lack of public spaces and community centers

Smart Fact

According to a National Wildlife Federation report, Americans drive more than two and a half trillion miles annually —

the equivalent of almost half a light year —

while the average American spends 440 hours driving every year —

the equivalent of 11 work-weeks.

Impacts of Sprawl

Loss of sense of place and community decline resulting in:

Fragmented and dispersed communities and a decline in social interaction

Isolation of some populations, such as the poor and elderly

Increased energy consumption

Sprawl has many adverse impacts on the quality of our individual lives and the health of our communities.

These include:

Higher individual and community costs resulting from:

Increase in automobile dependency, fuel consumption, and air pollution

§ Increased commuting times and costs that results in more time in our cars and less time for family, friends, community and recreation

§ Reduced opportunity for public transportation services

Decline in Community Vitality:

Decline in economic and fiscal viability of existing community centers due to a loss of share of retail sales to malls and big-boxes

Vacant buildings

Lower property values

Loss of basic goods and services for residents

Abandoned public investment – delivering services to far-flung developments is not cost-effective and past and existing investment in urban and village centers is wasted.

Reduced Economic Opportunity:

Poorly-planned, scattered development costs taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to support inefficient and over-built infrastructure.

Excessive public costs for roads and utility line extensions and service delivery to dispersed development

Decline in economic opportunity in traditional centers

Premature disinvestment in existing buildings, facilities and services in urban and village centers

Relocation of jobs to peripheral areas far from population centers

Decline in the number of jobs in some sectors, such as retail

Isolation of employees from activity centers, homes, daycare and schools

Reduced ability to finance public services in urban centers

Loss of farmland – so key to state’s history and rural economy

Diminished Environmental Quality:

Fragmentation of open space and wildlife habitat

Loss of productive farmland and forestland

Decline in water quality from increased urban runoff, shoreline development and loss of wetlands

Inability to capitalize on unique cultural, historic and public space resources (such as waterfronts) in urban and village centers

Courtesy of the Colorado Sprawl Action Center

What is sprawl?

Sprawl can take a variety of different forms. Whether it is a massive suburban development that consumes agricultural land and open space or is a number of large lot houses that dot the countryside breaking up migration patterns or eco-systems, both of these types of sprawl have detrimental effects on our quality of life and environment. While no universal definition of sprawl exists, the Random House Webster's Dictionary defines sprawl as "to spread out or be distributed irregularly."

In terms of land use, Dr. Anthony Downs of the Brookings Institute (an independent policy analyst group) identified the ten following "traits" that are most commonly associated with sprawl.

Ten Traits associated with Sprawl

1. Unlimited outward expansion

2. Low-density residential and commercial settlements

3. Leapfrog development

4. Fragmentation of powers over land use among many small localities

5. Dominance of transportation by private automotive vehicles

6. No centralized planning or control of land use

7. Widespread strip commercial development

8. Great fiscal disparities among localities

9. Segregation of types of land uses in different zones

10. Reliance mainly on the trickle-down or filtering process to provide housing to low-income households

The Vermont Forum on Sprawl best summarizes sprawl as "dispersed development outside of compact urban and village centers along highways and in rural countryside."

The Problem
Around the nation, in communities in all states, people have started to recognize the degree to which they have lost control of their communities and their civic destinies. Overly influential developers and business interests have bullied, bribed or tricked local governments into development projects that reap private profits at public expense. Colorado is just one of many areas where public anger at badly managed growth patterns is boiling over and turning into civic action and community organizing for political change.

One of the biggest factors aggravating sprawl in Colorado (as well as the biggest impediment to responsible growth) is the fact that so many business interests benefit from runaway growth, and that they have been so effective in convincing local governments to buy into their "over-development" vision. Land speculators, developers, mortgage brokers, contractors, construction interests, realtors. . . even sand and gravel companies - all have a vested interest in maintaining a rapid growth ideology and recognize and take action to protect that fact.

Because of their finances and sustained political will, the "growth-lobby" is able to spend the time and money to effectively lobby local governments to re-zone property, fund environmental impact studies and extend city services (at taxpayer expense), and to receive approval for sprawling developments even over extreme local citizen opposition. Likewise, pressure and mis-information from these same agencies have created a common perception that efforts to "reign in" or regulate development could bring about job-loss, decreased tax-revenue, and even recession. But the obvious question remains. . . how does a new development on the edge of town better the lives of anyone in the existing town? Traffic worsens, city services become more thinly spread, water becomes scarce, and, as poll after poll has shown, out-of-control growth becomes something the local citizens come to fear rather than something they welcome.

Solution: What is Smart Growth?

The American Planning Association recently defined smart growth as "the planning, design, development and revitalization of communities to promote a sense of place, the preservation of natural and cultural resources, and the equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of development. Smart Growth enhances ecological integrity over the short and long term and improves quality of life by expanding the range of transportation, employment, and housing choices in the region in a fiscally responsible manner."

The principles of Smart Growth are based on the belief that development patterns and land use decisions directly affect our quality of life. Smart Growth can range from local planning decisions that strictly lay out future land use patterns to new developments that enhance community character.

Without embracing the principles of responsible growth management, the current political system rewards developer interests at the expense of the expressed desires of the people. With such well-funded and willful opponents already so firmly entrenched in political system, it is imperative that local citizen groups be given the resources, tools, and advice they need to run effective campaigns more effectively achieve a voice in debates shaping the creation of their local communities. To this end, citizens need to be informed in advance where developments have been proposed, what the character and size of such developments would be, and the costs and specifics of how their local county or city plans to provide services and water. . . and at what price. In short, it is imperative that efforts be made and steps taken to ensure that local citizens have the ability to effectively organize and express their concerns, and to be heard over the lobbying and influence that developer interests currently wield.

CoPIRG's Colorado Sprawl Action Center is designed to ensure that citizens have the voice they deserve in local planning processes, to counter developers' misinformation concerning citizen and government rights. Through dissemination of information, statewide networking services and leadership training at our citizen organizing conferences, the Center already does more than any other organization in the state to foster this much needed kind of activism. Through our pro-bono training sessions on campaign planning, lobbying, working with the media, fundraising, group-building and public speaking, the Center provides an unparalleled resource for the training and improvement of citizen action and democracy itself. By giving local citizen groups the ability to be an effective voice FOR their community, IN their community, the Colorado Sprawl Action Center helps ensure a permanent, localized citizen-advocate force to counter the so-pervasive influence and dollar power of pro-development business interests.

Will This Front Range Traffic Impact Your Town?

Highway Expansion - Creating Tomorrows Problems Today

Click Here for FHWA Planning and Environmental Linkages Approach

Arterial Congestion Impacts and Back Country Sprawl

Increasing highway capacity on the main artery between the Front Range and the Mountain Resort Communities can have unanticipated consequences for mountain communities.

Highway and parking infrastructure in many mountain communities is already straining to keep up with Front Range population and motor vehicle growth. Increasing I-70 highway capacity will increase the number of motor vehicles on US6, US40, SH9, US285, SH91 and US24 as well as other County and Municipal roads in the mountain region. Those additional vehicles may create new congestion pinch points far away from the Interstate and limit mobility for mountain community residents. Those additional vehicles will also require places to park which will impact most if not all mountain communities. Parking as well as overuse is already a problem at many mountain destinations and attractions today, especially at USFS locations.

Why would you spend huge sums of money to expand a highway that will just result in the same congestion very quickly after the highway expansion is completed?

There are many similarities between the I-93 proposed highway expansion in New Hampshire and the proposed I-70 highway expansion in Colorado.

CLF Sues State DOT and Federal Highway Administration over Decision on I-93

Contact
Julia Bovey, CLF Director of Communications
800-370-0697 x722

Concord, NH (February 7, 2006) - Seeking to protect the air, water and rural character of communities throughout southern New Hampshire, and to promote sound investment of taxpayer dollars, the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) has filed suit in Federal District Court over the State's attempt to solve traffic problems on the Salem-to-Manchester segment of I-93 by simply expanding the highway from a total of four lanes to eight.

"The state will spend nearly a half-billion dollars on a 19.8 mile segment of asphalt, only to see it return to gridlocked, bottleneck conditions by 2020," CLF-NH Director Nancy Girard warns.

"Considering the proposed construction wouldn't be completed until 2012, the Department of Transportation's plan is a short-sighted, fiscally irresponsible 'fix.'"

"What New Hampshire needs is a well-planned, balanced transportation system that will work for the long term, and that will protect the character of our communities rather than fueling yet more sprawl," added CLF Attorney Tom Irwin. "Passenger rail should have been considered as a part of the solution. Unfortunately, the Department of Transportation decided from the beginning that this would be a widening project only, rejecting rail without a proper, objective analysis."

According to a study conducted by the transportation agencies, the proposed four-lane widening will cause an additional 35,000 people to move to southern New Hampshire by 2020. This growth, in turn, will result in more traffic both on I-93 and local roads.

"The State's own traffic models show that growth induced by the widening will result in 1.44 million miles of vehicle travel per day," said CLF volunteer Art Cunningham. "Nearly 1 million miles of that daily travel will take place on local roads. Never, at any point in the planning process, were communities made aware of these facts."

In addition to increasing future traffic on I-93 and local roads, the proposed widening will have far-reaching impacts on air quality and water resources.

"The transportation agencies failed to conduct any meaningful analysis of the toxic air pollution that will result from the widening and the significant congestion it will ultimately cause," said Girard. "And the critical issues regarding chlorides and water pollution simply have not been resolved."

The lawsuit was brought under the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires an analysis of project alternatives and detailed consideration of project impacts. CLF's complaint, which commenced the action, can be viewed here . (PDF)

The Conservation Law Foundation works to solve the environmental problems that threaten the people, natural resources and communities of New England. CLF's advocates use law, economics and science to design and implement strategies that conserve natural resources, protect public health, and promote vital communities in our region. Founded in 1966, CLF is a nonprofit, member-supported organization. It has offices in Concord, New Hampshire; Boston, Massachusetts; Providence, Rhode Island; Montpelier, Vermont; and Brunswick, Maine.

Conservation Law Foundation

Interstate 93 Widening
Fighting for a Balanced Transportation System and Smarter Growth

Simply widening I-93 will not solve traffic woes, as traffic congestion will soon return. New Hampshire needs a balanced transportation system that includes rail and other innovative solutions.

The proposal to widen Interstate 93 has been called one of the most wasteful road projects in America. The project will induce sprawling growth and development along the I-93 corridor and throughout southern New Hampshire. Traffic congestion will soon return and impacts to wetlands and water resources will be severe, as will the loss of open space and forests associated with future induced development.

The New Hampshire Department of Transportation's (DOT) proposal -- to simply double the highway's capacity from four lanes to eight between Salem and Manchester -- is an unsustainable and short-sighted solution. New Hampshire needs a balanced transportation system that includes rail and other innovative remedies.

CLF has been leading the opposition to DOT's short-sighted "fix" and promoting sustainable solutions through a coalition of 13 environmental and public interest advocacy groups, including the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, NH Audubon, NH Public Interest Research Group (NH PIRG) and the NH Public Health Association. The coalition has called upon DOT to develop a balanced, long-term transportation solution that limits impacts to air and water quality, and that promotes more sustainable, less sprawling development in southern New Hampshire.

CLF filed suit in February 2006 charging that NH DOT and the National Highway Administration violated the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act in their planning and approval of the proposed twenty mile, $700 million widening project.

CDOT - Creating Tomorrows Problems Today

Highway capacity growth and Land use planning and regulation are inseparable. Increasing highway capacity will stimulate and extend development beyond current jurisdictional boundaries and even into jurisdictions that are relatively unaffected by mountain resort growth today. Development pressure can occur in any jurisdiction that people are willing to drive to for more affordable housing. Additional highway capacity will promote Back Country sprawl.

There is also a distinct difference between recreational activities driven by highway development and transit development. Recreation trips associated with rail transit in the mountain corridor are anticipated to include an increase in resort guided activities and activities within developed recreational sites. Recreation trips associated with highway expansion would result in an increase in dispersed recreational activities, effectively creating recreational sprawl.

Many reasonable questions can be asked about increasing development pressure in the High Country by adding highway capacity.

1) Where will the development occur and how will it be regulated?

2) Are local mountain jurisdictions prepared to regulate extended growth and development to minimize local impacts?

3) Is the development appropriate based on local land use codes and public infrastructure?

4) Will the development pay for itself?

5) Is there a water supply and both water and sewer infrastructure to support additional development and if not, who will pay for it?

6) What are the environmental consequences associated with the additional development?

7) Is this extended mountain development consistent with your community’s Master Plan and Vision?

8) Is this extended mountain development consistent with Colorado Resident’s Vision for the State?

9) Does this extended development protect Colorado’s spectacular mountain environment for future generations to enjoy?

We must coordinate Transportation and Land Use Planning

Transportation influences land use, and land use also directly affects our transportation choices.

Low density single family home development via subdivisions has been increasing across the country for many years. This form of development generates disproportionate amounts of traffic, creates poor road connectivity, contributes to congestion on the state highway system by funneling more traffic onto it, and makes it expensive to provide public services.

Instead of “solving” congestion, more highways actually encourage the construction of new low-density, single-use development at the urban edge. In these new communities, destinations are farther apart, requiring us to drive longer distances and more often than in traditional more compact, mixed communities. This “generated traffic” quickly fills up the highways again.

Zoning policies, which were adopted many years ago to separate land uses (industrial commercial, residential) for public health and safety reasons, have had the unanticipated effect of reducing transportation options and increasing dependence on the automobile for most trips. Jurisdictions should be encouraged to revisit their master plans and related zoning policies to encourage land use patterns which make walking and bicycling between destinations more attractive. Plans and zoning ordinances need to be amended to foster communities which are less dependent on the automobile for transportation.

Inefficient land use leads to sprawl, which leads to inefficient and expensive transportation systems. Transit service is not cost-effective when development spreads people out across the landscape.

Are we smart enough to see through the trees and realize that "business as usual" doesn't solve the problem?

Courtesy of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute:

Transportation and land use decisions affect each other. Some types of land use patterns increase automobile travel, while others are more multi-modal and accessible, reducing the amount of vehicle travel needed to access goods, services and activities.

Sprawl and automobile dependency are complementary. During much of the last century the was a self-reinforcing cycle of increased vehicle ownership and use, reduced travel options, and more automobile-oriented land use development.

There is growing agreement among various planning professions that sprawl imposes a variety of economic, social and environmental costs on society compared with more smart growth. As a result, many professional organizations, jurisdictions and government agencies have adopted smart growth planning objectives.

The disciplines of geography, urban economics, land use planning, landscape design, and environmental studies have long recognized these impacts, and the desirability of more integrated planning, but current transport planning often overlooks such impacts and objectives, particularly when evaluating relatively small, individual policies and projects, such as how much parking to require at a particular site or whether to expand a particular intersection.

As a community becomes more automobile dependent, the people who rely on alternative modes becomes an increasingly small minority, so decision-makers become less familiar with their needs and their political influence declines. As a result, countless public policy and planning decisions become more favorable to automobile travel, and less consideration is given to supporting other modes.

Until recently, public officials and transportation professionals generally considered Automobile Dependency acceptable or even desirable. They assume that Automobile Dependency reflects consumer preferences and is inevitable with increased wealth. They associated automobile travel with comfort, convenience, success and economic development, and alternative modes with deprivation and failure. Most had no experience with efficient, multi-modal transportation systems.

But this assumption is increasingly questioned. Although automobile transportation provides significant benefits to society, these benefits experience diminishing marginal returns. Beyond an optimal level, increased motor vehicle traffic provides little additional benefits, while imposing increasing costs, and reducing the viability of other transport modes. These diminishing marginal benefits occur at both an individual level (although a consumer may benefit from driving 10,000 annual vehicle-miles, few would want to drive 100,000 annual vehicle-miles regardless of how low their financial cost), and at the community level (although a certain amount of vehicle traffic is contributes to economic and social activities, increased vehicle traffic does not necessarily cause more economic and social development). Automobile Dependency is harmful overall because it represents levels of automobile use beyond what is economically and socially optimal (Litman, 2000).

Automobile ownership and use tend to increase with wealth up to a point, but they eventually reach saturation. An international study found that per capita automobile ownership peaks at about $21,000 (1996 U.S. dollars) annual income and levels off, or even declines due to increased congestion, loss of novelty, and public policy responses (Talukadar, 1997). Using U.S. data, Holtzclaw (2000) found that vehicle travel increases strongly with annual income up to about $30,000, but then levels off and declines slightly with incomes over $100,000. Increased wealth allows consumers to choose alternatives to driving. For example, some wealthy commuters prefer using transit rather than driving, provided that the service is comfortable, convenient and reliable. Similarly, many wealthy people value living in more accessible neighborhoods, where they are close to commercial and cultural activities, and can walk and bicycle for both recreation and transportation (New Urbanism).

Factors That Contribute to Automobile Dependency

A number of transportation and land use market distortions tend to encourage automobile ownership and use beyond what is economically and socially optimal (Market Principles). These include underpricing, inadequate consumer choice, weak competition, bias in transportation planning and investment practices, and other public policies that favor automobile travel.

Conventional Transportation Planning practices can create a self-fulfilling prophecy: past traffic growth rates are extrapolated to predict future vehicle traffic demand, and road and parking capacity is built to meet this projected demand (called predict and provide planning). Little consideration is given to the negative impacts that more dispersed destinations, larger roads and parking facilities, and reduced resources for other travel modes will have on overall Accessibility. The result is increasingly automobile-oriented transportation systems and land use patterns (Condon, 2004). More Comprehensive Planning can help create more balanced transportation systems.

Transportation Evaluation practices often favor automobile dependency. Transportation service quality is often Measured primarily in terms of vehicle traffic (e.g., roadway level of service, average traffic speed, vehicle congestion delay), with little or no consideration to other modes. Nonmotorized Transportation tends to be undervalued in conventional transportation surveys and models, which ignore or undercount short trips, travel by children, leisure travel, and walking links to access automobiles and transit service. As a result, few resources are devoted to walking and cycling.

Current investment practices also contribute to Automobile Dependency. Transportation funding is often dedicated to roads and parking, and cannot be used for other types of transportation facilities or services, even when they are more cost effective overall. Zoning codes often include minimum parking requirements, which represent a subsidy of automobile travel, and by increasing land requirements, results in lower-density, urban fringe development. Least Cost Transportation Planning, Smart Growth Policy Reforms and Parking Management are TDM strategies that can help correct these distortions.

Automobile use is considered Prestigious, while other mode are stigmatized, many urban communities have become unattractive to middle-class residents, and some people assume, incorrectly, that automobile dependency contributes to Economic Development. The public officials and community leaders most involved in transportation planning tend to be automobile dependent, and so are particularly conscious of problems facing motorists and less aware of problems facing people who depend on other modes. This is not to suggest that public officials are unconcerned about the negative impacts of increased vehicle traffic and problems facing non-drivers. Many work hard to improve Transport Options. However, this occurs despite, rather than supported by current transportation evaluation and planning practices.

While it may seem harmful to constrain road building just to reduce automobile dependency, a more positive perspective, which often reaches the same conclusion, is that once a community has a basic road system which provides motor vehicle access to most destinations, increasing traffic capacity and speed provides diminishing benefits and increasing costs, so it makes sense to invest an increasing portion of resources in alternative modes and more accessible land use patterns in order to achieve community planning objectives. There is a strong economic case for transportation and land use policies that increase the cost of driving (Market Reforms), reduce sprawl (Land Use Evaluation) and increase Transport Options (Litman, 2000).

How Transit and HOV Reduces Traffic Congestion (Transit Evaluation)

Urban traffic congestion tends to maintain equilibrium. If congestion increases, people change destinations, routes, travel time and modes to avoid delays, and if it declines they take additional peak-period trips (Rebound Effects). Reducing this point of equilibrium is the only way to reduce congestion over the long run. The quality of travel alternatives has a significant effect on the point of congestion equilibrium: If alternatives are inferior, few motorists will shift mode and the level of equilibrium will be relatively high. If travel alternatives are relatively attractive, motorists are more likely to shift modes, resulting in a lower equilibrium.

The actual number of motorists who shift from driving to transit may be relatively small, just a few percent of total travelers on the corridor, but that is enough to reduce roadway congestion delays. Congestion does not disappear, but it never gets as bad as would occur if quality transit service did not exist.

To attract discretionary riders (travelers who have the option of driving), public transit must be fast, comfortable, convenient and affordable. Grade-separated transit (such as rail on its own right-of-way or buses with HOV Priority features) provides a travel time advantage that tends to attract discretionary riders. When transit is faster than driving, a portion of travelers shift mode until the highway reaches a new congestion equilibrium (that it, until congestion declines to the point that transit is no longer faster). As a result, the faster the transit service, the faster the traffic speeds on parallel highways. Other types of Transit Improvements can also encourage motorists to shift to transit.

Shifting traffic from automobile to transit on a particular highway not only reduces congestion on that facility, it also reduces the amount of vehicle traffic discharged onto surface streets, providing “downstream” congestion reduction benefits. For example, when comparing the congestion reduction benefits of a highway widening project with some sort of transit service improvement, the analysis should not be limited to just the highway that is expanded. It is important to also account for the additional congestion on surface streets where highway traffic discharges resulting from increased traffic volumes, and the reduction in surface street traffic congestion that would result if the transit improvement attracts highway drivers out of their cars.

Improving travel options can therefore benefit all travelers on a corridor, both those who shift modes and those who continue to drive.

Roadway Land Use Impacts

Roadway Land Value Costs

Barrier Effect Costs

More Roads are Not the Answer

Smart Growth and Affordable Housing

Transportation Choices

Global Warming

Population Growth and Suburban Sprawl

Is Your Community Addicted to Sprawl? Click here to find out.

A Heavy Load: The Burden of Housing and Transportation on Working Families

The Washington, D.C. based Center for Housing Policy recently released a comprehensive study on the issue of housing and transportation costs that examined 18 areas across the country, including the Denver metro region.

The national results document a costly, inverse relationship between housing and transportation costs, depending on where a family lives and where they work. For every dollar saved by moving to a house that’s more affordable but further away from a job, a family pays 77 cents more to cover transportation costs (cost of the car, maintenance, gas, insurance, parking). A family making $20-50 thousand dollars a year ends up spending 57% of their income on housing and transportation with 28% spent on housing and an astounding 29% spent on transportation costs. Transportation costs eat up a much larger share of the budget for families with lower incomes. Those earning less than $30 thousand dollars a year devote up to 24%, compared to 12% for those making $31-50 thousand and 7% for those making above $50 thousand dollars.

In Denver, the results showed the dynamics of “driving ‘til you qualify”. The average family spent 29% on their housing costs and 29% on transportation. That means a family earning $40,000 a year spends $23,200 on housing and transportation combined a year, or up to $1,933 a month! Travel patterns revealed that 87% of commuters drove a private vehicle to work, 6% took public transit, 4% walked to work, and 4% worked from home. (In comparison, in the five boroughs of New York City, 58% drove to work, 31% took public transit, 8% walked, and 3% worked from home.)

For those burdened with high transportation and housing costs, renters had to shell out an even higher percentage of their total income (37%) than homeowners (26%). The report also found that the farther a resident travels to work, the worse their financial burden. Those who make $20 to 35 thousand dollars a year and live in the city where they they work spend 32% of their income on housing and 22% on transportation costs (54% total cost) , while those living up to 15 miles away spend 33% on housing and 37% on transportation costs ( 70% combined). The perceived savings of living farther out in the suburbs is consumed by 16% higher costs, largely due to transportation expenses!

So where are trends headed in the future? For new housing, the growth rates in the suburbs are 14% a year versus 3% for cities. While incomes are up 10%, transportation costs are up 13% and housing costs are up 15%. With a gallon of gas now costing $2.86 (compared to $1.42 in 2002), those unable to find affordable housing located close to where they work are forced to pay the equivalent of a very steep transportation tax—not to mention the added public infrastructure costs.

To read the report online, go to the Center for Housing Policy’s website.

Courtesy of the Sierra Club