Smart Growth
More Efficient Land Use Management
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy
Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
26 July 2008
This chapter describes
various local and regional land use management practices that create
more accessible, multi-modal, efficient and livable communities. People who
live and work in such communities tend to drive less and rely more on
alternative modes than in more automobile-dependent locations.
Smart Growth (also called New Community Design) is a general term for policies that integrate transportation and land use decisions, for example by encouraging more Compact, mixed-use development within existing urban areas, and discouraging dispersed, automobile dependent development at the urban fringe. Smart Growth can help create more Accessible land use patterns, improve Transport Options, create more Livable communities, reduce public service costs and achieve other Land Use Objectives. Smart Growth is an alternative to urban sprawl. Major differences between these two land use patterns are compared in Table 1.
Table
1 Comparing Smart Growth
and Sprawl (Ewing, 1996; Galster, et al, 2001)
|
|
Smart Growth |
Sprawl |
|
Density |
Compact development. |
Lower-density, dispersed activities. |
|
Growth pattern |
Infill (brownfield) development. |
Urban periphery ( |
|
Land use mix |
Mixed land use. |
Homogeneous (single-use, segregated) land uses. |
|
Scale |
Human scale. Smaller buildings, blocks and roads. More detail, since people experience the landscape up close, as pedestrians. |
Large scale. Larger buildings, blocks, wide roads. Less detail, since people experience the landscape at a distance, as motorists. |
|
Public services (shops, schools, parks) |
Local, distributed, smaller. Accommodates walking access. |
Regional, consolidated, larger. Requires automobile access. |
|
Transport |
Multi-modal transportation and land use patterns that support walking, cycling and public transit. |
Automobile-oriented transportation and land use patterns, poorly suited for walking, cycling and transit. |
|
Connectivity |
Highly connected roads, sidewalks and paths, allowing relatively direct travel by motorized and nonmotorized modes. |
Hierarchical road network with numerous loops and dead-end streets, and unconnected sidewalks and paths, with many barriers to nonmotorized travel. |
|
Street design |
Streets designed to accommodate a variety of activities. Traffic calming. |
Streets designed to maximize motor vehicle traffic volume and speed. |
|
Planning process |
Planned and coordinated between jurisdictions and stakeholders. |
Unplanned, with little coordination between jurisdictions and stakeholders. |
|
Public space |
Emphasis on the public realm (streetscapes, pedestrian environment, public parks, public facilities). |
Emphasis on the private realm (yards, shopping malls, gated communities, private clubs). |
This table compares Smart Growth with sprawl land use patterns.
Because their impacts tend to be synergistic (total impacts are greater than the sum of their individual impacts) Smart Growth does not involve just one single change, it requires a number of integrated changes. For example, more compact development, improved walkability or increased transit service quality by themselves cannot be considered Smart Growth; rather, a Smart Growth program might involve more compact development, improved walkability and increased transit service quality.
Smart Growth emphasizes Accessibility, meaning that the activities people use frequently are located close together. For this reason, the basic unit of planning is the local community, neighborhood or “village,” that is, a mixed-use, Walkable area, one-half to one mile in diameter, with commonly-used public services (shops, schools, parks, etc.) Clustered into a central commercial area. This is in contrast to conventional planning, which tends to emphasize mobility as a solution to transport problems, and so tends to plan communities at a larger scale which relies primarily on motor vehicle travel, with little consideration to pedestrian access.
Smart Growth strives to provide the best of all possible worlds: adequate automobile mobility with good alternative Transport Options (as opposed to Automobile Dependent development which provides poor nonmotorized and transit travel, or Car-Free Planning which prohibits automobile use under certain circumstances), and Accessible, mixed-use, resource-efficient Land Use patterns that offer residents and employers a range of urban development density and price options, while preserving greenspace and community Livability as much as possible. Smart Growth results in modest reductions in per capita motor vehicle travel, typically reducing private automobile trips from the current 90-95% to 60-80% of trips by shifting a portion of local trips to nonmotorized modes, and regional trips to Ridesharing and Transit.
There is growing convergence of support for Smart Growth among a variety of professions and interest groups, ranging from transportation planners concerned with a variety of economic, social and environmental issues. For example transportation planners increasingly support Smart Growth as a way to improve Accessibility (ITE, 2002), public officials support it as a way to reduce public infrastructure and service costs (Hirschhorn, 2001), some people support it as a way to reduce environmental impacts, and others as a way to create more Livable communities.
Smart Growth includes a number of individual policies and practices, such as those listed in the box below. Which are implemented and how they are applied depends on the specific situation. Smart Growth is a relatively recent concept (although many of its practices are old), and so is developing and evolving as practitioners gain experience.
|
Smart Growth Practices (Ewing,
1996; Bochner, 2000; USEPA, 2001; Trohimovich, 2001; Smart Growth Network,
2002; Smart Growth Policy Reforms) · Strategic planning. Establish a comprehensive community vision which individual land use and transportation decisions should support. · Create more self-contained communities. Reduce average trip distances, and encourage walking, cycling and transit travel, by locating a variety of compatible land uses within proximity of each other. For example, develop schools, shops and recreation facilities in or adjacent to residential areas. Mix land uses at the finest grain feasible. ·
Maximize Accessibility
and Transportation Options. Try to locate associated
land uses close together (such as locating schools and commonly-used retail
businesses within or next to residential neighborhoods), and support
transportation diversity, including walking, cycling, ridesharing, public
transit, Delivery Services and Telework. ·
Create Walkable
neighborhoods. Walkability is important for Smart Growth, because it
increases community Livability and travel options
(most transit trips include walking links). ·
Foster distinctive, attractive communities
with a strong sense of place. Encourage physical environments that create
a sense of civic pride and community cohesion, including attractive public
spaces, high-quality architectural and natural elements that reflect unique
features of the community, preservation of special cultural and environmental
resources, and high standards of maintenance and repair. · Encourage quality, compact development. Allow and encourage higher density development, particularly around transit and Commercial Centers. Reduce minimum lot sizes, building setbacks, minimum parking requirements, and minimum street size. Allow transfer of develop capacity of outlying areas to more centralized areas. Demand high quality designs that addresses problems associated with higher density. · Use Context Sensitive Design. Foster distinctive communities with a strong sense of place. · Encourage Cluster development. Keep clusters small and well defined, such as “urban villages” with distinct names and characters. Coordinate development to facilitate accessibility. For example, encourage employment centers near commercial centers, so employees can walk to perform errands during their breaks. ·
Encourage infill development. Reduce
average trip distances, and encourage walking, cycling and transit travel, by
locating new development in already developed areas, so that activities are
close together. Review public costs to insure that public expenditures do not
favor new, · Reform tax and utility rates. Structure property taxes, development fees and utility rates to reflect the lower public service costs of clustered, infill development, and focus economic development incentives to encourage businesses to locate in more accessible locations (Smart Growth Policy Reforms). · Concentrate activities. Encourage pedestrian and transit travel by creating “nodes” of high-density, mixed development that are linked by convenient transit service. Concentrate commercial activities in these areas. Retain strong downtowns and central business districts. Use access management to discourage arterial strip commercial development. · Encourage Transit Oriented Development. Increase development density within walking distance (0.25 to 0.50 miles) of high capacity transit stations and corridors, and provide high quality pedestrian and cycling facilities in those areas. · Manage parking for efficiency. Encourage Shared Parking, and other Parking Management strategies. Reserve the most convenient parking for rideshare vehicles. · Avoid overly-restrictive zoning. Reduce excessive and inflexible parking and road capacity requirements. Limit undesirable impacts (noise, smells and traffic) rather than broad categories of activities. For example, allow shops and services to locate in neighborhoods provided that they are sized and managed to avoid annoying residents. · Good roadway Connectivity. Create a network of well-connected streets and paths, with short blocks and minimal cul-de-sacs. Keep streets as narrow as possible, particularly in residential areas and commercial centers. Use traffic management and traffic calming to control vehicle impacts rather than dead ends and cul de sacs. · Site design and building orientation. Encourage buildings to be oriented toward city streets, rather than set back behind large parking lots. Avoid large areas of parking or other unattractive land uses in commercial areas. · Improve nonmotorized travel conditions. Encourage walking and cycling by improving sidewalks, paths, crosswalks, protection from fast vehicular traffic, and providing street amenities (trees, awnings, benches, pedestrian-oriented lighting, etc.). Improve connections for nonmotorized travel, such as trails that link dead-end streets. · Implement TDM. Use transportation demand management to reduce total vehicle traffic and encourage the use of efficient modes. This includes parking and road pricing, commute trip reduction programs, policies that favor high-occupancy vehicles, and other strategies. · Improve street design to create complete streets. Use road space reallocation, access management, road diets, and traffic calming to insure that walking, cycling and public transit are convenient and comfortable, and to accommodate other street activities such as strolling, playing, shopping, sightseeing, eating and special events. · Preserve greenspace. Preserve open space, particularly areas with high ecological and recreational value. Channel development into areas that are already disturbed. · Encourage a mix of housing types and prices. Develop affordable housing near employment, commercial and transport centers. Develop second suites, apartments over shops, lofts, location-efficient mortgages and other innovations that help create more affordable housing. · Utility Management. Use on-site stormwater drainage systems. Encourage water conservation. |
Although clustering of activities (such as locating commonly-used retail and public services near residential areas, and grouping worksites and retail together into Commercial Centers) and increased density are important Smart Growth strategies, it does not require a particular level of density to be effective, it simply requires more clustering and density than would otherwise occur. Objectives and strategies tend to differ depending on whether an area is urban, suburban and exurban (JHK Associates, 1995).
·
Urban: In urban areas it emphasizes
redevelopment and infill of existing urban neighborhoods, improving mixed-use
design features (such as Traffic Calming of urban
streets and Location Efficient Development), and
enhancing multi-modal transport systems, particularly walking and public transit.
·
Suburban: In suburban areas it creates
medium-density, mixed-use, multi-modal centers (sometimes called Transit Villages), either by incrementally developing
existing suburban communities or by master-plan developments that reflect Smart
Growth principles. It encourages more complete suburban communities (more local
services and employment in suburban jurisdictions), and improved regional
travel options such as Ridesharing and Transit Improvements. It supports greenspace preservation.
· Rural: In rural areas Smart Growth involves policies that help channel development and public services into accessible, mixed-use villages (for example, having schools, stores and affordable housing located close together and well connected by good walking facilities), and implementation of Rural Community TDM (Twaddell and Emerine, 2007).
Smart Growth can help achieve strategic land use objectives, including increased Accessibility and Transportation Options, more cost effective infrastructure, reduced impervious surface, and greenspace and historic preservation (Land Use Evaluation).
Smart Growth does not eliminate urban expansion or suburban development but it changes such development to help achieve resource efficiency and community Livability goals. Smart Growth reflects Sustainable Development objectives. Smart Growth incorporates many efficiency and amenity features private developers apply to “master planned” communities, such as incremental expansion of development to minimize infrastructure costs, and coordination between land uses to maximize access. It allows such features be implemented in existing communities and in new communities with multiple developers.
There is considerable debate concerning the desirability of Smart Growth (Gordon and Richardson, 1997, and counterpoint by Ewing; Burchell, et al., 1998; Moretti, 1999; Mills 1999; Litman, 2003). Critics argue that Smart Growth provides little real benefits, increases congestion, makes residents worse off, and is unpopular with consumers. Proponents counter that the total economic, social and environmental benefits are substantial, and point to the popularity of New Urbanism developments and to surveys indicating that consumers prefer communities with coordinated planning and Smart Growth design features (Eppli and Tu, 2000), and in some areas population and employment trends have favored urban over suburban areas (Hughes and Seneca, 2004).
Smart Growth critics tend to focus on individual factors without considering the overall effects of a coordinated Smart Growth program (Litman, 2003). For example, critics often highlight negative impacts associated with density, such as increased congestion, without considering how Smart Growth can offset such problems by improving access and travel choice.
Smart Growth is usually implemented as a set of policies and programs by state/provincial, regional or local governments. It can be incorporated into land use development, often in exchange for reduced development fees and parking requirements (Seggerman, Hendricks and Fleury, 2005). Implementation often requires Policy, Institutional and Regulatory reforms (Hirschhorn, 2001). To be effective it requires multi-jurisdictional coordination. Many professional and non-profit organizations involved in planning, urban development and quality of life issues support Smart Growth, including the American Planning Association, the National Governor’s Association, and citizen-based environmental groups. The Table below indicates the level of government action that can implement specific Smart Growth measures.
Table 2 Smart Growth Implementation
|
Smart Growth Measure |
Implementation Mechanism |
|
Increased Density and Infill Development |
State growth controls. State development incentives. Local growth controls. Local incentives. |
|
Transit Oriented Development |
State development incentives. Local growth controls. Local incentives. |
|
Jobs/Housing Balance |
State growth controls. State development incentives. Local growth controls. Local incentives. |
|
Land Use Mixing |
Local growth controls. Local design controls. Local incentives. |
|
Tax, Development Fees and Utility Pricing Reforms |
State tax policy. Local development and tax policy. Utility rate structure. |
|
Neotraditional Design |
Local growth controls. Local design controls. Local incentives. |
|
Site Design and Parking Management |
Local zoning codes. Local design controls. |
Smart Growth does not eliminate automobile travel, but it can significantly reduce per capita automobile travel compared with sprawled development patterns, as discussed in the chapters on Land Use Impacts and Transportation Price Elasticities. Smart Growth tends to reduce automobile travel through specific mechanisms described below.
· Clustering of population and
employment, which increases Accessibility (e.g.,
proximity to employment, shops and schools), and travel choice (better transit,
ridesharing, and better pedestrian facilities).
· Land use mix, such as
commercial and public services located within or adjacent to residential areas,
which increases access and travel choice.
· Parking
Management and Parking Pricing can reduce
automobile travel, encourage use of alternative modes, and reduce the amount of
land paved for parking facilities, creating accessible and pedestrian-friendly
landscape (see Evaluating Nonmotorized Transport).
· Traffic
Calming and other measures that reduce automobile traffic speeds, which
reduces driving and improves conditions for walking, cycling and transit use.
· A more Connected
street network improves access.
· More attractive, safer
streets, and pedestrian-oriented land use, encourages nonmotorized travel.
· An effective transit system
tends to reduce per capita automobile travel, particularly when integrated with
supportive land use (high-density development with good pedestrian access
within half-kilometer of transit stations).
· Other TDM strategies can be
incorporated into Smart Growth, including Commute Trip
Reduction, School and Campus
Trip Reduction, Carsharing and Road
Pricing, to further reduce per capita vehicle travel.
A USEPA study (2004) found that regardless of population density, transportation system design features such as greater street Connectivity, a more pedestrian-friendly environment, shorter route options, and more extensive transit service have a positive impact on performance, (per-capita vehicle travel, congestion delays, traffic accidents and pollution emissions). The USEPA Smart Growth Index (SGI) Model (www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/sgipilot.htm) is a tool for predicting the impacts that various land use factors such as density, mix, roadway design, transit service and regional accessibility have on personal travel. One study predicts that households make 20-25% fewer automobile trips if located in a higher density, transit-oriented suburb than in a conventional, low density, auto-oriented suburb (Cambridge Systematics, 1992). The table below summarizes the effects that some design features can have on trip generation to a particular site.
Table 3 Travel Impacts of Land Use Design
Features (Dagang,
1995)
|
Design Feature |
Reduced Vehicle Travel |
|
Residential development around transit centers. |
10% |
|
Commercial development around transit centers. |
15% |
|
Residential development along transit corridor. |
5% |
|
Commercial development along transit corridor. |
7% |
|
Residential mixed-use development around transit centers. |
15% |
|
Commercial mixed-use development around transit centers. |
20% |
|
Residential mixed-use development along transit corridors. |
7% |
|
Commercial mixed-use development along transit corridors. |
10% |
|
Residential mixed-use development. |
5% |
|
Commercial mixed-use development. |
7% |
Table 4 summarizes the effects of land use factors on travel behavior. Actual impacts will vary depending on specific conditions and the combination of factors applied, as discussed in Litman, 2005.
Table 4 Land Use Impacts on Travel (Litman, 2005)
|
Factor |
Definition |
Travel Impacts |
|
Density |
People or jobs per unit of land area (acre or hectare). |
Increased density tends to reduce per capita vehicle travel. Each 10% increase in urban densities typically reduces per capita VMT by 1-3%. |
|
Mix |
Degree that related land uses (housing, commercial, institutional) are located close together. |
Increased land use mix tends to reduce per capita vehicle travel, and increase use of alternative modes, particularly walking for errands. Neighborhoods with good land use mix typically have 5-15% lower vehicle-miles. |
|
Regional Accessibility |
Location of development relative to regional urban center. |
Improved accessibility reduces per capita vehicle mileage. Residents of more central neighborhoods typically drive 10-30% fewer vehicle-miles than urban fringe residents. |
|
Centeredness |
Portion of commercial, employment, and other activities in major activity centers. |
Centeredness increases use of alternative commute modes. Typically 30-60% of commuters to major commercial centers use alternative modes, compared with 5-15% of commuters at dispersed locations. |
|
Network Connectivity |
Degree that walkways and roads are connected to allow direct travel between destinations. |
Improved roadway connectivity can reduce vehicle mileage, and improved walkway connectivity tends to increase walking and cycling. |
|
Roadway design and management |
Scale, design and management of streets. |
More multi-modal streets increase use of alternative modes. Traffic calming reduces vehicle travel and increases walking and cycling. |
|
Walking and Cycling conditions |
Quantity, quality and security of sidewalks, crosswalks, paths, and bike lanes. |
Improved walking and cycling conditions tends to increase nonmotorized travel and reduce automobile travel. Residents of more walkable communities typically walk 2-4 times as much and drive 5-15% less than if they lived in more automobile-dependent communities. |
|
Transit quality and accessibility |
Quality of transit service and degree to which destinations are transit accessible. |
Improved service increases transit ridership and reduces automobile trips. Residents of transit oriented neighborhoods tend to own 10-30% fewer vehicles, drive 10-30% fewer miles, and use alternative modes 2-10 times more frequently than residents of automobile-oriented communities. |
|
Parking supply and management |
Number of parking spaces per building unit or acre, and how parking is managed. |
Reduced parking supply, increased parking pricing and implementation of other parking management strategies can significantly reduce vehicle ownership and mileage. Cost-recovery pricing (charging users directly for parking facilities) typically reduces automobile trips by 10-30%. |
|
Site design |
The layout and design of buildings and parking facilities. |
More multi-modal site design can reduce automobile trips, particularly if implemented with improved transit services. |
|
Mobility Management |
Policies and programs that encourage more efficient travel patterns. |
Mobility management can significantly reduce vehicle travel for affected trips. Vehicle travel reductions of 10-30% are common. |
This table describes various land use factors that can affect travel behavior and population health.
Although individual strategies may have modest travel effects, typically reducing total vehicle traffic by just a few percentage points, their impacts are cumulative and synergetic. A comprehensive Smart Growth program using cost-effective strategies (i.e., strategies that are fully justified for their direct economic and consumer benefits) can reduce total per capita automobile travel by 20-40% compared with conventional, automobile-dependent land use patterns and transportation policies.
The table below summarizes estimated travel impacts that can typically be achieved by Smart Growth. Of course, these impacts can vary significantly depending on specific policies, geography, demographics, and time frame.
Table 5 Travel Impact Summary
|
Travel
Impact |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
3 |
Results in more efficient
land use and improved travel alternatives. |
|
Reduces peak period
traffic. |
2 |
Reduces automobile
commuting. |
|
Shifts peak to off-peak
periods. |
0 |
|
|
Shifts automobile travel to
alternative modes. |
3 |
|
|
Improves access, reduces
the need for travel. |
3 |
Results in more efficient
land use. |
|
Increased ridesharing. |
1 |
Clustered employment
supports ridesharing. |
|
Increased public transit. |
3 |
Supports public transit. |
|
Increased cycling. |
3 |
Supports bicycle transportation. |
|
Increased walking. |
3 |
Supports walking for
transportation. |
|
Increased Telework. |
0 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
1 |
May include some freight
management. |
Ratings range from 1 (minimal
impact) to 3 (significantly contributes to this impact).
Smart Growth can provide a variety of economic, social and environmental benefits, as summarized in Table 6. The actual benefits of a particular Smart Growth program depend on the components of the program and the conditions in which it is implemented.
Table
6 Smart Growth Benefits (Burchell, et al, 1998;
Forman, et al, 2003; Litman, 2004; USEPA, 2004; Litman, 2004)
|
Economic |
Social |
Environmental |
|
Reduced development and service costs. Consumer transportation cost savings. Economies of agglomeration. More efficient transportation. |
Improved transportation options, particularly for nondrivers. Improved housing options. Community cohesion. Increased physical activity and health. |
Greenspace and wildlife habitat preservation. Reduced air pollution. Reduce resource consumption. Reduced water pollution. Reduced “heat island” effect. |
Smart Growth tends to support economic development by increasing economic productivity and reducing overhead costs. Published research indicates that doubling urban population density produces approximately 6% increase in productivity (Haughwout, 2000; Harris and Ioannides, 2000). This occurs because Clustering of common destinations reduces the costs of activities that require frequent interactions.
A number of studies indicate that Smart Growth can reduce
costs for public services, such as water and sewage, roads and schools
(Burchell, et al, 1998; Muro and Puentes, 2004). The table below summarizes
public costs for three possible development patterns in
Table 7 Estimated 25 Year Public Costs for
Three Development Options (Blais, 1995)
|
|
Spread |
Nodal |
Central |
|
Residents per Ha |
66 |
98 |
152 |
|
Capital Costs (billion C$ 1995) |
54.8 |
45.1 |
39.1 |
|
O&M Costs (billion C$ 1995) |
14.3 |
11.8 |
10.1 |
|
Total Costs |
69.1 |
56.9 |
49.2 |
|
Percent Savings over “Spread” option |
n/a |
17% |
29% |
This table shows substantial public savings for higher density land use patterns associated with Smart Growth development.
Smart Growth tends to benefit consumers by improved housing and transportation Options and Affordability. Residents of communities with more efficient land use save thousands of dollars annually in transportation costs (McCann, 2000; Bernstein, et al, 2004; CTOD and CNT, 2006).
Smart
Growth tends to reduce per capita energy consumption and pollution emissions,
although it may increase pollutant concentrations and therefore exposure to
pollutants with localized impacts, such as noise and carbon monoxide. Per
capita energy savings can be substantial. According to one study, designing all
new communities on Smart Growth principles could reduce total
Smart Growth can increase community Livability, Traffic Safety and Health by reducing total per capita vehicle travel, encouraging shifts to safer modes, and reducing traffic speeds. Smart Growth can help preserve cultural traditions and unique communities. Smart Growth communities tend to have much lower per capita traffic fatalities compared with sprawl (Litman and Fitzroy, 2005). Some studies indicate that more pedestrian-oriented land use patterns can increase community cohesion and reduce crime, particularly if there are special programs and design features to Address Security Concerns. Untermann and Vernez Moudon (1989) studied traffic impacts on neighborhoods and conclude,
“A
deeper issue than the functional problems caused by road widening and traffic
buildup is the loss of sense of community in many districts. Sense of community
traditionally evolves through easy foot access--people meet and talk on foot
which helps them develop contacts, friendships, trust, and commitment to their
community. When everyone is in cars there can be no social contact between
neighbors, and social contact is essential to developing commitment to
neighborhood.”
Smart Growth is sometimes criticized because land use change is slow, and so impacts and benefits take many years to be achieved. In most communities only 1-4% of land is developed or redeveloped during a typical year, so it often takes decades before significant regional travel impacts are achieved. But these changes can provide many benefits and are extremely durable once implemented.
Smart Growth costs can include additional planning, construction and operating costs needed to develop higher density facilities and increase travel choices. Higher-density, infill development may increase local traffic congestion and exposure to noise and air pollution, although regional traffic and pollution tends to decline if residents drive less, as discussed in the chapter on Land Use Impacts (also see discussion in Litman, 2001). Increased density can reduce the amount of greenspace within an urbanized area, although it can increase total regional greenspace by reducing per capita area of land development. These negative impacts can be reduced with appropriate design features (such as noise insulation and carefully located parks), but these mitigation activities may also involve additional costs.
Many higher-density urban neighborhoods have higher rates of social problems (crime and poverty) than lower-density suburban neighborhoods. Although studies find an association between crowding (density measured in residents per residential room, an indication of poverty) and social problems, there is no such association with density measured in residents per acre (1000 Friends of Oregon, 1999). This suggests that the association between density and social problems reflects the tendency of distressed households to concentrate in higher-density, urban neighborhoods, not that higher-density development causes social problems. This indicates that increasing middle-class housing density does not increase social problems, and urban infill could reduce such problems if distressed households become less segregated.
Table 8 Smart
Growth Housing Affordability Impacts (Litman,
2001)
|
Reduces Housing Affordability |
Increases Housing Affordability |
|
·
· Urban growth boundaries (reduce developable land supply). · Increased building design requirements (curbs, sidewalks, sound barriers, etc.). |
· More accessible housing reduces total transportation costs (leaves more money for housing expenses). · Reduced parking and setback requirements (reduces land requirements per housing unit). · Higher density development and (reduces land requirements, increases land supply for housing.) · More diverse, affordable housing options (secondary suites, apartments over shops, loft apartments). · Reduced property taxes and utility fees for clustered and infill housing. |
Many Smart Growth can increase housing affordability.
Another objection to some Smart Growth measures, such as urban growth boundaries, is that they increase housing costs by reducing the supply of land available for residential development (Litman, 2001). However, other Smart Growth strategies increase housing affordability by allowing more diverse housing types (such as multi-family and secondary suites) and by reducing development costs (Jia and Wachs, 1998; Litman, 1998; Arigoni, 2001). Smart Growth can also reduce households’ transportation costs, which can offset increased housing costs (see Location-Efficient Mortgages). More Smart Growth reduce rather than increase household costs, as illustrated in Table 9. This suggests that Smart Growth can increase overall housing affordability, or at least cannot be blamed for reduced housing affordability (Nelson, 2000).
Table 9 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
2 |
Higher density may increase
local congestion, other Smart Growth features tend to reduce congestion. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
2 |
Reduces automobile trips and
travel, although it may increase some costs (such as more structured
parking). |
|
Consumer Savings |
2 |
Reduces household
transportation costs, and some infrastructure costs. |
|
Transport Choice |
3 |
Increases alternative
travel choices. |
|
Road Safety |
3 |
Reduces per capita vehicle
mileage, and traffic speeds. |
|
Environmental Protection |
3 |
Reduces automobile travel
and land devoted to roads and parking. |
|
Efficient Land Use |
3 |
Reduces automobile travel
and land devoted to roads and parking. |
|
Community Livability |
3 |
Creates more livable
communities. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Smart Growth includes many specific components that have various equity impacts. Some impacts may affect certain groups more than others, such as the effects of infill on existing neighborhoods. Smart Growth includes some measures, such as variable development fees that reflect the costs of a particular location, which internalize economic and environmental costs associated with development. This reduces horizontal inequity by reducing cross-subsidies (for example, by reducing subsidies from residents for existing urban housing to residents of new suburban housing to finance the higher public service costs of such development).
Smart Growth increases land use Accessibility and Transport Options, which benefits lower income households and non-drivers. Sprawl reduces transportation Affordability. In Automobile Dependent communities, households have no alternative to owning an automobile. For middle- and upper-class households this is not a major burden, many spend much more than they need for extra automobile comfort and prestige features, but for lower-income families automobile dependency tends to impose significant financial costs (McCann, 2000). Smart Growth tends to benefit transportation disadvantaged people and provide Basic Access. Some Smart Growth measures (particularly urban growth boundaries) can increase housing costs, and cause “gentrification” (displacement of existing low-income urban communities), but it can also improve the Livabilityincrease economic opportunity and development among low-income populations, and help preserve the unique features of existing urban communities (Kennedy and Leonard, 2001). When transportation and housing costs are considered together, Smart Growth tends to benefit lower-income residents overall (Location-Efficient Development). Organizations such as the National Neighborhoods Coalition and PolicyLink provide resources on how to insure that Smart Growth Policies support vertical equity objectives.
Table 10 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
0 |
Mixed. Uneven distribution
of impacts is often a major concern of Smart Growth programs. |
|
Individuals bear the costs
they impose. |
2 |
Tends to reduce
externalities associated with automobile use and lower density development. |
|
Progressive with respect to
income. |
2 |
Increases affordable
transport options. Mixed impacts on housing affordability. |
|
Benefits transportation
disadvantaged. |
3 |
Increases access and travel
choices for non-drivers. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
3 |
Increases access and travel
choices for non-drivers. |
Rating from 3 (very
beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Smart Growth is appropriate in most geographic areas, particularly those that experience strong growth. Smart Growth strategies are primarily implemented by regional and local governments, although some require state/provincial support. Developers can implement some Smart Growth design features.
Table 11 Application Summary
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
3 |
Federal government. |
1 |
|
High-density, urban. |
3 |
State/provincial government. |
2 |
|
Medium-density,
urban/suburban. |
3 |
Regional government. |
3 |
|
Town. |
2 |
Municipal/local government. |
3 |
|
Low-density, rural. |
2 |
Business Associations/TMA. |
2 |
|
Commercial center. |
3 |
Individual business. |
1 |
|
Residential neighborhood. |
2 |
Developer. |
2 |
|
Resort/recreation area. |
3 |
Neighborhood association. |
3 |
|
|
|
Campus. |
2 |
Ratings range from 0 (not
appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).
Land Use Management
Smart Growth supports and is supported by nearly all other TDM strategies. Smart Growth includes Pedestrian and Cycling Improvements, Traffic Calming, Public Transit Improvements, and any incentive to reduce automobile use. Smart Growth particularly supports and is supported by Clustered Land Use, Parking Management, Parking Pricing, Commute Trip Reduction, School Trip Management and Campus Trip Reduction, and Carsharing. New Urbanism, Transit Oriented Development, Clustering and Location Efficient Development are specific components of Smart Growth. Policy Reforms and Context Sensitive Design are important for implementing Smart Growth.
Smart Growth involves many stakeholders. Most Smart Growth efforts are implemented by regional and local governments, often as result of the community’s strategic plan. Neighborhood associations, business associations and developers are also important stakeholders with regard to many specific Smart Growth policies and projects.
Smart Growth often requires changing land use policies and development practices, including zoning codes, road design standards, and the location of public services (such as schools). Professionals and agencies often resist these new approaches. Transportation funding may favor highway widening over other transportation investments. Residents often oppose infill development and may demand mitigation measures.
Infill development is often discouraged by environmental contamination or the fear of such contamination (called “brownfields”), and by the unique location and shape of such sites. As a result, infill development often requires special Policy Changes and Change Management to support environmental clean up and encourage development, and special efforts by developers to create profitable projects.
Individual Smart Growth projects are often opposed by residents who dislike higher density, mixed-use development. Much of this opposition reflects residents concerns about increased vehicle traffic and parking problems. If infill development can be implemented with measures that reduce per capita vehicle use, and with amenities that benefit existing residents, such opposition may be reduced. Campoli and MacLean (2003) argue that many residents oppose density out of misguided negative perceptions, and offer visual resources to help illustrate what well-planned urban density looks like.
|
“It's
taken us 50 years to really screw up our neighborhoods. (Smart growth) is not
an overnight fix.” - Bill Wilkinson, Executive Director, |
JHK Associates (1995),
· Develop comprehensive
strategic community development plans.
· Take advantage of existing
community assets.
· Mix land uses.
· Create a range of housing
opportunities and choices.
· Foster “walkable” close-knit
neighborhoods.
· Promote distinctive,
attractive communities with a strong sense of place, including the
rehabilitation and use of historic buildings.
· Preserve open space,
farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas.
· Strengthen and encourage
growth in existing communities.
· Provide a variety of
transportation choices.
· Make development decisions
predictable, fair and cost effective.
· Locate employment within
existing developed areas. Set aside land for commercial and industrial
development within cities.
· Encourage citizens and
stakeholder participation in development decisions.
· Implement a comprehensive
Smart Growth program, rather than just one of two measures.
· Insure that transportation
and land use policies are coordinated.
· Coordinate Smart Growth
efforts between jurisdictions within a region.
· Encourage cooperation
between public and private decision makers to facilitate Smart Growth development.
|
Ahwahnee Principles Toward More Livable Communities
(LGC, 2000) Community Design: 1.All
planning should be in the form of complete and integrated communities
containing housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities
essential to the daily life of the residents. 2.Community
size should be designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other
activities are within easy walking distance of each other. 3.As
many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of
transit stops. 4.A
community should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from
a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries.
5.Businesses
within the community should provide a range of job types for the community's
residents. 6.The
location and character of the community should be consistent with a larger
transit network. 7.The
community should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic,
cultural and recreational uses. 8.The
community should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the
form of squares, greens and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through
placement and design. 9.Public
spaces should be designed to encourage the attention and presence of people
at all hours of the day and night. 10.Each
community or cluster of communities should have a well-defined edge, such as
agricultural greenbelts or wildlife corridors, permanently protected from
development. 11.Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths
should contribute to a system of fully-connected and interesting routes to
all destinations. Their design should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by
being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees and lighting; and by
discouraging high speed traffic. 12.Wherever
possible, the natural terrain, drainage and vegetation of the community
should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or
greenbelts. 13.The
community design should help conserve resources and minimize waste. 14.Communities
should provide for the efficient use of water through the use of natural
drainage, drought tolerant landscaping and recycling. 15.The
street orientation, the placement of buildings and the use of shading should
contribute to the energy efficiency of the community. Regional Principles: 1.The
regional land-use planning structure should be integrated within a larger
transportation network built around transit rather than freeways. 2.Regions
should be bounded by and provide a continuous system of greenbelt/wildlife
corridors to be determined by natural conditions. 3.Regional
institutions and services (government, stadiums, museums, etc.) should be
located in the urban core. 4.Materials
and methods of construction should be specific to the region, exhibiting a
continuity of history and culture and compatibility with the climate to
encourage the development of local character and community identity. Implementation Principles: 1.The
general plan should be updated to incorporate the above principles. 2.Rather
than allowing developer-initiated, piecemeal development, local governments
should take charge of the planning process. General plans should designate
where new growth, infill or redevelopment will be allowed to occur. 3.Prior
to any development, a specific plan should be prepared based on these
planning principles. 4.Plans
should be developed through an open process and participants in the process
should be provided visual models of all planning proposals. |
LGC (2004) and various organizations such as the Congress for New Urbanism (www.cnu.org) and the Smart Growth Network (www.smartgrowth.org) provide numerous case studies.
The
The
Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), passed in 1990, provides
coordination among state and local governments to encourage more resource
efficient development. Most communities are using their GMA plans and
development regulations to make and stick to decisions about growth and
development, while continuing to monitor, update and improve their growth
management work. State grant and loan resources are increasingly given to
jurisdictions having GMA plans and the projects being funded are consistent
with those plans.
In
1997 the State of
The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has created a Sustainable Community Planning section on its website that provides best practices in design and development, tools for planners and designers, and other research on sustainability.
The Tool for Costing Sustainable Community
Planning (henceforth, “The Tool”) was created to allow a user to estimate
the major costs of community development, particularly those that change with
different forms of development (e.g., linear infrastructure), and to compare
alternative development scenarios (CMHC, 2006). The Tool is geared towards estimating
“planning-level” costs and revenues associated with the residential component
of a development, although financial impacts of commercial and other types of
development can be incorporated provided that infrastructure requirements are
specified correctly.
The Tool is well suited
to assessing development projects ranging in size from a collection of houses,
to a block-by-block infill development, to an entire subdivision. A good
measure of the applicability of the Tool to a given project is whether or not
alternatives can be conceived that would result in significantly different
densities or infrastructure requirements, or make use of different green
infrastructure alternatives. The Tool includes costing variables to allow the
user to estimate costs for the following major categories:
Revenues from
development charges, property taxes, and user fees are also estimated. Users
can easily estimate and compare costs and revenues among a variety of
development scenarios. This tool allows users to consider the lifecycle costs
of development, which are calculated over a 75- year time horizon. Lifecycle costs
include initial capital, annual operating, and replacement costs.
The
City of Orlando, Florida uses a mileage-based formula based on trip generation
times average trip distance factors that reflect location to charge developers
for their traffic impacts. This recognizes the travel reduction benefits of
more accessible locations.
The
Smart Growth Matrix is a tool to assist the Austin City Council in
analyzing development proposals within the Desired Development Zone. It is
designed to measure how well a development project meets the City's Smart
Growth goals such as: 1) the location of development; 2) proximity to mass
transit; 3) urban design characteristics; 4) compliance with nearby
neighborhood plans; 5) increases in tax base, and other policy priorities.
If
a development project, as measured by the matrix, significantly advances the
City's goals, financial incentives may be available to help offset the high
cost of developing in urban areas. These incentives may include waiver of
development fees and public investment in new or improved infrastructure such
as water and sewer lines, streets or streetscape improvements, or similar
facilities. These incentives require City Council review and approval.
Where
in the
Dallas Uptown is a city lover's paradise. Located just north of downtown
Dallas, its apartments, townhouses, and lofts are only a short walk from
restaurants, pubs, cafes, gyms, galleries, museums, and nightclubs, as well as
a large concentration of jobs within a three-mile radius. The Dallas Morning
News painted a compelling picture of Uptown's urban features:
Parts of Uptown . . . are beautifully set up for street life. Sidewalks are broad, often bricked. Trees shade them. Benches line them. Streetlights cast a soft glow on them. Cars park on streets without meters. Balconies open to the sidewalks. At night, rooftop gardens feature a glittering backdrop of skyline. Courtyards with flowers and statues are glimpsed through doorways. The soft splash of fountains can be heard. . . . People who live here walk to work. They wave at neighbors passing on the sidewalk. They go to museums and plays. They deal with shopkeepers who will run a tab without a credit card.
Less
than two decades ago, the area could be more accurately described as an urban
nightmare. The neighborhood suffered from disinvestment, crime, and decrepit
infrastructure -- urban ills that have plagued many inner-city neighborhoods
around the country. What was once one of
But
the weak market created favorable conditions for building new housing in
Uptown. When land prices are high, developers usually prefer to build office
space, because of its much greater return on their high upfront investments.
Low land prices in
Seizing
the opportunity, Columbus Realty Trust (now Post Properties) bought eight
properties in the Uptown area, with plans to build apartments, lofts, and
townhouses within walking distance of the area's existing businesses on
Smart-Growth
Features
A
Developer's Dedication Turns "Folly" into Success
With improved infrastructure in place, the developers began sketching out their
plans for the residences. Art Lomenick of Columbus/Post described the
development company's approach: "When we first decided to move into
Uptown, we became passionate about urban housing. It became a strong personal
interest and much more than a business strategy. The studies went beyond books:
I was constantly looking at urban form details: stoops, storefronts, doorknobs,
cornices, court yards, and pocket parks."
In
1993, the Dallas City Council approved the creation of the Uptown Public
Improvement District, in which property owners pay a special assessment to
cover varied improvements throughout the district. (Such arrangements, usually
called business improvement districts or BIDs, are becoming increasingly
popular. See the box in our discussion of the
Other
developers took notice of the changes in Uptown, resulting in a wave of
investment. Businesses flourished as more and more people moved to the
neighborhood. By 1998, there were 56 restaurants in the 128-block area. The
neighborhood also has a large grocery and drug store, a hardware store, several
gyms, and a number of smaller specialty shops.
The
Uptown World
An important aspect of Uptown's appeal is that many of its attractions are
within walking distance. Wide tree-shaded brick sidewalks connect residential
areas with work places, quiet neighborhood parks, and the hopping bars, cafes,
and entertainment venues on
Uptown
is providing the urban character that its name promises. The housing stock is
varied, including both new and renovated buildings, and comprising lofts,
luxury units, and townhouses, all at a range of prices. But the new
neighborhood is also predominantly affluent: the average Uptown household
income was $99,000 per year in 1998, suggesting that, unfortunately, not all
people can enjoy its urban delights.
For
those who can, Uptown offers convenience, community, and freedom from their
cars. As Ron Baker, a businessman, explains: "I could have gotten a large
place for less money in North Dallas or
Although
land use management policies often focus residential and commercial
development, industrial location also has significant transportation and land
use impacts. With this in mind, in 1993, the City of
Both
the City of
Jacoby
Development is developing a mixed-use (residential, retail, office, and
entertainment) transit-oriented development on a 138-acre brownfield site in
midtown
|
If
exercise is so good for you, why are most athletes forced to retire by age
thirtyfive? A
doctor asked a nurse, “How is that little boy doing, the one who swallowed
five quarters?” “No
change yet,” was the reply. |
1000 Friends of
APA (2002), Smart Growth Legislative Guidebook and User Manual: Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change, American Planning Association (www.planning.org).
APA (2006), Smart Codes, American Planning Association (www.planning.org/smartgrowthcodes). These model ordinances and regulations reflect Smart Growth principles and planning objectives.
Danielle Arigoni (2001), Affordable Housing and Smart Growth: Making the Connections, Subgroup on Affordable Housing, Smart Growth Network (www.smartgrowth.org) and National Neighborhood Coalition (www.neighborhoodcoalition.org).
Keith Bartholomew
(2005), Integrating Land
Use Issues into Transportation Planning: Scenario Planning,
Keith Bartholomew
(2007), “The Machine, The Garden, and The City: Toward An Access-Efficient
Transportation Planning System,” The
Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis, Vol XXXVII, No. 8 (www.elr.info), August 2007, pp.
10593-10614.
Constance Beaumont and Elizabeth Pianca (2000), Historic Neighborhood Schools in the Age of Sprawl- Why Johnny Can't Walk to School, National Trust for Historic Preservation (www.nationaltrust.org).
F. Kaid Benfield, Matthew D. Raimi and Donald Chen (1999), Once There Were Greenfields: How Urban Sprawl is Undermining America’s Environment, Economy and Social Fabric, Natural Resources Defense Council & Surface Transportation Policy Project (www.transact.org).
F. Kaid Benfield, Jutka Terris and Nancy Vorsanger (2001), Solving Sprawl: Models of Smart Growth in Communities Across America, Natural Resources Defense Council (www.nrdc.org).
Scott Bernstein, Carrie Makarewicz, Kara Heffernan, Albert Benedict and Ben Helphand (2004), Increasing Affordability Through Reducing the Transportation and Infrastructure Cost Burdens of Housing, Atlanta Neighborhood Development Partnerships (www.andpi.org); at www.andpi.org/uploadedFiles/pdf/03MICI%20MTC%20Report_CNT.pdf.
Pamela Blais (1995), The Economics of Urban Form, in Appendix E of Greater
Brian S. Bochner (2000), “Smart Growth Tools for Transportation,” ITE Journal, Vol. 70, No. 11, November 2000, pp. 26-29.
Robert D. Bullard, Glenn S. Johnson and Angel O.
Torres (2000), Race, Equity, and Smart Growth: Why People of Color Must
Speak for Themselves,
Robert Burchell,
Anthony Downs, Barbara McCann and Sahan Mukherji (2005), Sprawl Costs:
Economic Impacts of Unchecked Development, Island Press (www.islandpress.org).
Robert Burchell, et al (1998), The Costs of Sprawl – Revisited, TCRP Report 39, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org).
Mary Jean Burer, David B. Goldstein and John Holtzclaw (2004), “Location Efficiency as the Missing Piece of The Energy Puzzle: How Smart Growth Can Unlock Trillion Dollar Consumer Cost Savings,” Proceedings of the 2004 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (www.aceee.org).
CALTRANS (2004), California Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Searchable Database, California Department of Transportation (http://transitorienteddevelopment.dot.ca.gov).
Julie Campoli and Alex MacLean (2002), Visualizing Density: A Catalog Illustrating the Density of Residential Neighborhoods, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (www.lincolninst.edu).
Ana Campoy (2008),
“With Gas Over $4, Cities Explore Whether It’s Smart to Be Dense:
Michael Carley, Karryn Kirk and Sarah McIntosh (2001), Retailing, Sustainability And Neighbourhood Regeneration, (ISBN 1 84263 49 0) Joseph Roundtree Foundation (www.jrf.org.uk).
CCAP (2003), State and Local Leadership On Transportation And Climate Change, Center for Clean Air Policy (www.ccap.org).
CCAP (2005), Transportation Emissions Guidebook:
Land Use, Transit & Transportation Demand Management,
CITE (2004), Canadian Guide to Promoting Sustainable Transportation Through Site Design, Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.cite7.org); at www.cite7.org/Technical_Projects/sitedesignreview.htm.
CMHC (2006), Tool For Costing Sustainable Community Planning, Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca); at www.dcs.sala.ubc.ca/UPLOAD/RESOURCES/links/CMHC_CostingToolUserGuide.pdf.
CNT (2006), Paved Over: Surface Parking Lots or Opportunities for Tax-Generating, Sustainable Development?, Center for Neighborhood Technology (www.cnt.org); at www.cnt.org/repository/PavedOver-Final.pdf.
CNU (2003), Civilizing Downtown Highways: Putting New Urbanism To Work On California’s Highways, Congress for the New Urbanism (www.cnu.org).
CNU (2003), Civilizing Downtown Highways: Putting New Urbanism To Work On California’s Highways, Congress for the New Urbanism (www.cnu.org).
CTOD and CNT (2006), The Affordability Index: A New Tool for Measuring the True Affordability of a Housing Choice, Center for Transit-Oriented Development and the Center for Neighborhood Technology, Brookings Institute (www.brookings.edu/metro/umi/20060127_affindex.pdf).
Deborah Dagang (2005), Transportation Impact Factors – Quantifiable Relationships Found in the
Literature, JHK & Associates for
DPZ (2005), Smart Code; A Comprehensive Form Based Ordinance, The Town Paper (http://tndtownpaper.com). This model zoning code developed by Duany Plater-Zyberk promotes New Urban development by allowing more flexibility and innovation in building and street design.
Ecotec Research and Transportation Planning
Associates (1993), Reducing Transport
Emissions Through Planning, Dept. of the Environment, HMSO (
Mark Eppli
and Charles C. Tu (2000), Valuing the New Urbanism; The Impact of New
Urbanism on Prices of Single-Family Homes, Urban Land Institute (www.uli.org).
Reid
Reid
Reid
Reid
Richard T.T. Forman, et al (2003), Road Ecology: Science and Solutions, Island Press (www.islandpress.com).
Lawrence Frank and Company, Inc., Mark Bradley and Keith Lawton
Associates (2005), Travel Behavior,
Emissions, & Land Use Correlation Analysis In The Central Puget Sound,
Washington State Transportation Commission, Department of Transportation, in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway
Administration; at www.wsdot.wa.gov/Research/Reports/600/625.1.htm.
John W. Frece (2004-05), “Twenty Lessons From Maryland’s Smart Growth Initiative,” Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, Volume 6 (www.vjel.org/articles/articles/Frece11FIN.htm).
George Galster, et al (2001), “Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and Measuring an Elusive Concept,” Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 12, Issue 4, Fannie Mae Foundation (www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hpd/pdf/HPD_1204_galster.pdf), pp. 681-717.
GAO
(2001), Environmental Protection:
Federal Incentives Could Help Promote Land Use That Protects Air and Water
Quality, General
Accounting Office, GAO-O2-12 (www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-12).
David Goldberg (2005), Choosing Our Community's Future: A CITIZEN'S GUIDE To Getting The Most Out Of New Development, Smart Growth America (www.smartgrowthamerica.org
Peter Gordon and Harry Richardson (1997), “Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?,” and counterpoint by Reid Ewing, “Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable?” in Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 1, Winter 1997, pp. 95-126.
GQGP (2003), Smart Growth Audit Tool, Georgia Quality Growth Partnership (www.georgiaqualitygrowth.com). Identifies best practices for Smart Growth zoning codes and development requirements.
David Gurin (2003), Driven to Action: Stopping Sprawl in Your Community, David Suzuki Foundation (www.davidsuzuki.org).
Don Halligan (2000), “
Patrick Hare (1995), Clunker Mortgages and Transportation Redlining; How the Mortgage Banking Industry Unknowingly Drains Cities and Spreads Sprawl, Hare Planning; at www.vtpi.org/clunker.pdf.
Timothy
F. Harris and
Yannis M. Ioannides (2000), Productivity and Metropolitan Density, Dept.
of Economics,
Andrew F. Haughwout (2000), “The Paradox of Infrastructure Investment,” Brookings Review (www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/press/REVIEW/summer2000/haughwout.htm), Summer 2000, pp. 40-43.
Joel S. Hirschhorn (2000), Growing Pains; Quality of Life in the New Economy, National Governor’s Association (www.nga.org).
Joel S. Hirschhorn (2001), New Community Design to the Rescue, National Governor’s Association (www.nga.org).
Kim Hoeveler (1997), “Accessibility vs. Mobility: The Location Efficient Mortgage,” Public Investment, American Planning Assoc. (www.planning.org) and Center for Neighborhood Technology (www.cnt.org/lem).
John Holtzclaw
(1994), Using Residential Patterns and Transit to Decrease Auto Dependence and
Costs, National
Resources Defense Council www.nrdc.org, funded by the California
Home Energy Efficiency Rating Systems.
James W. Hughes and Joseph J. Seneca (2004), The
Beginning of the End of Sprawl?, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and
Public Policy,
IEDC (2006), Economic Development and Smart
Growth: Case Studies on the Connections Between Smart Growth Development and
Jobs, Wealth, and Quality of Life in Communities, International Economic Development Council (www.iedconline.org);
at www.iedconline.org/Downloads/Smart_Growth.pdf.
ITE (2003), Smart Growth Transportation Guidelines,
JHK & Associates (1995), Transportation-Related Land Use Strategies to Minimize Motor Vehicle
Emissions, California Air Resources Board (
Wenya Jia and Martin Wachs (1998), “Parking and Affordable Housing,” Access, Vol. 13, Fall 1998 (www.uctc.net), pp. 22-25.
Eric Damian Kelly (1994), “The Transportation Land-Use Link,” Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 9, No. 2, November 1994, p. 128-145.
Maureen Kennedy and Paul Leonard (2001), Dealing with Neighborhood Change: A Primer on Gentrification and Policy Choices, The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and PolicyLink (www.policylink.org).
LCC (2008), Smart Growth Scorecard, Livable Communities
Coalition (www.livablecommunitiescoalition.org);
at www.livablecommunitiescoalition.org/uploads/100012_bodycontentfiles/100636.pdf.
Michael Lewyn (2004), “Suburban Sprawl, Jewish Law, and Jewish Values,” Southeastern Environmental Law Journal (www.law.sc.edu/elj) , Vol. 13, No. 1; available from the Social Science Research Network (http://papers.ssrn.com).
LGC (2000), The Ahwahnee Principles Toward More Livable Communities, Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org).
LGC (2004), Creating Great Neighborhoods: Density in Your Community, Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org), US Environmental Protection Agency and the National Association of Realtors; at www.lgc.org/freepub/PDF/Land_Use/reports/density_manual.pdf.
Todd Litman (1998), Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf.
Todd Litman (2001), Evaluating Smart Growth and TDM; Social Welfare and Equity Impacts of Efforts to Reduce Sprawl and Automobile Dependency, VTPI (www.vtpi.org).
Todd Litman (2003), Evaluating Criticism of Smart Growth, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/sgcritics.pdf.
Todd Litman (2004), Evaluating Transportation Land Use Impacts, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/landuse.pdf.
Todd Litman (2005b), Understanding Smart Growth Savings: What We Know About Public Infrastructure and Service Cost Savings, And How They are Misrepresented By Critics, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/sg_save.pdf.
Todd Litman (2005), Land Use Impacts on Transport,
Todd Litman (2006), Smart Growth Policy Reforms, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/smart_growth_reforms.pdf.
Todd Litman (2006), Parking Management Best Practices, Planners Press (www.planning.org).
Todd Litman (2006), Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf.
Todd Litman and Steven Fitzroy (2005), Safe Travel: Evaluating Mobility Management Traffic Safety Impacts, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org).
William Lyons,
Scott Peterson and Kimberly Noerager (2003), Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Through State and Local Transportation
Planning, DOT
Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting, USDOT (http://climate.volpe.dot.gov).
James M. McElfish (2007), Ten Things Wrong With Sprawl, Environmental Law Institute (www.elistore.org/Data/products/d17__02.pdf).
Anthony D. May and Simon P. Shepherd (2005), Optimal Land Use Transport Strategies: Methodology And Application To European Cities, Transportation Research Board 84th Annual Meeting (www.trb.org).
Barbara McCann
(2000), Driven
to Spend; The Impact of Sprawl on Household Transportation Expenses, STPP (www.transact.org).
Edwin S. Mills (1999), “Truly Smart Growth,” The
Terry Moore and Paul Thorsnes (1994), The Transportation/Land Use Connection, Planning Advisory Service Report 448/449, American Planning Association (www.planning.org).
Frank R. Moretti (1999), Smart Growth; A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?, The Road Information Program (www.tripnet.org/smartgrowth.htm).
Anne Vernez Moudon, et al (1996), Effects of Site Design on Pedestrian Travel
in Mixed Use, Medium-Density Environments,
Anne Vernez Moudon, et al (2003), Strategies and Tools to Implement Transportation-Efficient Development: A Reference Manual, Washington State Department of Transportation (www.wsdot.wa.gov), WA-RD 574.1; at www.wsdot.wa.gov/Research/Reports/500/574.1.htm.
Mark Muro and Robert Puentes (2004), Investing In A Better Future: A Review Of The Fiscal And Competitive Advantages Of Smarter Growth Development Patterns, Brookings Institute (www.brookings.edu).
NAHB (various years), Smart Growth Case Studies, National Association of Home Builders (www.nahb.org).
NALGEP (2004), Smart Growth is Smart Business: Boosting the Bottom Line and Community Prosperity, National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals (NALGEP), (www.nalgep.org).
NAR (2004), Creating Great Neighborhoods: Density in Your Community, National Association of Realtors (www.realtor.org).
Arthur C. Nelson (2000), “Effects of Urban Containment on Housing Prices and Landowner Behavior,” Land Lines, Vol. 12, No. 3, Lincoln Institute for Land Policy (www.lincolninst.edu) May 2000.
New Urban News (www.newurbannews.com) is a professional newsletter covering the new urbanism, smart growth and traditional neighborhood development.
Dom Nozzi (2003), Road To Ruin: An Introduction To Sprawl And How To Cure It, Praeger (www.praeger.com).
Molly O’Meara Sheehan (2001), City Limits: Putting the Breaks on Sprawl, Worldwatch Institute (www.worldwatch.org).
Orlando (1998), Applicability of Vehicle Miles of
Travel to Transportation Planning,
PennDOT (2007), The Transportation and Land Use Toolkit: A
Planning Guide for Linking Transportation to Land Use and Economic Development, Pennsylvania Dept.
of Transportation, PUB 616 (3-07); at (ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%20616.pdf).
Rudolf Petersen (2003), “Land Use Planning and Urban Transportation,” Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy-makers in Developing Cities, published by the Sustainable Urban Transport Project – Asia (www.sutp-asia.org) and Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (www.gtz.de).
RMLUI (2008), Sustainable Community Development Code, Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute, Strum College of Law (http://law.du.edu); at www.law.du.edu/index.php/rmlui/sustainable-community-development-code-main.
Karen E.
Seggerman, Sara J. Hendricks and E.
Spencer Fleury (2005), Incorporating TDM into the Land Development Process,
National Center for
Transportation Research, Center for Urban Transportation Research (www.nctr.usf.edu/pdf/576-11.pdf).
SFLCV (2003), This View of Density Calculator, San Francisco League of Conservation Voters (www.sflcv.org/density). This website illustrates various land use patterns, predicts their effects on travel behavior, and discusses various issues related to New Urbanist development.
SGN (2002 and 2004), Getting To Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation, and Getting to Smart Growth II: 100 More Policies for Implementation, Smart Growth Network (www.smartgrowth.org) and International City/County Management Association (www.icma.org).
SGN (2006), This Is Smart Growth, Smart Growth Network (www.smartgrowth.org) and the International City/County Management Association (www.icma.org); at www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/tisg.htm.
Yan Song and Gerrit-Jan Knaap (2003), The Effects of New Urbanism on Housing Values: A Quantitative Assessment, National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education, University of Maryland (www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/research/POSTSongKnaap2.htm).
SP (2003), Southwestern Pennsylvania Citizens' Vision for Smart Growth: Strengthening Communities and Regional Economy, Sustainable Pittsburgh (www.sustainablepittsburgh.org).
Sprawl and Health (http://cascadiascorecard.typepad.com/sprawl_and_health), an ongoing literature review by researchers at Northwest Environment Watch on the intersection of sprawl and health.
TRANSPLUS
(2003), Achieving
Sustainable Transport and Land Use with Integrated Policies,
European Commission (www.transplus.net).
TRANSPLUS Website (www.transplus.net), provides information
on research on transport planning, land use and sustainability, sponsored by the
European Commission.
Tim Trohimovich (2001), Pricing Growth & Financing Smart Growth,
1000 Friends of Washington
(www.1000friends.org).
USEPA, Improving Air Quality Through Land Use
Activities, EPA420-R-01-001, Transportation and
USEPA (2001), Smart Growth Index (SGI) Model,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/sgipilot.htm).
USEPA (various years), Smart Growth Policy Database, US Environmental Protection Agency (http://cfpub.epa.gov/sgpdb/browse.cfm) provides information on dozens of policies that encourage more efficient transportation and land use patterns, with hundreds of case studies.
USEPA (2006), Smart Growth Scorecards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/scorecards/component.htm). This website provides information on various scorecards for evaluating communities and projects in terms of Smart Growth objectives.
USEPA
(2004), Characteristics
and Performance of Regional Transportation Systems, Smart Growth Program, US
Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/performance2004final.pdf).
Richard Untermann and Anne Vernez Moudon (1989), Street Design: Reassessing the Safety,
Sociability, and Economics of Streets, University of Washington (
Organizations
M. Ward, et al. (2007), Integrating Land Use and Transport Planning, Report 333, Land Transport New Zealand (www.landtransport.govt.nz); at www.landtransport.govt.nz/research/reports/333.pdf.
WCEL (2004), Smart Bylaws Guide, West Coast Environmental Law Foundation (www.wcel.org/issues/urban/sbg). This comprehensive guide describes smart growth practices, provides technical standards and model bylaws that can be tailored to specific municipal circumstances, and includes numerous case studies.
Alex Wilson (2007), “Driving to Green Buildings: The Transportation Energy Intensity of Building,” Environmental Building News (www.buildinggreen.com), Vol. 16, No. 9, Sept. 2007; at www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm?fileName=160901a.xml.
American Planning Association (www.planning.org) has extensive resources for community and transportation planning, including a book ordering service.
Center for Excellence in Sustainable Development (www.sustainable.doe.gov/transprt) information on sustainable community transportation planning.
Center for Livable Communities (www.lgc.org/clc) helps local government and community leaders be proactive in their land use and transportation planning.
Center for Watershed Protection (www.cwp.org) provides analysis and resources for minimizing hydrologic impacts and pollution.
Congress for New Urbanism (www.cnu.org) is a movement centered on intelligent neighborhood planning, and human scale urban communities.
Conservation Law Foundation (www.clf.org) provides environmental protection information.
ELTIS Case Study Database (www.eltis.org/en/indexcse.htm) European Local Transport Information Service.
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (www.iclei.org) is the “international environmental agency for local governments.”
International Society for Ecological Economics (http://kabir.umd.edu/ISEE/ISEEhome.html) is a professional organization of people interested in valuing ecological resources.
Land Use and Transportation Research Website (www.lutr.net), sponsored by the European Commission, provides information and resources for more integrated transport and land use planning, to support sustainability objectives.
Livable Centres (www.gvrd.bc.ca/livablecentres), by the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), provides information about the design and benefits of compact, mixed-use urban centers.
National Neighborhoods Coalition (www.neighborhoodcoalition.org) provides information and resources on strategies to insure that Smart Growth helps achieve community development and equity objectives.
National Trust for Historic Preservation (www.nationaltrust.org) focuses on preserving downtown areas and historic buildings.
National Wildlife Federation (www.nwf.org) sponsors a “Green Infrastructure and Smart Growth” program to encourage development policies that protect wildlife habitat.
NEMO Project (www.canr.uconn.edu/ces/nemo) provides resources for communities that want to reduce their amount of impervious surfaces.
New Colonist (www.newcolonist.com), a web magazine about urban living, provides information on New Urbanist and Smart Growth issues.
Planners Web (www.plannersweb.com), maintained by the Planning Commissioners Journal, includes a sprawl resources guide, a primer for citizen planners, and other resources.
PolicyLink (www.policylink.org) provides information and resources on community development and equity issues, including the “Beyond Gentrification Toolkit” and publications on Smart Growth policies to benefit disadvantaged populations.
Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org) works to create and sustain public
places that build communities. It provides a variety of resources for
developing more livable communities.
Sierra Club, Healthy Growth Calculator: Where Do Uou Want to Live?, Sierra Club (www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/density/choose_density.asp), 2005.
Smart Growth
Smart Growth E-Learning Portal (www.moodleserv.com/smartgrowthca), is an educational program describing various smart growth concepts and implementation strategies, developed by the Smart Growth Canada Network, sponsored by Natural Resources Canada.
Smart Growth In Action (www.smartgrowth.org/library/projects.asp) by the Smart Growth Network provides information on numberous case studies.
Smart Growth Leadership Institute (www.sgli.org) performs research related to Smart Growth planning and implementation. Supported by the National Realtors Association (www.realtor.org) and Smart Growth America (www.smartgrowthamerica.org).
Smart Growth Network (www.smartgrowth.org) provides information and support for Smart Growth planning and program implementation.
Smart Growth Planning (www.smartgrowthplanning.org) provides information on smart growth planning, particularly methods for evaluating land use impacts on transport activity.
Sprawl Kills (www.sprawlkills.com) is a website opposed to sprawl.
Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse (www.sprawlwatch.org) provides information, advice & referrals on sprawl & smart growth.
Strategic Policy Options for Sustainable Development Database (www.iges.or.jp/cgi-bin/rispo/index_spo.cgi), Research on Innovative and Strategic Policy Options (RISPO) by the Institute for Global Environmental Studies provides information, recommended best practices and case studies on a wide range of sustainable policies and strategies.
Sustainable Communities Network (www.sustainable.org) provides tools to help citizens work together to define a community's course and make it more sustainable.
TransAct (www.transact.org) is a collection of information and resources about making communities more livable through innovative transportation projects and initiatives.
Transportation and Growth Management Program, Oregon DOT and Dept. of Environmental Quality (www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm), provides a variety of information and practical resources for creating more efficient and livable communities.
Transportation for Livable Communities (www.tlcnetwork.org) is a resource for people working to create more livable communities by improving transportation.
Hannah Twaddell
and Dan Emerine (2007), Best
Practices to Enhance the Transportation-Land Use Connection in the Rural
Urban Land
Institute (www.uli.org)
is a professional organization for developers which provides practical
information on innovative development practices, including infill and
sustainable community planning.
USEPA Transportation Policy Website (www.epa.gov/tp) provides information on strategies to reduce the environmental impacts of transportation.
USEPA Smart Growth Website (www.epa.gov/smartgrowth) provides information on Smart Growth strategies to reduce environmental impacts.
Wildland CPR (www.wildrockies.org) works to protect wilderness areas from roads.
World Health Organization Healthy Cities Project (www.who.dk/london99) provides information on international efforts to create healthy cities.
This
Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help
improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing
project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#38