Smart Growth

More Efficient Land Use Management

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Updated 25 January 2010

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.

Description

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 (greenfield) development.
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, greenfield development over existing residents or infill development. Encourage redevelopment of older facilities and brownfields.

· 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 preferred by many households (Litman 2009), 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.

How It Is Implemented

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.

Travel Impacts

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).

Benefits And Costs

Smart Growth can provide a variety of economic, social and environmental benefits, as summarized in Table 6. Many consumers value Smart Growth features such as improved accessibility and walkability (Litman 2009). 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 Toronto region, showing significant potential savings from the higher density, less automobile oriented options. Other studies show similar potential savings in public costs from more efficient land use.

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 can provide substantial energy conservation and pollution emission reductions (Mehaffy, Cowan and Urge-Vorsatz 2009), 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 U.S. energy consumption by about 10% after a decade (Burer, Goldstein and Holtzclaw (2004).

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.

Equity 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.

Applications

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).

Relationships With Other TDM Strategies

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.

Stakeholders

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.

Barriers To Implementation

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.

Wit and Humor

“It's taken us 50 years to really screw up our neighborhoods. (Smart growth) is not an overnight fix.” - Bill Wilkinson, Executive Director, National Center for Bicycling and Walking

Best Practices

JHK Associates (1995), Ewing (1996), Hirschhorn (2000) and Smart Growth Network (2002) provide the following recommended Smart Growth practices:

· 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.

Examples and Case Studies

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.

Portland Region (www.friends.org; www.trans.ci.portland.or.us)

The Portland, Oregon region is implementing numerous Smart Growth measures, including urban growth boundaries, multi-modal transportation, and incentives for higher-density, infill development. The Region has shifted transportation investment funds away from highway capacity expansion into rail development, with supportive land use policies to create transit-oriented development. It has made a major commitment to improve walking and cycling conditions and to implement TDM measures.

Washington State Growth Management (www.ocd.wa.gov/info/lgd/growth/vision.html)

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.

Maryland Smart Growth (www.op.state.md.us/smartgrowth)

In 1997 the State of Maryland passed “Priority Funding Areas” legislation that limits most State infrastructure funding and economic development, housing and other program monies to Smart Growth Areas that local governments designate for growth. This package is intended to facilitate the reuse of brownfields and provide tax credits to businesses creating jobs in a Priority Funding Area. A new Live Near Your Work pilot program supports this effort by providing cash contributions to workers buying homes in certain older neighborhoods. And, to spur more preservation of undeveloped land, the new Rural Legacy Program provides financial resources for the protection of farm and forest lands and the conservation of these essential rural resources from development. This package is intended to:

Save natural resources
Support existing communities and neighborhoods
Save state expenses.

Sustainable Community Planning (www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/su/sucopl/index.cfm)

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:

Hard Infrastructure, including roads, sewers, stormwater facilities, schools and recreation centres.
Municipal Services, including transit services, school transit, fire services, police services and waste management services.
Private User Costs, including driving costs and home heating costs.
External Costs, including air pollution, climate change and motor vehicle collisions.
Green Infrastructure alternatives.

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.

Delaware Valley (www.dvrpc.org/asp/pubs/reports/08059.pdf)

The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Council evaluated the impacts of various land use development patterns. Table 12 summarizes the results.

Table 12 Indicator Recentralization Trend Sprawl (DVRPC, 2008)

	Recentralization	Trend	Sprawl
Core Cities Population	1,880,000	1,690,000	1,100,000
Core Cities Employment	948,000	844,000	595,000
Vehicles	3,530,000	3,600,000	3,910,000
Average Vehicles per Household	1.5	1.5	1.7
Percent Households in Core and Developed Communities	67.6%	61.3%	45.7%
Percent of Jobs within Core Cities	30.1%	26.8%	18.9%
New Acres of Development from 2005 to 2035	5,800	169,000	478,000
Percent of Region Developed	39.4%	46.1%	58.8%
Average Acres per Household	0.28	0.34	0.45
Change in the Number Households with Transit Access	190,000	92,400	(159,000)
Change in the Number of Jobs with Transit Access	257,000	192,000	(83,500)
Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (billions of VMT)	47.0	48.7	50.0
Annual Vehicle Hours Traveled (billions of VHT)	1.53	1.59	1.64
Annual VMT per Capita	7,650	7,920	8,120
Annual VHT per Capita	248	258	266
Annual Vehicle Trips (billions)	7.60	7.80	8.29
Annual Crashes	62,400	64,600	66,600
Average Peak Period Roadway Speed (mph)	30.2	29.7	28.6
Annual Vehicle Hours of Delay (millions)	124	144	171
Annual Hours of Delay per Capita	23.8	27.7	32.9
Annual Transit Trips (millions of unlinked trips)	4187	367.9	256.7
Annual Pedestrian Trips (millions)	590.4	554.3	465.0
Residential & Transport Energy Use Per Household (m BTUs)	331	339	349
Residential & Transport CO2 Emissions per Capita (tons)	8.1	8.3	8.5
Annual Household Automobile & Utility Expenses (2008 $)	$ 14,770	$ 15,070	$16,060
Infrastructure Costs per New Housing Unit (2008 $s)	$ 28,600	$ 37,400	$ 53,300
Jobs Added to Environmental Justice Communities	79,400	17,300	(151,000)

This analysis indicates that smart growth development can provide the following benefits:

· Openspace (farm and woodlands) preservation.

· Reduced per capita automobile travel resulting in reduced traffic congestion delay, energy consumption, pollution emissions and traffic accidents.

· Increased portion of household and jobs with access to public transportation.

· Increased walking and cycling activity.

· Reduced utility and transportation costs.

· More jobs located in economically disadvanted communities.

Orlando Mileage-Based Development Charges (Orlando, 1998)

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.

Integrated Approach to Planning (www.transit.govt.nz/planning/iap.jsp)

Integrated Approach to Planning (IAP) is a is a collaborative endeavour between New Zealand transport sector agencies and Ministry for Environment to identify gaps and barriers to achieving better integration, both within and between transport and land-use planning, to help improve transport system sustainability. They project includes various studies that evaluate current planning practices and recommend improvements for more integrated planning. It used several case studies of actual transport and land use planning situations selected to represent various modes and problems, including strategic planning, regional growth, urban redevelopment, and freight transport improvements.

Plan-It Calgary (www.calgary.ca/planit)

Plan-It Calgary is a planning process to develop a comprehensive regional plan that responds to demographic changes, environmental and health objectives, consumer affordability and government fiscal constraints. A number of studies were commissioned for the plan that examined in detail planning objectives and solutions, including transportation policy reforms and smart growth land use policies. This included analysis of the economic and environmental impacts of compact and dispersed land use development patterns.

Austin, Texas Smart Growth Matrix (www.ci.austin.tx.us/smartgrowth)

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.

Green Trip Program (http://transformca.org/GreenTRIP)

GreenTRIP is the Traffic Reduction + Innovative Parking certification program for new residential and mixed use developments. GreenTRIP certification rewards projects that apply strategies to reduce traffic and greenhouse gas emissions. GreenTRIP expands the definition of green building to include robust transportation standards for how people get to and from green buildings. TransForm uses tailored traffic reduction programs that apply the most appropriate strategies to help make projects more financially feasible.

Dallas Uptown: CITY DISTRICT OFFERS FREEDOM FROM THE CAR (Benfield, Terris and Vorsanger, 2001; www.nrdc.org/cities/smartgrowth/solve/dallas.asp)

Where in the United States are the great city neighborhoods? Cities on the East and West Coasts, such as San Francisco, New York, or Boston come to mind. Few would think of Sunbelt cities, which are better known for their explosive suburban growth and car-dependent lifestyles. But in Dallas, a reborn neighborhood is defying those stereotypes.

Paradise for City Lovers
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 Dallas's most affluent areas had become one of its most undesirable. Nevertheless, speculators bought and cleared land in the 1980s in the area, hoping for a new wave of office development. Their hopes turned sour when the real estate market collapsed in the mid-1980s.

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 Dallas made housing development economically feasible close to the central business district.

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 McKinney Avenue. In 1988, Columbus formed a partnership with the city of Dallas to revitalize the area. The city created a tax increment-financing (TIF) district, which allowed a portion of tax revenues collected in the area to be dedicated to improving the district's infrastructure. The water and sewage systems were revamped, utilities were buried, and streets were repaved.

Smart-Growth Features

City neighborhood in the midst of an automobile-oriented metropolis
Revitalization of a run-down area
Diverse mix of homes, offices, restaurants, galleries, shops
Streets designed for walking as well as driving
Public/private cooperation

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."

Columbus launched its Uptown building boom in 1991 with the Meridian at State-Thomas, a 132-unit luxury apartment complex derided as folly by Dallas's real estate community. However, the pioneer effort proved that there was pent-up demand for high-quality city living in the Dallas market. Within weeks, every unit in the Meridian was leased. Uptown's next three residential complexes were equally successful.

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 MCI Center for an example in Washington, D.C.) Funds have been devoted primarily to security, special events, and capital improvements, including sidewalks, street lighting, and small public parks. Also in 1993, Columbus merged with Post Properties, another company dedicated to urban revitalization through developing high-quality rental properties.

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 McKinney Avenue. The city's only trolley line also runs along McKinney, providing another attractive alternative to driving. It is not uncommon to find Uptown residents like Sandra Christie, who estimates that she had put only 6,000 miles on her car in the six years she had lived in the neighborhood.

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 Addison, but I didn't want the suburban feel. And there's just a lot of very positive energy here." As Uptown proves, there is a very real market for urban living.

Vancouver Industrial Land (www.movingtheeconomy.ca)

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 Vancouver undertook a comprehensive review of the role and function of its industrial land stock. The study resulted in a policy of industrial land retention and management.

Both the City of Vancouver and the Greater Vancouver Regional District have a policy of "planning by proximity", to minimise transport and utility costs. More centralized industrial location can help increase urban employment and economic development, reduce vehicle commuting, reduce public service costs, and increase tax revenues.

Vancouver's industrial land base comprises about 1,600 acres, representing 6% of the City's land area. The land accommodates about 2,000 firms, providing 46,000 jobs. Market demand for this industrial land is high, demonstrated by low vacancy rates, at 2% in 1998. Employment densities in Vancouver's industrial areas are three times higher than those in the suburbs. About two thirds of industrial employees who live in Vancouver work in a job located in the city. Of those, 24% commute by transit and 12% walk or cycle. Of industrial workers in Richmond, a neighbouring suburban municipality, only 5% take transit and 2% walk or cycle.

Atlantic Steel Development (http://www.smartgrowth.org/casestudies/casestudy_index.html)

Jacoby Development is developing a mixed-use (residential, retail, office, and entertainment) transit-oriented development on a 138-acre brownfield site in midtown Atlanta, formerly the home of Atlantic Steel. To provide adequate auto and transit access, the site plan requires construction of a bridge to connect the site to the local fixed rail transit system and highway ramps to improve highway access. Because Atlanta is in a conformity lapse under the Clean Air Act, the bridge and ramps would be prohibited under standard interpretation of EPA regulations.

Applying Decision Support Tools For Eco-Industrial Park Planning (http://www.smartgrowth.org/casestudies/casestudy_index.html)

Burlington, Vermont proposed to develop an eco-industrial park (EIP) on a 10 acre site, adjacent to which are already located a wood-burning co-generation power plant, a waste-wood depot, a community garden, and a compost facility. The case study illustrates how certain evaluation and planning techniques (Designing Industrial Ecosystems Tool, Facility Synergy Tool, and Reality Check) allow stakeholders to explore decisions, issues and tradeoffs in an interactive and flexible analytical framework. In addition to the information the tools provide (i.e., potential linkages, rough estimates of benefits, regulatory constraints), much of their value comes from the collaborative decision-making process they help to facilitate. As part of this incremental and collaborative process, in later stages of EIP planning, more detailed issues lying outside the three screening tools must be addressed, e.g., covenants, working relationships, engineering design specifications.

Wit and Humor

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.

References And Resources For More Information

Publications

1000 Friends of Oregon (1999), “The Debate Over Density: Do Four-Plexes Cause Cannibalism” Landmark, 1000 Friends of Oregon (www.friends.org), Winter 1999.

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, University of Utah; funded by the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation under Cooperative Agreement No. DTFH61-03-H-00134 (www.arch.utah.edu/bartholomew/SP_SummaryRpt_Web.pdf).

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 Toronto, Greater Toronto Area Task Force (Toronto).

Andrea Broaddus, Todd Litman and Gopinath Menon (2009), Training Document On "Transportation Demand Management, Sustainable Urban Transport Project (www.sutp.org) and GTZ (www.gtz.de).

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, Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University (www.ejrc.cau.edu).

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).

Cambridge Systematics (1992), The LUTRAQ Alternative /Analysis of Alternatives, 1000 Friends of Oregon (Portland; www.friends.org).

Cambridge Systematics (1994), The Effects of Land Use and Travel Demand Management Strategies on Commuting Behavior, Travel Model Improvement Program, USDOT (www.bts.gov/tmip).

Ana Campoy (2008), “With Gas Over $4, Cities Explore Whether It’s Smart to Be Dense: Sacramento’s ‘Blueprint’ for Growth Draws National Attention,” Wall Street Journal, 7 July 2008; at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121538754733231043.html.

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, Center of Clean Air Policy (www.ccap.org/guidebook). This Guidebook provides information on various smart growth and mobility management strategies, including rules-of-thumb estimates of VMT and emission reductions.

Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel (2003), Shape The Future: Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel Final Report, Central Ontario Smart Growth, Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (www.smartgrowth.gov.on.ca).

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).

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 Oregon DOT.

DPZ (2003), SmartCode, Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company (www.dpz.com). Also see Smart Code Central (www.smartcodecentral.org).

DVTPC (2008), Smart Transportation Guidebook: Planning and Designing Highways and Streets that Support Sustainable and Livable Communities, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (www.dvrpc.org); at www.dvrpc.org/asp/pubs/publicationabstract.asp?pub_id=08030A.

DVRPC (2008), Making the Land Use Connection: Regional What-If Scenario Analysis, Deleware Valley Regional Planning Commission (www.dvrpc.org); at www.dvrpc.org/asp/pubs/reports/08059.pdf.

Ecotec Research and Transportation Planning Associates (1993), Reducing Transport Emissions Through Planning, Dept. of the Environment, HMSO (London).

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 Ewing (1996), Best Development Practices, Planners Press (www.planning.org).

Reid Ewing (1997), Transportation and Land Use Innovations; When You Can’t Build Your Way Out of Congestion, Planners Press (www.planning.com).

Reid Ewing, Rolf Pendall and Don Chen (2002), Measuring Sprawl and Its Impacts, Smart Growth America (www.smartgrowthamerica.org).

Reid Ewing, Keith Bartholomew, Steve Winkelman, Jerry Walters and Don Chen (2007), Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change, Urban Land Institute and Smart Growth America (www.smartgrowthamerica.org/gcindex.html).

FBCI (2008), Smart Code: Form Based Codes, Form Based Codes Institute (www.formbasedcodes.org).

Richard T.T. Forman, et al (2003), Road Ecology: Science and Solutions, Island Press (www.islandpress.com).

Lawrence Frank, Sarah Kavage and Todd Litman (2006), Promoting Public Health Through Smart Growth: Building Healthier Communities Through Transportation And Land Use Policies, Smart Growth BC (www.smartgrowth.bc.ca); at www.vtpi.org/sgbc_health.pdf.

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).

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).

Edward L. Glaeser and Matthew E. Kahn (2008), The Greenness Of Cities: Carbon Dioxide Emissions And Urban Development, Working Paper 14238, National Bureau Of Economic Research; at www.nber.org/papers/w14238; summarized in http://mek1966.googlepages.com/greencities_final.pdf.

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.

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), “Maryland’s Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Initiative,” ITE Journal, Vol. 70, No. 11, November 2000, pp. 36-38.

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, Tufts University (http://ase.tufts.edu/econ/papers/200016.pdf).

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, Rutgers University (www.policy.rutgers.edu/sprawl.pdf).

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, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org).

JHK & Associates (1995), Transportation-Related Land Use Strategies to Minimize Motor Vehicle Emissions, California Air Resources Board (Sacramento; www.arb.ca.gov; at www.sustainable.doe.gov/pdf/arb-report/arb-overview.htm).

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).

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.

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, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at http://www.vtpi.org/landtravel.pdf.

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 (2007), Pavement Buster’s Guide: Why and How to Reduce the Amount of Land Paved for Roads and Parking Facilities, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/pavbust.pdf.

Todd Litman (2009), Where We Want To Be: Home Location Preferences And Their Implications For Smart Growth, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/sgcp.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).

MDOT (2008), Sensible Transportation: A Handbook for Local and Inter-Community Transportation Planning in Maine, Maine Department of Transportation (www.maine.gov/mdot); at www.maine.gov/mdot/planning-documents/stpa/sensibleTrans-handbook.html.

Michael Mehaffy, Stuart Cowan and Diana Urge-Vorsatz (2009), Factors of Urban Morphology in Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Research Overview, presented at the International Alliance of Research Universities Scientific Congress on Climate Change, 10 March 2009; at www.tectics.com/IARU.htm.

Edwin S. Mills (1999), “Truly Smart Growth,” The Illinois Real Estate Letter, Vol. 13, No. 3, Summer, 1999.

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, Washington State Transportation Center, Document WA-RD 432.1, (www.wsdot.wa.gov/ppsc/research/onepages/WA-RD4321.htm).

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, City of Orlando, Florida (www.cityoforlando.net/planning/Transportation/ddc.htm).

Mark Obrinsky and Debra Stein (2007), Overcoming Opposition To Multifamily Rental Housing, National Multi Housing Council (www.nmhc.org); at www.nmhc.org/Content/ServeFile.cfm?FileID=5717.

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.

Ray Tomalty and Murtaza Haider (2008), Housing Affordability and Smart Growth in Calgary, Plan-It Calgary, City of Calgary (www.calgary.ca); at www.calgary.ca/docgallery/BU/planning/pdf/plan_it/housing_afford_and_smarth_growth_report.pdf.

TransForm (2009), Windfall For All: How Connected, Convenient Neighborhoods Can Protect Our Climate and Safeguard California’s Economy, TransForm (www.TransFormCA.org); summary at http://transformca.org/files/reports/TransForm-Windfall-Report-Summary.pdf.

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 Air Quality Center, Office of Transportation and Air Quality Programs, USEPA (www.epa.gov/otaq/traq), 2001.

USEPA (2001), Smart Growth Index (SGI) Model, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/sgipilot.htm).

USEPA (2004), Characteristics and Performance of Regional Transportation Systems, Smart Growth Program, US Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/performance2004final.pdf).

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 (2009), Examples of Codes That Support Smart Growth Development, USEPA (www.epa.gov); at www.epa.gov/dced/codeexamples.htm.

USEPA (2009), Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov); at www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/2009_essential_fixes.pdf.

Richard Untermann and Anne Vernez Moudon (1989), Street Design: Reassessing the Safety, Sociability, and Economics of Streets, University of Washington (Seattle).

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.

Organizations

AASHTO Center for Environmental Excellence (www.environment.transportation.org), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

American Planning Association (www.planning.org) has extensive resources for community and transportation planning, including a book ordering service.

Auckland, Evaluation of the Regional Growth Strategy, Auckland Regional Council (www.arc.govt.nz/auckland/aucklands-growth/evaluation-of-the-regional-growth-strategy_home.cfm). This website includes comprehensive technical information on the effects and benefits of Auckland’s regional growth strategy.

Center for Applied Transect Studies (www.transect.org) promotes use of the SmartCode based on the rural-to-urban transect.

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.

Ecology Center's Ecosystem Defense Library (http://outerlimits.wildrockies.org) provides information on the effects of development and road building on wildlife habitat.

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 Center for Smart Growth Research and Education (www.smartgrowth.umd.edu) is a non-partisan center for research and leadership training on Smart Growth and related land use issues nationally and internationally.

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.

Planners Energy and Climate Database (www.planning.org/research/energy/database/index.htm) provides examples of communities that have taken steps to integrate energy and climate change issues into planning and relevant documents to help planners understand and address energy and climate change.

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.

San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) (www.spur.org) is a leading organization doing research to develop more livable urban areas.

Sierra Club, Healthy Growth Calculator: Where Do Uou Want to Live?, Sierra Club (www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/density/choose_density.asp), 2005.

Smart Growth America (www.smartgrowthamerica.org) is a nationwide coalition promoting new development patterns that protect farmland and open space, revitalize neighborhoods, keeps housing affordable, and provides more transportation choices.

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.

Transect Planning (http://planningwiki.cyburbia.org/Transect) defines a series of zones that transition from sparse rural farmhouses to the dense urban core.

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 United States, NCHRP 582, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_582.pdf.

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.

VTPI

Homepage

Encyclopedia Homepage

Send Comments

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org

1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA

Phone & Fax 250-360-1560

“Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”

#38

Description

How It Is Implemented

Travel Impacts

Benefits And Costs

Equity Impacts

Applications

Category

Relationships With Other TDM Strategies

Stakeholders

Barriers To Implementation

Best Practices

Examples and Case Studies

Portland Region (www.friends.org; www.trans.ci.portland.or.us)

Washington State Growth Management (www.ocd.wa.gov/info/lgd/growth/vision.html)

Maryland Smart Growth (www.op.state.md.us/smartgrowth)

Sustainable Community Planning (www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/su/sucopl/index.cfm)

Delaware Valley (www.dvrpc.org/asp/pubs/reports/08059.pdf)

Orlando Mileage-Based Development Charges (Orlando, 1998)

Integrated Approach to Planning (www.transit.govt.nz/planning/iap.jsp)

Plan-It Calgary (www.calgary.ca/planit)

Austin, Texas Smart Growth Matrix (www.ci.austin.tx.us/smartgrowth)

Green Trip Program (http://transformca.org/GreenTRIP)

Dallas Uptown: CITY DISTRICT OFFERS FREEDOM FROM THE CAR (Benfield, Terris and Vorsanger, 2001; www.nrdc.org/cities/smartgrowth/solve/dallas.asp)

Vancouver Industrial Land (www.movingtheeconomy.ca)

Atlantic Steel Development (http://www.smartgrowth.org/casestudies/casestudy_index.html)

Applying Decision Support Tools For Eco-Industrial Park Planning (http://www.smartgrowth.org/casestudies/casestudy_index.html)

References And Resources For More Information

Publications

Organizations