21growthinthesoutheast.pdf

Growth

in

the

Southeast:

Trends

and

Choices

Population

and

economic growth

in the Southeastern United States over the last decade has

generated large-scale land

consumption

and

exacerbated traffic congestion, according to this

article. Airpollution has risen, affecting

human

health

and

nearbyforest ecosystems.

Water

quality

and

quantity has declined,

and

the region is losing a

tremendous

amount

ofbiodiversity

and

habitat.

The

articlereviews thefiscal

and

economic

costsofsprawl, as well asits'impacts

on

equity within

urban

areas.

Throughout

the region, voters are demonstrating their support for

smart

growth

and

community

livability measures.

The

article laterreviews opportunitiesfor land

use

and

transportation reform in the Southeast, as well as barriers thatprevent the adoption of

more

focused

policies.

TVip Pollard

Introduction

The

Southeastisgrowingataphenomenalrate.

Althoughthisgrowthhas brought

many

benefitsto

theregion,suchas

more

jobsandhigherincomes,

the explosive, low-density land use development

that is transforming the Southeast is linked toan

increasing array of

environmental,

health,

economic, andsocialproblems. Publicawareness

and concern with the problemsrelating tosprawl

have increased, creating pressure forchange and

significantopportunitiestopromote

new

approaches

that can capture the benefits of growth while

reducingthe

accompanying

costs.

This article will

examine

some

of the key

trends, issues,andopportunities forreforminseven

southeastern states

-

Alabama, Georgia, Florida.

North Carolina, South Carolina. Tennessee, and

Virginia.'

General

Growth

Trends

Population

Growth

The

Southeast is experiencing tremendous

population growth.

Between

1990 and 2000,

population in the region increased by over 8.8

million, an almost 20 percent increase that far

outpaced the 13.1 percent increase nationwide

during the past decade. Five of the 15 fastest

growing states were in the Southeast (Georgia,

Florida, North Carolina. South Carolina,

and

Tennessee).2

Trip Pollard currently serves as a Senior

Attorney with the

Southern

Environmental

Law

Center, headquartered in Charlottesville,

VA.

He

received his J.D.

from

the University

ofVirginia,

and

currently sen'es

on

the

board

Census

Population

Change, 1990

to

2000

Georgia

Florida

NorthCarolina

Tennessee

SouthCarolina

Virginia

Alabama

Region

April 1,1990

6,478.216 12.937.926

6.628,637 4,877,185 3.486.703

6.187358

4,040387

44,636,612

April 1,2000

8.186.453

15.982378

8.049313

5,689.283 4,012,012

7,078315

4,447,100

53,445,054

Number

1,708.237 3,044.452 1,420.676 812.098

525309

891.157

406313

8,808,442

Percent

26.4

233

21.4

16.7

15.1

14.4

10.1

19.7

Table 1. Population growth in the Southeast UnitedStates.

Forat least the nexttwo decades,population

increases in the Southeast are projected to far

outpacethe national average.

Economic Growth

The

Southeasthas alsoexperienced dramatic

economicgrowth. Althoughthe

economy

recently

has

weakened

nationwide, theSoutheast hasseen

a significantboostinjobsandpersonalincome in

recentdecades, and

unemployment

hastended to

bebelowthenationalaverage.' Atlanta,theregion"s

largestmetropolitanarea,addedover670,000

new

jobs and increased percapita income by over

60

percent during the past decade.4

Anothersignificant trendis the fact that

new

jobs are being created most rapidly in suburban

areasthroughouttheregion. Thistrendhasamajor

impact on urban form and on the ability of job

seekersinurbanneighborhoodstofindemployment.

Althoughjobs are increasing ata fasterpace

in suburban areas, the majority of jobs are still

located relatively near the center city in

most

metropolitan areas in the Southeast. Atlanta and

Tampa,

however, are

two

cities

showing

a high

degree of "job sprawl," with mostjobs located

overten miles fromthe centralbusiness district.5

As

jobs

become

less centrally located,

more

land

is

consumed

and autouse

becomes

a necessity as

transit,walking,andbicycling

become

impractical.

Land

Development

Patterns

Although

population and

economic

trends

ChangeinTotalLand ChangeinTotalLand

State Developed 1982-1992 Developed1992-1997

(1000s ofAcres) (1000s of Acres)

Georgia 851.9 738.4

Florida 825.2 1088.2

NorthCarolina 506.6 933.1

Tennessee 401.9 464.0

SouthCarolina 362.0 386.4

Virginia 343.5 441.0

Alabama 315.3 320.4

Region 3606.4 4371.5

affectgrowth anddevelopment,theproblemisless

that theSoutheastisgrowingthan

how

itisgrowing.

Scattered, highly land-consumptivedevelopment

patterns are typical inevery state inthe region.

"Top Ten"States

-TotalAcresof

Land

Developed

1992-1997

The amount

of land being developed in the

Southeastis staggering.

Between

1992and 1997,

over 3.6 million acres were developed in the

region,6an average ofover 720,000acresper year,

or almost

2,000

acres per day.

During

the

preceding ten years,over4.37 million additional

acres were developed.

The

Southeastisthemostrapidlydeveloping

regionofthe country.

Of

the ten stateswhere the

mostland

was

developed between 1992 and 1997,

half are inthe Southeast.

The

only states in this

regionnotinthetopten

-

Virginiaand

Alabama

-ranked lllh

and

13th

nationally in total land

consumption.

Moreover, the rate of land

development

is

accelerating ineverystate in theregion.

Thisacceleratinggrowthhascaused amassive

loss of precious resources, such as productive

farmland and forest land, wetlands, and wildlife

habitat.

Over

20 percent ofthe land developed

1 Texas

2 Georgia

3 Florida

4 California

5 Pennsylvania

(. North Carolina

7 Tennessee

8 Ohio

9 Michigan

10 SouthCarolina

Table3. Topten statesbyacresofland developed,

1992-1997.

between 1992 and 1997 in Georgia and South

Carolina

was

consideredtobeprimefarmland,and

over30percentofthelanddevelopedinAlabama,

NorthCarolina,Tennessee,andVirginiaduringthis

period

was

primefarmland.

This

phenomenal

rateof land conversionisfar

outpacingeventherapidpopulationgrowthofthe

region, and developmentdensity isdecreasing as

the

Southeast sprawls

away

from

existing

communities.7IntheCharlestonarea,forexample.

Average

Annual

Loss

of

Land

to

Development

(thousands of acres per year)

T3 _en

n

c _c =

O o o 2 3 o

li- 0)

CD

Z

ra

o

ill

82-92 92-97

CT>

>

Escalating Auto

Use 1990-2000

Percent

VMT

Increase

Percent Population

Increase

Figure2. Increase inpopulationandvehicle miles traveled(VMT), 1990-2000.

between 1973 and 1994the population increased

by41 percent while the urban area

expanded

by

255percent."

A

recent national reportfoundAtlanta

tobethemostsprawling of13majorcitiesstudied,

withthelowest density ofany majorcity.9

Transportation

amount

of time drivers inAtlanta spent stuck in

traffic

more

thandoubled between 1992and 1999

- from

25 to53 hours per person peryear; and in

1999over 150millionhourswerelostduetodelay.

Drivers in Washington,

Miami.

Nashville,

and

Orlandoexperienced annual delay of over40hours

per personin 1999.

As

residences, jobs,

and

activities spread

furtherapart, automobile useescalates. In 2000.

peoplein theSoutheast droveover589billionmiles;

an averageof over 1.6billion miles perday.10

The number

of milespeopledriveisincreasing

dramatically in the Southeast, far outstripping

growthinbothpopulationandthe

number

ofdrivers.

As

aresult,theSoutheast hasthehighestdriving

rates in thecountry. Three ofthefive largestmetro

areas with thehighest

amount

of average driving

per person in the United States are in the region,

asarefourofthe fivemiddle-sizedmetroareas."

Traffic

congestion

and

commutes

are

increasing rapidly aswell. Atlantahas

now

become

thesecond mostcongestedcity inthecountry,and

congestion there is increasing faster than in any

other major city in the country.12

_The

_average

Congestion is rising despite aggressive road

building programs in southeastern states.

While

new

highwayscan providetemporarytraffic relief,

evidenceisgrowingthatitisnotpossibletobuild

our

way

outof congestion.

New

roads actually

generate

more

travel, both by opening

new

areas

todevelopment and

by

leadingmotoriststochange

theirbehavior,suchasencouragingpeopletodrive

rather than use alternative

means

of

transportation.11

Although

recent

changes

to federal

transportationlawhaveincreasedfundingavailable

for transportation alternatives, transportation

programsintheSoutheastremainheavilyweighted

towards building

and expanding

roads as the

solutiontovirtuallyeverytransportationproblem.

State

departments

of transportation

and

metropolitanplanning organizationsinmostareas

to the consequences of roads or to alternative

transportation improvements, such as betterroad

designand

mass

transit.

A

recent report bythe Surface Transportation

Policy Project

examined

how

states have spent

the federal transportationfunds theyreceive.14 It

found that three states in the Southeast (Georgia,

South Carolina, and Tennessee) are "behind the

times*'- failing to pursue

many

transportation

alternatives.

Two

states

(Alabama

and

North

Carolina)were ranked as"offeringfewoptions,"

andonlytwostates(FloridaandVirginia)

was

found

tohaveeven

mixed

results,and rankedas"middle

oftheroad."

No

state intheregion

was

rankedas

"open tochange."

Impacts

of

Current

Trends

The

land use

and

transportation trends

transformingtheSoutheasthave broughtahostof

unintended

economic,

health, social,

and

environmental consequences.

Almost

every

community

intheregionhasexperienced

some

of

the

harm

automobile-dependent,

sprawling

developmentcanbring. Thissection outlines

some

ofthemostseriousproblemsaccompanyingsprawl.

Harm

to Health

and

the Environment

The

dramatic increase in driving in the

Southeast

means more

air pollution."

Motor

vehicles are a major source ofpollutants such as

carbonmonoxideand smog-causingnitrogenoxides

andvolatileorganiccompounds. Overall,although

ozone levels are dropping in

most

areas of the

country, theyarerising inthe Southeast.

Thesepollutants leadtoarange ofhealthand

environmental harms, includingprematuredeath,

lung tissue

damage, asthma

attacks, visibility

impairment,andforestdamage. Millionsofpeople

in the region face additional health risks from

excessiveairpollution.

A

recent report from the

American

Lung

Association foundthattenofthe

25 mostozone-polluted cities and nine ofthe 25

most polluted counties in the country are in the

Southeast.16

_{The American}

_Lung

_Association

also

gave a failinggrade tothe airquality of over

90

countiesintheregionduetoozone pollution.

The

impact ofozone onchildren'shealthisasourceof

particular concern.

A

recent study found that

emergency

room

visitsbychildrenforasthmafell

over

40

percentinAtlantaduringthe 1996

Summer

Olympics

when

vehicleusedecreased andtransit

LargeMetroAreas with HighestDaily VehicleMilesof TravelPer Capita

Rank Federal-AidUrbanizedArea Per Capita

•

DVMT

1 Nashville 37.6

2 Houston 36.9

3 Birmingham 34.8

4 Atlanta 33.8

5 Indianapolis 32.1

Mid-SizeMetroAreas withHighest Daily VehicleMilesof TravelPer Capita

Rank

I

2

3

4(tie)

4(tie)

Federal-Aid Urbanized Area

Knoxville

Greensboro

Winston-Salem

Durham

HarrisburgPA

Per Capita

DVMT

35.6 34.3 31.7 31.4 31.4

use rose in the region.17

A

new

report

by

the federal Centers for

Disease Control

(CDC)

linkssprawltoother public

health problems."*

The

report found that by

increasing the distances between activities, and

thereby discouraging walking, sprawl increases

obesity. Thereisagainparticularconcern withthe

impactonchildren's health. Childhoodobesity is

skyrocketing,

due

in part to the fact that in

sprawling,auto-dependent communities,children

must

be chauffeured almost everywhere.

The

CDC

report also concludes that sprawl poses a

significantsafety risk, increasing pedestrian-auto

traffic accidents.

Current land use and transportation patterns

are also closely tied to

numerous

environmental

problems. In addition toozone pollution, motor

vehicles emissions are a primary contributor to

globalclimatechange,whichcouldhavedisastrous

environmentalandeconomicimpacts.

The

average

vehicleemits

more

thanonepoundofcarbondioxide

permile,' 1

'_{andtotalcarbon dioxide emissionsfrom}

transportation are increasing nationwide.:"

Waterqualityandquantityproblemsareother

serious

problems

associated with sprawl.

Buildings, roads, and parking lots are replacing

millionsofacresofforests,farms,andwetlandsin

the Southeast that

would

otherwise filter water.

Further, development dramatically increases the

amount

ofimpervioussurfaces, which inturncan

increase thevolumeof runoff ofpollutants,increase

erosion, and slow groundwater replenishment,

depleting watersupplies.

A

one-acre parking lot,

forexample, cancreate 16times

more

runoff than

a

meadow

of the

same

size.21

The

cumulative

impacts of sprawl can bedevastating.Forexample,

the

Catawba

River in North Carolina and South

Carolina has been identified as one ofthe

most

endangered rivers in the country due to erosion

and runoff

from

explosive

development

in the

Charlotte area,

where

approximately

40

acres of

green space isdeveloped daily.-2

In addition, land cleared for roads

and

developmentcan depositsiltinriversandstreams.

and

road use

and maintenance

can introduce

pollutants such as herbicides into the water. For

example,

the

Tennessee

Department

of

EnvironmentandConservationfoundthatsediment

from the construction ofthe southern portion of

StateRoute

840 -

a ringroad outsideof Nashville

currentlyunderconstruction-has

damaged

eight

streams and creeks, including sediment deposits

of afootor

more

in

some

cases.2:i

The

list ofenvironmental

damage

caused by

theSoutheast'slanduseandtransportation patterns

also includes loss of the region's

tremendous

biological diversity, habitat fragmentation, noise

pollution, and visual blight. In short, sprawl is

perhaps the single greatest threat to the region's

environment.

Community

Wealth

and

Health

Land

use and transportation patterns have a

varietyofimpactson

community

involvement and

connectedness.

As

land uses spread further and

further apart and a car

becomes

necessary for

performing

many

activities, children, the elderly,

anddisabledindividualshavegreater difficulty in

becoming

active

members

ofthecommunity.

The

time

we

spend

commuting

andstuckintrafficalso

reduces involvement in

community

activities.

Moreover,studieshave

shown

thatpeople

who

live

onstreetswith highertrafficlevels

know

farfewer

oftheirneighbors than

do

people on streets with

lower traffic.24 Further, a recent report prepared forthe

Community

FoundationofGreater Atlanta

concluded

that Atlanta's "rapid

growth

may

constrain the

development

of the area's social

capital.

As

would

be expected,

newcomers

to

Atlantareportlowerlevelsofinvolvementincivic

activities,formalassociations,charitable giving,and

faith-based engagement.25"

Fiscal

and Economic

Costs

Sprawl'spricetagistremendousanditisrising,

as is the threat it poses to successful long-term

economic development.

the fiscal impact of sprawl development patterns harms

many

localities and burdens taxpayers.26 Proposed developmentsare frequentlyjustifiedon

the basisofthe tax revenues they will bring toa

city orcounty. All toooften, however, localities

arefaced withthereality thatgrowthdoesnotpay

for itselfand canleadtohighertaxratesor higher

debt. Although

new

developmentdoes bring

new

taxrevenues,far-flungdevelopmentoftendoesnot

generate

enough

taxes to pay for the

new

roads,

water lines, schools,andother infrastructure and

services that need to be provided. At the

same

time,infrastructure thattaxpayershavealreadypaid

for

may

be underusedorabandonedasdevelopment

spreads outward. Providing the infrastructure to

servegrowthcanalsostrain statebudgets.

A

study

in South Carolina

showed

that directing future

developmenttoexistingareas

would

make

useof

infrastructurealreadyinplace,savingthestate$2.7

billionover20years.27

Current land useandtransportation trends also

threatenthelong-termhealthofregionalandlocal

economies.

A

recent national report found that

business leaders "are recognizing that quality of

lifedirectly affects

economic

prosperity, andthat

sprawl

threatens quality of life in

many

communities.28" _{Foronething,trafficcongestion} and long

commutes

make

an area a

much

less

desirable place to live and work. Moreover,

businessesandindividuals are oftenforcedtopay

highpricesforcongestion;in 1999.congestioncosts

were over $2.6billion inAtlanta

and

almost $1.5

billion inMiami.29

The

typicalsouthernhousehold

spends $6,863 per year on transportation, with

$6,577goingtowardautomobiles.30 Thisoutlayis

secondonlytohousingexpenditures,andis

more

than families in the region spend on health care

and food combined.31

The economic

vitality of existing rural

communities, small towns, urbanneighborhoods

-even older suburbs

-

also suffers under sprawl.

Not

only does sprawl tend to lead to increased

propertytaxes,butitalsosaps thevitalityofexisting

communitiessinceinvestment,jobs,andresidents

are luredtooutlyingareas. Ruraleconomies can

further suffer asproductivefarmlandisconverted

and

scenic landscapes, historic areas,

and

recreation areas that often attract vital tourist

spendingare

harmed

ordestroyed.

Equity Problems

The

burdens and benefits of land use

and

transportation patterns arenot distributed equally.

As

noted above, sprawl development drives up

transportation costs.

Lower

income

families,

however, spend the highest percentage of their

incomeontransportation. Accordingtothe Bureau

ofLaborStatistics'

Consumer

Expenditure Survey,

households with

income

between $10,000

and

14,999, for example, spend $3,697 per year on

transportation

-

aquarterto

more

than a third of

theirincome(24to37%), onaverage.32

In contrast,

families with incomeof$30,000to 39,999 spend

an average of

$6973

per year on transportation

(only 17 to

23%)

and upper income households

earning $70,000 or

more

spend an average of

$13,363ontransportation(a fractionofonepercent

up to 19%, onaverage).

Inaddition,sprawltendstobebotha

symptom

and acause ofeconomic and social polarization,

helpingtoconcentratepovertyin citiesand drawing

people

and

wealth to the suburbs.

This

concentration in turn leadsboth to the increased

need for local services within cities and to the

erosionofthe tax base necessarytosupportthese

needs, spurring further flight of wealthier

households.

Myron

Orfieldhas

documented

this

polarizationinAtlanta,aswell as the similar pattern

of

economic

decline that ultimately tends to

overtake inner suburbs and satellite cities that

cannot

compete

as wealthier residents

move

to

newer

suburbs.33 His study also highlights

inequities in infrastructure investment patterns,

showingthatthemajorityofhighwayspending has

gone to wealthier suburban areas, helping

them

attract an even larger share ofthe region's jobs.

Inaddition tofurthering regional polarization, as

infrastructure investments helpto

draw more

jobs

tooutersuburbsitisincreasinglydifficultfor

low-income individuals residing in the central city to

findandtoreach work.Thisproblemisexacerbated

alternatives,andhasadisproportionateimpacton

minorities.

Changing

PublicAttitudes

Toward

Sprawl

The

mounting problems

accompanying

sprawl

in the Southeast have led to increasing public

concernabouttheconsequencesofcurrentgrowth

patterns.

A

Floridapoll,forexample,foundthat90

percent of voters support

managing

or limiting

growth.14

In a North Carolina poll, almost 77

percent of

respondents

felt "strongly" or

"somewhat

strongly"thatthestate"shouldimpose

much

stricterenvironmentalcontrolsondevelopers

andconstruction businesses.35" In addition, polls

in

numerous

areas throughout the region have

identified traffic congestion as one of the most

pressingissuesfacinglocalities.

The

deepening concern about

sprawl is

accompanied by growing support for promoting

smartgrowth and

community

livability measures

such as preserving

open

space and revitalizing

existing communities. In a

nationwide

poll

conductedforSmart

Growth

America, 85 percent

of the people surveyed supported increasing

coordination

among

townstoplanforgrowth,and

76 percent supported state

governments

giving

fundingpriority tomaintainingschools, roads,and

otherservicesinexistingcommunitiesratherthan

encouraging

development

in the countryside.16

Further,Federal

Highway

Administration surveys

havealso

shown

thatthepublicis

much

more

likely

to support

expanding

public transportation or

building

new

bikeways

and sidewalks than to

support

new

highways.17

Theseopinionsare increasinglyevidentatthe

ballotbox.

Growth

issuesarefiguringprominently

in

more

localracesand measuresintheregion. In

November

2000,forexample,dozensofmeasures

involvingarange ofissues relatingtogrowth(such

aseconomic development andrevitalization,open

space,andtransportation)were onlocalballotsin

theSoutheast.™

Most

ofthese measures were on

the ballotinFlorida,Georgia,and NorthCarolina;

most measures dealt with funds for preservation

of parks and

open

space, and almost all of these

measures passed. In addition, several measures

provided funding for improving transportation

choices; Atlanta, for

example

passed

two bond

measures totaling $74.5 million to improve the

pedestrianandtransitenvironment.

Opportunities for

Reform

Sprawl is not inevitable.

A

host of public

subsidies,regulations,anddecisions typically

make

it cheaperandeasiertodevelop on the fringes of

existing communities. For example, a primary

factor fueling explosive growth in the Southeast

has been the public investment in infrastructure,

such as roads,and waterand sewerlines; aslong

as taxpayers cover these costs, there is little

incentive to build

where

infrastructure already

exists. In addition, planning and zoningpolicies

State

Number

of

Land

Trusts TotalAcresProtected

Alabama 4 33.516

Florida 23 64,456

Georgia 17 36,864

NorthCarolina 26 112.141

SouthCarolina 18 97.573

Tennessee 15 43.734

Virginia 17 236.160

Region 120 624,454

thatrequire largelotsandthegeographieseparation

of commercial and residential uses encourage

scattereddevelopment anddriving.

There are

ample

opportunities for reform.

AlthoughmostoftheSoutheastis stillinthe early

stagesofaddressing sprawl-related problems,and

no stateor locality hasadopted acomprehensive

setofpolicy reformsto promote smartergrowth,

there have

been

significant

accomplishments

throughout

much

oftheregion.

Itis

beyond

thescope ofthis articletoprovide

acomprehensiveinventoryofthe

many

innovative

tools and strategies states and communities are

using to better guide growth and promote

more

sustainable transportation.'9 Thissectionprovides

an

overview

of

some

of the

key

recent

accomplishmentsintheSoutheast,whichhighlight

some

ofthe

more

promisingstrategiestopromote

smartergrowth and

community

livability.

Land

Conservation

Therearea

number

oftools availabletoprotect

rural,natural,andhistoricareasfromtheexplosive

development sweeping the region. These tools

include establishing parks and

greenways

and

conserving forest, farmland, and other forms of

open

space

- whether through

acquisition,

purchasing

development

rights, or using

conservationeasementsto limitdevelopmentthat

threatenspublicresources suchascleanwaterand

greenspace.For example,over 1.200privateland

trusts nationwide protect

more

than 4.7 million

acres. In the Southeast, there are120 land trusts,

and they are estimated to have protected almost

625,000 acres.40

Inaddition.Floridahasthe nation'slargestland

acquisitionprogram. Since 1990.overonemillion

acreshave been protected. In 1999.this

program

was

extendedfor 10years withanannual funding

levelof$300milliontoacquire,protect,andrestore

openspace,urbanrecreationland,and greenways.

Otherstates intheregionhaverecentlytakenaction

on open

space funding as well. In Georgia,

Governor

Barnes successfully pushed for the

Greenspace Trust

Fund

that will provide

fast-growingareas$30millioningrantsiftheydevelop

greenspace plans that protect 20percent oftheir

land.

Increasing Transportation Choices

As

discussed above, transportation programs

insoutheasternstatesareheavilyweighted towards

building and expanding roads, virtually ignoring

transit,bicycling,walking,andother transportation

alternatives. This road-centeredapproach hasbeen a majorfactor fueling sprawl in the region since

new

roadscanlargelydeterminethepace,location,

and

scale of growth,

opening

new

areas to

development andsubsidizingsprawl.

Some

significantreforms havebegunthe

move

toward a

more

balanced transportation approach

that offers a variety of transportation choices,

providingmeaningfulalternativestohavingtodrive

everywhere. For

example,

Charlotte voters

approved a referendum in 1998 adopting a

half-cent sales taxtofund a 25-year planthat includes

$1 billion in transitimprovements. InAtlanta, the

new

25-year long range transportation plan calls

fordevoting 55percentof fundstotransit,although

there aresubstantial questions regarding whether

this

much

fundingwillactuallybespentontransit.

In addition, although still a small percentage of

transportation funding, there has been a surge in

publicinvestmentinbicycleandpedestrian projects

throughoutthe region,largely asaresultoffederal

funding changes.

The

Birmingham

area, for

example,

is

implementing

a

$15

million

comprehensivebicycleandpedestrian plan.

Building Better

Communities

Effortstorevitalizeexistingcommunities and

to

promote

more

compact

patterns of

new

development with a mixture of commercial and

residential landuses are a cornerstone of smarter

growth. Theseeffortshavethe potentialtoreduce

the pressure on undeveloped lands by providing

businesses, to decrease travel times and

make

transportation alternatives

more

practical by

locating

homes

closertojobsandotheractivities,

and to reduce the fiscal impacts of growth by

encouraging development inareasalready served

byroads, schools,waterandsewer.41

Current

public-subsidiesandregulations,however,typically

make

it cheaper and easier for developers to build on

undeveloped

sites

on

the fringes of existing

communities.

Redirecting Infrastructure Investments

One

of the most promising opportunities for

states andlocalities toguidegrowth is toredirect

public infrastructure spending to serve existing

communities and designated growth areas. For

example, road funds can be reprioritized using a

"fixitfirst"approachthatdevotesa larger portion ofroadspendingtomaintainingexistingroadsand

bridges than to

new

construction that

opens

previouslyruralareastodevelopment. Inaddition,

numerous

localitieshavedesignatedgrowthareas

that delineate

where

capital improvements and

infrastructure investmentwillbe made.

The

City

of Virginia Beach, for example, has adopted a

"Green Line"

that shapes the city's capital

improvement andlanduse planningandhas resulted

in the lion's share ofgrowthoccurring within the

designated area.

Providing Financial Incentives

The power

ofthe purse is also beingused to

provide financial incentives

-

such as taxcredits,

tax abatements, loans, andgrants

-

to encourage

rehabilitationandreuseofexisting structuresand

properties that

have

already been developed.

Historicpreservation incentives are a

common

and

effectivetooladoptedby

many

statesandlocalities

in the region. In North Carolina, forexample,

developers estimated that the majority of the

projectscompleted undera taxcreditprogramfor

rehabilitationofcertaintypes ofhistoricbuildings

would

not have been undertaken without such a

credit.42 In addition,

many

statesandlocalitieshave adoptedincentivestoencourage redevelopmentof

old industrial sites,

commonly

referred to as

"brownfields." Florida, for instance, offers a tax

creditthatprovides aneligible applicantupto 35

percent ofthecostsofavoluntarycleanupactivity

integral to rehabilitating a state-designated

brownfieldsarea.

Removing

Regulator}' Barriers

In addition to reorienting infrastructure

expendituresandprovidingfinancial incentivesto

guide development,a

number

ofstatesandlocalities

in the Southeasthave

begun

toreview and revise

regulatory provisions that inhibit

more

sensible

growth. Planningandzoningpolicies,forinstance,

typicallysegregatecommercialandresidentialuses

intodifferentgeographicareas,practicallyrequiring

people to drive to conduct almost any activity.

Requiring large lot sizes, large setbacks or wide

streetwidths are

some

oftheothermeasures that

effectively mandate automobile-dependent, land

consumptive

development

patterns. In

most

localitiesintheSoutheast,itwouldbeillegaltobuild

the

more

compact, mixed-use development that

prevailedin thisregionuntil thepastfew decades

and

characterizes

many

of the region's

most

attractiveandvibrantoldercommunities.

A

growing

number

of states and localities

throughouttheSoutheasthaverevised regulatory

provisions to eliminate such barriers to

more

compact, traditionalneighborhood development.

For example, an overlay district

was

adopted in

PortRoyal, SouthCarolinatopromote amixture

of land uses, infill development, and

pedestrian-friendly streetimprovements. Threetowns north

of Charlotte

-

Huntersville,

Davidson,

and

Cornelius

-

have overhauled their development

regulations,adoptingsimilarprovisionstopromote

more

traditional development. Although fewer

stepshave been takento

remove

policy obstacles

to smarter growth at the state level, there have

been

some

advances.NorthCarolina, forexample,

recentlyadoptedapilotprogramthatallowscertain

local governments to use an alternative building

code designed to

remove

some

of the hurdles

buildings.

Linking Transportation

and

Land

Use

One

ofthe greatest hurdles to

more

sensible

growthisthe frequentfailure to linktransportation

andland use. Transportation improvementsshape

the location and pace ofdevelopment, and land

use plansand developmentcanhavea significant

impactontheneedfor

new

transportationfacilities

andthe effectivenessoftransportation investments.

Yetthislinkisfrequentlyoverlooked. Forthemost

part,localities have beenresponsibleforland use

decisionsandpolicies,whilestateshave hadprimary

responsibility for transportation decisions.

The

failure to link land use and transportation has

contributed to sprawling development, traffic

congestion,andotherunintendedconsequences.

One

ofthe

more

notableefforts to

overcome

these

problems

is the

Georgia

Regional

TransportationAuthority

(GRTA),

atransportation

superagencythatcould provide a

model

for

more

sustainable transportation and smarter growth.

GRTA

hasthe potentialtolink transportation,land

use,andairqualityplanningatthe regionallevel;

to provide a broader range of transportation

choices;andtousetransportationfundingtoguide

growth

to areas

where

it will not generate

significantsprawl. Althoughithasyetto liveupto

itspotential,

GRTA

was

giventremendouspowers by thestate legislature, includingtheauthorityto

veto regional transportationplans,buildandoperate

public transportation systems, or

withhold

transportationfundsfromlargedevelopmentprojects.

In contrast to

GRTA,

which

was

created by

the state, local

governments

in the

Charlotte-Mecklenburg

County

area have cooperated and

committedtoaregional transitand landuse plan

that identifies land use and

community

design

characteristics and transportation improvements

needed to address growth pressures in the area.

Among

otherthings, this planoutlines

how

local

governmentswillrevisetheirzoning ordinancesto

guidedevelopment toagreed

upon

transportation

corridors and centers.

Conclusions

Thereare substantialopportunitiestopromote

more

efficientand

more

sustainablegrowth inthe

Southeast.

Many

stepsinrecentyearshavebegun

to take advantage ofthese opportunities. There

are,however, significant barriers toadopting and implementing

more

sensibletoolsandstrategies for

guiding growth. These barriers include

shorter-term hurdles such as budget shortfalls resulting

from the recent economic downturn, as well as

more

intractable barriers such as transportation

agencies that are often opposed to change, and

politicallypowerfulspecial interests that profitfrom

current policiesfavoringsprawldevelopment and

roadconstruction.

Despitethese hurdles,the substantialeconomic,

health,environmental,and socialcostsofcurrent

growthtrends arefuelingpublicconcernandcalls

forchange. States and localities throughout the

Southeast must

make

critical choices about

how

they will grow. Policies that can capture the

benefitsofgrowthwhileminimizingtheattendant

costs must be adopted if the region is to enjoy

continued

prosperity, vibrant

and

healthy

communities, abundant natural resources, and a

strong qualityoflife.

NOTES

' For_{furtherdiscussionofthe trendsshaping}

the

Southeastand

new

approaches to development, see

SouthernEnvironmental

Law

Centerand

Environmental

Law

Institute.SmartGrowthinthe

Southeast:

New

Approachesto Guiding

Development(1999)(availableat

www.southernenvironment.org). Foramoredetailed

discussionofsmart growth,see Pollard.Smart

Growth: ThePromise, Politics, andPotentialPitfalls

of EmergingGrowthManagementStrategies,Virginia

Environmental

Law

Journal.Volume19.No,3. p.247

(2000).

:

I

Of

course, theseeconomictrends arenotuniform.

Several mainstays oftheeconomyofanumberof

states in theregion-suchastextiles andtobacco

-havedeclinedsharply.

4

SMARTRAQ,

Trends, Implications

&

Strategiesfor

BalanceGrowthin theAtlanta Region

(2001((availableathttp://www.smartraq.net/pdfs/

synthesis.pdf).

II

The BrookingsInstitution.Job Sprawl: Employment

Location inU.S.MetropolitanAreas(2001).

US

DepartmentofAgriculture.1997National

ResourcesInventory (2000).Theinformationinthe

remainder ofthisparagraphandinthenexttwo

paragraphsisalsotaken fromthisstudy.

7

TheBrookingsInstitution.

Who

SprawlsMost?

How

GrowthPatternsDifferAcrossthe U.S.(2001).

s

TonyBartelme, "Tri-CountyGrowthBinge'Nota

Good

Pattern,""CharlestonPostandCourier,

September 11.1997, pp.1-B.4-B.

"GeorgeGalster.RoyceHanson,HalWolman.

StephenColemanandJason Freihage. Wrestling

Sprawl to the Ground:DefiningandMeasuring an

ElusiveConcept(2000)(executive

summary

available

athttp://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/

pdf/proc fairgrowth galster.pdf).

1,1

Datacompiled fromFederalHighway

Administration.HighwayStatistics2000, Table

VM-2.

11

FederalHighwayAdministration.Highway

Statistics 2000.

12

TexasTransportation Institute, The2001 Urban

MobilityReport:KellySimmons."Atlantatailgating

L.A.ongridlock:We'refastest innationatadding

trafficjams," Atlanta Journal-Constitution,

May

8, 200I.p.A-l.

13

See. AnthonyDowns. Stuckin Traffic:Coping with Peak-HourTrafficCongestion(1992);LewisM. Fulton.RobertB.Noland. DanielJ.Meszler

&

JohnV.

Thomas.

"A

StatisticalAnalysis ofInducedTravel

Effectsinthe

US

Mid-Atlantic Region,"/. ofTransp.

&

Statistics.Apr.2000.at2:

Mark

Hansen and

YuanlinHuang."RoadSupply andTrafficinCalifornia

UrbanAreas." 31 TransportationResearch

A

205

(1997):MarkHansen.

"Do

New

HighwaysGenerate

Traffic?,"Access16,19-20(Fall 1995).

14

Surface Transportation PolicyProject.Changing

Direction: Federal Transportation Spending in the

1990s(March2000).

15

SeeLawrenceFrank.Brian StoneJr..and William

Bachman."Linkingland use withhouseholdvehicle

emissionsinthe central Puget Sound: Methodological

framework andfindings,"TransportationResearch

Part

D

5.3: 173-96(2000).

16

AmericanLungAssociation. StateoftheAir 2001.

17

MichaelS.Friedman.M.D.: KennethE.Powell.

M.D., M.P.H.; LoriHutwagner,M.S.;LeRoy M.

Graham. M.D.;W.Gerald Teague.M.D.,"Impactof

ChangesinTransportationandCommuting Behaviors

Duringthe 1996

Summer

Olympic

Games

inAtlantaon

Air QualityandChildhoodAsthma." J.Am.Med.

Ass'n.Vol.285.No.7, p.897-905(February21.2001).

18

Creating

A

Healthy Environment: The Impact of

the BuiltEnvironmentonPublicHealth (2001).See also.Lawrence Frank andPeterEngelke."TheBuilt

Environment and

Human

Activity Patterns:Exploring

theImpacts ofUrban

Form

onPublicHealth," 16

Journalof PlanningLiterature202-18(2001).

19

TransportationResearchBoard.Committeefora

Studyon Transportation andaSustainable

Environment. TowardaSustainable Future:

AddressingtheLong-TermEffectsofMotor Vehicle

Transportation on ClimateandEcology. Special

Report251.p.79(1997).

20

EPA.National Air PollutantEmission Trends

1900-1998. Table8-2.

21

Chesapeake BayFoundation.

A

Better Wayto

Grow: For

More

LivableCommunitiesanda

::_American

Rivers.America'sMost Endangered

Riversof2001.

23

_Memorandum

_{from Joey Woodard.}

_"Summary

_of

sedimentimpactstoTurnbullCreek andtributaries,"

TDEC,

DivisionofWaterPollution Control,September

7.2000.

14

1000FriendsofFloridasummaryofapoll

conducted byTheTarranceGroup,Feb. 11-13.2001

(availableathttp://www.1000friendsofflorida.org).

35_Commission

on Smart Growth, Growth

Management

and Development: Findings and

Recommendations, 14(Fall2001).

:4

DonaldAppleyard. LivableStreets(1981).

23

Christopher

Home,

Social Capitalin Metropolitan

Atlanta: Findingsfrom theSocial Capital

BenchmarkSurvey (June 18,2001),p. 14.

:"_{See.American FarmlandTrust.LivingontheEdge:}

TheCostsandRisksofScatterDevelopment(1998).

11

Robert W. Burchell.etal..South Carolina

InfrastructureStudy: ProjectionsofStatewide

Infrastructure Costs, Savings, andFinancing

Alternatives, 1995-2015.

28

NationalAssociationofLocalGovernment

Environmental.Professionals, ProfilesofBusiness

Leadershipon SmartGrowth:

New

Partnerships

DemonstratetheEconomicBenefitsof Reducing

Sprawl13 (1999).

29

TTI,supranote 13.

30

U.S.Departmentof Labor.BureauofLabor

Statistics,ConsumerExpendituresin 1999. Table8

(May

2001((availableathttp://www.bls.gov/cex/ .

csxann99.pdf). Dataisnotavailable solely for the

seven statesthatare thefocus ofthis article. The

ConsumerExpenditureSurveydefines theSouthto

includethesestatesplusArkansas.Delaware.District

ofColumbia.Kentucky. Louisiana,Maryland.

Mississippi.Oklahoma.Texas,andWestVirginia.

31

Id.

<:

BureauofLaborStatistics,supra note 31,Table2.

33

_Myron

_Orfield.

AtlantaMetropolitics:

A

Regional

AgendaforCommunityandStability(December

1998).

(6

SmartGrowthAmerica,Greetingsfrom Smart

GrowthAmerica(2001((citingstudyconducted by

Belden,Russonello

&

Stewart.September2-10. 2000).

" Federal HighwayAdministration,MovingAhead:

TheAmerican PublicSpeaks on Roadways and

Transportationin Communities(availableat

www.fhwa.gov/reports/movingahead.htm).

38

See. PhyllisMyersandRobert Puentes.Growthat

theBallotBox:Electingthe Shape of Communities

inNovember 2000(February2001 ). 19

Foramorecomprehensivelistoftoolssee.for

example.SmartGrowthNetwork.GettingtoSmart

Growth: 100PoliciesforImplementation(2002);for

furtherexamplesinthesoutheastsee

SELC

andELI.

supra note 1

.

40

LandTrustAlliance.National LandTrustCensus

(2000). 41

See EPA. OurBuiltandNatural Environments:

A

TechnicalReview ofthe InteractionsbetweenLand

Use, Transportation, and EnvironmentalQuality

(January 2001). fordiscussionof

many

ofthebenefits

ofmorecompact development.

4:

NorthCarolinaDepartmentofCulturalResources.

StateHistoricPreservationOffice,"TheEconomic

ImpactoftheRehabilitationInvestmentTaxCredit