Comprehensive Evaluation of Smart
Growth Benefits
Todd Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Presented
Smart Growth Debate Langley, BC
23 February 2012
Farmland Preservation Vs Sprawl
• Farms are subdivided.
• Land values and taxes
increase.
• Infrastructure costs rise
(water, sewage,
roads).
• Road traffic increases.
• Farming becomes less
viable, forcing other
farms to subdivide.
Farmland Preservation Vs Sprawl
• Farms are subdivided.
• Land values and taxes
increase.
• Infrastructure costs rise
(water, sewage,
roads).
• Road traffic increases.
• Farming becomes less
viable, forcing other
farms to subdivide.
Farmland Preservation Vs Sprawl
• Farms are subdivided.
• Land values and taxes
increase.
• Infrastructure costs rise
(water, sewage,
roads).
• Road traffic increases.
• Farming becomes less
viable, forcing other
farms to subdivide.
15
Smart Growth Development
Land use and transport policies that encourage development of compact, mixed, walkable urban villages where commonly-used goods and services (shops, restaurants, elementary schools, parks, etc.) are nearby, and high quality public transit provides convenient access to other regional destinations.
Victoria’s Cook Street Village is a example of a
multi-modal urban village where walking,
cycling, automobile and public transport are all
convenient and safe transport options
16
Retrofitting Suburbs
Many smaller cities, towns and suburban strips are now being retrofitted based on smart growth principles to create compact, walkable and bikeable, mixed use neighborhoods, reflecting traditional development practices.
Linking the Centers across US29 by Dan Burden, Walkable & Livable Communities Institute
18
Ped/bike bridge from mall to transit stop/garage
19
Mixed-use redevelopment on mall parking lot
20
Landscaping matures
21
Additional redevelopment
22
Landscaping matures over time
Household Transport Costs
Sprawl Smart Growth
Cars per household
Annual transport expenses $18,000 $6,000
Mobility for non-drivers Poor (requires
chauffeuring)
Moderate to good
(independent mobility)
Commute Automobile Walk, bike, automobile or
convenient public transport
Local errands Auto Walking, cycling and auto
Child’s travel to school and
friends
Poor (requires
chauffeuring)
Walking, cycling and
chauffeured in auto
24
Land Use Impacts On Travel
Smart Growth Safety Impacts
Healthy Communities
Walkability
• Improves public
fitness and
health
• Improves
mobility options
for non-drivers
• Transport cost
savings and
affordability
• Increases
community
livability
“A Heavy Load” Report
Lower-income households
in neighborhoods located
closer to the central cities
spend a much smaller
portion of their income on
housing and transport than
those located in more
sprawled neighborhoods.
Return on Investment
High quality public transit
typically requires about $268 in
additional subsidies and $104
in additional fares annually per
capita, but provides vehicle,
parking and road cost savings
averaging $1,040 per capita,
plus other savings and benefits:
• Parking cost savings.
• Congestion reductions
• Accident reductions
• Pollution reductions Improved
mobility for non-drivers,
• Improved fitness and health
Equity
A more diverse transportation
systems helps achieve equity
objectives:
• A fair share of public resources for
non-drivers.
• Financial savings to lower-income
people.
• Increased opportunity to people who
are physically, socially or economically
disadvantaged.
32
Sprawl Is Costly
• Increases infrastructure
and public service costs.
• Increases transportation
costs and reduces travel
options.
• Environmental costs
(reduced greenspace and
wildlife habitat).
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
Smart
Growth
Sprawl
An
nu
al
Tra
ns
po
rt E
xp
en
dit
urs
33
Smart Growth Benefits
Economic Social Environmental
Infrastructure cost savings
Public service cost savings
Transportation efficiencies
Agglomeration efficiencies
Economic reliance
Supports industries that depend on high quality environments (tourism, farming, etc.)
Improved transport options, particularly for non-drivers
Increased housing options
Community cohesion
Cultural resource preservation (historic sites, traditional neighborhoods, etc.)
Increased physical exercise and health
Greenspace & habitat preservation
Energy savings
Air pollution reductions
Water pollution reductions
Reduced “heat island” effect.
Memo From Future Self
Hope for the best but prepare for the worst:
• Physical disability – diverse and integrated transport with universal design (accommodates people with disabilities and other special needs).
• Poverty and inflation – affordable housing in accessible, multi-modal locations.
• Higher fuel prices – improve efficient modes (walking, cycling and public transport).
• Isolation and loneliness – community cohesion (opportunities for neighbors to interact in positive ways).
Trends Supporting Multi-Modalism
• Motor vehicle saturation.
• Aging population.
• Rising fuel prices.
• Increased urbanization.
• Increased traffic and parking congestion.
• Rising roadway construction costs and declining economic return from increased roadway capacity.
• Environmental concerns.
• Health Concerns
Housing Demand By Type (Nelson 2006)
The current supply of
large-lot suburban is
approximately adequate
to satisfy demand for
the next two decades.
Most growth will be in
smaller-lot and multi-
family housing.
High Quality Public Transit
• Geographic coverage (serves many
worksites, schools, stores, recreational
areas, neighborhoods).
• Relatively fast, reliable and and frequent.
• Comfortable and clean vehicles and
waiting areas.
• Convenient information and payment
systems.
• Affordable relative to incomes and
driving costs.
• Safe and secure.
• Courtesy and responsiveness.
Walking and Cycling Improvements
• More investment in
sidewalks, crosswalks,
paths and bike lanes.
• Improved roadway
shoulders.
• More traffic calming.
• Bicycle parking and
changing facilities.
• Encouragement, education
and enforcement programs.
Motorists Benefit Too
More balanced transport policy is no more “anti-car” than a healthy diet is anti-food. Motorists have every reason to support these reforms:
• Reduced traffic and parking congestion.
• Improved safety.
• Improved travel options.
• Reduced chauffeuring burden.
• Often the quickest and most cost effective way to improve driving conditions.
Supported by Professional Organizations
• Institute of Transportation
Engineers.
• American Planning Association.
• American Farmland Trust.
• Federal, state, regional and
local planning and
transportation agencies.
• International City/County
Management Association
• National Governor’s Association
• Health organizations.
• And much more...
Roadway Costs
Transport Canada reports that in
2009–10, all levels of Canadian
government spent $28.9 billion on
roads, about $900 annually per
capita, and collected $12.1 billion
in fuel taxes and $4.4 billion in
other road user fees, indicating
that in Canada, user fees cover
about 64% of roadway costs.
Transport In Canada: An Overview,
Transport Canada
(www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/report-aca-
anre2010-index-2700.htm).
“Where We Want To Be: Home Location Preferences & Their Implications for Smart Growth”
“If Health Matters: Integrating Public Health Objectives into Transportation Decision-Making”
“Evaluating Transportation Economic Development Impacts”
“Affordable-Accessible Housing In A Dynamic City”
“The Future Isn’t What It Used To Be”
“Evaluating Smart Growth Benefits”
“Online TDM Encyclopedia”
and more...
www.vtpi.org
Top Related