Urban sprawl costs the American economy more than US$1 trillion annually, according to a new study by the New Climate Economy. These costs include greater spending on infrastructure, public service delivery and transportation. The study finds that Americans living in sprawled communities directly bear an astounding $625 billion in extra costs. In addition, all residents and businesses, regardless of where they are located, bear an extra $400 billion in external costs. Correcting this problem provides an opportunity to increase economic productivity, improve public health and protect the environment. The report identifies specific smarter growth policies that can lead to healthier, safer and wealthier communities in both developed and developing countries.
The report, Analysis of Public Policies that Unintentionally Encourage and Subsidize Sprawl—written for the New Climate Economy by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, in partnership with LSE Cities—details planning and market distortions that foster sprawl, and smart growth policies that can help correct these distortions.
Sprawl increases the distance between homes, businesses, services and jobs, which raises the cost of providing infrastructure and public services by at least 10% and up to 40%. The most sprawled American cities spend an average of $750 on infrastructure per person each year, while the least sprawled cities spend close to $500. In its Better Growth, Better Climate report, the New Climate Economy has found that acting to implement smarter urban growth policies on a global scale could reduce urban infrastructure capital requirements by more than US$3 trillion over the next 15 years.
The new report defines smart growth—the opposite of urban sprawl—as compact, connected and coordinated urban development. Smart growth cities and towns have well-defined boundaries, a range of housing options, a mix of residential and commercial buildings, and accessible sidewalks, bike lanes and public transportation. By reducing per capita land consumption and infrastructure and transportation costs, smart urban growth policies can deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits.
Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, lead author of the report said: “Smart growth is not anti-suburb. Instead, it ensures that diverse housing options are available and incentivizes households to choose the most resource-efficient options that meet their needs. We are now seeing growth in demand by millennials and the elderly for affordable, compact housing in accessible and multimodal neighborhoods. However, current government policies tend to favor larger, less-accessible homes. For example, in most communities there are strict limits on development densities, restrictions on multifamily housing and excessive parking requirements, which drive up housing costs and encourage sprawl. Consumer preferences are changing; government regulations on housing should too.”
Sprawl is bad for your health. Americans who live in sprawled neighbourhoods are between two and five times more likely to be killed in car accidents and twice as likely to be overweight as those in more walkable neighbourhoods.
Residents of compact, connected communities in the United States save more money and have greater economic opportunity than they would in more sprawled, automobile-dependent neighbourhoods. Households in accessible areas spend on average $5,000 less per year on transportation expenses, and real estate located in smart growth communities tends to retain its value better than in sprawled communities, due to greater accessibility to services. These communities are also more inclusive for people who cannot drive: they offer easier access to schools, public services and jobs, and encourage mixed-income communities. Because of these factors, research shows that lower-income children tend to be much more economically successful if they grow up in smart growth communities.
Helen Mountford, Global Programme Director for the New Climate Economy, said: “Reducing urban sprawl is good for the economy and the climate. For a real-world example of sprawl versus smart growth, compare Atlanta and Barcelona. Both cities have approximately the same population and the same level of wealth per person, but Atlanta takes up over 11 times as much land and produces six times the transport-related carbon emissions per person as Barcelona. And congested, sprawling cities are costly to the economy; for example through all the hours that commuters or delivery trucks waste stuck in traffic jams. Cities that are compact, connected and coordinated can unleash productivity and growth opportunities, while minimizing harm to the climate.”
All cities can benefit from increased economic productivity, more affordable housing options, more liveable communities, infrastructure cost savings, reduced accident risk, improved public fitness and health, increased opportunity for physically and economically disadvantaged groups and improved mobility options for non-drivers. These benefits are particularly important in rapidly developing cities where resources are limited and a greater portion of households are impoverished and cannot afford automobiles.
Adoption of smart growth policies would also help fight global climate change. Urban sprawl is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, according to Better Growth, Better Climate, the New Climate Economy’s flagship report from September 2014. Cities are responsible for 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The adoption of compact, transit-oriented cities could reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by about 0.6 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2030, rising to 1.8 billion tonnes CO2equivalent by 2050, more than twice the annual emissions of Canada.
Worcester City Council had an official land supply of more than eight years in March last year, but that is no longer the case.
The official housing ‘need’ for Worcester, as deemed by an independent Government inspector is 9,830 properties by 2020, but the city is 630 short taking into account current building, future expected permissions and the other bits of land forecast to be developed.
One big reason for the change is because in the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP), the blueprint earmarking land for homes in Worcester, Malvern and Wychavon by 2030, inspector Roger Clews upped the requirement from 23,200 to 28,370 last year.
The city council, which has taken legal advice, has also now been told two controversial ‘urban extensions’, one south of the city between Kempsey and St Peter’s and another next to Dines Green west of Worcester, are not allowed to form part of the latest five-year land supply calculations – despite both sites expecting to contribute more than 1,100 properties by 2020.
Woyuld be nice to see the report and legal advice, educated guess the ludicrous footnote 11 definition which means sites that deliver within 5 years dont form part of teh 5 years supply unless they are available ‘now’, which means that if you have to do anything however small to make the site available it isn’t considered ‘deliverable’ even it it is, for example, knocking a wall down to form an access. Barmy.
The latest attempt to ‘simplify’ planning is to publish a new and more complex than ever 163 page GPDO, which will have two major effects, firstly to make a great deal of money to those with assets that can now be valorised, secondly to ensure that local planning authorities make a great deal less money from fees. Surely something is going wrong somewhere? That got me thinking, how much is the new GPDO worth, and could we capture it to fund the service of planning?
A radical thought experiment. We abolished all PD rights and all local plans, You could build nothing. If you wanted to build something you have to buy development rights. If you wanted to stop something being built then you pay a higher price to buy out those rights. Seen in this way planning would have no shortage of funding, and the pockets of Nimbys would be nowhere near deep enough to buy put all rights for housing as consumers consider the extra price they would pay over their lifetime for not bidding higher than Nimbys. I am not suggesting for a moment that this would be practical, or that it would be desirable with an unequal distribution of wealth where the wealthy would simply entrench their position where they block out housing and entrench their rentier status. But it does frame the problem in the correct way. If wealth were equally distributed what would be the shadow price that people would pay to protect or allow for development and where? What kind of regulation would emerge? What kind of planning would the consumers of ‘planning services’ to use the economists application of the term ‘services’ demand?
Thinking this way you cant help think that the GPDO and much planning regulation is just an entrenchment of power and privilege and an institutionalization of rentier income.