Infrastructure costs and growth patterns in metro regions:
Brief summary of the literature compiled by David Beach, GreenCityBlueLake Institute, 2010

---------------------------

Information Paper on the Cost of Sprawl (Puget Sound Regional Council, 2005)

For the purpose of this paper, the cost of sprawl is the additional cost of a sprawling development pattern compared to compact development or smart growth. Methodologies vary widely: some studied existing development, others used the hypothetical; some studied specific geographic areas while others analyzed the country as a whole. Many of the studies measure a certain aspect of development costs, but no study can measure all the potential added costs of sprawl. They may only measure the costs to government and thus ignore the costs of privately provided services. Some studied capital costs while others included operating and maintenance costs.

Because of the variability among these studies, it is hard to make too many generalizations about the results. For the most part, these studies found that sprawl was more costly than smart growth. Based on the literature review and the review of the policy context in Washington state, the more easily measured cost differences between sprawl and smart growth are found for physical infrastructure (e.g., roads and utilities) and public services (e.g., schools, police, emergency response). The reasoning is fairly straightforward: sprawling development requires more lane-miles and longer water and sewer pipes than more compact communities. Compact areas can also more effectively share public services within a smaller geographic scope, requiring fewer fire and police stations per capita.

A review of these studies shows that the greatest savings that can be gained through smart growth is in capital facilities costs. Moderate savings can be found for operations and maintenance and service delivery costs.

There are less tangible costs associated with sprawl, such as the additional time spent on congested roadways, health impacts associated with pollution and safety, and impacts to wildlife and natural habitat from additional greenfields being consumed by development instead of being preserved for open space or conservation purposes. The environmental and social impacts of alternative development patterns on quality of life and social equity are difficult to quantify in monetary terms but are just as, if not more important to how we decide to grow as physical infrastructure and public services costs.

---------------------------

Costs of Sprawl—2000, TCRP Report 74

A five-year study by researchers at Rutgers University and the Brookings Institution that found the nation could save hundreds of billions of dollars and preserve 4 million acres of land over the next quarter-century by channeling development into existing urban areas and compact new towns.

----------------------------

Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact: The Character & Consequences of Metropolitan Expansion

The study underlying this report, the product of three years of research by Reid Ewing of Rutgers University, Rolf Pendall of Cornell University, and Don Chen of Smart Growth America represents the most comprehensive effort yet undertaken to define, measure and evaluate metropolitan sprawl and its impact.

----------------------------

The Effects of Land Use on Wastewater Utility Costs

A 1998 study for the Natural Resources Defense Council adds to the growing body of literature demonstrating that low density sprawl development is costly, inefficient, and inequitable. In analyzing wastewater collection systems in the Chicago and Cleveland areas, this study found that operation and maintenance (O&M) costs increase significantly as the density of development decreases. Thus, utility services to sprawling areas can be more expensive to operate and maintain than in compact, higher density areas.

The study found that the unit costs associated with the lowest service densities studied are significantly higher -- in some cases more than twice as high -- as those associated with the highest service densities. This finding suggests that, in wastewater systems that serve areas with varying service densities but that charge uniform rates for service, residents and businesses in more compact neighborhoods are likely to be subsidizing those in more sprawling ones. Further, in a separate examination of Cleveland's water distribution system, the study also found that Cleveland's system of geographically differentiated user rates goes a step in the right direction by charging outlying, higher-elevation customers in that region a premium to recover the higher costs associated with pumping water to them. Cross-subsidies likely remain in the system, however, because it does not address cost differences due to density or economies of scale. These results are important and timely as communities across the country struggle to cope with the high costs of growth.

---------------------------

The Costs of Sprawl in Pennsylvania

Sprawling development imposes high costs on Pennsylvania residents and communities. These costs range from more than $100 million per year in capital construction for local governments to mushrooming traffic in suburbs, and the decline of cities, boroughs, and townships across the state. Because many of the costs of sprawl are hidden, the study also identifies who pays them. It explains how widespread, diffuse real estate development increases the costs of transportation and schools along with pollution and stress, while also consuming agricultural land and natural areas. The study was commissioned by 10,000 Friends of Pennsylvania with several sponsoring organizations.

-------------------------- 

Envision Utah

Developed an infrastructure cost model to assess how total infrastructure costs vary according to the density and location of development.