Table 1 - Alleged Negative and Positive Impacts of Sprawl
Monday, September 10, 2012
Table 1 - Alleged Negative and Positive Impacts of Sprawl
| Substantive concern | Alleged negative impacts | Alleged positive impacts |
|---|---|---|
| Public-private capital and operating costs | Higher infrastructure costs Higher public operating costs More expensive private residential and nonresidential development costs More adverse public fiscal impacts Higher aggregate land costs |
Lowers public operating costs Lessens expensive private residential and nonresidential development costs Fosters efficient development of leapfrogged areas |
| Transportation and travel costs | More vehicle-miles traveled Longer travel times More automobile trips Higher household transportation spending Less cost-efficient and effective transit High social costs of travel |
Shortens commuting times Lessens congestion Lowers governmental costs for transportation |
| Land/natural habitat preservation | Loss of agricultural land Reduced farmland productivity Reduced farmland viability (water constraints) Loss of fragile environmental lands Reduced regional open space |
Enhances personal and public open space |
| Quality of life | Aesthetically displeasing Weakened sense of community Greater stress Higher energy consumption More air pollution Lessened historic preservation |
Creates low-density living options Lowers crime rates Enhances value or reduced costs of public and private goods Fosters greater economic well-being |
| Social issues | Fosters suburban exclusion Fosters spatial mismatch Fosters residential segregation Worsens city fiscal stress Worsens inner-city deterioration |
Fosters localized land-use decisions Enhances municipal diversity and choice |
SOURCE: National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, The Costs of SprawlRevisited (Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1998), table 7, p. 42.