Smart growth and better transit can grow wealth

Smart growth economic benefits

Jay Blazek Crossley, Jan 24, 11.

“An inclusive planning process following smart growth principles that yields more walkable neighborhoods with broader options for housing and transportation can help communities, businesses and individuals make money, save money and improve quality of life” according to Chuck Koshian and Steve Winkelman, authors of a new report from the Center for Clean Air Policy released January 19, “Growing Wealthier: Smart Growth, Climate Change, and Prosperity.”

The report presents a series of economic benefits of improving quality of life through smart growth, as noted by New Urban Network:

• Creating a range of housing opportunities in proximity to jobs saves households money. Washington, DC, region households living in the jobs-rich core spent about 30 percent of their income on housing and transportation, while those in the car-dependent outer suburbs spent over 40 percent.

• Improving neighborhood “walkability” enhances property values. WalkScore.com rates locations according to a walkability index from 1 to 100. One study found that, in general, every one-point increase in a home’s Walk Score raised its value by $700 to $3,000.

• Walkability also enhances health. In Seattle, a 5 percent increase in the overall level of walkability was linked to a 32 percent increase in minutes of walking or biking and a reduction in Body Mass Index.

• Creating a range of transportation options can increase property values, investment and jobs. In Denver, homes within a half mile of stations on the Southeast light rail line rose in value an average of 17.6 percent between 2006 and 2008; other Denver homes declined by an average 7.5 percent.

• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act investments in public transportation created almost twice as many jobs per billion dollars invested as highway projects – 16,419 vs. 8,781 job-months. A $100 million investment in Portland streetcars helped attract $3.5 billion in private investment.

• Directing development towards existing communities can reduce infrastructure costs. Sacramento calculated the infrastructure price tag of its Blueprint Smart Growth scenario to be $9 billion less than conventional development.

• Building within a smaller footprint can reduce water use and improve storm water runoff management. A 2006 EPA report found that in a compact subdivision in Sacramento, California, water demand was 20-30 percent less than conventional subdivisions in the same city.

• Reducing the need to drive saves big money. The Vision California project calculated that a “green” compact growth scenario could save California residents $8,600 in driving related costs per household by the year 2050, or more than $170 billion annually statewide.

The report examines how characteristics of less livable metropolitan areas, such as higher average vehicle miles traveled, seem to correlate to lower per capita income, as shown in the graph below.