SPRAWL
Cause and Consequence

By Brad Shultz - April 2, 2004

"Sprawl" has become a very angry word among those of us who are concerned with land use issues. We see the consequences every day in prime agricultural land and open space forever lost, in increased property taxes, in burdens on the existing infrastructure, in increased automobile traffic and the drive for more and larger roads, and in the decay of our cities and inner suburbs. The losses in the traditional Pennsylvania viewscape of villages surrounded by greenspace are also forever lost, and we seem headed toward becoming more fully a part of the northeastern megalopolis that extends from Washington and South to Boston and North. The listing of negative consequences could go on; add your own.

The Bookings Institution has recently completed an extensive study of the condition of our state and published a report, "Back to Prosperity", in which sprawl is shown to be a central issue in the interconnected web of Pennsylvania's economic and social woes. The fact that we have economic and social woes cannot be disputed. Just a few facts from the report demonstrate the extent of the problem. Pennsylvania is--
--the 40th state in economic growth
--the 44th state in new business starts, and
--the 47th in employment growth.

Pennsylvania does lead (?) or come close to it in other measures. It is--
--1st in the absolute loss of young workers
--5th in net out-migration, and
--9th in the percentage loss of young workers.

And there is one more set of measures to bear in mind; see if they compute for you. Pennsylvania is--
--6th in the number of college students and
--30th in the share of the population with a BA.

The Pennsylvanian land development pattern is not unlike lava oozing from a series of dying volcanoes, which once were the blazing centers of our economic and social life, and spreading unchecked over the land. The finite resource of the land is devoured, faster than that of most other states, and the cities and inner suburbs die slow deaths. All the energy has run out; reinvestment of energy in those centers has not kept pace. According to Brookings, we are 48th in population growth but 6th in the development of raw land.

As the centers lose their vibrancy, they no longer are attractive places for young people seeking to start their careers (making sense now of the computation above). State policy and practice, seen for example in spending for Department of Transportation, shortchanges investment in older cities and towns, where we are leaving behind well over 50% of our existing investment, in favor of major new road projects. These not only use up considerable open space but, worse, lead to more outlying development. Have we not seen that in our own area with Interstate 78 and routes 22 and 33? And that is hardly an exhaustive list.

The downward cycle continues: More roads, more sprawl, more abandonment of prior investments, less attractive town centers, a greater loss of college trained workers, increasing economic stagnation, and so it goes.

Government is clearly then part of the problem. Consider for example that Pennsylvania has 2566 municipalities, making coordinated regional and statewide economic and land use planning very difficult if not impossible.

Government must also represent the solution. The Brookings Report stresses three key elements of a recovery plan for Pennsylvania:

Invest heavily in education and training with promotion of key new industries especially those that would help revitalized older communities.

Become a world leader in the development of policies and practices leading to the redevelopment of cities, towns and townships.

Examine and improve our governance practices at all levels with a view toward enhancing coordination throughout the state.

The full report is well worth reading and is available on-line at www.brookings.edu/urban.