AJPH.SmartGrowth

AJPH.SmartGrowth

• 1.
   GOING PUBLIC American Journal of Public Health | September 2003, Vol 93, No. 91410 | Going Public | Geller  GOING PUBLIC  FOR MANY,THE GREAT AMERICAN Dream is associated with large, single-family homes, lots of land, and a feeling of independence. Now, public health and urban planning professionals claim this vision has gone too far. They blame a phenomenon called sprawl for a host of problems, from obesity and traffic injuries to environmental destruction. A movement called Smart Growth is challenging the way we build, work, and live, and is encourag- ing us to look at communities not only as places to live but as vehicles to promote health and well-being. SMART GROWTH AND CHOICES According to Don Chen of Smart Growth America, a nation- wide coalition of over 60 public interest groups, low-density sub- urban growth, or sprawl, has 4 dimensions: a population that is widely dispersed in low-density development; rigidly separated homes, shops, and workplaces; a network of roads marked by huge blocks and poor access; and a lack of well-defined, thriving activity centers, such as down- towns and town centers.1 Most of the other features usually associ- ated with sprawl—a lack of trans- portation choices, dependence on the automobile, relative unifor- mity of housing options, and the difficulty of walking—are a result of these conditions. There are many who defend low-density suburban growth be- cause of the opportunities for home ownership and independ- ence. Suburban neighborhoods away from commercial areas offer the opportunity to own large pieces of property. Such de- velopments tend to be more ho- mogenous, which some say con- tributes to better schools and lower crime rates. And while liv- ing in outlying suburbs necessi- tates private transportation, many say they prefer the independence and freedom of driving their own automobiles. Sprawl has been criticized for being a financial and social drain. Outlying suburbs often require more costly infrastructure (roads, water, sewers, and other ser- vices); suburban development composed primarily of housing often lacks the tax base neces- sary to cover such expenses. Urban centers also pay a price when residents leave for the sub- urbs, depleting cities of economic and social diversity as well as a strong tax base. Public health officials have voiced a number of concerns about sprawl’s impact on health and safety. Most notably, critics cite automobile dependence as- sociated with sprawl for promot- ing sedentary lifestyle habits and contributing to traffic injuries and air quality problems. Automobile dependence has been associated with an increas- ingly sedentary culture in the United States, which in turn gen- A Prescription for Livable Cities Smart Growth: | Alyson L. Geller, MPH
• 2.
   GOING PUBLIC erated an epidemic rise in obesity. In 2000, a total of 38.8 million American adults met the classifi- cation for obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), putting themselves at risk for chronic dis- eases including diabetes, high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, osteoporosis, cancer, and stroke.2 Physical inactivity is an independent risk factor for chronic disease. People who are physically inactive are at a two- to threefold greater risk for prema- ture mortality than their physi- cally active counterparts.3,4 Motor vehicles are responsible for one third to one half of the smog in most metropolitan areas; over 113 million Americans live in cities with polluted air.5 Top- ping the health effects associated with air pollution, asthma affects approximately 17 million adults and over 4 million children in the United States. About 41000 Americans are killed every year on our nation’s roadways; approximately 13% of traffic fatalities are pedestrians or cyclists.6 Among CDC recom- mendations to reduce such fatali- ties are the use of pedestrian bridges and traffic islands, nar- rower streets, more sidewalks and pedestrian malls, and denser community areas that combine work, shopping, and residences— all Smart Growth measures cur- rently being adopted in commu- nities across the country. Other concerns associated with sprawl focus on the environ- ment: the extensive land con- sumption associated with sprawl has been criticized for habitat loss and fragmentation, wetland destruction, and degradation of air and water quality. The Smart Growth movement involves professionals from many disciplines, including planners, designers, builders, transportation officials, crime prevention special- ists, environmentalists, politicians, public heath advocates, and a range of citizen groups. Its advo- cates include the Environmental Protection Agency; private organ- izations like the Urban Land In- stitute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the nationwide coalition Smart Growth America; a range of public health officials; pedestrian and biking advocates; and leaders at all levels of gov- ernment. Such a broad coalition necessarily has varied goals, but the movement’s main objectives can be summarized as follows: improving quality of life for all citizens, promoting healthy be- haviors, minimizing hazards to people, and protecting and restor- ing the natural environment. Smart Growth strives to pro- tect farmland and open space, re- vitalize neighborhoods, and pro- vide more transportation choices. Smart Growth encourages rein- vestment in existing communi- ties, more efficient use of existing infrastructure, and transportation choices. It promotes compact de- velopment and the creation of mixed-use communities that inte- grate a range of housing and commercial services and serve a variety of income levels. How- ever, a central theme in the Smart Growth movement is that of choice. Advocates stress that well-designed communities offer variety in housing, transportation, employment, and recreation. Within public health, a parallel movement called Active Living emphasizes such elements as bi- cycle- and pedestrian-oriented design, traffic calming, mixed-use development, and “safe routes to school” programs that allow resi- dents to integrate physical activ- ity such as walking and bicycling into their daily lives. SMART GROWTH AT THE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LEVEL Proponents of Smart Growth are most active at the local level, where land use decisions are usually made. Still, national and state policy is a significant part of the equation, as it can provide in- centives or disincentives for local governments, set standards, and act as a watchdog. Democratic September 2003, Vol 93, No. 9 | American Journal of Public Health Geller | Going Public | 1411 Left: Suburban development encroaching on farmland. Below: Saturday market at Skidmore Fountain in Portland, Ore. “ ” Smart Growth is so many different things. It’s not just transportation; it’s a mindset towards creating a more holistic community. We’ve talked about quality of life. And what has been more fundamental to qual- ity of life than physical health? —Barbara McCann, Executive Director, Smart Growth America CourtesyofTriMet,Portland,Ore.
• 3.
   GOING PUBLIC American Journal of Public Health | September 2003, Vol 93, No. 91412 | Going Public | Geller  GOING PUBLIC  and isolated riverfront area. A partnership between the city and downtown property owners turned the river into a city hub that has fueled a housing boom, spawned a number of new restaurants, shops, and green space, and in the process created a broader constituency for clean- ing up the Milwaukee River. Norquist emphasizes that the RiverWalk enhanced the commu- nity, not just because it intro- duced a walkway but because it is connected to the city’s street grid. Smart Growth’s poster city. Port- land, Ore, has earned a reputa- tion as the Smart Growth gold standard by its active citizenry. and leadership at local and state levels, including the enthusiastic participation of Oregon Con- gressman and bicycle enthusiast Earl Blumenauer. Thirty years ago, Portland was strangled with traffic con- gestion. Under the leadership of then-mayor Neil Goldschmidt (later US secretary of transporta- tion), the city revived its down- town area and surrounding neighborhoods, investing in a multimodal regional transporta- tion system including an exten- sive light rail, a bus network, and the country’s first modern streetcar line. The city was the first in the country to undertake a compre- hensive Pedestrian Master Plan. Nearly 800 traffic-calming de- vices such as speed bumps and traffic circles and 221 miles of bikeways allow pedestrians and cyclists to commute safely to downtown.7 The city’s legendary parks and other green space benefit from a 26-year statewide land- use planning program marked by the use of urban growth boundaries and the preservation and Republican governors in states across the country are co- ordinating with local jurisdictions to reinvigorate existing communi- ties and promote transportation planning and more environmen- tally sound land use. Anticipating the renewal of the federal Trans- portation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), a range of constituencies, from grassroots to state and federal legislators, are pushing for investments in light rail and pedestrian and bi- cycle infrastructure. Smart Growth initiatives are being pursued in communities across the country. A few exam- ples are outlined below. Local Initiatives A river comes to life and a freeway overpass comes down. Milwaukee’s Smart Growth has been driven by a mayor who is focused on building a vibrant community. Mayor John Norquist’s initiatives have included the removal of the elevated Park East Freeway spur and the cleanup and develop- ment of Milwaukee’s riverfront. The freeway demolition proj- ect, initiated in April 2002, re- leased 26 acres of riverfront for redevelopment and preserved traffic flow with a 3-lane boule- vard and pedestrian bridge, ac- cording to Norquist. Milwaukee’s RiverWalk proj- ect, launched in 1994, trans- formed a heavily industrialized “ ” People must feel empowered on a level that is personal to them—individual communities have individual needs. —Rich Killingsworth, Director, Active Living by Design RiverWalk project, Milwaukee, Wis. CourtesyofMilwaukeeDepartmentofCityDevelopment.
• 4.
   GOING PUBLIC hanced funding; open-space pro- grams preserved 300000 acres from development and acquired and restored parkland, forests, and wildlife corridors. Economic incentives provided to developers encouraged brownfields cleanup and development, again using ex- isting infrastructure while im- proving distressed urban areas. Glendening is now out of of- fice, but the Office of Smart Growth has been retained by the current governor, Robert Ehrlich. Says Tregoning, if Erlich is like other governors who inherited Smart Growth initiatives from their predecessors, he will likely make these issues his own. New Jersey. Governor James Mc- Greevey recently made his 2003 State of the State speech about Smart Growth, focusing on infill (development that maximizes use of existing infrastructure) and re- vitalization. Claiming that each day the state loses 50 acres to sprawl, McGreevey pledged legal and zoning tools to control and manage growth.11 The governor’s Smart Growth checklist includes a cabinet-level Smart Growth Policy Council, a “Smart Growth September 2003, Vol 93, No. 9 | American Journal of Public Health Geller | Going Public | 1413  GOING PUBLIC  of forest land. Among the 100 largest cities in the United States, Portland was rated number one in meeting key Healthy People 2000 goals.8 “This achievement is not just about conventional preventive health care,” says Multnomah County Health De- partment Director Lillian Shirley, “but includes issues of housing, urban planning, and alternative transportation.”9 Public transit, mixed-use commu- nities, and Cinderella stories. Ac- cording to Smart Growth Amer- ica, transit-oriented development is an obvious way to integrate transportation and land-use plan- ning, since it clusters housing and commercial activities around stations. Advocates claim that such development boosts transit ridership and provides a reliable market base for local businesses. Cities such as Denver and Dallas have created transit-oriented, mixed-use communities, and the public seems to be responding with enthusiasm. Dallas has laid 44 miles of light rail, supporting 60000 rid- ers a day and spawning a trend in retail, residential, and office development around rail sta- tions, explained Jack Wierzenski, an assistant vice president at Dallas Area Rapid Transit. In Denver, whose metropolitan area continues to grow at a rapid pace, a light rail system connects suburbs from all direc- tions to the downtown, and a free shuttle bus runs the length of the downtown spine. A de- caying shopping mall known as Cinderella City has been trans- formed into a transit-oriented, mixed-use community where apartments sit atop office and retail space, all of which are within walking distance of the Englewood light rail stop. State Level Initiatives Maryland. In 2001, then–Mary- land Governor Parris Glendening helped put the state on the cutting edge of the Smart Growth move- ment, creating a cabinet-level po- sition that focused exclusively on transportation, land use, and growth issues, generating incen- tives to encourage Smart Growth, and signing legis- lation that prevented state funds from being used for infrastructure projects that induce sprawl. Maryland’s Office of Smart Growth serves as an information clearinghouse, developing outreach and education programs and assisting local offi- cials, developers, the news media, and citizen groups. Most impor- tantly, the office helps local juris- dictions, developers, and the pub- lic to prepare, finance, and develop projects that are consis- tent with Smart Growth policies. Glendening’s Community Legacy program has awarded $15.5 million in revitalization grants, funding projects in 40 communities. Says former Mary- land Smart Growth cabinet secre- tary Harriet Tregoning, “Where 80% of funds used to be used for building new schools, that per- centage is now used to repair ex- isting schools.” This type of reno- vation preserves green space and keeps schools close to residential centers. To fulfill his goal of doubling transit ridership by 2020, Glen- dening allocated $50 million and provided financial incentives such as discounted land near rail stations. These steps helped to encourage commercial develop- ment and safety improvements near stations and provided peo- ple the option of living near their workplace. Bicycle and pedes- trian initiatives received en- “ ” Neither the State nor local governments can afford to go it alone if we are to enhance the vitality of our communities and preserve the State’s most valuable forests and farmland. —Maryland Governor’s Office of Smart Growth11 CourtesyofOfficeofSmartGrowth, MarylandDeptofPlanning.
• 5.
   GOING PUBLIC munities with environmental problem solving and growth planning through community grants and projects. The agency has established best-management practices for such issues as soil erosion and wastewater treat- ment, and works with state offi- cials, city planners, and a range of advocacy and citizen groups on these problems. The most significant piece of federal Smart Growth legislation on the table is TEA-3, the third it- eration of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, es- tablished by Congress in 1991 and set for renewal in September 2003. Currently referred to as TEA-21, the law has the potential to be a good source of funding for transit, bikes, and pedestrians, but faces significant roadblocks. The American Road and Transporta- tion Builders Association wants increased funding of roads and highways, and President Bush’s budget request for the federal fis- cal year beginning October 1, 2003, calls for a 6% hike in high- way spending with no increase in federal transit spending. According to the Surface Trans- portation Policy Project, the states are not investing enough of their federal transportation dollars into protecting people who walk. While 12% of all traffic deaths are pedestrians (13.6% if bicy- clists are included), only 0.7% of federal transportation construc- tion, operations, and maintenance funds are spent to ensure a safe walking environment.12 Alongside numerous advocacy groups, the fight for increased transit resources will be led by James Oberstar, a member of the House Transportation Committee, and Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer, who are both push- ing to preserve and expand bicy- cle and pedestrian programs, mass transit, and air quality mea- sures. Blumenauer has met with citizens in hundreds of communi- ties throughout the United States as part of his Livable Communi- ties Task Force, discussing ways to improve land use, the environ- ment, and transportation. With Representatives Oberstar, Peter DeFazio, and Edward Kennedy, Blumenauer founded the Con- gressional Bike Caucus, a biparti- san group that provides congres- sional leadership to bicycle and pedestrian advocates. THE FUTURE OF SMART GROWTH Although the movement has gathered a strong following, not everyone is convinced that Smart Growth works. The organization Demographia, which refers to it- self as “pro-choice, with respect to urban development,” argues that Smart Growth in fact limits choice and opportunity. The group asserts that initiatives such as urban growth boundaries and “development impact fees” in- crease housing costs, thereby re- ducing home ownership, espe- cially for minorities. They are also skeptical about transit initia- tives, contending that outside of downtown corridors, there is little that transit can do to reduce traf- fic congestion, and that, for the most part, public transportation is unable to compete with the con- venience of the automobile.13 Peter Gordon, professor of planning and economics at the University of Southern Califor- nia’s School of Urban Planning and Development, agrees, argu- ing that a major shift to transit is highly improbable, and predict- ing that higher densities will ac- tually bring more congestion. Challenging the presumption that “suburbanites are living lives of quiet desperation and isolation,” Gordon insists that citizens are voting for spacious living, “so by all means let them have what they are voting for.”14 Smart Growth measures are still relatively new and untested. Many are hesitant to invest in something new. “If it’s not bro- ken, why fix it? Behavior is hard to change,” says Rich Killingsworth, citing problems such as outdated building and zoning codes and cautious devel- opment communities. Opinions on Smart Growth’s efficacy still vary, but it is clearly becoming a part of the urban re- vitalization landscape. One of its greatest assets may be its scope, encompassing so many elements and disciplines, and offering com- American Journal of Public Health | September 2003, Vol 93, No. 91414 | Going Public | Geller  GOING PUBLIC  “ ” If you want to build in over-developed or protected areas we will do everything in our power to stop you. However, if you want to build and grow consistent with Smart Growth, then we will help you get regulatory approvals quickly and make sure the infra- structure is there to support you. —New Jersey Governor James McGreevey11 Shield” calling for the state attor- ney general to intervene when Smart Growth planning is chal- lenged, and financial mecha- nisms that will enable conserva- tion. McGreevey has vowed to preserve 20000 acres of farm- land a year, while upgrading 200 local parks, creating at least 2 state parks, and planting 100000 trees.11 He has also called for invigorating urban centers, older suburbs, and rural towns by redeveloping brown- fields and steering infrastructure spending to these areas. Federal Level Initiatives The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has be- come a Smart Growth advocate, offering resources to help com- Before and after images of a brown- field renovation: the American Can Company, Baltimore, Md. CourtesyofMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment.
• 6.
   GOING PUBLIC munities a range of choices ac- cording to their needs. For some, it might be extensive transit de- velopment to ease traffic conges- tion; for others, it might be a “safe routes to school” program that puts parents at ease and en- ables children to walk every day. By emphasizing and enabling such elements as increased physi- cal activity, healthier environ- ments, and more interactive com- munities, Smart Growth has enormous potential to enhance the health of populations. Cer- tainly, the public health field plays a vital role in defining and evaluating the indicators of Smart Growth that actually do improve health. Advocates like Smart Growth America’s Barbara McCann and James Corless of the Surface Transportation Policy Project em- phasize the need to get citizens involved and show them that Smart Growth is about choice in housing, transportation, and lifestyle. Smart Growth comes in all shapes and sizes, says Corless; “People are ready for it—it just needs to be presented in the right way.” About the Author Alyson L. Geller is a freelance health jour- nalist who has written for consumer and academic publications. Acknowledgments The author acknowledges the generous contributions of Catherine Staunton, MD, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Barbara McCann, director of information and research, Smart Growth America; James Corless, senior campaign director for the Surface Transportation Policy Project; and Rich Killingsworth, di- rector of Active Living By Design. Judy Corbett, executive director of the Local Government Commission, contributed substantial information on the evolution of Smart Growth and the public health community’s role therein. References 1. Smart Growth America. Measur- September 2003, Vol 93, No. 9 | American Journal of Public Health Geller | Going Public | 1415 ing sprawl and its impact: the charac- ter and consequences of urban expan- sion. Available at: http://www. smartgrowthamerica.org/sprawlindex/ sprawlexecsum.html. Accessed Febru- ary 7, 2003. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Obesity trends, 1985–2001. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/maps/ index.htm. Accessed February 13, 2003. 3. Wei M, Kampert JB, Barlow CE, et al. Relationship between low cardiores- piratory fitness and mortality in normal- weight, overweight, and obese men. JAMA. 1999;282:1547–1553. 4. Blair SN, Kampert JB, Kohl HW 3rd, et al. Influences of cardiorespira- tory fitness and other precursors on car- diovascular disease and all-cause mor- tality in men and women. JAMA. In press. 5. Surface Transportation Policy Proj- ect website. Transportation and Health. Available at http://www.transact.org/ library/factsheets/health.asp. Accessed March 13, 2003. 6. US Dept of Transportation, Na- tional Highway Traffic Safety Adminis- tration. Fatality Analysis Reporting Sys- tem 2001. Available at: http:// www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov. Accessed March 17, 2003. 7. 1998–2000 Biennial Report. Port- land Office of Transportation. Portland, Ore. 8. Healthy People 2010: Understand- ing and Improving Health. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2001. Also available “ ” Communities across America…have stepped up to the plate by funding transit at record levels. At a time when the demand for increased investment in transit is so clearly evident at the local level, the federal government must continue [its commitment] to support those efforts of our state and local partners. —Letter signed by a bipartisan group of senators, urging President Bush to increase mass transit spending15 at: http://web.health.gov/healthypeople/ document. Accessed August 12, 2003. 9. Shirley L. Urban parks: what’s health got to do with it? Oregonian. October 28, 2002: C7. 10. Maryland Governor’s Office of Smart Growth: mission statement. Avail- able at: http://www.smartgrowth.state. md.us/mission.htm. Accessed February 12, 2003. 11. Governor James McGreevey. State of the State speech. January 14, 2003. Available at: http://www.state.nj.us/ sos2003/speech_text.html. Accessed February 27, 2003. 12. Senators urge Bush administration to provide resources for public transit systems; Congress set to reauthorize transit and highway programs in 2003. Available at: http://www.tea3.org/ news.asp?id=28. Accessed February 4, 2003. 13. The growing smart legislative guidebook: model legislation threatens opportunity. Available at: http://www. demographia.com/db-grsmart.htm. Ac- cessed March 3, 2003. 14. Reason online: free minds and free markets. Interview with Peter Gordon. Available at: http://reason.com/9806/ fe.gordon.shtml. Accessed March 3, 2003. 15. New Jersey Future 2003: a check- list for smarter growth in 2003. Avail- able at: www.njfuture.org/newsletter/ 2003q1.pdf. Accessed March 3, 2003. Light rail in Baltimore, Md. CourtesyofOfficeofSmartGrowth,MarylandDepartmentofPlanning.