Table 1 - Alleged Negative and Positive Impacts of Sprawl

Table 1 - Alleged Negative and Positive Impacts of Sprawl

Excel | CSV

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.