United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

April 1999 COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT

Extent of Federal

Influence on “Urban

Sprawl” Is Unclear

GAO/RCED-99-87

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-280699 

April 30, 1999

The Honorable James M. Jeffords

United States Senate

The Honorable Carl Levin

United States Senate

The Honorable Diana L. DeGette

House of Representatives

The Honorable Max S. Baucus

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Environment and

 Public Works

United States Senate

After World War II, people began moving in large numbers from the

central cities to the suburbs. By 1950, the rate of growth nationally was 10

times higher in the suburbs than in the central cities, and by 1970, the

United States, for the first time in history, counted more suburbanites than

city dwellers or farmers. These demographic changes were accompanied,

on the one hand, by an increase in homeownership and opportunities for

new businesses and, on the other hand, by the sprawling, low-density,

fragmented, automobile-dependent development that is commonly

referred to as “urban sprawl.”1

Concerned about the contribution of federal programs and policies to

“urban sprawl” while recognizing that land-use planning has traditionally

been a function of state and local governments, you asked us to (1) review

research on the origins and implications of “urban sprawl,” (2) describe

the evidence that exists on the influence of current federal programs and

policies on “urban sprawl,” and (3) identify regulatory review and

coordination mechanisms evaluating and mitigating the effects of federal

actions on “urban sprawl.” This report, the first of a series examining the

implications of federal policies on negative patterns of growth, is based on

a review of research and discussions with experts in the public, private,

and educational communities on growth-related issues. We did not

independently assess the validity of the research. We focused on specific

federal programs and policies, including those reflecting decisions on

1

The term “urban sprawl” is, in our view, the clearest of the alternatives we considered using in this

report to refer to outward growth. Therefore, despite its negative connotations, we decided to use the

term.

Page 1 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

spending, taxation, regulation, and the location of federal facilities.

Information about each program and policy we reviewed appears in

appendix I.

Results in Brief The growth of suburbs outside central cities, which accelerated after

World War II, had both positive and negative effects, according to the

research we reviewed. Suburban growth began in response to a number of

social, economic, demographic, and technological factors, including the

postwar population boom; the increased availability of suburban housing;

and the greater use of passenger cars, which allowed greater access to

suburban areas. Historically, federal housing and highway programs

contributed to suburban growth because the availability of housing loans

facilitated suburban homeownership and federal highway spending

financed the expansion of highways that gave consumers access to

suburban locations. When suburban growth means the rapid spread of

fragmented, low-density, automobile-dependent development on the

fringes of cities, some observers see such growth as “urban sprawl.”

Despite many studies on the costs and implications of “urban sprawl,” so

many factors contribute to it and the relationships among these factors are

so complex that researchers have had great difficulty isolating the impact

of individual factors. As a result, researchers have generally been unable

to assign a cost or level of influence to individual factors, including

particular federal programs or policies. Research has identified positive

effects of “urban sprawl,” such as increased homeownership and new,

sometimes lower-cost locations for businesses. At the same time, research

points to negative effects, such as higher infrastructure costs in

low-density areas, increased traffic congestion, and reduced green space.

Some experts believe—and anecdotal evidence exists to support their

belief—that the federal government currently influences “urban sprawl”

through spending for specific programs, taxation, and regulation, among

other things, but few studies document the extent of the federal influence.

According to some experts, the role of federal programs and policies

occurs in combination with a number of factors, including market forces

and local land-use decisions. Studies that attempt to quantify the link

between highway spending and “urban sprawl,” for example,

acknowledge the difficulty in isolating the influence of highway spending

from that of other factors, such as market influences. For instance, a 1995

Transportation Research Board report states that transportation

investments influence the location of growth but do not alone cause

Page 2 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

growth.2 Anecdotal evidence suggests that investment in water and sewer

systems may lead to residential and commercial growth in outer areas

because such investment facilitates development. We found little

quantitative research linking federal assistance for water and sewer

systems with “urban sprawl.” Tax code provisions that subsidize

homeowners through the mortgage interest and property tax deductions

are believed by some researchers to provide an incentive for purchasing

more expensive housing that is sometimes located outside urban areas.

The tax policy research we reviewed did not directly estimate the effects

of existing tax policies on “urban sprawl.” Local officials have suggested

that federal regulations implementing the Clean Air Act encourage

industrial development in greenfields, rather than settled areas, because

the act restricts emissions in areas that do not meet air quality

standards—typically urban areas. However, studies indicate that

environmental regulations play a small role in decisions about the location

of businesses. The shortage of quantitative evidence does not mean that

federal programs and policies do not have an impact on “urban sprawl;” it

simply means that the level of the federal influence is difficult to

determine.

Executive orders governing the federal regulatory review process do not

directly address “urban sprawl,” but coordination among federal agencies

on growth-related issues is increasing. Furthermore, the executive orders

establish basic principles for agencies to follow when reviewing and

approving regulations, and specific laws, such as the National

Environmental Policy Act and the Farmland Protection Policy Act, offer

federal agencies an opportunity to consider the potential influence of their

actions on growth. Federal agencies coordinate their activities primarily in

specific program areas, but coordination across agencies is increasing. For

example, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, a federal

advisory committee, was created in 1993 to address development and

growth issues by encouraging policies to support collaboration among

federal, state, and local government agencies; public interest and

community groups; and businesses. The Council issued a report in 1996

that included goals and indicators for developing sustainable communities,

such as decreasing traffic congestion and increasing urban green space.

The Council plans to issue another report in the spring of 1999 presenting

policy recommendations. In addition, the Environmental Protection

Agency initiated a Smart Growth Network to share information among

federal agencies and other interested parties on growth-related issues. At

2

Expanding Metropolitan Highways: Implications for Air Quality and Energy Use, National Research

Council, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 245 (1995).

Page 3 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

this time, coordination efforts are too new and the research is too limited

to determine how the federal government can better assist state and local

governments in managing growth.

Background Several features of “urban sprawl” are widely recognized, but experts on

growth management and related issues have not arrived at a common

definition. Experts have difficulty agreeing on a definition because “urban

sprawl” has frequently been described as being “in the eye of the

beholder.” Research often characterizes this form of growth as

low-density, auto-dependent development that rapidly spreads on the

fringes of existing communities, often consuming agricultural and

environmentally sensitive lands. Research also describes “urban sprawl”

as random development characterized by poor accessibility among related

land uses, such as housing, jobs, and services like schools and hospitals.

Sprawling development can occur in rural and urban areas and can

encompass residential, commercial, and industrial zones. Some research

also makes a connection between “urban sprawl” and the declining fiscal

condition of central cities. Still other research shows that as the outer

rings of suburbs have grown over time, the inner rings have sometimes

begun to decline, much as the central cities have done. As figure 1 shows,

the percentage of people living outside the central city in the 10 largest

U.S. metropolitan areas increased from about 40 percent in 1950 to about

60 percent in 1990.

Page 4 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

Figure 1: Percentage of Population in

10 Largest Metropolitan Areas, as

Defined in 1990, Living Inside and

Outside the Central City, 1950-90

Percent of population

0

20

40

60

80

100

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

Years

Inside central city

Outside central city

Notes: The 10 largest metropolitan areas in 1990 were the New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San

Francisco, Philadelphia, Detroit, Boston, Washington, D.C., Dallas, and Houston metropolitan

areas. The metropolitan areas for each decade are considered on the basis of their geography

during that decade.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Since land-use planning is usually considered a state and local

responsibility, the federal government has had limited involvement in

regulating land use. According to the literature, the federal government

has not adopted a comprehensive national growth plan or land-use policy

to balance the nation’s competing needs for economic growth,

environmental conservation, and urban reinvestment. However, the

federal government does influence land-use decisions through federal

laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which

requires federal agencies to prepare environmental impact statements, and

federal court decisions.

Page 5 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

The states have inherent powers to regulate land use and have generally

delegated certain authorities, including zoning, to local governments. Even

so, a state can influence how and where growth will occur by using

permitting, funding, and construction decisions to encourage or

discourage the reuse of existing infrastructure or the revitalization of

downtown areas. At least 11 states have passed growth management

legislation since 1985. Some of the legislation3

 allows states and/or local

governments to purchase lands to preserve farmland and natural

resources, provides financial incentives to encourage companies and

individuals to move to downtown areas, and restricts development to

specific areas.

The states generally confer primary authority for land-use decisions on

local governments. Traditionally, local governments have used their

zoning authority to regulate land uses. More recently, some local

governments have used impact fees and other techniques to manage

growth. Local governments are also participating in regional governance

structures and other types of partnerships to oversee land-use planning

and influence the spending of resources.

Origins and

Implications of

“Urban Sprawl”

Suburban development evolved as a result of a combination of social,

economic, demographic and technological factors. For example,

innovations such as the automobile opened access to suburban areas, and

networking and computers have made individuals and businesses more

mobile. Some studies have identified the positive effects of suburban

development—opportunities for homeownership and new, sometimes

lower-cost locations for businesses—while others focus on the negative

effects. Among those cited are the diversion of economic resources from,

and the growth of poverty in, the central cities; the loss of green space and

higher public costs for infrastructure in the suburbs; and the steady

increase in traffic congestion.

Several Interrelated

Factors Contributed to the

Origins of “Urban Sprawl”

America’s largest cities underwent dramatic demographic changes during

the second half of this century. The literature cites a combination of social,

economic, and demographic factors that historically contributed to

suburban growth and created a framework for the growth patterns that

continue today. For example, during the 1940s, city populations exploded

as millions of people moved from rural areas to metropolitan areas

3

For example, in 1997, Maryland passed legislation enacting the Rural Legacy Program, which is

designed, among other things, to establish greenbelts of forests and farms around rural communities

and preserve critical habitats for native plants and wildlife.

Page 6 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

seeking employment. By the 1950s, much of the housing in these cities was

old and overcrowded, and the country was experiencing a population

boom that, coupled with rapidly rising household incomes, intensified the

desires of many households to live in bigger homes on larger lots. By the

mid-1960s, an immense increase in housing and other construction

occurred in suburban areas. According to researchers, the Federal

Housing Administration’s (FHA) single-family homeownership program

increased the availability of long-term housing loans while the program’s

strict construction standards and requirement that neighborhoods be

homogeneous (segregated) ensured that most FHA loans would be made

for homes in the suburbs. In addition, local governments contributed to

“urban sprawl” by encouraging low-density development through zoning

laws and subdivision regulations.

During the 1950s and 1960s, two additional factors—the movement of

African-Americans into formerly white city neighborhoods and, in some

cities, court-ordered busing to achieve racial integration in the public

schools—caused many middle-class white families to move out from the

central cities, according to the research. In some cities, the exodus of the

white middle class was followed by the withdrawal of middle-class

minority families and viable businesses. Concentrations of poverty and

crime rates increased, and the quality of the public schools declined. Some

researchers believe that this exodus may inadvertently have been given

additional impetus by such federal programs as public housing, which

destabilized many urban neighborhoods, removing older housing and

replacing it with cheaply constructed and poorly maintained public

housing developments inhabited by the poorest of the poor.

Technology has also played a unique role in facilitating suburban

development by giving people more choice in where they live and work.

Transportation innovations—beginning with the steam ferry, cable and

horse-drawn cars, commuter and elevated railroads, and the electric

streetcar—initially improved access to new towns surrounding large cities;

this access accelerated greatly with the advent and increased use of the

automobile. Researchers have pointed to the historic role played by

federal highway subsidies in contributing to “urban sprawl.” The

construction of highways facilitated growth by providing access to

suburban areas. In addition, the mechanization of farm production led

indirectly to migration from rural to urban areas. More recently, high

technology networks and machines, such as the Internet, computers,

faxes, and cellular phones, have made both individuals and businesses

more mobile than ever before.

Page 7 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

Experts Cite Positive

and Negative

Implications of

“Urban Sprawl”

Experts have identified both positive and negative implications of “urban

sprawl.” On the positive side, according to experts, homeownership has

increased because housing costs are lower in outer-ring suburbs;

businesses have more, and sometimes cheaper, locations to choose from;

and consumers may have access to lower prices at suburban discount

stores. But experts also said that “urban sprawl” has diverted economic

development from, and increased the concentration of poverty within, the

central cities; reduced green space; increased the public costs of new

infrastructure in low-density areas; and increased traffic congestion.

Appendix II provides a summary of the factors listed in a 1998 synthesis of

literature on the topic4

 and shows whether the studies agreed on whether

each factor exists and has been significantly linked to “urban sprawl.”

The costs associated with “urban sprawl” have also received

considerable attention. For example, an Office of Technology Assessment

study examining the implications of technological changes in metropolitan

areas analyzed whether “urban sprawl” pays its own way or is subsidized.5

 The costs were divided into direct costs, such as on-site development

costs or the costs of neighborhood services available to new developments

exclusively, and indirect costs, such as the impact of suburban

development on air and water quality and the costs of travel. According to

the study, the research suggests that sprawling development “costs more

than compact development, and that some of that cost is subsidized.”

Who actually pays for these subsidies is unclear. According to the study,

the subsidies are sometimes a combination of local, state, and federal

government resources. In other cases, the costs are subsidized by central

cities or nearby, older suburbs that are experiencing the negative

implications of “urban sprawl” themselves. A 1997 study on the costs and

benefits of “urban sprawl” concluded that under a scenario of controlled

growth, citizens could reduce land consumption by 60 percent and road

building by 25 percent.6

 On the other hand, a 1990 study on growth

management noted that controls on local growth tend to increase housing

prices.7

 In addition, a 1998 study on how “urban sprawl” has affected

Michigan concluded that, in terms of costs, urbanization is not threatening

4

Robert W. Burchell et al., Costs of Sprawl Revisited: The Evidence of Sprawl’s Negative and Positive

Impacts, National Research Council, Transportation Research Board (1998).

5

The Technological Reshaping of Metropolitan America, Office of Technology Assessment

(OTA-ETI-643, Sept. 1995).

6

Robert W. Burchell, “Economic and Fiscal Costs (and Benefits) of Sprawl,” The Urban Lawyer

(Spring 1997).

7

Benjamin Chinitz, “Growth Management: Good for the Town, Bad for the Nation?” Journal of the

American Planning Association (Winter 1990), pp. 3-8.

Page 8 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

Michigan’s agricultural industry, the negative effects of development on

local infrastructure costs are exaggerated, and higher residential densities

may increase pollution levels.8

 Overall, however, so many factors

contribute to “urban sprawl” and are so closely interrelated that

researchers have found it extremely difficult to isolate the cost or

influence of individual factors—including those relating to federal

programs and policies.

Some Believe That

Selected Federal

Programs and Policies

Influence “Urban

Sprawl,” but the

Extent of the

Influence Is Unclear

Some experts believe—and anecdotal evidence exists to support their

belief—that the federal government influences “urban sprawl” through

spending, taxation, regulation, and decisions about the location of federal

facilities; however, limited data are available to document and quantify the

extent of the federal influence. While one noted expert said that “there

aren’t many federal policies that induce sprawl,” others believe that the

role of federal programs and policies is more piecemeal and incremental in

nature, facilitating “urban sprawl” when combined with other factors,

such as market forces and local zoning.9

 Some information exists on

where federal spending is occurring for highway and water and sewer

programs, but data are not always geographically specific enough to

capture spending in suburban areas, making it difficult to analyze the

federal influence. Few studies use quantitative data to demonstrate a

direct link between “urban sprawl” and federal spending, exclusive of

other influences. The tax policy studies we reviewed do not directly

estimate whether tax policies, such as the home mortgage interest

deduction and property tax deductions for owner-occupied housing, affect

the direction and magnitude of “urban sprawl.” Local officials allege that

federal regulations implementing the Clean Air Act contribute to “urban

sprawl,” but a body of quantitative evidence indicates that environmental

regulations play a small role in businesses’ decisions about where to

locate. Some experts believe that the location of federal and postal

facilities plays a significant role in “urban sprawl;” however, studies have

not been conducted to show the impact of the location of federal and

postal facilities on “urban sprawl.”

8

Samuel R. Staley, “Urban Sprawl” and the Michigan Landscape: A Market-Oriented Approach,

Mackinac Center for Public Policy (Oct. 1998).

9

Growth Management Planning and Research Clearinghouse, U. of Washington, A Literature Review of

Community Impacts and Costs of Urban Sprawl, National Trust for Historic Preservation (Sept. 1993),

p. 47.

Page 9 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

The Impact of Federal

Spending Programs

on “Urban Sprawl”

Varies

Experts and much of the research agree that federal spending by the

Department of Transportation for the Interstate Highway System—in

combination with other factors such as population growth, rising personal

incomes, and increased automobile ownership—supported the expansion

of metropolitan areas by improving access to suburban locations. For

example, a Transportation Research Board study identified evidence

indicating that funding for the Interstate Highway System improved access

to developable land on the fringes of urban areas, thus supporting

low-density development.10 Another Transportation Research Board report

noted that highway access, though necessary to support decentralization,

is not the only factor responsible for growth.11 The Federal Highway

Administration collects federal highway obligation data by type of highway

improvement, but these data are not detailed enough to distinguish overall

spending in suburban areas from spending in urban areas. Federal

Highway Administration officials said their reporting system reflects

federal spending by the legislated federal-aid designations—rural, urban,

small urban, and urbanized—and cannot identify spending in suburban

areas because suburban development can occur in any of the population

areas. Federal highway data show that the federal share of highway capital

outlays has been between 41 and 46 percent since 1987, but Federal

Highway Administration officials emphasize that almost all highway

projects are selected by state and local decisionmakers. Also, according to

Federal Highway Administration officials, the 1998 Transportation Equity

Act for the 21st Century increased metropolitan planning organizations’

already high level of flexibility to fund transportation projects that best

meet locally determined goals.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that investments in water and sewer systems

lead to residential and commercial growth in outer areas because these

investments facilitate development. However, we found little research

linking the federal assistance provided through the eight major federal

water and sewer programs that we reviewed to “urban sprawl.”12 We did

find analyses that related federal spending for water and sewer systems to

economic growth, but not to “urban sprawl” specifically. In addition,

some federal agency staff said that their programs had a past or present

influence on growth, while other officials said that water or sewer projects

allow for future population growth. The five federal agencies that

10Consequences of the Development of the Interstate Highway System for Transit, National Research

Council, Transportation Research Board, Research Results Digest No. 21 (Aug. 1997).

11See footnote 2.

12See app. I for more information on the programs and our criteria for selecting them.

Page 10 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

administer the eight programs we reviewed maintain varying types of

spending data for their programs, making it difficult to summarize the

distribution of federal funding for these programs geographically or by the

type of construction (new versus upgrade).

Historically, researchers have cited FHA’s single-family homeownership

program as contributing to “urban sprawl” through its strict construction

and design standards and its requirement that neighborhoods be

homogeneous, which ensured that most FHA loans would be made for

homes located in the suburbs. We did not find any recent research

showing that the single-family housing program encourages housing

development in suburban areas over central cities. The goal of FHA’s

current single-family mortgage insurance program is to increase

homeownership regardless of the location of the home. In light of this

focus, FHA’s single-family mortgage insurance program is an important tool

to help first-time buyers attain homeownership and to encourage

homeownership in underserved areas.13 According to a Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) publication based on 1996 Home

Mortgage Disclosure Act data, 46 percent of FHA’s loans were made in

central cities while 37 percent of the conforming conventional market’s

loans were for central city properties.14

Some researchers have described the historic contribution of federal

public housing policies to the concentration of poverty in central cities

and the movement of the middle class to suburban areas. To counteract

poverty in central cities and give low-income renters mobility, the

Congress established the Section 8 voucher and certificate programs to

provide tenant-based rental assistance. Using a voucher or certificate, a

low-income tenant can look for suitable housing anywhere in the United

States where a housing authority is administering a tenant-based program.

According to a 1998 article by an Urban Institute expert on the program,

the program has the potential to help families move to healthier

neighborhoods, but several obstacles currently limit the mobility of

Section 8 voucher and certificate holders.15 For example, the local public

housing authorities that manage the programs lack strong incentives to

13An underserved area is a metropolitan census tract in which (1) the median income is less than or

equal to 90 percent of the local area’s median income or (2) the minority population is greater than or

equal to 30 percent of the total population and the median income is less than or equal to 120 percent

of the local area’s median income.

14U.S. Housing Market Conditions, HUD, Office of Policy Development and Research (Aug. 1998).

15Margery Austin Turner, “Moving Out of Poverty: Expanding Mobility and Choice Through

Tenant-Based Housing Assistance,” Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1998), pp. 373-394.

Page 11 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

encourage mobility and may lack resources to assist tenants seeking

apartments. Ineffective local program management also discourages

landlords in suburban areas from participating in the program.

Some agencies are implementing programs or taking steps to address

growth-related issues associated with their missions. For example, the

Federal Highway Administration administers the Congestion Mitigation

and Air Quality Improvement Program, which funds transportation

projects that help urban areas improve air quality. The Department of

Commerce’s Economic Development Administration includes among its

strategic funding priorities the consideration of sustainable development

and the reuse of brownfields.16 In addition, the Farmland Protection

Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),

allows for the purchase of conservation easements17 or other interests on

land that would limit the conversion of prime and unique farmland to

nonagricultural uses, such as residential development. In fiscal year 1998,

USDA obligated $17.3 million under this program to preclude the conversion

of about 46,000 acres with an estimated easement value of about

$96 million. Nineteen states are participating in the program, including

Michigan, which expects to protect an estimated 1,728 acres, and Vermont,

which expects to protect an estimated 6,830 acres.

Very Little Research

Exists on the Impact

of Selected Tax

Policies on “Urban

Sprawl”

Tax code provisions that subsidize homeowners through the mortgage

interest and property tax deductions are believed by some researchers to

provide an incentive to purchase the more expensive housing that is

sometimes located outside urban areas.18 Very little research has focused

specifically on how preferential tax treatment for homeowners affects the

direction or the magnitude of “urban sprawl.” Some studies present

statistics they believe imply such a relationship, but no one has directly

estimated the effects of tax preferences on “urban sprawl.” Studies of

housing tax preferences have focused mainly on the effects of tax

preferences on the quantity of housing purchased, the price of housing, the

homeownership rate, the tendency of households to move, and federal tax

expenditures rather than on the location of the new housing. As discussed

in appendix I, researchers broadly agree that removing these tax

16Brownfield sites are abandoned, idled, or underused industrial and commercial facilities where

expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.

17A conservation easement is a deed restriction that landowners voluntarily place on their property to

protect resources such as productive agricultural land or wildlife habitat.

18The location of a home is not a condition that affects a homeowner’s ability to use the mortgage

interest deduction.

Page 12 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

preferences would reduce both housing purchases and the price of

housing. However, researchers have not reached consensus on the

magnitude of these effects.

Some supporters of new estate tax provisions providing exclusions for

qualified family-owned business interests and qualified conservation

easements believe that these provisions encourage the continued

operation of family farms and are likely to increase donations of land for

conservation purposes. A study by USDA’s Economic Research Service

provides some support for such claims. The study notes that the new

exclusion for qualified family-owned businesses “. . .should reduce, if not

eliminate, the need to sell farm assets to pay federal estate taxes. . . .”19

The study further notes that the exclusion for land subject to conservation

easement is likely to benefit a relatively small number of landowners.

The research also addresses the effect of changes in tax provisions

covering employer-paid parking benefits. While some studies indicate that

employer-paid parking, employer-provided incentives for ridesharing, and

high-occupancy-vehicle lanes may decrease the probability that an

employee will drive to work alone, a 1991 study on commuting incentives

notes that factors other than commuting costs are more important in

explaining patterns of commuting.20

Environmental Regulations

Play a Small Role in

Decisions About Locating

Businesses

While the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were enacted to improve

the quality of the nation’s air and water, some have stated that they have

unintentionally contributed to “urban sprawl.” For example, local

governments have claimed that the Clean Air Act’s regulations restricting

emissions in areas that do not meet air quality standards—typically urban

areas—contribute to decisions by businesses not to locate in central cities.

However, we did not find any quantitative research supporting claims that

environmental regulations governing air quality and water quality

encourage growth in undeveloped areas rather than in existing urban and

suburban areas. In fact, as discussed further in appendix I, a body of

research shows that environmental regulations have played a small role in

businesses’ choices of location.

19James Monke and Ron Durst, The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997: Provisions for Farmers and Rural

Communities, USDA, Economic Research Service, Agriculture Economic Report No. 764 (July 1998),

p. 18.

20Genevieve Giuliano and Kenneth A. Small, “Is the Journey to Work Explained by Urban Structure?”

Urban Studies, Vol. 30, No. 9 (Nov. 1993), pp. 1485-1500.

Page 13 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

Because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) views “urban

sprawl” as an environmental problem, it has initiated programs such as

the Clean Air/Brownfields Partnership Pilot to improve air quality while

encouraging the redevelopment of cities and sustainable new

development. EPA started the pilot program because “it believes that

locating development on brownfield sites within the city as opposed to

greenfield sites in the surrounding areas has a net benefit for the

environment, including cleaner air.” By documenting the air quality

benefits of brownfield and urban redevelopment, EPA hopes to offer

communities greater flexibility in meeting federal clean air standards

while still meeting economic development needs. Baltimore, Chicago, and

Dallas are participating in the pilot program.

Executive Orders on

Locating Federal Buildings

Encourage Consideration

of Central Business

Districts, but No Studies

Quantify Effects of

Decisions About Location

Some experts believe that the location of federal and postal facilities plays

a significant role in the economic viability of downtown urban areas.

Executive orders covering the location of federal facilities require federal

agencies to give first consideration to central business areas and historic

properties when deciding where to locate. However, we did not find any

studies quantifying the impact of the location of federal and postal

facilities on “urban sprawl.” The lack of research in this area is due, in

large part, to a lack of data. The General Services Administration (GSA),

responsible for administering the policy on location for 8,073 federal

facilities, and the Postal Service, responsible for administering the policy

on location for 34,377 owned and leased postal facilities, are not required

to, and do not, centrally collect data that could be used to show whether

federal facilities are relocating to suburban areas.

In response to our request, GSA provided data on active building leases21

with effective dates between October 1, 1995, and November 13, 1998.

These data show that during the period analyzed, federally leased facilities

were, for the most part, located in central cities, not in suburban areas. As

shown in figure 2, almost half of all leased facilities were located in central

business districts. Furthermore, of the leased facilities that were located

outside central business districts, 91 percent were located within the

central city limits.22 According to GSA’s data, the two most common

reasons provided by agencies for not choosing a central business district

21For buildings in cities where GSA leases 100,000 square feet or more of rental space.

22This calculation does not include 129 of the total 642 leased facilities that were located outside the

central business district because they were not located within a metropolitan statistical area. A

metropolitan statistical area is an area that includes at least one city with 50,000 or more inhabitants or

an urbanized area with a total metropolitan population of at least 100,000.

Page 14 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

location are that it (1) would conflict with the agency’s mission

(40 percent) or (2) would not fulfill special requirements (27 percent). For

example, the mission of the Immigration and Naturalization Service might

require that one of its offices be located adjacent to a major port.

According to GSA, data prior to 1995 were not readily available.

Figure 2: GSA’s Data on the Location

of Federal Buildings With Leases

Effective Between October 1, 1995, and

November 13, 1998

52% 45% Inside central business district

Outside central business district

3%

No data

Note: The 45 percent of buildings leased within the central business district represent

approximately 17 million square feet, the 52 percent outside the central business district

represent about 20 million square feet, and the remaining 3 percent represent about 0.5 million

square feet.

Although not required to do so, Postal Service officials have pledged to

comply with the executive orders applicable to federal facilities. However,

Postal Service officials said they collect data on the number of postal

facilities that relocate annually but do not collect data on how many

facilities relocate outside central cities. As a result, they could not provide

us with data that would indicate to what extent postal facilities have

relocated from central cities to suburban locations. Postal officials said

they explore every option for maintaining retail operations in downtown

locations and, in some cases, have retained retail operations in downtown

locations and moved distribution operations to different locations. While

the research includes anecdotal evidence of instances in which post office

Page 15 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

retail facilities have relocated from downtown locations in small towns,

Postal Service officials said that post offices are often the last facilities to

relocate from already empty downtowns. In response to heightened

sensitivity about the location of postal facilities, the Postal Service

recently issued regulations that establish procedures for notifying local

citizens and public officials of projects, as well as for soliciting and

considering community input, before making a final decision to expand an

existing facility, relocate to another existing building, or start new

construction.23 In February and March 1999, bills that include guidelines

for the relocation, closing, consolidation, or construction of post offices

were introduced in the House and Senate, respectively.

Federal Regulatory

Review Mechanisms

Do Not Directly

Address “Urban

Sprawl,” but

Coordination of

Growth-Related

Issues Is Increasing

Regulatory review mechanisms do not directly consider “urban sprawl,”

but several federal coordination efforts are addressing growth-related

issues. Executive orders establish basic principles for agencies to follow

when developing regulations, and specific laws require agencies to

consider the impact of federal actions. For instance, laws such as NEPA and

the Farmland Protection Policy Act offer federal agencies an opportunity

to consider how their actions influence growth. Coordination among

federal agencies on growth-related issues is increasing, but most agencies

continue to focus on specific program issues.

Regulatory Review

Mechanisms Do Not

Directly Address Growth

Issues

The executive orders governing the regulatory review process establish

basic principles for developing regulations but are not intended to address

“urban sprawl.” For example, Executive Order 12866, the order that

establishes the framework for regulatory planning and review, does not

specifically require federal agencies to consider how their actions will

influence patterns of growth. Instead, the order outlines general principles

that federal agencies should adhere to when developing new regulations

or considering whether to modify existing regulations. For example, these

principles require agencies to consider available alternatives to direct

regulation; prepare cost-benefit analyses when developing regulations;

and, whenever feasible, seek the views of appropriate state, local, and

tribal officials before imposing regulatory requirements. According to the

Acting Administrator of the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs—the office responsible for reviewing

23The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, as amended, already requires the Postal Service to consider

how a post office’s proposed closing or consolidation will affect the community served.

Page 16 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

significant regulatory actions24—the principles set forth in Executive

Order 12866 do not mention specific policy issues, such as “urban

sprawl,” because the principles were designed to be overarching and

applicable to all regulations. Executive Order 12875 supplements

Executive Order 12866 by requiring federal agencies to develop an

effective process for obtaining input when developing regulatory

proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.25 Nonetheless, as

part of its Sustainable Urban Environments effort, EPA plans to analyze

whether its regulations, policies, or programs create barriers or

disincentives that encourage sprawl or growth with negative

consequences.

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the indirect as well as the direct

effects of their actions on the environment and thus offers federal

agencies an opportunity to consider the influence of their actions on

growth. NEPA requires that a detailed environmental impact statement be

prepared for every major federal action that may significantly affect the

quality of the human environment. According to the act and its

implementing regulations, a statement must, among other things, present

the environmental effects of the proposed action—including the direct,

indirect, and cumulative effects. Although the Council on Environmental

Quality—which has issued regulations for implementing the procedural

provisions of NEPA—has not provided guidance beyond the implementing

regulations on determining indirect effects, EPA officials said that one of

the things that federal agencies may (but are not required to) consider is

the effect of a proposed action on “urban sprawl.” Officials responsible

for some of the water and sewer programs we reviewed said that they

considered growth-related issues, such as traffic congestion, as part of

their environmental assessment under NEPA.

The Farmland Protection Policy Act, enacted in 1981, gave the federal

government an opportunity to control “urban sprawl” by limiting the

extent to which its actions lead to the conversion of farmland. The act was

designed to minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to

the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to

nonagricultural uses. It requires federal agencies to consider the adverse

effects of federal programs on the preservation of farmland and alternative

actions that could lessen these effects. However, USDA did not issue

24Executive Order 12866 defines significant regulations as those that may (1) have an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million or more; (2) interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the

rights and obligations of recipients; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues.

25Unfunded mandates are laws that require an action on the part of another level of government

without providing funding.

Page 17 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

revised regulations to respond to changes made to the law in 1985 until

June 17, 1994, and, according to the Congressional Research Service and

others, the act has not been effectively implemented.

Coordination on

Growth-Related Issues Is

Increasing

Coordination among federal agencies and between federal agencies and

their state and local counterparts on growth-related issues has steadily

increased in recent years through the efforts of a federal advisory group

and EPA. The President’s Council on Sustainable Development, a

broad-based federal advisory committee established in 1993, is addressing

development and growth issues by encouraging policies to support

regional collaboration among federal, state, and local government

agencies; public interest and community groups; and businesses. The

Council issued an initial report in 199626 that included goals and indicators

of sustainable development—such as decreasing traffic congestion and

increasing urban green space—and recommendations for changes at all

levels of government that the Council believes must occur to achieve

sustainable development.27 On January 9, 1999, the Council released a

draft of its latest report to the President presenting recommendations in

four policy areas, including policies to build partnerships to strengthen

communities. The Council expects to finalize the report in the spring of

1999. EPA also initiated a Smart Growth network to share information

among federal agencies and other interested parties on issues related to

“urban sprawl.”

More narrowly focused federal interagency coordination efforts are

indirectly addressing growth-related issues. These include efforts such as

the Federal Interagency Working Group on Brownfields, the Community

Empowerment Board, and the Clean Water Action Plan. The Federal

Interagency Working Group on Brownfields, established in 1996, is a

forum for federal agencies to exchange information on brownfields-related

activities and to develop a coordinated national agenda on brownfields.

The federal brownfields program focuses on redeveloping abandoned

industrial and commercial sites. The Community Empowerment Board’s

mission is to facilitate interagency cooperation, engage its members and

agencies to ensure follow-through on commitments to local areas, and

assist HUD and USDA with urban and rural programs. The purpose of the

Clean Water Action Plan is to coordinate the work of EPA, USDA, and other

26Sustainable America: A New Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for

the Future, The President’s Council on Sustainable Development (Feb. 1996).

27Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present generation without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Page 18 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

federal agencies to improve and strengthen water pollution control efforts.

As part of this initiative, EPA is working with other agencies to identify

ways to support locally initiated smart growth efforts designed to improve

water quality.

In addition, Executive Order 12372 provides a vehicle for coordination

between the federal government and state and local governments. This

order, dated July 14, 1982, requires federal agencies to provide

opportunities for affected state and local officials to review proposed

federal financial assistance and direct federal development.28 Applicants

for the aid are expected to respond to concerns raised by state or local

agencies before the application is approved by the federal agency.

According to federal officials, concerns raised under this process

sometimes include growth-related issues.

Some experts on local growth issues have recommended that the federal

government use a regional approach to address local growth issues. For

instance, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, a Chicago-based

nonprofit group that supports community development issues linked to

ecological improvements, endorses a stronger linkage between the federal

government and metropolitan areas to solve regional problems. According

to a 1997 Center article, the federal government can help further regional

goals through leverage, or using its resources to enhance network

relationships; linkage, or connecting various community networks with

each other; and learning, or developing network capabilities for

communities to more effectively reach their goals.29 Proponents of

regionalism often cite the metropolitan planning organization structure

established by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of

1991 and continued with only modest refinements by the Transportation

Equity Act of the 21st Century as an example of how the federal

government is responding to local needs within regions.

Observations The extent of the federal influence on “urban sprawl” is not well

documented or quantified. The lack of agreement on a definition of

“urban sprawl,” coupled with the many interrelated factors that

contribute to this condition, makes it extremely difficult to isolate and

measure the influence of specific factors—including those relating to

federal programs and policies. The shortage of quantitative evidence does

28Executive Order 12372 was slightly amended by Executive Order 12416 in Apr. 1983.

29Clement Dinsmore, The Federal Role in Metropolitan Cooperation, Center for Neighborhood

Technology (1997).

Page 19 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

not mean that federal programs and policies do not have an impact on

“urban sprawl”; it simply means that the level of federal influence is

difficult to determine. Even so, growth-related considerations are

emerging as concerns for federal agencies. In addition, state and local

governments, which remain primarily responsible for land-use decisions,

are taking steps such as passing legislation to manage growth. Though all

levels of government are searching for ways to counter the negative

effects of “urban sprawl” and the unintended consequences of federal

policies, these efforts will be constrained by the limited availability of

quantitative data and the potential costs of identifying spending patterns.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the 13 federal agencies—USDA,

Commerce (for the Economic Development Administration), Defense (for

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), Energy, EPA, GSA, HUD, the Interior, the

Internal Revenue Service, Transportation, Treasury, the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), and the U.S. Postal Service—that

administer or oversee the programs and policies discussed in this report.

Commerce, EPA, and GSA provided letters commenting on the draft that

appear in appendixes III, IV, and V of the report, along with our detailed

responses. Energy, HUD, the Interior, the Army Corps of Engineers, the

Internal Revenue Service, and OMB provided clarifying language and

technical comments that we incorporated into the report as appropriate.

USDA, Treasury, and the U.S. Postal Service did not have any comments on

the report.

Commerce’s letter characterized the report as a fair and appropriate

representation of “urban sprawl” as it relates to the programs of the

Department’s Economic Development Administration (EDA). Commerce’s

additional comments focused primarily on EDA’s local planning process

and suggested that the process, which involves multicounty planning

organizations that assist EDA in establishing priorities for projects and

investments, could be viewed as another model for regionalism and a

means for the federal government to address local growth issues. Because

EDA’s local planning process was not cited as an example of regionalism in

the literature we reviewed or by the officials we interviewed, we did not

review the process and, therefore, did not add it as an example in the

report. See appendix III.

EPA agreed that most researchers have found that federal policies

contribute, to some degree, to sprawl, but that the magnitude and extent

of the federal contribution is difficult to quantify. EPA said we could have

Page 20 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

made a stronger case as to whether certain federal policies contribute to

lower-density development by grouping policies that have similar effects

in one section and noting that they promote low-density development. In

addition, EPA said that good data exist on some federal policies—such as

transportation—and their contribution to outward movement and that we

could highlight these areas. While we agree with EPA that there is research

on several federal programs and policies that may also contribute to

outward movement, the lack of research in other areas makes the

suggestion about grouping the policies in one section impractical. In

addition, creating such a section in the report might lead readers to

assume that the other policies do not contribute to lower-density

development when, in reality, research does not exist to prove the point

either way. Therefore, we did not make this change to the report. EPA was

also concerned about our discussion of the impact of outward growth and

said there is widespread agreement within the research community on the

effects of outward growth. We disagree with EPA that there is widespread

agreement. As summarized in appendix II of the report, a synthesis of

available literature found very little agreement on many alleged positive

and negative effects of “urban sprawl.” Because our intent was to provide

a balanced discussion of the positive and negative implications of “urban

sprawl” cited by experts, we revised the language in the report to make it

clear that statements about positive and negative effects are the views of

experts. See appendix IV.

GSA’s comments provided supplemental information on the agency’s

implementation of the executive orders governing the location of federal

facilities. We considered GSA’s comments on the implementation of the

executive orders but did not make any changes to the report because we

believe that the report contains sufficient information on these activities.

GSA also provided additional information on its activities that support the

Federal Livable Communities Agenda, introduced as part of the fiscal year

2000 budget. For example, among other things, GSA began a Good

Neighbor Program in 1996 that encourages the use of space on the ground

floor of federal buildings for restaurants and shops, as well as the use of

federal buildings and plazas for activities and events. In response to GSA’s

comments, we referred in appendix I of the report to GSA’s Good Neighbor

Program. See appendix V.

Along with their technical comments, HUD and OMB provided general

comments. HUD praised the report for recognizing the complex forces of

urban development and decline and for treating the subject with

objectivity. OMB thought the report implied that there is no role for the

Page 21 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

federal government with respect to “urban sprawl.” OMB said that a more

appropriate conclusion would be that “. . . the federal government’s

appropriate response may be to align its own actions in support of local

efforts and provide a broad array of tools to local communities so that

they can address issues in a comprehensive manner.” However, the report

does not state that there is no role for the federal government, but rather

observes that it is difficult, on the basis of existing research, to determine

what the federal role should be. We also describe the role of the federal

government in several initiatives.

Scope and

Methodology

To determine the history and implications of “urban sprawl,” we

conducted interviews and collected documentation and studies from the

literature on sprawl and growth-related issues. Specifically, we

interviewed officials from federal, state, and local governments;

educational institutions, such as the Albany Law School; and private

nonprofit organizations, such as the Brookings Institution and the National

Trust for Historic Preservation. We attended the National Governors’

Association’s Conference on Smart Growth, the Georgia

Conservancy/Urban Land Institute/Environmental Protection Agency

Smart Growth Conference, and the Second Annual Partners for Smart

Growth Conference. To better understand the implications of “urban

sprawl” at the local level, we attended round table discussions on sprawl

in Burlington, Vermont, and Denver, Colorado. We also reviewed key

studies such as The Costs of Sprawl Revisited by Robert Burchell and

others and Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States

by Kenneth Jackson. A selected bibliography of the studies we reviewed

appears at the end of this report.

To determine the evidence that exists on the federal influence on “urban

sprawl,” we interviewed officials and collected documentation and

studies from the federal agencies administering selected federal programs.

Specifically, we interviewed federal officials and gathered documentation

from the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, HUD, the Interior,

Transportation, and the Treasury and agencies including the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, EPA, GSA, the Internal Revenue Service, OMB, and the

U.S. Postal Service. We also drew on our own prior work on these

agencies.

To further identify quantitative evidence on how selected federal programs

and policies influence “urban sprawl,” we conducted literature searches

and interviewed and gathered studies from think tanks and advocacy

Page 22 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

groups. We searched economic and business literature to identify

quantitative research on the federal influence on sprawl. We did not

independently assess the validity of the research. We interviewed officials

and gathered studies from organizations such as the American Farmland

Trust, Brookings Institution, Fannie Mae, National Academy of Public

Administration, National Association of Home Builders, National

Association of Realtors, Natural Resources Defense Council, National

Trust for Historic Preservation, Northeast-Midwest Institute, Surface

Transportation Policy Project, Transportation Research Board, U.S.

Conference of Mayors, and Urban Institute. In addition, we employed J.M.

Pogodzinski, an economics professor from San Jose State University, to

identify and summarize research on the implications of federal tax policies

on sprawl. To identify major federal municipal water and sewer programs,

we also searched the June 1998 edition of the Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance. We did not include water and sewer programs in our listing if

they did not provide assistance for the new construction, upgrade,

operation, or maintenance of municipal systems or if they had not had at

least one annual funding or expenditure of approximately $50 million or

more since fiscal year 1995. We also conducted an electronic mail survey

of colleges and universities with urban/regional planning programs

accredited by the American Planning Association. We received responses

from 14 schools.

To identify regulatory review and coordination mechanisms related to

“urban sprawl,” we conducted interviews with and collected

documentation and studies from federal agencies. We reviewed executive

orders and the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations on NEPA.

We interviewed federal officials at HUD, EPA, and OMB. We also reviewed

reports published by the President’s Council on Sustainable Development

and the Center for Neighborhood Technology.

We performed our work from July 1998 through April 1999 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As arranged with your offices, unless you announce its contents earlier,

we plan no further distribution of this report until 5 days after the date of

this letter. At that time, we will send copies to Senator John Chafee,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works;

Representative Thomas Bliley, Jr., Chairman, and Representative John

Dingell, Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Commerce;

Representative Bud Shuster, Chairman, and Representative James L.

Page 23 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
B-280699 

Oberstar, Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure; and other appropriate congressional recipients. We are

also sending copies of this report to the Honorable Dan Glickman,

Secretary of Agriculture; the Honorable William M. Daley, Secretary of

Commerce; the Honorable William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense; the

Honorable Bill Richardson, Secretary of Energy; the Honorable Andrew

Cuomo, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; the Honorable

Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior; the Honorable Rodney E. Slater,

Secretary of Transportation; the Honorable Robert E. Rubin, Secretary of

the Treasury; the Honorable Charles O. Rossotti, Commissioner of Internal

Revenue; the Honorable Carol M. Browner, Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency; the Honorable David J. Barram,

Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration; the Honorable

William Henderson, Postmaster General; and the Honorable Jacob Lew,

Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be

made available to others upon request.

If you have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-7631. Major

contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Judy A. England-Joseph

Director, Housing and Community

 Development Issues

Page 24 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Page 25 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

The Influence of

Selected Federal

Policies and Programs

on “Urban Sprawl”

28

Agriculture 28

Environmental Protection 29

Housing 32

Location of Federal and Postal Facilities 34

Taxation 37

Transportation 41

Utility Pricing 44

Water-Sewer Infrastructure 47

Appendix II 

Summary of Studies

on Factors Related to

“Urban Sprawl”

53

Appendix III 

Comments From the

Department of

Commerce

58

GAO’s Comments 61

Appendix IV 

Comments From the

Environmental

Protection Agency

62

GAO’s Comments 64

Appendix V 

Comments From the

General Services

Administration

65

GAO’s Comments 68

Page 26 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Contents

Appendix VI 

Major Contributors to

This Report

69

Selected Bibliography 70

Tables Table I.1: Reasons for Locating Federal Facilities Outside the

Central Business District

35

Table I.2: Analysis of Federal Highway Spending for Fiscal Year

1995

44

Table I.3: Availability of Aggregate Funding Data for Major

Federal Water and Sewer Programs, Distributed by Type of

Activity

50

Figures Figure 1: Percentage of Population in 10 Largest Metropolitan

Areas, as Defined in 1990, Living Inside and Outside the Central

City, 1950-90

5

Figure 2: GSA’s Data on the Location of Federal Buildings With

Leases Effective Between October 1, 1995, and November 13,

1998

15

Figure I.1: Obligation of Federal Funds for Highway

Improvements, Fiscal Years 1992-97

43

Abbreviations

DOE Department of Energy

DOT Department of Transportation

EDA Economic Development Administration

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FHA Federal Housing Administration

GAO General Accounting Office

GSA General Services Administration

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

OMB Office of Management and Budget

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

Page 27 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

This appendix presents the results of our review of research on the

relationship between specific federal programs and policies and “urban

sprawl.” The questions included in the appendix were asked in the

June 10, 1998, request letter. The appendix covers policies and programs

related to agriculture, environmental protection, housing, the location of

federal and postal facilities, taxation, transportation, utility pricing, and

water and sewer infrastructure. For each policy, the appendix includes

(1) the results of our literature review and (2) the views of federal, state,

and local government agencies; advocacy groups; and academia.

Agriculture

Issue: Which federal agricultural programs, if any, support the objective of

maintaining prime agricultural land near areas becoming more urban?

Research Results: We identified only one U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program that

is specifically designed to preserve prime agricultural land—the Farmland

Protection Program. The objective of this program is to purchase

conservation easements30 or other interests on land that would limit the

conversion of prime and unique farmland to nonagricultural uses. The

Department has already obligated the $35 million made available for the

program, and the President has requested an additional $28 million in

Commodity Credit Corporation funds and $50 million in discretionary

funds for the program in his fiscal year 2000 budget submission. In

addition, the Farmland Protection Policy Act requires federal agencies to

consider the adverse effects of federal programs on the preservation of

farmland and alternative actions that could lessen these effects. However,

according to the literature we reviewed, the act has not been enforced and

is, therefore, limited in its effectiveness. USDA officials told us that the act

is not enforceable because it offers no guidance for choosing a less

damaging alternative and no incentives for doing so.

Whether urbanization poses a threat to prime agricultural land and

agricultural production has been debated in recent years. For example, in

1994, USDA’s Economic Research Service reported, after studying rural land

conversion rates between 1960 and 1980, that the loss of farmland to urban

uses did not pose a threat to total cropland or agricultural production in

30A conservation easement is a deed restriction that landowners voluntarily place on their property to

protect resources such as productive agricultural land and wildlife habitat.

Page 28 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

the United States.31 In a 1996 report, the Economic Research Service

concluded, on the basis of analyses conducted over the past two decades,

that urbanization does not pose a threat to the nation’s supply of prime

cropland or its ability to produce food.32 In 1997, the American Farmland

Trust reported, after analyzing USDA’s most recent National Resources

Inventory, that about 4.3 million acres of the nation’s prime and unique

farmland were converted between 1982 and 1992 and that most of this loss

was due to urbanization.33 The American Farmland Trust also determined

that 79 percent of the fruit, 69 percent of the vegetables, 52 percent of the

dairy products, and 28 percent of the meat produced in the United States

was produced on high-quality farmland threatened by development.

Although there is disagreement on the potential impact of lost farmland,

both the Economic Research Service and the American Farmland Trust

have stated that farmland preservation is one way to curb “urban

sprawl.” USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service is equally

concerned about erosion resulting from the increased use of marginal land

in agricultural production.

Environmental

Protection

Issue: Do federal policies on air quality encourage development in greenfields,

rather than in existing urban and suburban areas?

Research Results: Certain provisions of the Clean Air Act have been criticized because they

may encourage development in greenfields, rather than in existing urban

and suburban areas; however, research has shown that private firms’

decisions about location are not influenced to any significant extent by

environmental regulations. The provisions often cited are the stringent

restrictions imposed when an area is not in compliance with the standards

for certain air pollutants, such as ozone, and the requirement that federally

supported transportation activities conform with states’ plans for attaining

and maintaining air quality standards. However, according to a study of

31Marlow Vesterby, Ralph E. Heimlich, and Kenneth S. Krupa, Urbanization of Rural Land in the United

States, USDA, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 673 (Mar. 1994).

32Keith Wiebe, Abebayehu Tegene, and Betsey Kuhn, Partial Interests in Land: Policy Tools for

Resource Use and Conservation, USDA, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report

No. 744 (Nov. 1996).

33A. Ann Sorensen, Richard P. Greene, and Karen Russ, Farming on the Edge, American Farmland

Trust (Mar. 1997).

Page 29 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

the effects of environmental regulations on competitiveness, evidence

from U.S. studies questions the widespread belief that environmental

regulations have a significant effect on the siting of new plants in the

United States.34 In addition, a review of studies analyzing the effects of

environmental regulation on decisions about location concluded that

“although we cannot conclude statistically that environmental regulations

are unimportant without first asking more refined questions, there is little

evidence that regulations have become a truly important location factor

for a wide spectrum of industries.”35 Finally, a study of the impact of

environmental regulations on the location of Fortune 500 manufacturing

branch plants did not find any statistically significant effects of

environmental regulation on the location of businesses.36

Issue: Do requirements for water quality treatment (including combined sewer

overflows) encourage development in greenfields, rather than in existing

urban and suburban areas?

Research Results: Combined sewer systems are sewer systems that collect both storm water

runoff and sanitary sewage in the same pipe. They serve roughly 950

communities with about 40 million people. Most communities with

combined sewer systems are located in the Northeast and Great Lakes

regions. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

communities with combined sewer systems will incur up to $45 billion in

costs to comply with its combined sewer overflow control policy. Issues

associated with the costs of compliance have been raised by the CSO

Partnership, a consortium of about 100 communities with combined sewer

overflow problems. A Partnership official stated that municipalities served

by such systems are often required to raise their water and sewer rates to

cover the costs of compliance; the higher rates then discourage growth in

these jurisdictions and drive development out to the surrounding areas.

However, we did not find any quantitative research supporting this view.

As part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, EPA

requires certain entities to obtain permits for their storm water discharges.

In November 1990, the agency issued storm water control regulations that

require communities with over 100,000 inhabitants and industrial sites

34Adam B. Jaffe, et al., “Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness of U.S. Manufacturing:

What Does the Evidence Tell Us?” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 33 (Mar. 1995), pp. 132-163.

35Kelly Robinson, “Industrial Location and Air Pollution Controls: A Review of Evidence From the

USA,” Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 19, No. 2 (1995), p. 223.

36Timothy J. Bartik, “The Effects of Environmental Regulation on Business Location in the United

States,” Growth and Change, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Summer 1988), pp. 22-44.

Page 30 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

(including construction activity sites involving at least 5 acres) to obtain

permits. In January 1998, the agency proposed regulations that would

extend permitting requirements to small communities in urbanized areas

and small construction sites. We did not find any quantitative research

indicating that EPA’s storm water control regulations encourage “urban

sprawl.”

Issue: Does the literature mention other Clean Water Act provisions that can

influence “urban sprawl?”

Research Results: Although several documents we reviewed stated that federal wetlands

policy influences “urban sprawl,” we did not find any quantitative

research proving that federal policies on wetlands encourage “urban

sprawl.” Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of

dredged and fill material into the nation’s waterways, including wetlands.

Most land preparation and construction activities in wetlands would

involve the discharge of fill and would, therefore, require a permit from

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In fiscal year 1998, the Corps issued

89,857 permits, allowed about 31,090 wetlands acres to be filled, and

required that about 46,630 wetlands acres be mitigated.37 An article

analyzing the influence of environmental mandates on urban growth

concluded that although section 404 does not significantly limit urban

growth, it does discourage and delay development in some areas.38

The Sierra Club and the Environmental Working Group have reported that

the Corps is encouraging development by issuing certain nationwide

permits—generic licenses that grant blanket authorization for specific

types of fill in wetlands of certain sizes.39 One of the permits they criticized

was Nationwide Permit 26, which allows discharges into headwaters and

isolated waters as long as they do not cause the loss of more than 3 acres

of waters. In response to concerns about the extent to which adverse

effects are being authorized by Nationwide Permit 26, the Corps agreed to

37Through mitigation, the Corps seeks to offset the adverse effects of wetlands conversion, generally

by requiring the replacement of important wetlands functions and values.

38Lindell Marsh, Douglas Porter, and David Salvesen, “The Impact of Environmental Mandates on

Urban Growth,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Sept. 1996),

pp. 127-154.

39Brett Hulsey, $ubsidizing Disaster: How Your Tax Money and Weak Wetland Protection Increase

Your Risk of Being Flooded, Sierra Club Midwest Office (Apr. 15, 1997).

Page 31 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

replace the permit with activity-specific permits that more clearly define

the activities being regulated.

Housing

Issue: Which federal housing programs, if any, have credit policies that

encourage new development in suburban areas rather than reinvestment

in central city areas?

Research Results: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), through its

Federal Housing Administration (FHA), operates the federal government’s

largest single-family home mortgage insurance program and oversees the

financial safety and soundness of the two privately owned but federally

chartered corporations—Fannie Mae (the Federal National Mortgage

Association) and Freddie Mac (the Federal Home Loan Mortgage

Corporation). These programs represent the primary tools used by HUD to

reach its goal of increasing homeownership opportunities for low- and

moderate-income families and for those living in underserved areas.

HUD’s single-family home mortgage insurance programs are available to all

qualified borrowers for homes located in rural, suburban, or central city

areas. For this reason, it is not clear what impact, if any, these programs

currently have on “urban sprawl.” While FHA’s relatively liberal credit and

down payment requirements would facilitate qualified inner city residents’

purchases of homes in the suburbs, other aspects of the program are

designed to stimulate mortgage lending in the inner city. In addition, data

from FHA show that its insured loans in metropolitan areas are almost

evenly concentrated between central cities and suburbs.

Our review of existing research identified no recent studies that directly

address the relative impact of federal single-family housing programs on

development in suburban and central city locations. However, reports by

HUD and GAO show that FHA is an important source of mortgage insurance

for low-income and minority home buyers and for homes purchased in

central cities.40, 41 Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the federal

40An Analysis of FHA’s Single-Family Insurance Program, HUD, Office of Policy Development and

Research (Oct. 1995).

41Homeownership: FHA’s Role in Helping People Obtain Home Mortgages (GAO/RCED-96-123, Aug. 13,

1996).

Page 32 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

government collects data on the income, race, and geographic location of

borrowers obtaining home mortgages. These data show that in 1996

almost half (46 percent) of FHA’s single-family loans were made for homes

located in central cities and 41 percent were made for homes in what are

defined as underserved areas.42 In comparison, 37 percent of conventional

loans purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were for homes located

in central cities.

Issue: Do low-income housing tax credits favor new construction rather than

rehabilitation of existing housing?

Research Results: The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program uses tax credits as an

incentive for developers and investors to provide affordable rental housing

for households whose income is at or below specified income levels.

Recent quantitative studies include information on the mix of new

construction and rehabilitation and indicate whether projects are located

in urban or rural areas. A 1997 GAO report revealed that most low-income

housing developments were newly constructed, but some were

rehabilitated.43 This report examined projects placed in service between

1992 and 1994. Another study that looked at 2,554 tax credit projects

completed between 1987 and 1996 found that the number of projects

located in central cities increased over time.44 This study focused on data

from four syndicators of tax-credit equity.45 HUD reviewed projects

completed primarily between 1992 and 1994 found that more than half of

the units were located in central cities.46 HUD officials recognize there may

be some regional implications for this program and believe more

information on the potential impact of the Low-Income Housing Tax

Credit program’s policies is needed.

42Metropolitan census tracts in which (1) the median income is less than or equal to 90 percent of the

local area’s median income or (2) the minority population is greater than or equal to 30 percent of the

total population and the median income is less than or equal to 120 percent of the local area’s median

income.

43Tax Credits: Opportunities to Improve Oversight of the Low-Income Housing Program

(GAO/GGD/RCED-97-55, Mar. 28, 1997).

44Jean L. Cummings and Denise DiPasquale, Building Affordable Rental Housing: An Analysis of the

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program, City Research (Feb. 1998).

45Syndicators act as brokers between developers and investors by pooling several projects into one tax

credit equity fund and marketing the tax credits to investors, thus spreading the risk to investors

across the projects.

46Abt Associates, Inc., Development and Analysis of the National Low-Income Housing Tax Credit

Database, HUD, Office of Policy Development and Research (July 1996).

Page 33 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

Location of Federal

and Postal Facilities

Issue: To what extent are federal agencies complying with the executive orders

governing federal facility location decisions?

Research Results: Executive Orders 12072 and 13006 require federal agencies making urban

location decisions to give first consideration to central business areas and

historic properties. According to information provided by the General

Services Administration (GSA) on 1,242 active leases, about 45 percent of

the leased facilities are located within central business districts.47 GSA

explained that a federal facility might be located outside a central business

district if (1) a location within the central business district conflicted with

the agency’s mission, (2) an agency’s special requirements could not be

met within the central business district, or (3) there was not enough

competition within the central business district.

The Rural Development Act of 1972, as amended, directs federal agencies

to give first priority to locating new offices and other facilities in rural

areas. However, when an agency’s mission and programs require an urban

location, the agency must comply with Executive Orders 12072 and 13006.

Executive Order 12072, promulgated in August 1978 by President Carter,

directs federal agencies to give first consideration to a centralized

community business area and adjacent areas of similar character48 when

filling space needs in urban areas. Executive Order 13006, issued by

President Clinton in May 1996, reaffirms the commitment set forth in

Executive Order 12072 to strengthen the nation’s cities by encouraging the

location of federal facilities in central cities. Specifically, it requires federal

agencies to give first consideration to historic properties within historic

districts, especially those located in central business areas.

GSA is responsible for administering Executive Orders 12072 and 13006.

The implementing regulations for Executive Order 12072 state that

agencies can locate outside a central business area only if the market

cannot supply suitable space or if a central business area cannot meet the

47Central business districts are specific districts within central business areas where localities have

chosen to concentrate the development of offices or mixed uses.

48These adjacent areas may include empowerment zones or other redevelopment areas that are outside

the central business district but still within the city limits.

Page 34 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

agency’s mission requirements. As discussed in the letter of this report,

almost half of the leased facilities that GSA analyzed were located in central

business districts. Moreover, as shown in table I.1, the most common

reason cited by GSA for locating outside a central business district was that

locating within it would conflict with the agency’s mission. We did not

independently verify GSA’s reasons.

Table I.1: Reasons for Locating

Federal Facilities Outside the Central

Business District

Reason Number of leases Percentage of leases

Location within the central

business district would

conflict with the agency’s

mission 257 40

The agency’s specialized

requirements could not be

met within the central

business district 175 27

Competition was inadequate

within the central business

district 133 21

Other reasons (e.g., the

central business district was

not defined) 34 5

Combination of the above 20 3

No information available 23 4

Total 642 100

Source: GAO’s analysis of data provided by GSA.

GSA has been both criticized and praised for its enforcement of Executive

Order 12072. For instance, the National Council for Urban Economic

Development criticized GSA for allowing the Internal Revenue Service to

leave the central business district in Fresno, California, despite efforts to

find a suitable location within the downtown area. According to GSA, it

reviewed the Internal Revenue Service’s request to move out of downtown

Fresno and found that the request was mission driven and that the Internal

Revenue Service was in compliance with Executive Order 12072. The

Secretary of the Treasury attested to the fact that the move was based on

the Internal Revenue Service’s mission-related requirements. In

December 1998, the Mayor of Baltimore, Maryland, praised GSA for adding

over 500 new federal jobs to the city and complying with Executive Order

12072.

Page 35 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

In addition to enforcing the executive orders covering the location of

federal facilities, GSA initiated the Good Neighbor Program in 1996 to

promote local economic and civic activities. The agency uses the program

to accomplish a variety of civic initiatives in communities with federal

facilities. For instance, GSA sets aside ground-floor and plaza space in

federal buildings for public activities and events and joins business

improvement districts—districts created by property owners so that they

can tax themselves to cover the costs of maintenance, security, and other

services.

Issue: Is there an effective process for considering the potential impact of

relocating postal facilities on existing communities?

Research Results: The U.S. Postal Service issued regulations effective October 5, 1998, that

greatly expanded its procedures for notifying local citizens and public

officials of facility projects, as well as for soliciting and considering

community input, before making a final decision to expand an existing

facility, relocate to another existing building, or start new construction.

These procedures, which are similar to those required when post offices

are closed, include

• meeting with and sending a letter to high-ranking local public officials to

describe the project that is under consideration;

• sending an initial news release to local media;

• posting a copy of the letter to local officials and/or the news release in the

lobby of the affected post office; and

• except under exceptional circumstances, attending or conducting at least

one mandatory public hearing to describe the project, invite questions,

solicit written comments, and describe the process for considering

community input.

Although it is too soon to determine if the new process will be effective,

critics have maintained that members of affected communities should be

able to appeal relocation decisions to the Postal Rate Commission, as they

can do when post office closures are planned. In February and

March 1999, bills that include guidelines for the relocation, closing,

consolidation, or construction of post offices were introduced in the

House and Senate, respectively. The bills would allow any person served

by a post office whose relocation has been approved to appeal the

relocation decision to the Postal Rate Commission.

Page 36 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

According to some of the researchers whose work we reviewed, the

relocation of post office retail facilities from downtown locations to

outlying areas is detrimental to the downtown economy and contributes to

“urban sprawl.” However, we did not find any quantitative research that

supports this conclusion. One reason for the lack of quantitative research

may be a lack of data. Although the Postal Service can determine how

many relocations occurred during a given year, it cannot readily determine

how many postal facilities were relocated to outlying areas because it does

not have centralized data showing whether the facilities were relocated

across the street or in outlying areas. However, organizations such as the

National Trust for Historic Preservation follow this issue and have

documented instances when post offices have been relocated outside

central business districts.

Taxation

Issue: Do federal tax provisions that create a tax advantage for more expensive

housing tend to favor low-density development outside existing urban and

suburban areas?

Research Results: We identified many studies of federal tax preferences for owner-occupied

housing that focus mainly on the effects of tax preferences on the quantity

of housing consumed, the price of housing, the homeownership rate, the

tendency of households to move, and federal tax expenditures. We found

very little research that focused specifically on whether preferential tax

treatment for homeowners affects “urban sprawl.” Although some

authors present statistics that they believe imply such a relationship, no

one has directly estimated the effects of tax preferences on “urban

sprawl.”

The main features of the federal tax code pertaining to owner-occupied

housing that have been analyzed in the literature are the deductibility of

mortgage interest payments and property taxes and the tax treatment of

capital gains on housing. Investment in owner-occupied housing is treated

differently from other investments under the income tax rules in three

ways. First, the value of housing services (the imputed rental income) that

a homeowner derives from occupying his or her own house is not included

in his or her taxable income. This means that an owner-occupier’s income

Page 37 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

from housing (the imputed rental income) is treated differently from a

landlord’s rental income, which is subject to tax. Second, under the

Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, gains due to the appreciation of

owner-occupied homes are exempt from income taxation for almost all

taxpayers. Third, other costs of homeownership (e.g., maintenance costs)

are not deductible.

The direction and magnitude of the effects of the tax preferences for

owner-occupied housing on the location of housing are also uncertain. To

analyze the effects of these preferences, Blackely and Follain employed a

widely used economic model of households’ locational choices.49 They

concluded that, in general, the impact of the preferences on locational

choice was ambiguous. For specific model assumptions that they

considered reasonable, they found that the preferences may, in fact, be a

countervailing force to suburbanization.

A study by Gyourko and Voith developed three theoretical models to

determine the conditions under which tax preferences for owner-occupied

housing would contribute to the decentralization of metropolitan areas.50

The authors did not develop quantitative estimates of these effects.

Gyourko and Voith argued that tax preferences by themselves do not

create greater population decentralization, less dense central cities, and

more extreme residential sorting by income. These spatial effects arise

from the interaction of the tax treatment of housing with other features of

the housing market, such as land-use constraints and methods of financing

local amenities.

Some other recent studies have analyzed the effect on “urban sprawl” of

modifying the tax treatment of capital gains.51 Under the Taxpayer Relief

Act of 1997, individuals are permitted to exclude from taxable income up

to $250,000 of gain (generally $500,000 for joint filers) realized on the sale

or exchange of property that has been used as a principal residence. There

are certain conditions the taxpayer must satisfy to qualify.

49Dixie Blackley and James R. Follain, “Inflation, Tax Advantages to Homeownership and the

Locational Choices of Households,” Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 13, No. 4

(Nov. 1983), pp.505-516.

50Joseph Gyourko and Richard Voith, “Does the U.S. Treatment of Housing Promote Suburbanization

and Central City Decline?” Working Paper No. 97-13, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (Sept. 17,

1997).

51Linking Tax Law and Sustainable Development: The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Environmental Law

Institute (1998) and The IRS Homeseller Capital Gain Provision: Contributor to Urban Decline, Ohio

Housing Research Network (Jan. 5, 1994).

Page 38 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

We found no quantitative studies estimating the effect, if any, on “urban

sprawl” of the current favorable capital gains treatment for

owner-occupied housing. One study suggests that the past treatment of

capital gains contributed to the outmigration from cities when home

prices in central cities declined relative to home prices in the suburbs.52 A

homeowner with accrued capital gains had a disincentive to move inward

if such a move involved the purchase of a less expensive home because

that purchase would require the homeowner to pay tax on at least some of

the gains earned on the sale of the original home. The Environmental Law

Institute notes that the recent change in the law removes this

disincentive.53 The Institute also suggests that the new treatment—under

which exclusions may be claimed every 2 years—may encourage some

homeowners to live in and rehabilitate a succession of older urban homes

in order to earn tax-free gains. The Environmental and Energy Study

Institute suggests that another effect of the favorable treatment may be to

encourage wealthier taxpayers to purchase larger homes on larger lots,

which are more likely to be in outlying areas.54 No estimates have been

made of the magnitude of these, or any other, effects of the current capital

gains exclusion on the amount or location of the housing purchased.

Several recent papers have used models and simulations to estimate

various effects associated both with removing the mortgage interest and

property tax deductions and with altering the treatment of capital gains in

housing, but these papers have not tied their results specifically to “urban

sprawl.”55 There is broad agreement that removing these tax preferences

would reduce overall housing consumption and the price of housing.

52The IRS Homeseller Capital Gain Provision: Contributor to Urban Decline, Ohio Housing Research

Network (Jan. 5, 1994).

53See footnote 51.

54Don Gray and Carol Werner, “Sustainability Provisions in the New Tax Law,” Memorandum to

Members of the Sustainable Communities Advisory Committee and Other Potentially Interested

Parties, Environmental and Energy Study Institute (Nov. 6, 1997).

55James Berkovec and Don Fullerton, “A General Equilibrium Model of Housing, Taxes and Portfolio

Choice,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 100, No. 2 (1992); Leonard E. Burman, Sally Wallace, and

David Weiner, “How Capital Gains Taxes Distort Homeowners’ Decisions,” 89th Annual Conference

on Taxation, National Tax Association (Nov. 12, 1996); Dennis R. Capozza, Richard K. Green, and

Patric H. Hendershott, “Taxes, Mortgage Borrowing and Residential Land Prices,” in Henry J. Aaron

and William G. Gale (eds.), Economic Effects of Fundamental Tax Reform (Brookings Institution

Press: Washington, D.C., 1996); Richard K. Green and Kerry D. Vandell, Giving Households Credit: How

Changes in the Tax Code Could Promote Homeownership, Working Paper, Center for Urban Land

Economics Research, U. of Wisconsin-Madison (Jan. 27, 1998); Todd M. Sinai, “The Effect of Tax

Reform on the Owner-Occupied Housing Market,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology (June 1997); Todd Sinai, “Taxation, User Cost, Household Mobility Decisions,” Working

Paper, Wharton School, U. of Pennsylvania (Dec. 1997).

Page 39 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

However, there is no consensus among researchers on the magnitude of

these effects.

Issue: Do federal estate taxes encourage the conversion of farmland that is

located near urban areas?

Research Results: Some supporters of special treatment for qualified family-owned business

interests and qualified conservation easements believe that recent tax

changes encourage the continued operation of family farms and are likely

to increase donations of land for conservation purposes. A study by USDA’s

Economic Research Service provides some support for such claims. The

study notes that the new exclusion for qualified family-owned businesses

“. . . should reduce, if not eliminate, the need to sell farm assets to pay

Federal estate taxes. . . .” 56 The same study notes that relatively few

landowners would benefit from the exclusion for land subject to

conservation easements.

Issue: Does the literature mention other tax provisions that can influence “urban

sprawl?”

Research Results: The literature also addresses the effect of changes in employer-paid

parking benefits. Section 132(f) of the Internal Revenue Code allows

employers to exclude from the income of their employees the value of

employer-provided parking up to $175 per month in 1999. The

Environmental and Energy Study Institute contends that tax provisions

that favor driving to work contribute to traffic congestion, pollution, and

other public costs associated with automobile use.57 While some studies

indicate that employer-paid parking, employer-provided incentives for

ridesharing, and high-occupancy-vehicle lanes may have a large effect on

the probability that employees will drive to work alone,58 another source

56James Monke and Ron Durst, The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997: Provisions for Farmers and Rural

Communities, USDA, Economic Research Service, Agriculture Economic Report No. 764 (July 1998),

p. 18.

57See footnote 54.

58David Brownstone and Thomas F. Golob, “The Effectiveness of Ridesharing Incentives:

Discrete-Choice Models of Commuting in Southern California,” Regional Science and Urban

Economics, Vol. 22 (1992), pp. 5-24; Richard W. Willson, “Estimating the Travel and Parking Demand

Effects of Employer-paid Parking,” Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 22 (1992), pp.

133-145.

Page 40 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

on commuting incentives notes that factors other than commuting costs

are more important in explaining patterns of commuting.59 Section 132(f)

of the Internal Revenue Code also allows employers to exclude from the

income of their employees the value of employer-provided transit passes

and transportation in commuter highway vehicles up to an aggregate of

$65 per month in 1999. An IRS official noted that this multiple ridership

provision could have the potential to decrease the incentive to commute

alone.

Transportation

Issue: Do federal transportation programs encourage “urban sprawl” through

the construction of new highways rather than the maintenance of existing

highway systems?

Research Results: The research we reviewed did not focus on whether federal programs

encourage new construction at the expense of maintaining or preserving

systems. The research did support the conclusion that, historically,

interstate highways improved access to developable land on the urban

fringe, supporting dispersed, low-density development. This phenomenon

originated with the passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956,

according to the Transportation Research Board. The Interstate Highway

System is about 100 percent complete, and the federal share of annual

highway expenditures is about 21 percent, though the federal share of

annual highway capital outlays has been between 41 and 46 percent since

1987. More recently, quantitative research data were collected on the

impact of specific transportation investments on the physical development

of metropolitan areas. One study of areas with and without beltways had

difficulty deducing any effect of beltways on central city populations.

Another study analyzed the changes in residential and commercial

development in certain California areas and found a strong relationship

between expanded highway capacity and increased residential

construction. The study did not determine whether there was a shift in

development from other parts of the region. The Transportation Research

Board suggests that even with sophisticated statistical techniques,

cause-and-effect relationships are difficult to distinguish. Moreover,

59Genevieve Giuliano and Kenneth A. Small, “Is the Journey to Work Explained by Urban Structure?”

Urban Studies, Vol. 30, No. 9 (Nov. 1993), pp. 1485-1500.

Page 41 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

transportation investments may affect development for many decades, but

most studies examine only short-term consequences.

As shown in figure I.1, from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1997, most

federal highway funds were obligated for system preservation projects.

Although the proportions of obligations were relatively constant for all

categories, the percentage of federal funds obligated for new routes and

bridges decreased slightly while the percentage obligated for system

enhancements increased by about 6 percent. Figure I.1 represents

federal-aid highway projects under way. These projects account for

two-thirds of the total federal obligations for highway improvements.

Figure I.1 also shows that over the 6-year period, obligations were as

follows: $8.7 billion for new routes and bridges, $16.2 billion for capacity

additions, $36.8 billion for system preservation, and $12.3 billion for

system enhancements.

Page 42 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

Figure I.1: Obligation of Federal Funds for Highway Improvements, Fiscal Years 1992-97

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

System enhancements

System preservation

Capacity additions

New routes and new bridges

1992

Dollars in billions

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

New routes and new bridges—construction of new roads and bridges that do not replace or

relocate existing roads or bridges; Capacity additions—relocation, major widening, and

reconstruction—added capacity; System preservation—minor widening, restoration and

rehabilitation, reconstruction—no added capacity, bridge replacement, major bridge

rehabilitation; and minor bridge rehabilitation; system enhancements—safety/traffic/traffic system

management, and environmentally related projects.

Note: Dollars are in constant billions.

Source: Federal Highway Administration’s Fiscal Management Information System.

Researchers such as Kenneth Jackson, David Rusk, and the Growth

Management Planning and Research Clearinghouse have concluded that

highway capacity expansion projects contributed to “urban sprawl.” In

addition, according to the Transportation Research Board, most expansion

of road capacity is taking place at the urban fringe.60 However, the lack of

60Expanding Metropolitan Highways: Implications for Air Quality and Energy Use, National Research

Council, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 245 (1995), p. 194.

Page 43 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

a specific geographic designation for suburban areas makes it difficult to

capture spending in these areas. For example, one study made

assumptions about federal highway data and concluded, as shown in table

I.2, that nonurbanized areas—defined as small towns and low-density

suburbs—received a disproportionate amount of federal roadway funds.61

Federal Highway Administration officials said their reporting system

reflects federal spending by the legislated federal-aid designations—rural,

urban, small urban, and urbanized—and cannot identify spending in

suburban areas because suburban development can occur in any of the

population areas. For instance, federal highway expenditure data are

associated with two types of communities—urban (those with a

population of more than 5,000) or rural (those with a population of up to

4,999)—making it difficult to distinguish spending in suburban areas. The

states report highway expenditure data to the Department of

Transportation in the aggregate—combining funding and transfers for

federal funding, according to Federal Highway Administration officials.

Table I.2: Analysis of Federal Highway

Spending for Fiscal Year 1995 Percentage of

roadway funds

received

Percentage of

nation’s

population

Amount received

per capita

Urbanizeda 46 64 $54.25

Nonurbanized b 14 9 $115.11

Rural c 39 28 $98.01

aPopulation is equal to or greater than 50,000.

bPopulation is between 5,000 and 49,999. The Surface Transportation Policy Project considers

these areas as small towns and low-density suburbs.

cPopulation is equal to or fewer than 4,999.

Source: Getting a Fair Share: An Analysis of Federal Transportation Spending, Surface

Transportation Policy Project (1996).

Utility Pricing

Issue: Do Federal energy providers encourage suburban development through

their rate structure?

61Getting a Fair Share: An Analysis of Federal Transportation Spending, Surface Transportation Policy

Project (1996).

Page 44 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

Research Results: Our review identified very little research on the impact of utility rates and

costs on suburban development. A study on the costs of urban growth in

Oregon communities examines power generation costs and suggests that

the costs of growth-related investments in electric power generation are

distributed among all ratepayers through their utility bills. 62 The study

criticizes this form of pricing—on an “average cost basis”—because

suburban developments do not pay for the full cost of receiving electricity.

The study argues that many communities subsidize urban growth by

recovering only a fraction of their costs for new development, including

those for utility infrastructure. Another study estimates the costs of basic

public facilities and infrastructure associated with population growth for

730 U.S. cities and towns.63 The study acknowledges the difficulty of

distinguishing growth-related costs from other public-sector costs.

The federal government has played a significant role in the development of

electricity markets. Since the New Deal, the federal government has

established about 130 water projects that—in addition to promoting

agriculture, flood control, navigation, and other activities—produce

electric power. To provide this power to large portions of rural America,

the government also created five power marketing administrations, along

with the Tennessee Valley Authority.64 The Tennessee Valley Authority is a

multipurpose independent federal corporation, which generates and

markets its own power. In addition, the government made financing

available to rural utilities to assist them in building and maintaining

electricity distribution systems that provide electricity to rural areas

through USDA’s Rural Utilities Service. In 1996, the power marketing

administrations and the Tennessee Valley Authority provided about

10 percent of the nation’s electricity supply.65

The power marketing administrations, created between 1937 and 1977, sell

and transmit power generated at federal facilities operated primarily by

the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers. The power marketing administrations’ mission is to

market federal power in a manner that encourages the most widespread

use at the lowest possible rates consistent with sound business practices.

62Eben Fodor, The Cost of Growth in Oregon: 1998 Report, Fodor and Associates (Oct. 1998).

63Beyond Sprawl: The Cost of Population Growth to Local Communities, Carrying Capacity Network

(Dec. 1998).

64One power marketing administration, the Alaska Power Administration, was divested in 1997 and

1998.

65Federal Power: Options for Selected Power Marketing Administrations’ Role in a Changing

Electricity Industry (GAO/RCED-98-43, Mar. 6, 1998).

Page 45 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

They generally sell this power in wholesale markets, mostly to publicly

and cooperatively owned utilities that, in turn, sell power to end-use

(retail) consumers. Each administration has its own specific geographic

boundaries. Together, the power marketing administrations and the

Tennessee Valley Authority currently market power within 33 states.

The power marketing administrations are generally required to recover all

costs incurred as a result of producing, transmitting, and marketing power,

including the costs of repaying the federal investment in the power

generating facilities and other debt, with interest. However, we recently

concluded that the power marketing administrations are not recovering

through their electricity rates all of the power-related costs incurred by the

federal government.66 In addition, certain nonpower costs are allocated to

power revenues for repayment. For example, under the concept of

aid-to-irrigation, revenues earned from the sale of power are supposed to

repay billions of federal dollars invested in irrigation facilities that the

Secretary of the Interior believes irrigators will be unable to repay. The

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reviews the rates charged by the

power marketing administrations. From 1990 through 1995, the power

marketing administrations sold wholesale power at average rates that

were 40 to 50 percent below those charged by nonfederal utilities.67, 68 In

the recent past, however, the Bonneville Power Administration’s rates

were at or above market rates.

The largest federal power producer is the Tennessee Valley Authority. By

some measures, it is the largest utility in the nation. Providing about

5 percent of the nation’s power, it generates its own power and markets it

in wholesale markets, as well as directly to large industrial customers. The

Tennessee Valley Authority is required by law to set rates so that power

revenues cover all operating expenses, including depreciation and

amortization. According to recent GAO work, the Tennessee Valley

Authority was generally recovering all power-related costs incurred by the

federal government through its rates. The Tennessee Valley Authority also

approves the retail rates charged by the 159 municipal and cooperative

utilities that are its primary customers. The power program is by far the

Tennessee Valley Authority’s largest activity. Unlike the rates of other

utilities and the power marketing administrations, the Tennessee Valley

66Federal Electricity Activities: The Federal Government’s Net Cost and Potential for Future Losses,

Vols. 1 and 2 (GAO/AIMD-97-110 and 110A, Sept. 19, 1997).

67Federal Power: Regional Effects of Changes in PMAs’ Rates (GAO/RCED-99-15, Nov. 16, 1998).

68Federal Power: PMA Rate Impacts, by Service Area (GAO/RCED-99-55, Jan. 28, 1999).

Page 46 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

Authority’s power rates are not subject to review and approval by state

public utility commissioners or the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission. Instead, all authority over the Tennessee Valley Authority’s

operations—including the sole authority to set wholesale power rates and

approve the retail rates charged to distributors—is vested in a

three-member board of directors.

In addition to authorizing the sale of federal power, the Congress passed

laws to encourage the development of nonfederal power systems.

Investor-owned utilities were historically reluctant to serve sparsely

populated areas because of the heavy capital costs involved in installing

power systems that serve relatively few customers. As a result, in 1935,

scarcely 1 in 10 farm households in the United States had electricity. The

Rural Electrification Act of 1936 authorized the Rural Electrification

Administration (now the Rural Utilities Service) to provide loans and loan

guarantees to organizations that generate, transmit, and/or distribute

electricity to small communities, farms, and persons in rural areas. From

fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1996, the Rural Utilities Service made

or guaranteed 880 loans to rural utilities for capital expenditures generally

related to improving systems and extending electric service to new

consumers. Some of these systems buy power from the power marketing

administrations. According to recent GAO work, the Rural Utilities Service

is not recovering all of the federal government’s costs through its loan

rates.

Water-Sewer

Infrastructure

Issue: To what extent do federal water-sewer programs tend to support the

building of new infrastructure rather than the operation, maintenance, and

upgrading of existing infrastructure?

Research Results: Our search of the literature and interviews with agency officials and trade

associations disclosed little evidence linking federal domestic assistance

for municipal water and sewer systems to “urban sprawl.” Three studies

related federal spending for water or sewer systems to growth-related

effects, either directly or indirectly, but not to “urban sprawl.” One study

suggested that larger public infrastructure stocks in central cities,

Page 47 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

including state and federally aided sewer systems, have a positive effect on

suburban land values.69 Another study—an evaluation, sponsored by the

Economic Development Administration (EDA), of 203 public works

projects that received a closeout payment in fiscal year 1990—describes

over a dozen water/sewer projects that contributed directly or indirectly to

the creation or retention of jobs in an area, additional investment, or

population growth.70 The third study, sponsored by HUD, describes two

instances in which Community Development Block Grant funds, used in

part for water or sewer systems, helped to stabilize neighborhoods or

reduce blight in impoverished census tracts.71 The five articles we

identified cited anecdotal evidence suggesting that “urban sprawl” had

occurred in areas receiving assistance for water and sewer systems,

particularly for the construction of new lines or extensions. However,

these citations did not distinguish federal assistance from state, local,

private, or other assistance.

We identified eight major72 federal domestic programs that provide

assistance for new construction or construction to upgrade municipal

water and sewer systems. These programs are listed in table I.3. This table

also shows that some of these programs maintain data on the amount of

funding spent for each type of construction activity, while the other

programs do not. We found, through interviews with agency officials, that

only the two Community Development Block Grant programs generally

provide funding for operations and maintenance. According to HUD

officials, the Department does not maintain data on funding for each type

of activity, such as new construction, repairs, or operations and

maintenance for the two programs. In addition, we found that USDA, HUD,

EDA, and EPA either have or will have funding data distributed by the

population of the area receiving the assistance.73 However, the agencies

maintain these data in different ways. Some of the variation can be

attributed to the different ways the individual programs were designed.

For instance, according to program officials, three of the eight programs

were designed to provide assistance only for the capital costs associated

with a system—for the costs of construction or upgrades—but not for

69Andrew F. Haughwout, “Central City Infrastructure Investment and Suburban House Values,”

Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 27 (1997).

70Robert W. Burchell, et al., Public Works Program: Performance Evaluation, U.S. Department of

Commerce, EDA (May 1997).

71Urban Institute, Federal Funds, Local Choices: An Evaluation of the Community Development Block

Grant Program, HUD, Office of Policy Development and Research (May 1995).

72We identified major programs as those with at least one annual funding or expenditure of about

$50 million or more since fiscal year 1995 for water and sewer systems.

73Department of the Interior officials generally described the areas served by their programs’ projects

as urban or rural but did not refer to databases for this information.

Page 48 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

operation and maintenance. Other programs were designed, according to

program officials, to provide assistance to specific areas, such as rural

areas or distressed cities. Some of the variation is due to the use of

different definitions. For instance, EDA characterizes areas receiving

assistance as urban or rural; EPA relies on multiple population ranges

without characterizing the ranges as urban, suburban, or rural; and USDA

provides funding only to rural populations, although its definition of

“rural” differs from EDA’s. Because of this variation, it would be difficult

to summarize the distribution of federal funding for water and sewer

systems by the type of construction or by the location (urban, suburban,

or rural) of the systems.

Page 49 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

Table I.3: Availability of Aggregate

Funding Data for Major Federal Water

and Sewer Programs, Distributed by

Type of Activity Agency and program New construction

Construction to

upgrade an

existing systema

Varied

construction

activityb

USDA, Rural Utilities Service

Water and Waste Disposal

Loans and Grants X X

Department of Commerce, EDA

Public Works X X X

EPA

Capitalization Grants for

State Revolving Funds X X X

Capitalization Grants for

Drinking Water State

Revolving Fund c c c

HUD, Office of Community Planning and Development

Community Development

Block Grants/ Entitlement

Program X

Community Development

Block Grants/State

Program X

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation

Title XVI Water

Reclamation and Reuse

Program X

Appropriated Municipal,

Rural and Industrial Water

Programs in North and

South Dakota X

aThis column includes data for such upgrading activities as renovation, rehabilitation, and

replacement.

bThis column includes data for both new construction and upgrade activities.

cAccording to an EPA official, data are not currently available for this new program.

It is also difficult to summarize agency officials’ views on how the funding

for these systems influences growth. For instance, some officials identified

a past or present influence on growth. An EDA official recognized that

significant growth in some counties had been made possible by large

water and sewer system projects that the agency assisted in the late 1960s

and early to mid-1970s. He believes that assisted projects are now, for the

most part, so much smaller in scope that he did not think they would

contribute significantly to “urban sprawl.” HUD officials indicated that

Page 50 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

funding for a water or sewer line in a rural area, provided under the

Community Development Block Grant State Program, could not help but

support growth. However, the officials indicated that funding for

distressed cities, provided under the Community Development Block

Grant Entitlement Program, would be supporting redevelopment rather

than growth.

Other officials indicated that the water or sewer projects allow for future

population growth. For example, according to the USDA official, projects

funded through the Water and Waste Disposal program are designed to

serve the existing population, as well as the projected growth in

population, as much as 100 percent, over the service life of the water or

sewer line. EPA’s Capitalization Grants for State Revolving Funds program

will fund the replacement or major rehabilitation of an existing sewer

system only if, among other factors, the capacity of the project is equal to

the existing capacity, plus a reasonable amount for future growth. Under

the agency’s newer Capitalization Grants for Drinking Water State

Revolving Fund, expenditures for the expansion of any public water

system in anticipation of future population growth are to be avoided.

However, the program’s requirements do not preclude the use of financing

for facilities that meet the objectives of the Safe Drinking Water Act for

the population to be served by the facility over its useful life. An official

from the Department of the Interior’s Municipal, Rural and Industrial

Appropriated Water Programs in North and South Dakota indicated that

the Department considers projected growth in the development of its

projects, which are intended to provide water supply infrastructure where

none previously existed. An official from the Department of the Interior’s

Water Reclamation and Reuse Program noted that its projects, designed to

extend the usefulness of water systems and increase the reliability of local

water supplies, could draw industry to areas served by the projects.

Of the officials we interviewed, only two, from EDA and HUD, were able to

cite a study—one for each agency, already described—assessing the

linkage between a program’s assistance and growth-related effects, such

as job creation or neighborhood stabilization. Research on the

growth-related effects of the agencies’ other programs may not be

available, in part, because the programs were not designed to foster

residential growth. The objectives for the eight programs we identified

varied from water reclamation and reuse to the economic development of

distressed communities to the mitigation of health hazards. Consequently,

any “urban sprawl” that occurs would be an unintended effect of the

program’s assistance. Moreover, the USDA, Interior, and EDA officials we

Page 51 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix I 

The Influence of Selected Federal Policies

and Programs on “Urban Sprawl”

interviewed said that three of these programs provide assistance in

response to a need identified by the applicant or local sponsor. According

to HUD and EDA officials, their agencies’ programs require the formula grant

applicants to rank and describe the eligible needs that are being met by a

program’s funding.

Page 52 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix II 

Summary of Studies on Factors Related to

“Urban Sprawl”

The following table is a synthesis of alleged positive and negative effects

of sprawl found in studies reviewed by the authors of The Costs of Sprawl:

Revisited.

74 The alleged effects are grouped according to their potential

impact on five areas: (1) public/private capital and operating costs,

(2) transportation and travel costs, (3) land/natural habitat preservation,

(4) quality of life, and (5) social issues. The table shows if there is

agreement in the studies reviewed as to whether (1) development patterns

bring about the alleged positive or negative impact (i.e., does this

condition exist to a high degree?) and (2) the alleged impact—if it

exists–has been significantly linked to sprawl.

Does this condition exist to a high degree? Is it strongly linked to sprawl?

Area

potentially

affected/

alleged

impact

General

agreement

Some

agreement

No clear

outcome

Substantial

disagreement

General

agreement

Some

agreement

No clear

outcome

Substantial

disagreement

Public/

private

capital and

operating

costs

Alleged negative impact

Higher

infrastructure

costs X X

Higher public

operating

costsa X X

More

expensive

private

residential/

nonresidential

development

costs X X

More adverse

public fiscal

impactsb X X

Higher

aggregate

land costs X X

Alleged positive impact

(continued)

74Robert W. Burchell, et.al. Costs of Sprawl Revisited: The Evidence of Sprawl’s Negative and Positive

Impacts, National Research Council, Transportation Research Board (Sept. 1998).

Page 53 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix II 

Summary of Studies on Factors Related to

“Urban Sprawl”

Does this condition exist to a high degree? Is it strongly linked to sprawl?

Area

potentially

affected/

alleged

impact

General

agreement

Some

agreement

No clear

outcome

Substantial

disagreement

General

agreement

Some

agreement

No clear

outcome

Substantial

disagreement

Lower public

operating

costs X X

Less

expensive

private

residential and

nonresidential

development

costs X X

Fosters

efficient

development

of

“leapfrogged”

areas X X

Transportation

and travel

costs

Alleged negative impact

More vehicle

miles traveled X X

Longer travel

times X X

More

automobile

trips X X

Higher

household

transportation

spending X X

Less

cost-efficient

and effective

transit X X

Higher social

costs of travelc X X

Alleged positive impact

Shorter

commuting

times X X

Less

congestion X X

(continued)

Page 54 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix II 

Summary of Studies on Factors Related to

“Urban Sprawl”

Does this condition exist to a high degree? Is it strongly linked to sprawl?

Area

potentially

affected/

alleged

impact

General

agreement

Some

agreement

No clear

outcome

Substantial

disagreement

General

agreement

Some

agreement

No clear

outcome

Substantial

disagreement

Lower

governmental

costs for

transportation X X

Automobiles

most efficient

mode of

transportationd X X

Land/natural

habitat

preservation

Alleged negative impact

Loss of

agricultural

land X X

Reduced

farmland

productivity X X

Reduced

farmland

viability X X

Loss of fragile

environmental

lands X X

Reduced

regional open

space X X

Alleged positive impact

Enhanced

personal and

public open

space X X

Quality of life

Alleged negative impact

Aesthetically

displeasing X X

Lessened

sense of

community X X

Greater stress X X

(continued)

Page 55 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix II 

Summary of Studies on Factors Related to

“Urban Sprawl”

Does this condition exist to a high degree? Is it strongly linked to sprawl?

Area

potentially

affected/

alleged

impact

General

agreement

Some

agreement

No clear

outcome

Substantial

disagreement

General

agreement

Some

agreement

No clear

outcome

Substantial

disagreement

Higher energy

consumption X X

More air

pollution X

X

Lessened

historic

preservation X X

Alleged positive impact

Satisfies

preference for

low-density

living X X

Lower crime

rates X X

Reduced

costs of public

and private

goods X X

Fosters

greater

economic

well-being X X

Social Issues

Alleged negative impact

Fosters

suburban

exclusione X

X

Fosters spatial

mismatchf X X

Fosters

residential

segregation X X

Worsens city

fiscal stress X X

Worsens

inner-city

deterioration X X

Alleged positive impact

(continued)

Page 56 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix II 

Summary of Studies on Factors Related to

“Urban Sprawl”

Does this condition exist to a high degree? Is it strongly linked to sprawl?

Area

potentially

affected/

alleged

impact

General

agreement

Some

agreement

No clear

outcome

Substantial

disagreement

General

agreement

Some

agreement

No clear

outcome

Substantial

disagreement

Fosters

localized

land-use

decisions X X

Enhances

municipal

diversity and

choice X X

aPublic operating costs include public workers’ salaries and benefits; normal expenditures for

supplies, repairs, and replacement items; and debt service for capital facilities.

aUnplanned growth is believed to result in greater cost to municipalities.

cThese social costs include air and water pollution, noise, and the costs of parking and accidents

that are not paid by transportation users.

dAutomobiles are the most efficient means of travel when development is dispersed.

eSuburban exclusionary zoning increases the concentration of low-income households in certain

neighborhoods.

f

A spatial mismatch occurs when most new jobs are created in the suburbs and many low-skilled

workers live in inner-city neighborhoods; this mismatch aggravates the high rates of

unemployment in inner-city neighborhoods.

Page 57 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of

Commerce

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

Page 58 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of

Commerce

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

Now on p. 6.

See comment 3.

Now on p. 19.

Page 59 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of

Commerce

See comment 4.

Now on page 54.

Page 60 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of

Commerce

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Commerce’s

letter dated April 5, 1999.

GAO’s Comments 1. Identifying whether agencies had the resources to conduct analyses on

the impact of federal investments was outside the scope of this report.

2. A more in-depth look at the tools and policies developed at the local

level to manage growth is planned for our next report on “urban sprawl.”

3. Because the Economic Development Administration’s (EDA) local

planning process was not cited as an example of regionalism in the

literature we reviewed or by the officials we interviewed, we did not

review the process; therefore, we did not include the process as an

example in the report.

4. We have underlined EDA in table I.3. We did not include EDA’s Economic

Adjustment Program in the table because it did not meet our criteria for a

major program. We identified a major program as one with at least one

annual funding or expenditure of about $50 million or more since fiscal

year 1995 for water and sewer systems.

Page 61 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

See comment 1.

Page 62 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

See comment 2.

See comment 3.

See comment 4.

See comment 5.

See comment 6.

Page 63 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

The following are GAO’s comments on the Environmental Protection

Agency’s (EPA) letter dated April 1, 1999.

GAO’s Comments 1. We changed the report to make it clearer that the shortage of evidence

does not mean that federal programs and policies do not have an impact

on “urban sprawl.”

2. We agree with EPA that there is enough research in a few federal

program and policy areas, such as transportation, to make stronger

statements about the federal impact on “urban sprawl.” However, we did

not revise the report as EPA suggested. The lack of research on some

federal polices makes the suggestion about grouping the similar policies

into one section impractical. Furthermore, creating such a section in the

report might lead readers to assume that the other policies do not

contribute to lower-density development when, in reality, research does

not exist to prove the point either way.

3. We disagree with EPA that there is widespread agreement in the research

community on the impact of outward growth. As summarized in appendix

II, a synthesis of available literature found very little agreement on the

alleged positive and negative effects of “urban sprawl.” Because our

intent was to provide a balanced discussion of the positive and negative

implications of “urban sprawl” cited by experts on both sides of the issue,

we revised the language in the report to make it clear that the statements

about positive and negative effects represent the views of experts.

4. We agree with EPA that affordability is not inherent to “urban sprawl”

and that alternatives, such as clustering housing, can also increase the

affordability of housing. However, experts believe that a positive effect of

“urban sprawl” is that housing costs are lower in the outer-ring suburbs.

Because our intent was to cite the views of experts, we did not revise the

report.

5. In response to EPA’s comments, we deleted the last sentence in the

observations section.

6. We changed the report’s title to Extent of Federal Influence on “Urban

Sprawl” Is Unclear.

Page 64 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix V 

Comments From the General Services

Administration

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

See comment 1.

Page 65 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix V 

Comments From the General Services

Administration

See comment 2.

Page 66 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix V 

Comments From the General Services

Administration

Page 67 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix V 

Comments From the General Services

Administration

The following are GAO’s comments on the General Services

Administration’s (GSA) letter dated April 2, 1999.

GAO’s Comments 1. We considered the additional information provided by GSA on its

implementation of Executive Orders 12072 and 13006 but did not make

any changes to the report because the report contains sufficient

information on these activities.

2. In response to the additional information provided by GSA on its role in

the Federal Livability Communities Agenda, we added a reference to GSA’s

Good Neighbor Program in appendix I of the report.

Page 68 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Appendix VI 

Major Contributors to This Report

Housing and

Community

Development—

Atlanta Field Office

Signora May, Evaluator-in-Charge

Lisa Moore

Paige Smith

Housing and

Community

Development—

Resources,

Community, and

Economic

Development

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Susan Campbell, Assistant Director

Patricia Farrell Donahue

Donna Lucas

Patrick Valentine

James Vitarello

Office of General

Counsel

John McGrail

Page 69 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Selected Bibliography

Abt Associates, Inc. Development and Analysis of the National

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Database. HUD, Office of Policy

Development and Research. Washington, D.C.: July 1996.

Ackerman, Eric T., and Kenneth P. Linder. “Innovation, Regulation in

Electric Ratemaking.” Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy

(Winter 1990), pp. 28-31.

Alsalam, Nabeel, et al. The Economic Effects of Federal Spending on

Infrastructure and Other Investments. Congressional Budget Office.

Washington, D.C.: June 1998.

America’s Private Land: A Geography of Hope. USDA, Natural Resources

Conservation Service. Dec. 1996.

An Analysis of FHA’s Single-Family Insurance Program. HUD, Office of

Policy Development and Research. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1995.

Auten, Gerald E., and Andrew Reshovsky. The New Exclusion for Capital

Gains on Principal Residences. Paper presented at the Federal Taxation

and Finance Committee meeting at the 90th Annual Conference of the

National Tax Association. Chicago: Nov. 1997.

Barro, Stephen M. The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies: Vol. 3, Fiscal

Conditions. RAND Corporation. Santa Monica, Cal.: Apr. 1978.

Bartik, Timothy J. “The Effects of Environmental Regulation on Business

Location in the United States.” Growth and Change, Vol. 19, No. 3

(Summer 1988), pp. 22-44.

Berkovec, James, and Don Fullerton. “A General Equilibrium Model of

Housing, Taxes and Portfolio Choice.” Journal of Political Economy, Vol.

100, No. 2 (1992), pp. 390-429.

Blackley, Dixie, and James R. Follain. “Inflation, Tax Advantages to

Homeownership and the Locational Choices of Households,” Regional

Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Nov. 1983), pp. 505-516.

Bollier, David. How Smart Growth Can Stop Sprawl: A Fledgling Citizen

Movement Expands. Washington, D.C.: Essential Books, 1998.

Page 70 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Selected Bibliography

Brownstone, David, and Thomas F. Golob. “The Effectiveness of

Ridesharing Incentives: Discrete-Choice Models of Commuting in

Southern California.” Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 22

(1992), pp. 5-24.

Burchell, Robert W. “Economic and Fiscal Costs (and Benefits) of

Sprawl,” The Urban Lawyer. Spring 1997.

Burchell, Robert W., et al. Costs of Sprawl Revisited: The Evidence of

Sprawl’s Negative and Positive Impacts. National Research Council,

Transportation Research Board. Sept. 1998.

–. Public Works Program: Performance Evaluation. U.S. Department of

Commerce, EDA. Washington, D.C.: May 1997.

Burman, Leonard E., Sally Wallace, and David Weiner. How Capital Gains

Taxes Distort Homeowners’ Decisions. 89th Annual Conference on

Taxation, National Tax Association. Nov. 12, 1996.

Buzby, Brian. The Hidden Costs of Sprawl: A Case Study for Metro Denver.

Colorado Public Interest Research Group and Colorado Public Interest

Research Foundation. Denver: Dec. 1997.

Capozza, Dennis R., Richard K. Green, and Patrick H. Hendershott.

“Taxes, Mortgage Borrowing and Residential Land Prices,” in Henry J.

Aaron and William G. Gale (eds.), Economic Effects of Fundamental Tax

Reform. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1996.

Carliner, Michael S. “Development of Federal Homeownership ‘Policy,’”

Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1998), pp. 299-321.

Carlino, Gerald A., and Edwin S. Mills. “The Determinants of County

Growth.” Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 27, No. 1 (1987), pp. 39-54.

Carrying Capacity Network. Beyond Sprawl: The Cost of Population

Growth to Local Communities. Washington, D.C.: Dec. 1998.

Chinitz, Benjamin. “Growth Management: Good for the Town, Bad for the

Nation?” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 56 (1990), pp.

3-8.

Page 71 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Selected Bibliography

Clean Water Act: State Revolving Fund Loans to Improve Water Quality

(GAO/RCED-97-19, Dec. 31, 1996).

Cohen, Michael A. “Stock and Flow: Making Better Use of Metropolitan

Resources.” Brookings Review, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Fall 1998), pp. 37-38.

Consequences of the Development of the Interstate Highway System for

Transit. National Research Council, Transportation Research Board,

Research Results Digest No. 21 (Aug. 1997).

The Cost of Sprawl. Maine State Planning Office. Augusta, Me: May 1997.

Cummings, Jean L., and Denise DiPasquale. Building Affordable Rental

Housing: An Analysis of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. Boston: City

Research, Feb. 1998.

The Dark Side of the American Dream: The Costs and Consequences of

Suburban Sprawl. Sierra Club. College Park, Md.: 1998.

Dinsmore, Clement. The Metropolitan Initiative: The Federal Role in

Metropolitan Cooperation. The Center for Neighborhood Technology.

Chicago: Mar. 11, 1997.

Downs, Anthony. New Visions for Metropolitan America. The Brookings

Institution and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Washington, D.C., and

Cambridge, Mass.: 1994.

–. “The Big Picture: How America’s Cities Are Growing.” Brookings

Review, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Fall 1998), pp. 8-11.

Economic Development Activities: Overview of Eight Federal Programs

(GAO/RCED-97-193, Aug. 28, 1997).

Esseks, J. Dixon, et al. Fiscal Costs and Public Safety Risks of Low-Density

Residential Development on Farmland: Findings From Three Diverse

Locations on the Urban Fringe of the Chicago Metropolitan Area.

American Farmland Trust, Center for Agriculture in the Environment.

DeKalb, Ill: Mar. 1998.

Ewing, Reid H. “Characteristics, Causes, and Effects of Sprawl: A

Literature Review.” Environmental and Urban Issues (Winter 1994), pp.

1-15.

Page 72 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Selected Bibliography

–. “Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable?” Journal of the American

Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 1 (Winter 1997), pp. 107-126.

Expanding Metropolitan Highways: Implications for Air Quality and

Energy Use. Report of the Committee for Study of Impacts of Highway

Capacity Improvements on Air Quality and Energy Consumption. National

Research Council, Transportation Research Board, Special Report 245

(1995).

Farming on the Edge: A New Look at the Importance and Vulnerability of

Agriculture Near American Cities. American Farmland Trust. Washington,

D.C.: 1994.

“FBI Plans Move Out of Downtown Columbia, South Carolina.”

Economic Developments, National Council for Urban Economic

Development, Vol. 22, No. 4 (1997), pp. 1, 7.

Federal Electric Power: Operating and Financial Status of DOE’s Power

Marketing Administrations. (GAO/RCED/AIMD-96-9FS, Oct. 13, 1995).

Federal Electricity Activities: The Federal Government’s Net Cost and

Potential for Future Losses, Vol. 1 (GAO/AIMD-97-110, Sept. 19, 1997).

Federal Electricity Activities: Appendixes to the Federal Government’s Net

Cost and Potential for Future Losses, Vol. 2 (GAO/AIMD-97-110A, Sept. 19,

1997).

Federal Power: Options for Selected Power Marketing Administrations’

Role in a Changing Electricity Industry (GAO/RCED-98-43, Mar. 6, 1998).

Federal Power: PMA Rate Impacts, by Service Area (GAO/RCED-99-55, Jan. 28,

1999).

Federal Power: Regional Effects of Changes in PMAs’ Rates (GAO/RCED-99-15,

Nov. 16, 1998).

Feins, Judith D., et al. State and Metropolitan Administration of Section 8:

Current Models and Potential Resources (Final Report). HUD, Office of

Policy Development and Research. Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1997.

Fodor, Eben. The Cost of Growth in Oregon: 1998 Report. Eugene, Oreg.:

Fodor and Associates, Oct. 1998.

Page 73 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Selected Bibliography

Garreau, Joel. Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. New York: Doubleday,

1991.

Getting a Fair Share: An Analysis of Federal Transportation Spending.

Surface Transportation Policy Project. Washington, D.C.: 1996.

Giuliano, Genevieve, and Kenneth A. Small. “Is the Journey to Work

Explained by Urban Structure?” Urban Studies, Vol. 30, No. 9 (Nov. 1993),

pp. 1485-1500.

Glickman, Norman J., ed. The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies.

Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins U. Press, 1980.

Gordon, Peter, and Harry W. Richardson. “Alternative Views of Sprawl.”

Journal of the American Planning Association (Spring 1997).

–. “Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?” Journal of the

American Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 1 (Winter 1997), pp. 99-105.

–. The Case for Suburban Development. Lusk Center Research Institute.

Los Angeles: Mar. 1996.

–. “Prove It: The Costs and Benefits of Sprawl.” Brookings Review, Vol. 16,

No. 4 (Fall 1998), pp. 23-25.

Gordon, Peter, Harry W. Richardson, and Myung-Jin Jun. “The Commuting

Paradox: Evidence From the Top Twenty.” Journal of the American

Planning Association, Vol. 57, No. 4 (Autumn 1991), pp. 416-420.

Gray, Don, and Carol Werner. “Sustainability Provisions in the New Tax

Law.” Memorandum to Members of the Sustainable Communities

Advisory Committee and Other Potentially Interested Parties, Nov. 6, 1997.

Green, Richard K. “What Causes Sprawl? An Economist’s View.”

Presentation to the WAPA Meeting, Sept. 10, 1998.

Green, Richard K., and Kerry D. Vandell. Giving Households Credit: How

Changes in the Tax Code Could Promote Homeownership. Working Paper,

Center for Urban Land Economics Research, U. of Wisconsin-Madison,

Jan. 27, 1998.

Page 74 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Selected Bibliography

Growth Management Planning and Research Clearinghouse, U. of

Washington. A Literature Review of Community Impacts and Costs of

Urban Sprawl. National Trust for Historic Preservation. Washington, D.C.:

1993.

“GSA Agrees to Work With Cities Under New Regulations.” Economic

Developments, National Council for Urban Economic Development, Vol.

21, No. 10 (1996), pp. 1-2.

“GSA Issues Regs to Reinforce Urban Site Preferences.” Economic

Developments, National Council for Urban Economic Development, Vol.

21, No. 6 (1996), pp. 1, 4.

A Guide to Reporting Highway Statistics. U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT), Federal Highway Administration. 1997.

Gyourko, Joseph, and Richard Voith. “Does the U.S. Tax Treatment of

Housing Promote Suburbanization and Central City Decline?” Federal

Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Working Paper No. 97-13 (Sept. 17, 1997).

Hansen, Mark. “Do New Highways Generate Traffic?” Access, No. 7 (Fall

1995), pp. 16-22.

Hansen, Mark, and Yuanlin Huang. “Road Supply and Traffic in California

Urban Areas.” Transportation Research, Vol. 31, No. 3 (1997), pp. 205-218.

Haughwout, Andrew F. “Central City Infrastructure Investment and

Suburban House Values.” Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol. 27

(1997), pp. 199-215.

Highway Statistics 1997. DOT, Federal Highway Administration. Nov. 1998.

Highway Statistics Summary to 1995. DOT, Federal Highway

Administration. July 1997.

Homeownership: FHA’s Role in Helping People Obtain Home Mortgages

(GAO/RCED-96-123, Aug. 13, 1996).

Hulsey, Brett. $ubsidizing Disaster: How Your Tax Money and Weak

Wetland Protection Increase Your Risk of Being Flooded. Sierra Club

Midwest Office. Madison, Wis.: Apr. 15, 1997.

Page 75 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Selected Bibliography

The Impact of Federal Programs on Wetlands, Vol. II, A Report to

Congress by the Secretary of the Interior. U.S. Department of the Interior.

Mar. 1994.

International City/County Management Association with Geoff Anderson.

Why Smart Growth: A Primer. International City/County Management

Association and Smart Growth Network. Washington, D.C.: 1998.

The IRS Homeseller Capital Gain Provision: Contributor to Urban Decline.

Ohio Housing Research Network. Jan. 5, 1994.

Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the

United States. New York: Oxford U. Press, Inc., 1985.

Jaffe, Adam B., et al. “Environmental Regulation and the Competitiveness

of U.S. Manufacturing: What Does the Evidence Tell Us?” Journal of

Economic Literature, Vol. 33 (Mar. 1995), pp. 132-163.

Katz, Bruce. Beyond City Limits: The Case for Metropolitan Solutions to

Urban Problems. Forthcoming.

–. Reviving Cities: Think Metropolitan. The Brookings Institution, Policy

Brief No. 33. Washington, D.C.: June 1998.

Lamb, Richard F. “The Extent and Form of Exurban Sprawl.” Growth and

Change (Jan. 1983), pp. 40-47.

Lewis, Paul G. “Regionalism and Representation: Measuring and Assessing

Representation in Metropolitan Planning Organizations.” Urban Affairs

Review, Vol. 33, No. 6 (July 1998), pp. 839-853.

Lichter, Daniel T., and Glenn V. Fuguitt. “Demographic Response to

Transportation Innovation: The Case of the Interstate Highway.” Social

Forces, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Dec. 1980), pp. 492-512.

Linking Tax Law and Sustainable Urban Development: The Taxpayer

Relief Act of 1997. Environmental Law Institute. Washington, D.C.: 1998.

Living Within Constraints: An Emerging Vision for High Performance

Public Works. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, IWR Report 95-FIS-20.

Jan. 1995.

Page 76 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Selected Bibliography

Marsh, Lindell, Douglas Porter, and David Salvesen. “The Impact of

Environmental Mandates on Urban Growth.” Cityscape: A Journal of

Policy Development and Research, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Sept. 1996), pp. 127-154.

Mass Transit: Effects of Tax Changes on Commuter Behavior

(GAO/RCED-92-243, Sept. 8, 1992).

Mattoon, Richard. Issues in Governance Structure for Metropolitan Areas.

Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. 1995.

Moe, Richard, and Carter Wilkie. Changing Places: Rebuilding Community

in the Age of Sprawl. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997.

Monke, James, and Ron Durst. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997: Provisions

for Farmers and Rural Communities. USDA, Economic Research Service,

Food and Rural Economics Division, Agricultural Economic Report No.

764. July 1998.

1997 Status of the Nation’s Surface Transportation System: Condition and

Performance. Report to the Congress. DOT, Federal Highway

Administration and Federal Transit Administration. Mar. 1998.

Orfield, Myron. Metropolitics: A Regional Agenda for Community and

Stability. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press; Cambridge, Mass.:

The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1997.

Parzen, Julia. The Metropolitan Initiative: Innovations in Metropolitan

Cooperation. The Center for Neighborhood Technology. Chicago: 1997.

Pelley, Janet, et al. Sprawl Costs Us All: A Guide to the Costs of Sprawl

and How to Create Livable Communities in Maryland. Sierra Club

Foundation. Annapolis, Md.: 1997.

Porter, Douglas R. “Regional Governance of Metropolitan Form: The

Missing Link in Relating Land Use and Transportation.” Transportation,

Urban Form, and the Environment. National Research Council,

Transportation Research Board, Special Report 231 (1991), pp. 63-80.

Potholes & Politics 1998. Surface Transportation Policy Project.

Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1998.

Page 77 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Selected Bibliography

Powell, John A. “Race and Space: What Really Drives Metropolitan

Growth.” Brookings Review, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Fall 1998), pp. 20-22. Power

Marketing Administrations: Cost Recovery, Financing, and Comparison to

Nonfederal Utilities (GAO/AIMD-96-145, Sept. 19, 1996).

Power Marketing Administrations: Repayment of Power Costs Needs

Closer Monitoring (GAO/AIMD-98-164, June 30, 1998).

Public Infrastructure Spending and an Analysis of the President’s

Proposals for the Infrastructure Spending from 1996 to 2000.

Congressional Budget Office. Washington, D.C.: June 1995.

Rephann, Terance J. “Highway Investment and Regional Economic

Development: Decision Methods and Empirical Foundations.” Urban

Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2 (1993), pp. 437-450.

Rephann, Terance and Andrew Isserman. “New Highways as Economic

Development Tools: An Evaluation Using Quasi-Experimental Matching

Methods.” Regional Science and Urban Economics Vol. 24 (1994), pp.

723-751.

Richmond, Henry R. “From Sea to Shining Sea: Manifest Destiny and the

National Land Use Dilemma.” White Plains, N.Y.: Pace U. School of Law,

1993.

Riggle, James D., and Jonathan Tolman. Taking Private Land for Private

Interests: The Agenda and Policies of the American Farmland Trust.

Competitive Enterprise Institute. Washington, D.C.: 1998.

Robinson, Kelly. “Industrial Location and Air Pollution Controls: A Review

of Evidence From the USA.” Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 19, No. 2

(1995), pp. 222-244.

Rural Development: Availability of Capital for Agriculture, Business, and

Infrastructure. (GAO/RCED-97-109, May 27, 1997).

Rural Development: Financial Condition of the Rural Utilities Service’s

Loan Portfolio (GAO/RCED-97-82, Apr. 11, 1997).

Rural Development: Patchwork of Federal Water and Sewer Programs Is

Difficult to Use. GAO/RCED-95-160BR, Apr. 13, 1995).

Page 78 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Selected Bibliography

Rural Development: USDA’s Approach to Funding Water and Sewer

Projects (GAO/RCED-95-258, Sept. 22, 1995).

Rural Utilities Service: Opportunities to Operate Electricity and

Telecommunications Loan Programs More Effectively (GAO/RCED-98-42,

Jan. 21, 1998).

Rusk, David. Cities Without Suburbs. Washington, D.C.: The Woodrow

Wilson Center Press, 1993.

–. “The Exploding Metropolis: Why Growth Management Makes Sense.”

Brookings Review, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Fall 1998), pp. 13-15.

Schmidt, Charles. “The Specter of Sprawl.” Environmental Health

Perspectives, Vol. 106, No. 6 (1998).

Sinai, Todd M. “The Effect of Tax Reform on the Owner-Occupied

Housing Market,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, June 1997.

–. “Taxation, User Cost, and Household Mobility Decisions,” Working

Paper, Wharton School, U. of Pennsylvania, Dec. 1997.

Skaggs, Laura, and Kennedy Lawson Smith. “Wait a Minute, Mr. Postman

“ Main Street News, No. 131 (1997), pp. 1-7.

Sorensen, A. Ann, Richard P. Greene, and Karen Russ. Farming on the

Edge. American Farmland Trust, Center for Agriculture in the

Environment. DeKalb, Ill.: Mar. 1997.

Staley, Samuel R. “Urban Sprawl” and the Michigan Landscape: A

Market-Oriented Approach. Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Midland,

Mich.: 1998.

Sustainable America: A New Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity, and a

Healthy Environment for the Future. The President’s Council on

Sustainable Development. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1996.

Tax Credits: Opportunities to Improve Oversight of the Low-Income

Housing Program (GAO/GGD/RCED-97-55, Mar. 28, 1997).

Page 79 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Selected Bibliography

The Technological Reshaping of Metropolitan America. Office of

Technology Assessment (OTA-ETI-643, Sept. 1995).

Tennessee Valley Authority: Financial Problems Raise Questions About

Long-term Viability (GAO/AIMD/RCED-95-134, Aug. 17, 1995).

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century: A Summary. DOT, Federal

Highway Administration. 1998.

Turner, Margery Austin. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing:

Neighborhood Outcomes for Tenant-Based Assistance in Six Metropolitan

Areas. The Urban Institute. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1998.

–. “Moving Out of Poverty: Expanding Mobility and Choice Through

Tenant-Based Housing Assistance.” Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 9, No. 2

(1998), pp. 373-394.

Turner, Margery Austin, and Kale Williams. Housing Mobility: Realizing the

Promise. Report from the Second National Conference on Assisted

Housing Mobility. The Urban Institute. Washington, D.C.: Jan. 1998.

ULI on the Future: Smart Growth. Urban Land Institute. Washington, D.C.:

1998.

Urban Institute’s Federal Funds, Local Choices: An Evaluation of the

Community Development Block Grant Program, Vol. I. HUD, Office of

Policy Development and Research. Washington, D.C. May 1995.

Urban Transportation: Metropolitan Planning Organizations’ Efforts to

Meet Federal Planning Requirements (GAO/RCED-96-200, Sept. 17, 1996).

U.S. Housing Market Conditions. HUD, Office of Policy Development and

Research. Aug. 1998.

U.S. Postal Service: Information on Post Office Closures, Appeals, and

Affected Communities (GAO/GGD-97-38BR, Mar. 11, 1997).

Vaughan, Roger J. The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies: Vol. 2,

Economic Development. RAND Corporation. Santa Monica, Cal:

June 1977.

Page 80 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Selected Bibliography

Vaughan, Roger J., Anthony H. Pascal, and Mary E. Vaiana. The Urban

Impacts of Federal Policies: Vol. 1, Overview. RAND Corporation. Santa

Monica, Cal.: Aug. 1980.

Vaughan, Roger J. and Mary E. Vogel. The Urban Impacts of Federal

Policies: Vol. 4, Population and Residential Location. RAND Corporation.

Santa Monica, Cal.: May 1979.

Vesterby, Marlow, Ralph E. Heimlich, and Kenneth S. Krupa. Urbanization

of Rural Land in the United States. USDA, Economic Research Service.

Agricultural Economic Report 673. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1994.

Vesterby, Marlow and Kenneth S. Krupa. “Effects of Urban Land

Conversion on Agriculture.” Urbanization and Development Effects on the

Use of Natural Resources. Proceedings of a regional workshop sponsored

by the Southern Rural Development Center, Mississippi State U. July 1993,

pp. 85-114.

Ward, Matthew W., Kenneth A. Brown, and David B. Lieb. “National

Incentives for Smart Growth Communities.” Natural Resources &

Environment, Vol. 13, No. 1 (1998), pp. 325-329, 369.

Wiebe, Keith, Abebayehu Tegene, and Betsey Kuhn. Partial Interests in

Land: Policy Tools for Resource Use and Conservation. USDA, Economic

Research Service. Agricultural Economic Report 744. Washington, D.C.:

Nov. 1996.

Willson, Richard W. “Estimating the Travel and Parking Demand Effects

of Employer-Paid Parking,” Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol.

22 (1992), pp. 133-145.

Zinn, Jeffrey A. Managing Regional Growth: Is There a Role for Congress?

Congressional Research Service. Washington, D.C.: Jan. 4, 1999.

(385763) Page 81 GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on “Urban Sprawl”
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100