Legislators Seek Solutions to Costly Sprawl.

The cost of traffic congestion--or gridlock--has been estimated to be more than $75 billion a year in lost time and wasted fuel, in addition to increased driver aggravation and air pollution.

As residential development is forced farther away from office space and retail outlets, traveling distances increase, resulting in greater congestion and poorer air quality.

Even developers are beginning to realize that sprawl may deprive them of a qualified labor force in close proximity to job centers. So what can a lawmaker do to solve this tangle?

"Smart growth" legislation, as exemplified in Maryland, can change the pattern of development by forcing local governments to follow their own rules.

Maryland's legislation involves no new regulations, only an insistence that local governments and private investors locate projects in areas that have the necessary infrastructure (e.g., highways, roads, freeways, bridges, drinking water, sewer systems, etc.). These facilities can be planned or in place as development occurs. The state effectively leverages its financial assistance--both economic development aid and funds for the infrastructure--to ensure that growth occurs where it is most likely to be sustained.

"What's intriguing is that growth management, traditionally regarded as a 'liberal' cause of environmentalists and other softhearted people, suddenly turns into a measure of conservative cost cutting," says syndicated columnist Neal R. Peirce of the Maryland law.

What can smart growth legislation, like that in Maryland, do?

"It saves a lot of money, for one thing. It encourages redevelopment and it protects the environment," notes Minnesota Representative Myron Orfield.

Maryland isn't the only state addressing the traffic and sprawl dilemma. Other states--such as Georgia, Florida, Arizona and Tennessee--have also adopted several new approaches to combat sprawl:

* The Georgia General Assembly created the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority in 1999 after the Environmental Protection Agency decided to withhold federal highway funds because metropolitan Atlanta was violating clean air standards. The new 15-member authority can plan, construct and operate public transportation facilities in the 13-county area; issue $1 billion in revenue bonds to finance a public transportation system; and deny permits for developments that overburden existing transportation systems.

* The Florida Legislature passed the Urban Infill and Redevelopment Act in 1999, which provided financial incentives to encourage urban redevelopment. Among the incentives for developers are lower transportation impact fees (which are assessed on developers by local governments to recover some of the costs of growth) for development that encourages public transit, and assistance in meeting the state's concurrency requirements (which mandates that infrastructure be planned or in place "concurrent" with development approval).

* Arizona's approach addresses growth and transportation within existing local government plans. The 1998 Growing Smarter Act requires municipal and county plans to identify areas suitable for many kinds of transportation including mass transit; encourages mixing residential and commercial development to lessen the distances between jobs and housing that have pushed traffic farther out into rural areas; and promotes financially sound infrastructure expansion.

* Tennessee likewise passed legislation in 1999 that requires local plans to identify boundaries for urban growth in each city, areas that can be allowed to grow, and areas that should be kept rural. Once approved by all parties, all land use decisions made by a county or municipality must be consistent with the growth plan. After July 1, 2001, state economic development and infrastructure financial assistance will not be available to counties and municipalities that do not have approved growth plans.

What are the benefits of smart growth? By encouraging county and municipal governments to better coordinate their land use planning, decisions on where to locate new housing, subdivisions or shopping malls can incorporate roads and other infrastructure demands into the equation.

By approving developments that serve a regional area more efficiently (as opposed to meeting the revenue demands of individual municipalities), commuting miles traveled can be reduced, with corresponding reductions in pollution from motor vehicles. Such cooperative municipal-county planning can reduce the need for costly infrastructure investments that are inevitable when local governments compete for sales and property tax dollars.