• mobilitylab.org site logo
  • Mobility Lab main menu search icon:  click to do a search
    • Understanding Transportation Demand Management
    • Transportation Demand Management In Action
      • Arlington Transportation Partners
        • The Practice of Transportation Demand Management
      • Information and Outreach
        • Commuter Services
        • Messaging
        • Champions Program
      • Learn more about TDM
        • Further Reading
    • Our Research
      • Travel Behaviors
        • Transit
        • Bike
        • Walk
        • Ridesharing
        • Micromobility
      • Arlington Analysis
        • Regional Surveys
        • Evaluations
        • Building Studies
      • Market Profiles
        • All Profiles
    • Transit Oriented Communities
    • Urban Planning
    • Resources
      • The Transportation Cost-Savings Calculators
        • ROI Calculator
        • TRIMMS 4.0
      • Research Data
        • Transit APIs
        • Archived Articles
      • Video Library
      • Infographics
      • Glossary Of Key Terms
    • About Us
      • Meet Our Team
      • Careers

Transit Oriented Communities

  • Home
  • Transit oriented communities

New Research Reveals the Costs of Sprawl to Municipal Coffers

July 15, 2016

Cover Image for The fiscal implication of development patterns reportDownload

New research teaches cities how the ways they are developed impact the cost of municipal services.

Ever since the Roman Empire, local governments have had great control over land use. Today, municipalities control development using zoning regulations, tax policies, and infrastructure-investment decisions. Municipalities can choose to develop in an unconnected, low-density, suburban-style manner, or they can consider more compact, connected urban land uses.

These decisions have enormous implications for a municipality’s finances, according to a new report from non-profit Smart Growth America and real-estate advisory firm RCLCO.

The report, The Fiscal Implications of Development Patterns, is authored by Smart Growth America’s Chris Zimmerman and RCLCO’s Lee Sobel. They analyze the dollar costs to municipalities of different land-use patterns, concluding that overall, dispersed, car-dependent patterns result in higher costs to municipalities than dense, urban development. Choosing sprawl over density, the authors state, could have multimillion-dollar consequences.

One cost to municipalities stems from the impact land use has on governmental services that the authors classify as “sensitive to geographic dispersion.” These municipal services are roads, water and wastewater, stormwater, fire protection, school transportation, and solid-waste collection. Each of these cost more for municipalities to provide when land use is dispersed.

The second cost to municipalities results from the lower tax revenues generated by low-density development, due to differences in property values. Both residential- and commercial-property values are higher in walkable, dense urban settings than low-density ones.

This combination of higher costs and lower revenues resulting from low-density land use is a net fiscal impact the researchers claim has “enormous implications for a municipality’s finances.”

The authors have offered to model different land-use scenarios for municipalities curious to find out how land use affects their bottom lines. The firms use a fiscal-impact tool that answers such questions as:

  • How much will it cost to support that new development in coming years? and
  • Would the development bring more net revenue if designed differently?

Smart Growth America and RCLCO’s research about the additional costs of sprawl comes at a time when, overall, the world is urbanizing. 2014 was the first year, according to the United Nations, in which the majority of the global population lived in urban areas. At the same time, also in 2014, according to another study by Smart Growth America, the U.S. was slightly more sprawling than in the year prior. (Urbanization and sprawl are not mutually exclusive, however. Most reports regarding global urbanization failed to explain that the UN’s definition is binary, classifying places as either urban or rural. Suburban sprawl, therefore, is one type of urbanization.)

As the world continues to urbanize, we can construct vibrant, transit-oriented, walkable places, or we can build larger houses on larger lots, with the costs this decision entails: more traffic congestion, higher rates of obesity, and poorer air quality.

And now we know another cost of this land-use decision: more costly municipal services, higher taxes, and burdened municipalities, who may want to revisit their policies that support and encourage sprawl.

 
share this item

Subscribe to Receive Updates on the Latest Mobility Research and Trends

Arlington Virginia Department of Environmental Services

Arlington County Commuter Services (ACCS) is funded in part by grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT)

ACCS Family of Sites
  • Arlington Transit
  • Arlington Transportation Partners
  • Bike Arlington
  • Capital Bikeshare
  • Car Free Diet
  • Car-Free Near Me
  • CommuterDirect
  • CommuterPage
  • Dieta Cero-Auto
  • The Commuter Store
  • Walk Arlington
  • Terms and Conditions
Follow Us
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin
  • youtube
  • instagram

© 2025 Mobility Lab, a program of Arlington County, Virginia