Indicators of Urban Sprawl

* From 1970 to 1990, the density of urban population in the United States decreased by 23 percent.

Source: Associated Press article "Census: Cities Takeover U.S.," Statesman Journal, December 18, 1991.

* From 1970 to 1990, more than 30,000 square miles (19 million acres) of once-rural lands in the United States became urban, as classified by the U.S. Census Bureau. That amount of land equals about one third of Oregon's total land area.

Source: Associated Press article referred to above.

* From 1969 to 1989, the population of the United States. increased by 22.5 percent -- and the number of miles driven by that population ("vehicles miles traveled" or "VMT") increased by 98.4 percent.

Source: Federal Highway Administration, "Selected Highway Statistics and Charts--l 989," quoted in March 1991 Special Trends, by the Urban Land Institute.

* From 1983 to 1987, the population of the United States increased by 9.2 million-people -- and the number of cars and trucks increased by 20. 1 million.

Source: Statistical Abstract of United States, 1989, quoted in Anthony Downs' "The Need for a New Vision for the Development of Large U.S. Metropolitan Areas."

* "In the 1980s in Oregon, the number of vehicle miles traveled increased eight times faster than the population."

Source: TRI-MET Strategic Plan (Discussion Draft), April 1992, p. 3.

* From 1940 to 1970, the population of the Portland urban region doubled-and the amount of land occupied by that population quadrupled.

Source: The University of Oregon's Atlas of Oregon, 1976.

Quotations About Sprawl

"Taken together, the studies [on costs of sprawl] reach similar conclusions: development spread out at low densities increases the costs of public facilities."

Douglas R. Porter, in the foreword to

The Costs of Alternative Development Patterns,

by James E. Frank, 1989

"Studies conducted over the last 30 years have concluded that when development is spread out at low densities, the per-unit cost of constructing and maintaining public facilities increases. The reason for this is that low- density development requires more miles of roads, curbs, sewers, and water lines; and municipal services must be delivered over a greater geographic area."

The Urban Land Institute

The Case for Multifamily Housing, 1991

"For the last three decades, urban economists and city planners have recognized that unplanned sprawling residential development is very costly. As this development extends outward from the core, city infrastructure, service and maintenance costs increase exponentially . . . ."

Katherine E. Stone and Dennis Martinek

"The Economic Consequences of Unmanaged Growth"

Western City, November 1991

"By updating and standardizing the studies Frank [cited above] found that streets, utilities, and schools for a suburban single family development with 3 dwelling units per acre built 5 miles from sewage and water treatment plants in a leapfrog pattern would cost $43,381 per dwelling in 1987 dollars. Building the same development adjacent to existing development and near central facilities would reduce costs by $11,597 per dwelling unit, a 27 percent reduction."

Center for Urban Studies (PSU) and Regional Financial Advisors, Inc.

DLCD's Local Government Infrastructure Funding in Oregon, 1990

"For Loudon County, the average annual revenue shortfall or net public be approximately three times as large ($2200 per dwelling) from the lowest-density residential community projected in the study as from the highest- density community ($700 per dwelling)."

The American Farmland Trust

Density-Related Public Costs, 1986

"The results of the study . . . show a surprising consistency: 'planning' to some extent, but higher densities to a much greater extent, result in lower economic costs, environmental costs, natural resource consumption, and some personal costs for a given number of dwelling units."

Real Estate Research Corporation

The Costs of Sprawl, 1974

Revised 5/10/95
HTML formatting by Jeanne Kowalewski