Message From the Executive Director:

• Did you hear the Governor?!

Articles:

• Sprawl Report
• Dan Burden Rocks the Upstate!
• The ReGenesis Project
• The Saluda-Reedy Watershed Project Receives 1.5 Million!

Upstate Conservation:

• First Easement in Union County
• Chauga Watershed Project
• "The Cotton Patch"
• Green Space Donated to Greenville

Upstate Forever News:

• Staff News
• News from the Board

Greenville-Spartanburg Area Is The 5th Most Sprawling Region In The United States

     The Greenville-Spartanburg metropolitan region (which includes Greenville, Spartanburg and Pickens Counties) has been ranked as the fifth most sprawling region in the country in a new study released by Smart Growth America. The study, Measuring Sprawl And Its Impact, is the product of three years of research and represents the most comprehensive effort ever undertaken to define, measure and evaluate sprawl.

     The study is yet another wake-up call for the Upstate to get serious about planning for growth and taking action to protect our region’s quality of life.

     The researchers define sprawl as “the process in which the spread of development across the landscape far outpaces population growth.” Sprawl has four dimensions: a population that is widely dispersed in low-density developments; rigid separations between homes, shops and workplaces; a network of roads marked by huge blocks and poor access; and a lack of well-defined, thriving “activity centers,” such as downtowns and town centers. Most of the other features usually associated with sprawl–the lack of transportation choices, relative uniformity of housing options and the difficulty of walking–are the result of these conditions.

     Based on this definition and understanding of sprawl, the researchers created a “sprawl index” based on the following four factors:

• Residential density;

• Neighborhood mix of homes, jobs and services;

• Strength of activity centers and downtowns;

• Accessibility of the street network.

     The 83 metropolitan areas subject to the study earned a score for each of these four factors, and the scores were combined to create an overall ranking. The average score was 100, with lower scores indicating poorer performance and more sprawl, while higher scores indicate less sprawl.

     Now let’s take a close look at each of the four factors and how the Greenville-Spartanburg area scored.

Residential Density

An example of our own local sprawl

     Residential density refers to the number of homes per acre and is the most widely recognized indicator of sprawl. Spread-out suburban subdivisions are a hallmark of sprawl and can make it difficult to provide residents with adequate nearby shopping, civic centers and transportation options.

     Yet higher densities do not necessarily mean high-rises. Densities that support smart growth are found in many older urban single-family neighborhoods. Such densities allow neighborhoods that can support convenience stores, small neighborhood schools, and more frequent transit service. The study quantifies the amount of land used per acre and measures the degree to which housing is spread out or compact.

     The Greenville-Spartanburg area had the second lowest score (71.9) for housing density among the 83 regions evaluated. Only Knoxville was worse (71.2).

Neighborhood Mix of Homes, Shops and Offices

     One of the most notable characteristics of sprawl is the strict segregation of different land uses. In sprawling regions, housing subdivisions are typically separated–often by many miles–from shopping, offices, civic centers and even schools. This separation of uses is what requires every trip to be made by car and can result in a “jobs-housing imbalance” in which workers cannot find housing close to their place of work. More traditional development patterns, on the other hand, tend to mix different land uses by placing housing near or even within retail and office buildings and by incorporating pedestrian networks that connect destinations. Measuring the degree of mix is therefore an important indicator of sprawl.

     The Greenville-Spartanburg area finished in fourth place for this factor, with a score of 50.4. Raleigh-Durham, Riverside and Greensboro-Winston Salem were the top three, respectively.

Strength of Metropolitan Centers

     Metropolitan centers–downtowns, small towns or “edge cities”–are concentrations of activity that help businesses thrive, attract residential development, and support alternative transportation modes. They foster a sense of place in the urban landscape.

     This is the factor for which the Greenville-Spartanburg area received its highest ranking (98.5)–a result that is hardly surprising in view of the revitalization of downtown Greenville and the exciting work that is now underway in the downtown areas of Spartanburg, Simpsonville, Greer and Anderson.

Accessibility of the Street Network

Sprawl–Auto-dependent development with segregated uses and a disconnected street network. Traditional– Pedestrian-friendly development with mixed uses and an easily accessible street network.

     Street networks can be dense or sparse, interconnected or disconnected. Blocks carved out by streets can be short and small or long and large. Busy arterials that are fed by residential streets that end in cul-de-sacs are typical of sprawl–they create huge “super blocks” that concentrate automobile traffic onto a few routes and hamper accessibility via transit, walking and biking. Compact development generally includes a network of interconnected streets with shorter blocks that allow greater accessibility and a broader choice of routes for drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.

     The Greenville-Spartanburg area received a score of 62.1, the fifth worst ranking in the study.

Measuring Sprawl’s Impact

     The researchers tested the validity of their index against well known and well accepted measures of travel and transportation, such as vehicle miles traveled, number of cars per household, average commute times, traffic fatalities, and ozone pollution levels. The study controlled for several demographic and socioeconomic variables that might have had an independent influence on these travel and transportation measurements.

     Here are the basic findings:

A. People in Sprawling Regions
Drive More and Own More Cars.

     Compared with all of the control variables, the degree of sprawl was the strongest influence on vehicle miles traveled per person. This was somewhat surprising because some scholars contend that population and per capita income have the greatest influence on the amount of vehicle travel.

     Vehicle use increases quite noticeably as sprawl increases. For every 25-unit decline in the Sprawl Index, there is an almost two-mile increase in daily vehicle miles traveled per person. While the numbers appear modest on an individual basis, the cumulative impact is enormous–even a small increase in per capita miles of travel means a significant increase in traffic, emissions and fuel expenditures for an entire metropolitan region.

     Residential density also strongly influences the amount of driving per person. A 25-unit increase in this factor corresponds with a decrease of 5.4 miles driven per day per person.

The Kentlands traditional neighborhood development in Maryland is an outstanding example of a mixed use walkable community.

     Sprawl is also associated with higher levels of automobile ownership. In fact, the number of cars per household was more strongly related to the degree of sprawl than to the proportion of the population of working age or per capita income. This finding suggests that in sprawling regions, automobile ownership may be more a matter of survival than a matter of personal choice.

B. In Sprawling Areas, Fewer People Get to
Work by Taking Public Transportation and Walking.

     In more sprawling places, people on their way to work are far less likely to take the bus or train or to walk. The metropolitan areas that are more sprawling than average have only 2.3 per cent of workers using public transportation, while the less sprawling places have 5.1 per cent. In examining whether people walk to work, the degree of sprawl is by far the most powerful predictor; associations with all of the control variables were insignificant.

C. No Effect on Traffic Delays.

     The study did not find statistically significant relationships between sprawl and either the amount of travel delay that drivers experience or the average travel time for commuters. One of the arguments most often advanced by “sprawl defenders” is that sprawl reduces traffic congestion and delay. That argument is not supported by the study. Those who believe that metropolitan regions can “sprawl their way out” of congestion appear to be wrong.

D. More Sprawl Means
More Traffic Fatalities.

     Sprawling places are likely to have more traffic fatalities per person than more compact regions. This is a particularly disturbing finding for the Greenville-Spartanburg area where the traffic fatality rate is 46.63 deaths per 100,000 residents, well above the rates of regions that are well known for high traffic counts and congested roads (Atlanta 35.51, Los Angeles 20.46, Washington, D.C. 21.80). Our area’s rate is also higher than the second and third regions on the sprawl list (Greensboro-Winston-Salem, 34.71 and Raleigh-Durham, 29.21).

E. Air Quality Is Poorer in
Sprawling Areas.

     The study found a strong relationship between maximum ozone levels and the sprawl index.

     Of all the variables tested, the degree to which a region sprawls is the best indicator of ozone levels. Every shift of 25 points upwards in the index is related to a 7.5 parts per billion decrease in maximum ozone levels.

Recommendations

     The report concludes with six policy recommendations that are aimed at addressing the four factors and the transportation outcome measures:

• Reinvest in Neglected Communities and Promote More Housing Opportunities
• Rehabilitate Abandoned Properties
• Encourage Development or Redevelopment in Already Built Up Areas
• Create and Nurture Thriving, Mixed-Use Centers of Activity
• Support Growth Management Strategies, such as Careful Planning for Development in Designated Areas and the Preservation of Open Space
• Craft Transportation Policies That Favor Maintenance and Improvement of Existing Roads over the Construction of New Ones and That Provide Incentives for Transit-Oriented and Pedestrian Friendly Developments.

     This report is the latest in a series of studies released over the last four years that demonstrate the urgent need for the Upstate to take steps to address the challenges posed by growth: the aggressive driving study (Upstate Advocate, June, 1999); the United States Department of Agriculture study on the rate of development (Upstate Advocate, April, 2002); the United States Forest Service study on the loss of forest land (Upstate Update No. 30); and American Rivers’s study on the connection between development and water supplies (Upstate Update No. 37).
How many more studies do we need to convince our leaders and officials that the patterns and methods of development in the Upstate are threatening and undermining our region’s quality of life?

     The entire report can be found at: http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org