Community Development: Extent of Federal Influence on "Urban Sprawl" Is
Unclear (Letter Report, 04/30/99, GAO/RCED-99-87).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the contribution of
federal programs and policies to urban sprawl, focusing on: (1) the
origins and implications of urban sprawl; (2) evidence that exists on
the influence of federal programs and policies on urban sprawl; and (3)
regulatory review and coordination mechanisms evaluating and mitigating
the effects of federal actions on urban sprawl.

GAO noted that: (1) 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; (2) 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; (3) 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; (4) 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; (5) some experts believe that the federal
government influences urban sprawl through spending for specific
programs, taxation, and regulation, but few studies document the extent
of the federal influence; (6) 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; (7)
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; (8) GAO found little
quantitative research linking federal assistance for water and sewer
systems with urban sprawl; (9) 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; (10)
the tax policy research GAO reviewed did not directly estimate the
effects of existing tax policies on urban sprawl; (11) studies indicate
that environmental regulations play a small role in decisions about the
location of businesses; (12) 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; and (13) the executive orders establish basic principles for
agencies to follow when reviewing and approving regulations, and
specific laws offer federal agencies an opportunity to consider the
potential influence of their actions on growth.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-99-87
     TITLE:  Community Development: Extent of Federal Influence on
	     "Urban Sprawl" Is Unclear
      DATE:  04/30/99
   SUBJECT:  Community development
	     Urban development programs
	     Federal aid programs
	     Executive orders
	     Environmental policies
	     Housing programs
	     Urban planning
	     Road construction
	     Land management
IDENTIFIER:  FHwA Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
	     Program

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  This text was extracted from a PDF file.        **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,      **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some   **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into          **
** body text in the adjacent column.  Graphic images have       **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included.       **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been   **
** preserved.                                                   **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Extent of Federal Influence on 1Urban
Sprawl2 Is Unclear GAO/RCED-99-87 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/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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 1

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

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 2

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).

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 3

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 4

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 5

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 legislation 3 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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 6

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 7

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 topic 4 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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 8

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 9

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 21 st 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

10 Consequences of the Development of the Interstate Highway
System for Transit, National Research Council, Transportation
Research Board, Research Results Digest No. 21 (Aug. 1997). 11 See
footnote 2. 12 See app. I for more information on the programs and
our criteria for selecting them.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 10

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

13 An 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.

14 U. S. Housing Market Conditions, HUD, Office of Policy
Development and Research (Aug. 1998). 15 Margery 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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 11

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 easements 17 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

16 Brownfield sites are abandoned, idled, or underused industrial
and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is
complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. 17 A
conservation easement is a deed restriction that landowners
voluntarily place on their property to protect resources such as
productive agricultural land or wildlife habitat. 18 The location
of a home is not a condition that affects a homeowner's ability to
use the mortgage interest deduction.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 12

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.

19 James 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.

20 Genevieve 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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 13

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
leases 21 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

21 For buildings in cities where GSA leases 100,000 square feet or
more of rental space. 22 This 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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 14

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

Inside central business district 45% 52%

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

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 15

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

23 The 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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 16

B-280699

significant regulatory actions 24 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

24 Executive 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.

25 Unfunded mandates are laws that require an action on the part
of another level of government without providing funding.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 17

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 1996 26 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

26 Sustainable America: A New Consensus for Prosperity,
Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for the Future, The
President's Council on Sustainable Development (Feb. 1996). 27
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
present generation without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 18

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 21 st 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

28 Executive Order 12372 was slightly amended by Executive Order
12416 in Apr. 1983. 29 Clement Dinsmore, The Federal Role in
Metropolitan Cooperation, Center for Neighborhood Technology
(1997).

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 19

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

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 20

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

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 21

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

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 22

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 23

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

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 24

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 25

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

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

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

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 27

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
easements 30 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

30 A conservation easement is a deed restriction that landowners
voluntarily place on their property to protect resources such as
productive agricultural land and wildlife habitat.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 28

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

31 Marlow 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). 32 Keith 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).

33 A. Ann Sorensen, Richard P. Greene, and Karen Russ, Farming on
the Edge, American Farmland Trust (Mar. 1997).

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 29

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

34 Adam 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. 35 Kelly 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. 36 Timothy 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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 30

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

37 Through mitigation, the Corps seeks to offset the adverse
effects of wetlands conversion, generally by requiring the
replacement of important wetlands functions and values. 38 Lindell
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.

39 Brett Hulsey, $ubsidizing Disaster: How Your Tax Money and Weak
Wetland Protection Increase Your Risk of Being Flooded, Sierra
Club Midwest Office (Apr. 15, 1997).

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 31

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

40 An Analysis of FHA's Single- Family Insurance Program, HUD,
Office of Policy Development and Research (Oct. 1995). 41
Homeownership: FHA's Role in Helping People Obtain Home Mortgages
(GAO/RCED-96-123, Aug. 13, 1996).

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 32

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.

42 Metropolitan 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.

43 Tax Credits: Opportunities to Improve Oversight of the Low-
Income Housing Program (GAO/ GGD/ RCED- 97- 55, Mar. 28, 1997). 44
Jean L. Cummings and Denise DiPasquale, Building Affordable Rental
Housing: An Analysis of the Low- Income Housing Tax Credit
Program, City Research (Feb. 1998). 45 Syndicators 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.

46 Abt Associates, Inc., Development and Analysis of the National
Low- Income Housing Tax Credit Database, HUD, Office of Policy
Development and Research (July 1996).

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 33

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 character 48 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

47 Central business districts are specific districts within
central business areas where localities have chosen to concentrate
the development of offices or mixed uses. 48 These adjacent areas
may include empowerment zones or other redevelopment areas that
are outside the central business district but still within the
city limits.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 34

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 35

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 36

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

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 37

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.

49 Dixie 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.

50 Joseph 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).

51 Linking 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).

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 38

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.

52 The IRS Homeseller Capital Gain Provision: Contributor to Urban
Decline, Ohio Housing Research Network (Jan. 5, 1994). 53 See
footnote 51. 54 Don 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).

55 James 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, 89 th 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).

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 39

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

56 James 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.

57 See footnote 54. 58 David 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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 40

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,

59 Genevieve 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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 41

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 42

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

60 Expanding Metropolitan Highways: Implications for Air Quality
and Energy Use, National Research Council, Transportation Research
Board, Special Report 245 (1995), p. 194.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 43

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

Urbanized a 46 64 $54.25 Nonurbanized b 14 9 $115.11 Rural c 39 28
$98.01 a Population is equal to or greater than 50,000.

b Population is between 5,000 and 49,999. The Surface
Transportation Policy Project considers these areas as small towns
and low- density suburbs. c Population 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?

61 Getting a Fair Share: An Analysis of Federal Transportation
Spending, Surface Transportation Policy Project (1996).

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 44

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.

62 Eben Fodor, The Cost of Growth in Oregon: 1998 Report, Fodor
and Associates (Oct. 1998). 63 Beyond Sprawl: The Cost of
Population Growth to Local Communities, Carrying Capacity Network
(Dec. 1998). 64 One power marketing administration, the Alaska
Power Administration, was divested in 1997 and 1998. 65 Federal
Power: Options for Selected Power Marketing Administrations' Role
in a Changing

Electricity Industry (GAO/RCED-98-43, Mar. 6, 1998).

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 45

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

66 Federal 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). 67 Federal Power: Regional Effects
of Changes in PMAs' Rates (GAO/RCED-99-15, Nov. 16, 1998). 68
Federal Power: PMA Rate Impacts, by Service Area (GAO/RCED-99-55,
Jan. 28, 1999).

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 46

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,

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 47

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 major 72 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

69 Andrew F. Haughwout, Central City Infrastructure Investment and
Suburban House Values, Regional Science and Urban Economics, Vol.
27 (1997). 70 Robert W. Burchell, et al., Public Works Program:
Performance Evaluation, U. S. Department of Commerce, EDA (May
1997). 71 Urban Institute, Federal Funds, Local Choices: An
Evaluation of the Community Development Block Grant Program, HUD,
Office of Policy Development and Research (May 1995). 72 We
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. 73 Department 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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 48

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 49

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 system a

Varied construction

activity b 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 a This column includes data for such
upgrading activities as renovation, rehabilitation, and
replacement. b This column includes data for both new construction
and upgrade activities. c According 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

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 50

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

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 51

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 52

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 costs a X X

More expensive private residential/ nonresidential development
costs X X

More adverse public fiscal impacts b X X

Higher aggregate land costs X X

Alleged positive impact

(continued)

74 Robert 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).

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 53

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 travel c X X

Alleged positive impact

Shorter commuting times X X

Less congestion X X

(continued)

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 54

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 transportation d 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)

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 55

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 exclusion e X

X Fosters spatial mismatch f X X

Fosters residential segregation X X

Worsens city fiscal stress X X

Worsens inner- city deterioration X X

Alleged positive impact

(continued)

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 56

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

a Public operating costs include public workers' salaries and
benefits; normal expenditures for supplies, repairs, and
replacement items; and debt service for capital facilities. a
Unplanned growth is believed to result in greater cost to
municipalities. c These social costs include air and water
pollution, noise, and the costs of parking and accidents that are
not paid by transportation users. d Automobiles are the most
efficient means of travel when development is dispersed. e
Suburban 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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 57

Appendix III Comments From the Department of Commerce

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear
at the end of this appendix.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 58

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 59

Appendix III Comments From the Department of Commerce

See comment 4. Now on page 54.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 60

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 61

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 62

Appendix IV Comments From the Environmental Protection Agency

See comment 2. See comment 3. See comment 4. See comment 5.

See comment 6.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 63

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 64

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 65

Appendix V Comments From the General Services Administration

See comment 2.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 66

Appendix V Comments From the General Services Administration

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 67

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 68

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

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 69

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 90 th 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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 70

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. 89 th 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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 71

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 72

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 73

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 74

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 75

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 76

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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 77

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).

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 78

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).

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 79

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 21 st 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.

GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 80

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) GAO/RCED-99-87 Research on Urban Sprawl Page 81

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

*** End of document. ***