22
Executive Department Maine State Planning Office May 1997 The Cost of Sprawl
Executive Department Maine State Planning Office May 1997
The Cost of Sprawl
Cover photo: Bangor Mall area, Bangor, Maine - 1995Back cover: Bangor Mall area, Bangor, Maine - 1955
Photos courtesy of the James W. Sewall Co. Old Town, Maine.
The Cost of Sprawl
Executive Department Maine State Planning Office May 1997
Written by Frank O'Hara of Planning Decisions. Supporting data and analysis byJoyce Benson, Maine State Planning Office. Other contributors and reviewers: JohnDel Vecchio, Beth Della Valle, Erik Carson, Paul Dest, Frank Hample, Bill Ferdinand,Fran Rudoff, Mark DesMeules, Harold Payson, Holly Dominie, James Damicus,Maine's Regional Councils, and the Maine Departments of Education, Transporta-tion, and Public Safety.
Evan D. Richert, AICPDirector
Maine State Planning Office
Design, graphics and layout by Richard D. Kelly Jr., Maine State Planning OfficePublished under appropriation number 010-07B-2906-012
Contents
Overview -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
1. The Individual Decision -------------------------------------------------------------- 5
2. The Cost to Taxpayers ---------------------------------------------------------------- 7A. Schools ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8B. Roads --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8C. Police --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9D. Summary of fiscal impacts ------------------------------------------------- 10
3. Environmental Costs ----------------------------------------------------------------- 11
4. The Cost to Community Character ------------------------------------------------- 12
5. Future Directions ---------------------------------------------------------------14
A. Reduce regulatory burdens ---------------------------------------------14B. Invest in town and city centers ------------------------------------------14C. Promote regional planning ----------------------------------------------14D. Develop concensus -----------------------------------------------------15
6. What you can do ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
Appendix:
Fastest growing towns in Maine ------------------------------------------------ 16-17
Criteria for determining sprawl conditions ----------------------------------- 18-19
“There is no finer creation than theNew England village. It is testament tothe livable community — a communityof neighborhoods, churches, shops andtown hall. It is testament, too, to thecountryside that surrounds it. Thecontrast between village and country-side in Maine is as crisp as a freshapple, picked on a fine fall day. Wesavor both.”
Angus S. King, Jr.
Overview
We are spreading out. Over the last30 years, the fastest growing towns inMaine have been “new suburbs” 10 to 25miles distant from metropolitan areas (seemap on page 16).
These high-growth communitieshave accounted for virtually all of thestate’s population growth.
From town square to the countryside,from Main Street to the Mall, we are dis-persing.
This outward movement has had un-anticipated and unintended consequences.
It has increased local and state taxesin three ways. First, it has required newand redundant infrastructure in remoteareas; for example, state taxpayers havepaid for over $300 million in new ruralschool capacity, even though the studentpopulation statewide has declined. Sec-ond, it has required the lengthening ofservice routes for police, fire, emergency,road maintenance, and plowing; towns arelosing economies of scale. Finally, it hasleft older city and town centers saddledwith a declining population and an under-used infrastructure. The ironic result isthat even while rural taxpayers are pitch-ing in to build new capacity, in-town resi-dents are paying more (on a per-familybasis) just to support the old capacity.
The costs go beyond dollars and cents.Spreading out also creates more air pol-lution from automobiles, more lake deg-radation from development runoff, andmore fragmentation of wildlife habitats.There are social costs, such as the isola-tion of the poor and elderly in cities, andthe disruption of traditional farming andforestry activities in the countryside.
This report does not provide conclu-sive answers. Instead it invites all Mainepeople, from planning board members toreal estate developers to bankers to envi-ronmentalists, to come together and talk.Only through consensus can we find realanswers.
1. The Individual Decision
The movement from city to countryis the result of thousands of Maine fami-lies basing decisions on a whole host ofpowerful attractions.
The attractions include: lower prices,cheaper land, lower taxes, privacy, “coun-
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
fast
gro
wth
cent
ers
bala
nce
1960
1960
1960
1970
1970
1980
1970
1980
1980
1990
1990
1990
thousands of persons
Population Change, 1960-1990Number of persons by decade
5
try living.” Sometimes government in-advertently makes the attractions evenmore powerful with subsidies like low-interest mortgages, new schools, and newroads and highways.
Each family’s decision is made in itsown apparent best interest. However, itis often made without full knowledge ofthe costs, either to the family itself or tothe state as a whole. Because the entirephenomenon of spreading out, or“sprawl,” is based on such individual de-cisions, it is worth examining the circum-stances in more detail.
Imagine a young couple renting anapartment in Augusta. One is a teacher inHallowell, the other a social worker at theAugusta Mental Health Institute. Theyscrimp and save to buy their first home.Finally they have enough and begin tolook around.
The couple calculates that they canafford a mortgage for a $60,000 home.Two such houses are available: one inAugusta, one in Windsor.
Though the prices of the two housesare the same, property taxes on theWindsor home are $600 less than for theAugusta home. This fact makes the deci-sion easy. It seems that the couple canboth have a dream house in the country,and save money on property taxes at thesame time!
So the couple buys the house inWindsor. After a few months, they no-tice that their checkbook is tight. Onepartner shrugs it off — “That’s just theway it is, the cost of everything is goingup.” The other answers, “Wait a minute,let’s look at our expenses more carefully.”
So they do. They notice highermonthly gasoline credit card bills. Theyboth have longer commutes to work, andsimply getting a loaf of bread or gallon ofmilk takes a trip in the car. Likewise, thereare more bills for car maintenance. The
house insurance bill is higher than wouldhave been true in Augusta — they livefarther away from a fire station.
In the end, after they add everythingup, they discover that these “invisible”costs of living in the country have morethan offset the savings in property taxes.
Planner Holly Dominie has estimatedthe living costs for this couple in a com-parable $60,000 home in Augusta, Sidney,Windsor, Farmingdale, Litchfield, orReadfield. She found that even thoughproperty taxes on the Augusta homewould run $200 to $700 more than in anyof the neighboring towns, total livingexpenses would still end up running $100to $1,400 less.
Costs for a $60,000.00 home
$2,924$1,334
$591$,4,024
$726$4,926
$840$3,011
Augusta
Sidney
Windsor
Farmingdale
$960$4,715
Litchfield
$1,170$4,377
Readfield
0 1 2 3 4 5thousands of dollars
property tax
total cost*
*total cost includes transportation,insurance, and utilities
6
Dominie’s research is confirmed bythe Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.For the average family in the northeastUnited States in 1995, transportation costsare now a sixth of the family budget —more than food, more than health care,more than clothing, more than taxes of allkinds.
Now let’s revisit the hypothetical couplefive years after their move. What mightwe find?
First, they are often pressed for time.Even the most routine activities take care-ful planning. Where once they walked tothe corner to pick up a bottle of milk orloaf of bread, now they must drive sev-eral miles. An hour or so of the day islost to commuting. Every time their chil-dren want to visit a friend, or take a les-son, or go to a basketball game, they haveto be driven. Even to get a baby sitterrequires driving across town. Theyhaven’t gotten to know their neighborsvery well, because they live in their carsas well. Their old friends don’t drop byas often because of the distance.
Then, as more families move into thearea, it begins to feel less like country.The neighboring farm disappears. Thewater in the nearby lake is becomingcloudy. There are fewer wild animals tobe seen.
The last straw is when property taxes
start to go up. To serve the new families,the town has had to buy a plow truck, addon portable classrooms to the schools, andhire more staff. New expenses meanhigher taxes. Thus part of the originalmotivation for moving to the country,lower taxes, is disappearing.
What to do? They decide to movefarther into the country, where the taxesare still low and open spaces remain. Butthis is only a temporary solution, for therethe cycle will surely repeat itself.
As this example shows, there is anirony in the fact that a movement moti-vated, in part, by the desire to reduce liv-ing costs and avoid high property taxes,ends up raising living costs and increas-ing property taxes, not just for the indi-vidual family involved, but for everyone.
2. The Cost to Taxpayers
Local governments in Maine spent$800 million more in 1990-91 than theydid in 1980-81 (in equalized dollars), anincrease of about 60%, or $1,700 perhousehold.
1991
198
119
91 1
981
$0 $1000 $2000 $3000 $4000
stat
elo
cal
We usually attribute this increase torising local expectations, or more strin-gent federal and state regulations, or over-eager local officials. No doubt all of theseplay some role. But a major part of thecost is due simply to the fact that we arespreading out. It just costs more, on a per-unit basis, to serve families who arewidely dispersed than it does to servefamilies who live in traditional neighbor-hoods.
State and LocalExpendituresper Household
taxes
clothing
food
health care
transportation
of a Northeast Family1995 Household Budget
Selected Items in the
7
equalized 1990 $
$2,253
$3,515
$1,368
$2,173
17%
5%
15%
5%10%
The following is a description of howpublic costs for schools, roads, and pub-lic safety have been increased by chang-ing residential patterns.
A. Schools
The clearest example is school con-struction. Between 1970 and 1995 thenumber of elementary and secondary pub-lic school students in Maine actually de-clined by 27,000. Yet from 1975 to 1995Maine state government alone committed$727 million to new school constructionand additions. Some of the money wasused to renovate or consolidate oldschools. But 46%, or $338 million, wentto build new capacity in fast-growingtowns.
This new capacity was redundant. Itwas not needed because Maine’s schoolpopulation was increasing — in fact stu-dents were decreasing. It was simplyneeded to serve existing students whosefamilies had moved around.
Expenditures for School Constructionand Expansion Projects, 1975-1995
centers fast growth balance
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
costs projects
1970 Maine state and local governmentspaid $8.7 million to bus children to andfrom school. Today — with 27,000 fewerstudents - that cost has risen to $54 mil-lion, or $254 per student. State govern-ment pays nearly two-thirds.
More schools for fewer students alsohas a subtler cost. It means that the oldschools left behind in the cities are un-der-used. This in turn means higher per-pupil costs for maintenance. So we’repaying twice — once to build a new setof schools in the countryside, and oncemore to maintain older schools which areunder-used.
Another example is school busing. In
Student Enrollment and School Construction Costs 1970-1995
0
250
500
750
0
-10
-20
-30
This $54 million is used to bus chil-dren to schools which in many cases lackcomputers and science labs. In a differ-ent world, the $54 million could be usedto equip every student with access to state-of-the-art computers, Internet connec-tions, and science equipment. Instead itis used for gasoline and bus drivers.
Not all of the busing cost has to dowith living patterns. Part is due to statepolicy which encourages consolidatedschools and school districts. But evenwithout this policy, a significant increasein busing expense was inevitable oncepeople started moving farther away fromschools and from each other.
B. Roads
Although Maine’s population in-creased less than 10% during the 1980’s,total miles driven went up 57%, or over40 million miles a year. Not surprisingly,total highway expenditures for local andstate governments rose by about a thirdduring that same period (in equalized dol-lars), or over $200 per household.
Yet even this is not enough. TheMaine Department of Transportation re-ports that it is falling behind on mainte-
(+) school construction costs, millions of $ 1975-1995
(-)
school enrollment,thousands of students1970-1995
8
nance and repairs, and that more money(and possibly higher taxes) will be neededin the years ahead just to stay even.
Typical state expenditures on roadsinclude the adding of left turn lanes tobusy commuter highways. These are nec-essary in many instances because uncon-trolled commercial growth along these av-enues — development encouraged in thefirst place by the presence of heavy com-muter traffic — has slowed the flow ofvehicles by adding new driveways and ac-cess points. Nine of these projects alonein the last ten years, from Paris toWindham to Farmington, have cost tax-payers over $17 million.
photo road construction
Roads are also a growing burden tolocal government. In South Berwick fivenew miles of roadway have been pavedfor scattered new development, at a costto local taxpayers of about $400,000.Waldoboro has rebuilt about a mile ofgravel roads per year during the last tenyears, at a cost of $10,000 to $15,000 amile. Poland and Litchfield have addednew plow trucks to serve rural homes.
Overall, from 1987 to 1994 Mainemunicipalities were accepting new roadsat a rate of 100 miles a year, the equiva-
lent of a new two-lane road from Kitteryto Augusta annually.
C. Police
Public safety presents a similar story.From 1980 to 1993 the crime rate in Mainedropped by 17%. Total crimes were downby 7,800, yet the number of police offic-ers (local, county, and state) increased by10%, or 180. During the 1980's, total po-lice protection expenses for all levels ofgovernment increased by 40% (in equal-ized dollars), or by about $60 a family.
Why would police expenses increasewhen the crime rate is down? In part it isdue to spreading out. Crime followspeople. In 1993 a higher proportion ofMaine’s crimes were committed in ruralareas than in 1980. This in turn requiresmore rural police patrols.
In Kennebunk, when a new large sub-division was built 25 minutes away fromthe town center, a new patrol had to beadded to serve the area. A full-time pa-trol requires one cruiser and four policeofficers, and costs about $175,000 a year.Around the same time the Town ofScarborough, just up the road, had to adda new patrol at a similar cost to serve fami-lies moving to the other side of the turn-pike. Multiply this same situation manytimes over all around the state, and it canbe understood why municipalities haveadded nearly 200 new officers in the past13 years.
A second major responsibility of thepolice is traffic control. As was mentionedearlier, Maine motorists drive 40 millionmore miles today than in 1980. With driv-ing comes accidents. The number of re-ported accidents increased by 10,000 be-tween 1980 and 1994, or by about a third.This was true even though the roads andcars are safer today. Spreading out meansmore traffic safety work for police.
As is true in all of the other examplesmentioned above, sprawl is not the onlycause of higher police expenses. A changein labor standards governing overtime, theaddition of new responsibilities in drugeducation, and other policy decisions havealso played a large part. However, the
Town Route Lanes Cost* YearAuburn 4 5 1.33 1985Farmington 2/4 5 1.05 1989Lewiston 202 3 0.84 1989Lewiston 196 5 2.78 1995Manchester 11/202 5 3.26 1990Newport 11/100 3 dev 1994Paris 25 3 2.22 1987Portland 1A 3 2.94 1989Sanford 109 5 1.01 1987
*millions of dollars
Selected Road Projects
9
spreading of patrol responsibilities, theincreased demand for traffic control, andthe higher expectations for police serviceand response times from former citydwellers now living in the country, haveall contributed to higher costs.
D. Summary of fiscal impacts
Maine state and local governmentspending in the above three areas alone— education, roads, and police — in-creased in real dollars by $637 millionduring the 1980’s, a total of over $1,300per Maine household. How much is dueto sprawl, and how much to policy deci-sions, can never be scientifically deter-mined. But it is beyond dispute that thespreading out of Maine families is a ma-jor contributing factor to the overall in-crease.
Spreading out contributes to the in-crease in two ways. First, it requires tax-payers to essentially “re-create” a newinfrastructure of roads, schools, and pub-lic safety services in rural areas. Second,it requires taxpayers to continue support-ing an older set of public facilities in ur-ban areas, even though the population baseis in many cases declining. The result isthat property taxes rise in both rural townsand in cities.
But the property tax increases are ex-perienced differently. In growing towns,local government expenses tend to goupwards in a “step function.” In otherwords, the building of a new subdivisiondoes not create an immediate increase inlocal expenses. What happens is that thenew homes accumulate, until at a certainpoint the municipality is faced with the ne-cessity of making a major expansion ofservices — a new school or fire station orroad or police patrol or plow.
When the expansion occurs, localgovernment costs “jump” to a new level,where they remain stable until the nextjump is needed.
In older cities and service centers, onthe other hand, the rise in expenses isgradual and ongoing. Augusta, for ex-ample, lost population between 1970 and1994, but its real expenses went up by35%, in part because of the higher ser-vice demands of an elderly and low-in-come population, and in part because itstill had to service the growing commuterpopulation with roads and other improve-ments. Because the population base de-clined, the per capita cost went up evenfaster, from $950 to $1,350, a 40% in-crease. Since incomes in the City wererelatively lower compared to the begin-ning of the period, the actual tax burdenexperienced by urban taxpayers grew evenmore sharply.
1970 1980 19901
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
mill
ions
of $
StandishChinaHermon
Municipal Spending Spikes in Fast Growing Towns
10
1970 1980 199010
15
20
25
30
mill
ion
s o
f $
10
15
20
25
30
tho
us
an
ds
of
pe
op
le
e x pe ns e s
po pu la t io n
Steady Inflation in CitiesMunicipal Expenses in Augusta
In state government, the spendingpressures are experienced in a rising de-mand for local government aid for schoolsand transportation. When times are good,state government increases its local aid,and local property taxpayers are helped.When times turn bad, state governmentcuts back on its aid, and property taxpay-ers are hit hard.
One unfortunate side effect of thispattern is that it tends to distract votersfrom the true causes of local governmentinflation. During good times the impactof rising local expenses are cushioned, andduring bad times the state gets the blamefor cutting back. Because of this politicaldynamic, the significant cost of inflationdue to sprawl has not received adequateacknowledgment or attention.
While it is impossible to say preciselywhat proportion of the state budget todaygoes to pay for the costs of sprawl, a mini-mum estimate would be $30 to $40 mil-lion per year for school construction andbusing costs alone. Other costs related tostate police, environmental regulation, androads would add to the total.
is caused by utility emissions from theMidwest. But a significant part is alsocaused by automobile driving. Car usehas doubled since 1970. Over half of thevolatile compounds which create ozoneproblems are caused by emissions fromautomobiles. Our penchant for spreadingout imposes a cost in reduced air quality.
When we scatter homes randomlythrough the countryside, these habitats areinterrupted, and the wildlife diminishes.In southern Maine nesting sites for endan-gered birds, such as the piping plover andleast tern, have been lost to development.
Wetlands have been described as the“last refuge of wildlife in an urbanizingregion.” But they are of greatest valuewhen they offer isolation from humanactivities. A study of 8 towns in southernMaine in 1985 found that 76% of the wet-lands were visible from a road or within2,000 feet, and thus of limited habitatvalue.
Examples of where Sprawl Increases State Government Costs
School construction School busing Road construction State police coverage Air and water pollution control Growth managementRural infrastructure (CDBG, DEP)
3. Environmental Costs
We have already discussed the invis-ible costs to the individual family. Whenthousands of people make such choices,at some point these individual costs crossthe line to become public costs.
For example, the “car test” debaclewas caused by a very real problem. Thesouthern and coastal portions of the stateexceed air pollution standards for certainmonths every year. Part of this problem
Secondly, habitats for wildlife inMaine have been seriously fragmented bydevelopment sprawl. Wildlife such asbobcat, owls, hawks, and certain songbirds need extended stretches of undevel-oped land in order to maintain their popu-lations.
Habitat Block Size Requirements for Wildlife in Maine
Red Fox100-500 acres
Squirrel1-19 acres
Black Bearundeveloped land
11
Federally Assisted Multi-family Housing in Maine
centers83.4%
fast growth 8.9% balance 7.7%
No institution is immune. The Ro-man Catholic Diocese of Maine an-nounced this year that it would have toclose historic St. Dominic’s church on thePortland peninsula. The peninsula has losthalf of its population since 1950. St.Dominic’s, with a seating capacity of 700,now has 265 member families. Nearlytwo-thirds are over the age of 60.
Meanwhile, as St. Dominic’s is clos-ing, the Diocese also finds itself havingto build new churches in growing townslike Scarborough at a cost approaching amillion dollars apiece. The money mustbe spent even though the Catholic popu-lation in Maine has not grown measurablyin the past 25 years. Meanwhile the his-toric West End of Portland must lose acultural landmark.
The St. Dominic’s example also illus-trates another aspect of social change.Cities are increasingly the residence ofthose who are left behind. Middle-classfamilies are moving out. The elderly, thepoor, and the disabled are left behind.Sixty percent of children with special edu-cation needs now live in city and towncenters. Over 80% of subsidized housingis in city centers. The loss of the stabiliz-ing influence of middle-class neighborsfor the state’s poor children has contrib-uted to the difficulties facing those chil-dren.
Maine’s traditional quality of life hasbeen very closely associated with its pureair, clean water, and diverse wildlife. Thespread-out pattern of living alters all threeof these environmental assets.
4. The Cost to Community Character
The flight from city to country hasaffected both settings. Town centers havelost their historic anchors — departmentstores, post offices — and historic build-ings. Rural towns have lost their work-ing farms and fisheries.
photo of lakeside homes
Thirdly, lakes and other water bodiesare affected by development. Of 2,700Maine lakes, over 200 have already beenharmed by development, and another 300are at risk if current trends continue. Un-like a river, once a lake deteriorates, it ishard to recover. It costs hundreds of thou-sands of dollars to “treat” a lake, likeChina Lake, which has deteriorated dueto runoff. And even this money will bewasted unless effective development con-trols are adopted for the future.
photo of moose at roadside
12
In the country there is also loss andchange. The active, working landscapeof farms, mills, fishing boats, and gravelpits, where land means livelihood, is be-ing replaced by subdivisions and lawns —land as passive scenery. Fishing families
The quality of life in Maine is morethan our lakes and trees and mountains.It is also our people, our work, our waysof living together. The spreading out ofMaine threatens these traditions as well.
13
Wilshore Farm in Falmouth - scene of conflict between area residents and the spreadingof sludge. Aerial photographs courtesy of Greater Portland Council of Governments.
along the coast, farmers in growing towns,have been forced to move by rising prop-erty taxes. Further, farming land, becauseit is flat and clear, has been a prime loca-tion for new development. From 1960 to1990, two-thirds of new development inCumberland and York Counties took placeon prime agricultural soils.
Meanwhile the invasion of homesturns the uses of the traditional workingrural town — the spreading of sludge andmanure on farms, the placement of en-ergy facilities, the mining of gravel — into“nuisances.”
B. Invest in town and city centers. It ischeaper to maintain and rehabilitate ex-isting roads, schools, and utilities in ur-ban areas than it is to build new facilitiesin the country. But in the past state gov-ernment has focused on new building, andin this way helped subsidize the move-ment out of the city to the countryside.
A. Reduce the regulatory burden of in-town development. Because sites inbuilt-up areas tend to have more impacton neighboring uses, the regulatory bur-den for development in built-up areas hasgrown more stringent over the years. Theunintended consequence has been to en-courage development to locate in ruralareas.
The King Administration is movingto even the scales and to make in-towndevelopment easier. Last year the SiteLocation of Development Act was re-formed to make it easier for development
Once the problem is understood, an-swers are not difficult. Some Maine com-munities have saved taxpayers money bycreating incentives for developers to lo-cate near built-up areas, and to cluster newdevelopment in individual sites.
But still today the problem is notwidely recognized or acknowledged.There needs to be a statewide dialogueamong citizens, developers, environmen-talists, and municipal officials to definethe problem and develop solutions.
This is an issue which is fundamen-tally related to Governor King’s goal ofreducing Maine’s tax burden. To date theAdministration is pursuing the followingapproaches:
Dominie’s work is affirmed by a largeand growing body of national research onthe subject of sprawl. The earliest stud-ies were done twenty to thirty years agoby George Sternlieb at Rutgers Univer-sity, and culminated in a 1974 federalgovernment study called the Costs ofSprawl. The latter found that high-den-sity planned development cost 44% lessto develop and maintain than rural scat-tered development on a per-unit basis.
In more recent years Robert Burchellhas done a series of related studies for theState of New Jersey, the Lexington met-ropolitan area of Kentucky, and the Dela-ware River Estuary. Burchell has identi-fied municipal savings in the range of 2%to 7% , and larger savings to the home-owner, from planned development.
in cities to meet traffic standards. Thisyear the State Planning Office is workingwith the Department of Education to makeit easier to locate new schools in built-upneighborhoods. The general policy is thatit should be no harder — and wheneverpossible it should be easier — to build newhousing and commercial development inservice centers where services and capac-ity exist, than in the country where theydon’t.
As with the regulatory exampleabove, state government is looking to levelthe playing field for public investments.This will also make in-town developmentmore attractive, and provide new choicesto individual families and businesses. TheState Planning Office is working with theDepartment of Transportation, the Edu-cation Department, and the Departmentof Economic and Community Develop-ment, to promote investment in city andtown centers.
14
5. Future Directions
Sprawl is a problem in every state inthe nation. Is it simply unavoidable?
It isn’t as if we don’t know what kindof growth makes sense. Holly Dominiesurveyed twenty or so local Maine offi-cials in 1995. She found that they wereable, from their experience, to define veryclear standards for sensible and cost-ef-fective development (see the Appendixfor the results).
C. Promote regional planning. Sprawlis a regional phenomenon. In the long runinvestments in roads and airports, indus-trial parks and shopping malls, are whatdetermine the shape of a town’s and aregion’s development. In the past thesedecisions have been made too often on acase-by-case basis, without considering
leaders. A problem which has emergedfrom the choices and actions of thousandsof individual Mainers, must find its solu-tion at the same grass roots level.
The solution will come from newhome buyers who decide that they’re sim-ply not going to drive that far anymore.It will come from business owners whodecide to fix up historic stores on MainStreet. It will come from the PlanningBoard members who have the courage todesign ordinances which reward in-townliving. It will come from the selectmenwho invest in maintaining and upgradingtheir older roads, schools, and buildings.
Sprawl is a problem with importantfiscal dimensions. But in the end the prob-lem isn’t just about money. It’s aboutimagination — the ability to look around,to see what it is we value about Maine, toact in ways which enhance rather thandetract from that value. It’s a problem ofvision.
And as we act in new ways, individualby individual, we will begin to create anew reality. A Maine that reaffirms ourdeepest values and beliefs, that preservesthe open space and historic town centersthat are our heritage and our children’sbirthright, and that keeps this place spe-cial — “as crisp as an apple on a fine fallday.”
We don’t have to become “Anywhere,USA.” There’s a better way.
D. Develop a consensus. Sprawl is thefavored pattern of development in Maine,driven by rational (but less than fully in-formed) economic decisions, by the de-sire for privacy, and by the desire for alow-density, suburban lifestyle. As thisreport shows, there are costs (fiscal, envi-ronmental, and social character) to thesedecisions that have not been reckoned.
Further, the costs are masked by thepublic’s willingness — through schoolconstruction, road, revenue-sharing, andother aid formulas — to subsidize the out-ward movement. Each of these aid pro-grams rewards the shift of populations intorural communities; each pays part of thebill for individual decisions. Before thepattern of sprawl can be slowed or re-versed, the fundamental questions forwhich consensus must be found are these:• Are the benefits of a spread-out patternof development worth the cost ?• Who should pay for the cost of sprawl;those making the decisions to move out-ward, or the public at-large? ShouldState programs continue to subsidizesprawl?
6. What you can do
In the end, this problem can’t besolved by a few government or business
15
the regional implications. The State Plan-ning Office is retooling its Growth Man-agement Program to help municipalitieswork together to plan these decisions thataffect growth regionally.
MAINE
16
Androscoggin CountyDurham 172.6 161.7Greene 90.8 198.6Leeds 88.1 106.8Minot 100.7 113.3Poland 80.6 182.5Turner 86.9 128.3Wales 81.8 150.6Sabattus 115.5 183.9
Aroostook CountyLudlow 173.8 56.9
Cumberland CountyCasco 79.0 218.7Gorham 84.0 105.6Naples 139.1 289.1North Yarmouth 110.9 113.1Standish 105.5 266.5Windham 83.1 189.5Yarmouth 92.5 123.5
Franklin CountyCoplin Plt 179.6 200.0Dallas Plt 115.5 109.1Rangeley Plt 82.9 164.1Temple 123.2 78.3
Hancock CountyHancock 79.1 118.0Lamoine 92.8 170.9Osborn 108.3 100.0Trenton 94.2 182.7
Kennebec CountyClinton 101.8 92.7Fayette 149.4 160.7Litchfield 82.9 162.1Mount Vernon 85.5 128.5Rome 108.6 106.5Sidney 115.1 162.4Wayne 81.1 106.6West Gardiner 81.2 121.2Windsor 124.3 115.8
Knox CountyCushing 81.9 106.3
Lincoln CountySomerville 107.9 80.3Westport 111.9 398.5
Oxford CountyBrownfield 121.8 92.2Denmark 82.7 127.4Hartford 77.0 122.2Otisfield 104.5 147.5Oxford 93.0 123.5Stow 125.3 162.0
Penobscot CountyAlton 155.7 154.5Bradford 128.1 59.9Corinth 113.9 91.3Edinburg 95.7 463.2Etna 96.9 101.0Garland 125.5 87.3Glenburn 116.7 231.4Greenbush 124.3 131.7Greenfield 365.0 167.0Holden 83.4 114.7Kenduskeag 110.2 111.3Levant 151.5 112.7Lowell 136.8 102.3Maxfield 125.0 120.5Milford 106.3 83.5Newburgh 119.0 101.7Plymouth 144.4 133.2Stetson 96.9 101.7Woodville 238.1 338.8
Piscataquis Countyn/a
Sagadahoc CountyArrowsic 129.4 181.4Bowdoin 196.2 220.8Topsham 95.6 129.1
Somerset CountyBrighton 137.5 51.6Canaan 128.9 104.5Palmyra 122.6 85.0
Waldo CountyBelmont 123.4 121.0Frankfort 107.7 47.4Jackson 103.7 88.6Montville 82.4 139.6Troy 104.5 71.0
Washington CountyAlexander 139.7 117.3Beddington 139.8 207.1Columbia 103.7 99.5Deblois 84.0 180.8Marshfield 108.6 72.7Roque Bluffs 150.6 53.9
York CountyAlfred 107.7 86.3Arundel 143.8 194.3Buxton 136.4 177.6Dayton 132.2 165.4Hollis 121.2 199.0Lebanon 107.1 177.9Limington 98.9 233.3Lyman 122.2 540.8South Berwick 103.8 88.8Waterboro 139.3 325.9
Fastest Growing Towns in Maine Housing Population % change % change1970-1990 1960-1990
Housing Population % change % change1970-1990 1960-1990
17
Criteria for Determining Sprawl ConditionsPrepared by H. Dominie, Inc., Readfield, Maine — revised December 6, 1995.
Factor Rating Thresholds Rationale SourcesDavid Leavitt (778-4307), BusDirector SAD 9, currentpresident of Maine Assoc. forPupil Transport (see surveythat David conducted of 30Maine school systems). Alsoconsulted: Jim Scott, BusingDirector SAD 42, 685-3621;Bill Miller, DECR, 287-5903.
School walking policies generally allow/require children in grades K-6to walk if they live within 0.5 to 1 mile and grades 7-12 if they livewithin 0.75 to 1 mile. Beyond a mile, the closer development isconcentrated, the easier and more cost effective it is to plan bus runsand to minimize commuting time for students. In SADs and Unions,encouraging development in clusters or near town centers is importantto maximize numbers of children per stop. Walking areas need to becoupled with sidewalk/bikeway programs.
Distance toSchools
BestBetterGood
0-0.5 mile0.6-1 mile
1.1-2 or 3 miles
Distance toFire Stations
BestBetterGood
0-1.5 miles1.6-2.5 miles3.1-5 miles
Deputy Fire Chief Brown,Portland, 874-8400; FireFighter Shawn Goodwin,Augusta, 626-2375; DonCurtis, Fire Portection Engi-neer for Acme Ins. Co., 884-8405; Kim Gilley, agent,Allstate, 626-0001; NancyTaylor, agent, Dunlap, 622-7178.
ISO rating criteria give top marks for communities with engine compa-nies withini 1.5 miles of all development and with ladder companieswithin 2.5 miles. Deputy Chief Brown said that responses are prettygood for homes within 2 to 3 road miles. Insurance rates risesubstanitally for homes greater that 3 to 5 miles away, depending uponthe company, or are not available at all for some over 5 miles (i.e.Allstate). Good building codes are needed as well as close proximityto delay flash-over times. Fire flow demand needs to be balanced withavailable fire flow capacity.
Distance toAmbulanceTransportServices
BestBetterGood
0-1 road mile1.1-3 road miles3.1-5 road miles
For cardiac, elderly care, and other critical situations, rapid response isessential. If a call comes from within a mile’s distance, transport oughtto be able to get there in at least 5 minutes; within 3 miles --5 to 7minutes; and within 5 miles -- 7 to 10 minutes for optimal response.Good building codes and site layouts are critical as well.
Drexell White, LicensingAgent, Maine EmergencyMedical Services, 287-3953.
Distance toTown Centers(to expeditefuture trans-mission lineplanning)
BestBetterGood
0-0.5 crow mile0.6-1 crow mile1.1-2 crow miles
Negative perceptions and property parcel fragmentation broughtabout by suburbanization have made transmission line siting moredifficult. Compact development in rural towns can help leave enoughopen space to meet multiple needs.
Mary Smith, CMP Director ofEnvironmental and Licensing,621-4447.
Best
BetterGood
Distance toRegional
Centers (toexpedite future
transmission lineplanning)
0-3 miles
3.1-5 miles5.1-10 miles
Negative perceptions and property parcel fragmentation brought aboutby suburbanization have made transmission line siting more difficult.Compact development can help with siting, though it should go handin hand with open space planning.
Mary Smith, CMP Director ofEnvironmental and Licensing,621-4447.
Distance toDistributionSubstations
(makes electricaldistribution moreefficient/reliable)
Best
BetterGood
0-1 miles
1.1-3 miles3.1-5 miles
Electrical distribution becomes inneficient when circuit lines arebeyond 5 miles from a distibution substation. If lines are extendedbeyond 10 miles, they pose a significant reliability problem andpotential need for another substation, so perhaps negative pointsshould be given when developments are located this far out.
Jim Meyer, CMP Director ofTransmission Siting, 626-9600 ext. 2281; Art Ray, CMPDepartment of Distribution,623-3521ext. 2236.
Public WaterSupply
Best contiguousto the
existingdistribution
system
Fees for public water service have risen substantially in many com-munities as districts and companies have complied with federalregulations. These fees can be reduced through increasing the num-ber of consumers on the system, especially where existing distribu-tion infrastructure already exists.
Dan Jellis, Gen’l Mgr, and RonFoucher, Source Protect. Coord.,Portland Water District, 774-5961; Jeff McNelly, Ex. Dir. ofME Water Util. Assoc. consultedbut did not support the concept.
Distance toTown Centers(for transpor-
tationplanning)
Best
BetterGood
0-0.25 mile
0.26-0.5 miles0.51-1 mile
Transit plannners recommend a 1 mile radius for development ingrowth areas. People favor shorter walking distances (within 0.25 mileand a 5 minute walk). A half mile walk takes 10-15 minutes. People aremore likely to bike with shorter distances as well, i.e. 1-2 miles.
Calthorpe Associates, TransitOriented Development De-sign Guidelines, 1992; Mar-garet Van Der Brook MDOT;Bruce Hammond, NRCM.
Best
BetterGood
Distance toRegional Centers(for transporta-tion planning)
0-1 mile
1.1-3 miles3.1-5 miles
Higher densities closer to Maine’s 36 regional economic centers willmake bus services and bikeways more viable. Shorter commutingdistances will also diminish auto emissions, a major contibutor to theGreenhouse Effect, and encourage higher bicycling participation. In1980, Mainers commuted an average of about 10 miles in 14 minutes;in 1990 we averaged 13.5 miles in 19 minutes.
Calthorpe Associates, TransitOriented Development DesignGuidelines, 1992; Joyce Ben-son, SPO, 287-3261; MargaretVan Der Brook MDOT; BruceHammond, NRCM.
Best
BetterGood
4+ units/acre
2+ units/acre1+ unit/acre
High Densitywithin CloseProximity to
RegionalCenters
Studies show that costs for development decrease with decreasingdistance from service centers. Greater savings, however, occur athigher densities. Encouraging compact development should go handin hand with open space planning.
Market Decisions, Options toIntegrate Land Use Planning IntoTransportation Policy, 1992;American Farmland Trust,Density-Related Public Costs,1986; Council on EnvironmentalQuality, The Costs of Sprawl,1974.
20
This report may be viewed on, or downloaded from, the Maine State Planning Office'sInternet Homepage. Also available on the Homepage is a selected bibliography of publica-tions and articles about the costs of sprawling development.
www.state.me.us/spo
