A coordinated approach to growth control in Northern Virginia.

• Author: Annand, John R.

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I. THE CASE FOR COORDINATING LAND-USE AND TRANSPORTATION POLICIES A. Sprawl: A Growth Problem That Must Be Managed B. Traditional Growth-Control Tools C. Moving Past Traditional Growth-Control Tools: Smart Growth and Regionalism 1. Smart Growth Models Offer Potential Growth-Control Solutions 2. Regionalism Is a Necessary Component for a Successful Growth-Control Plan D. Transportation Policy as a Growth-Control Method, and Its Use in Conjunction with Land-Use Policy II. THE STATE OF AFFAIRS IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA A. Land-Use Decision Making Suffers from a Lack of Cooperation B. A Number of Stakeholders Create Transportation Policy 1. State Policymakers 2. Metropolitan D.C. Organizations 3. Local Governments 4. Additional Policymakers C. Virginia's Attempts To Combine Land-Use and Transportation Policies III. TOWARD BETTER COORDINATION: WORKING AROUND MARSHALL AND CHANGING THE STATUS QUO IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA A. Higher Density Zoning Mandates Are Needed in Urban Clusters B. Localities Must Forge a Consensus Within the New Zoning Framework C. VDOT Must Capitalize on Regional Consensus in Coordinating Regional Land Use and Transportation CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION

Since the 1960s, Northern Virginia has been characterized by varying degrees of sprawl. Sprawl poses significant problems for a number of reasons, including inefficiency, negative environmental impacts, and unattractiveness. These problems can be solved, but only through concerted, coordinated efforts at all levels of government and across land-use and transportation policies.

Sprawl is characterized by low-density, leapfrog development that radiates outward from a dense urban core.1 The growth of road networks accompanies sprawl because suburb residents typically drive to many of their destinations across the metropolitan area. (2) But which comes first, the growth or the roads? Are more roads built in order to accommodate growth as the population simultaneously grows and spreads outward, therefore replicating the same low-density pattern that characterizes previously "outer" suburbs? (3) Or are roads constructed based on growth projections, providing access to previously less-accessible lands? (4) Whatever the answers to these questions, sprawl and road-network growth proceed hand-in-hand.

Sprawl presents high public and private costs. From a public perspective, sprawl burdens infrastructure, creates environmental problems, and strains center cities. (5) It is inefficient, as it costs more than compact development in terms of natural resource consumption, economic costs, and even personal costs. (6) Sprawl causes an estimated $72 billion per year in lost productivity, and often leads to social costs such as environmental damage, a decreased urban tax base, and road rage. (7) The fragmented land-use decisions that characterize sprawl also often have the side effect of stripping power from everyone who lives outside of a specific boundary, regardless of the impact that the given locality's land-use decisions might have on such "outsiders." (8)

No less important are the high private costs that accompany sprawl, which can increase based on a development's type, location, and density. (9) Low-density development, because it necessarily entails the purchase of more land and often brings with it the need for more travel, is associated with higher personal costs (10) and a lower quality of life. (11) Businesses also suffer higher costs in the form of productivity losses. (12) In response to these high public and private costs, local governments have attempted to influence growth patterns through traditional growth-control tools, including regulatory and market-based techniques. (13)

Sprawl has afflicted Northern Virginia since the twenty-year period that began in 1960, during which Fairfax County's population doubled. (14) Although the rate of population growth in this and other suburbs eventually slowed, it remained at high levels for much of the latter half of the twentieth century. (15) This high, sustained rate of growth created the Northern Virginia that exists today, which is characterized by far-flung enclaves of residential homes situated on large lots that are surrounded by strip malls and busy highways. (16) Pockets of high-density development lie scattered throughout the region, particularly in inner suburbs such as Tysons Corner, Arlington, Alexandria, Reston, McLean, and Falls Church; however, most of these areas are purely commercial centers. (17) The rule for much of the region is low-density residential activity, supported by similarly low-density commercial activity. (18)

During the next twenty years, this pattern of low-density growth is projected to continue, as the region becomes more congested with people, households, and jobs. (19) By 2030, the farthest-flung counties in what is considered the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area of Northern Virginia (20) are expected to generate the type of urban sprawl now seen in counties such as Fairfax and Arlington. (21) However, the urban core of Washington, D.C., and its immediately surrounding areas, including Arlington and Alexandria, are expected to hold steady as the region's jobs centers, thus continuing--and possibly worsening--the status quo of cross-region commutes. (22)

Such outward expansion will require an attendant growth in the region's transportation network. This growth will primarily take the form of new road construction and improvements, including high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, (23) but it will also include new transit options such as Metro's Silver Line, which will eventually connect Loudoun County with downtown D.C. via Dulles International Airport. (24)

Because sprawl and transportation networks grow hand-in-hand, neither should be considered without reference to the other: land-use and transportation policies are inherently linked. Governments and organizations across the Washington metropolitan region have recognized this crucial linkage. Their approach, however, is incomplete and unworkable, as no organization or government body currently possesses the power to enact proposals on a regional scale. Individual jurisdictions make land-use decisions, transportation policymaking suffers from a glut of organizations, and no body exists that can both coordinate policies and implement solutions.

In 2007, the Commonwealth of Virginia attempted to solidify this linkage between land use and transportation when Governor Tim Kaine signed Chapter 896. (25) This law simultaneously established new growth-control techniques and empowered the regional Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA) to impose and collect taxes. However, the Virginia Supreme Court thwarted such efforts in Marshall v. Northern Virginia Transportation Authority when it declared that the law's grant of taxation power to NVTA was unconstitutional. (26) Despite this setback, Marshall left untouched certain provisions of Chapter 896 that encouraged higher density land uses, preserving the foundation for the combination of transportation policies with high-density land use. (27) But because regional bodies lack the power to do anything more than make suggestions, and because Marshall invalidated NVTA's taxation power, no mechanism currently exists by which transportation policies can be combined with high-density land-use elements.

This Note proposes a method by which local governments in Northern Virginia and the Virginia General Assembly can tackle sprawl by coordinating transportation and high-density land-use policies. Part I makes the case for the coordination of land-use and transportation policies by contrasting traditional growth-control tools with more recent approaches. Part II describes the current state of affairs in Northern Virginia with regard to land-use decision making and transportation policy. Finally, Part III proposes methods by which the Northern Virginia region can coordinate transportation and land-use policies in a way that will tackle sprawl.

1. THE CASE FOR COORDINATING LAND-USE AND TRANSPORTATION POLICIES

   1. Sprawl: A Growth Problem That Must Be Managed

      "Sprawl" eludes a simple definition, and therefore has been framed in many different ways. (28) Of the countless definitions applied to this term, many contain similar elements. One of the most important of these elements is "leapfrogging," the idea that sprawl involves a process of perpetual development progressing farther away from an urban core. (29) Leapfrogging results in development with a lower density than both the rest of the region and the nation. (30) Sprawl is also characterized by segregation of land uses, (31) which is accomplished by local zoning ordinances that define which uses are permitted on certain parcels of land. (32)

      Sprawl has been attributed to a diverse array of factors. (33) The chief culprit among these is the zoning power, which most states delegated to local governments in the 1920s. (34) After states conferred this power, local governments began to compete with each other in a quest to differentiate themselves. This competition led to the exclusion of certain uses and, finally, to leapfrogging, as users who were excluded from one locality simply chose a more permissive locality that competed for their "business" through less restrictive zoning. (35)

      Sprawl also occurs when local governments enact zoning laws that favor residential, single-family uses over most other categories. (36) The sprawl that exists today, which includes not only low-density, single-family residences but also low-density commercial and even industrial uses, grew naturally from this initial favoring of the single-family home: as residential uses took root, demand grew for supporting uses such as shopping centers, restaurants, entertainment, and industrial parks. (37) Today's sprawl, therefore, is not only an outgrowth of government zoning policies, but also a response to citizens' desires for...