Urban growth boundaries and success with "smart growth"

Of course, with regard to the report mentioned in today's Post, you have to have a variety of tools in place to make better land use decision making possible.

In Maryland, two counties, Baltimore and Montgomery, have relatively hard and fast "urban growth" boundaries, just like Portland, Oregon, even though in Maryland, they aren't called urban growth boundaries. (In Baltimore County, they do tinker with the line from time to time, I don't know about in Montgomery County.)

Baltimore County seems to be one of the first counties in the U.S. to create such a boundary, in 1967, called the Urban-Rural Demarcation Line. It was created because planners and officials were concerned about the cost of extending "city" water and sewer lines, as well as roads, into areas that were likely to be relatively less dense, so that the cost of the lines would have been considerable, not to mention the impact on the land.

I am guessing that Ian McHarg's early efforts at environmental planning in Maryland, including "Planning for the Valleys in Baltimore County" influenced the creation of this boundary.

Note that in Prince George's County, they have three broad categories shaping land use, including a rural tier that is supposed to remain relatively undeveloped, but unlike in Montgomery and Baltimore Counties, the rural tier is subject to far more in the way of political machinations.

See for example, "Prince George's County's Commitment to the Rural Legacy Program is spotlighted by rezoning of land east of US 301in the rural tier" from the Prince Georgian blog.

2. The second problem, even with having a rural area with less development as a solid and fast land use category, is getting residents to agree to an intensification of the land use within the developable areas, through the redevelopment of less developed parcels, and the possible significant increase in building heights, both in association with transit or within areas that are more highly developed.

This is very difficult, and is at the heart of the difficulties of smart growth planning everywhere, in cities and in counties.

3. I can understand why residents in areas of weak transit service (meaning no fixed rail transit service and/or lack of transportation demand management planning requirements) oppose land use intensification.

See, in places with good transit, 50% of more of trips from new development end up being captured by transit, not by cars. And this can increase.

But when you only have bus transit, for the most part, most of the new trips generated by the new development generate more car trips in significant numbers.

Transit and the expansion and development of quality "mass transit" is the key to successful land use intensification and smart growth.

But as you know, it takes decades to build or expand transit systems.