Don Chen, Director, Smart Growth America

There's a serious sprawl problem in all parts of the country, but New England has some inherent advantages over other parts of the country. Many of its regions were built centuries ago and have more concentrated downtown areas. But I would say every metropolitan area in New England without exception is currently following the typical pattern of sprawl that other regions in this country are following.

I think there are systemic causes of the problem. One of them is public policies that favor development in new areas over reinvestment in existing areas. Celebrated Boston-area neighborhoods such as Back Bay would be illegal to build now because of current planning and zoning requirements.

Taxpayers subsidize a lot of sprawl development. The gas tax is collected from every taxpayer who drives a car, but it generally benefits people living in exurban areas. The kinds of infrastructure that have been built by our transportation program generally don't enhance the mobility of people living within the city but tend to connect people from suburban areas to downtown offices. Such radial infrastructure is more for the suburban commuting population and less for intra-city travel.

Smart-growth advocates nationwide are proponents of affordable housing. If you promote more mixed-income development, you're more likely to have shorter commute distances and times because people aren't commuting from isolated low-income areas to job centers.

A number of years ago, Vermont created an affordable-housing and land-conservation trust fund. State affordable-housing trust funds are one of the things that we're really pushing at Smart Growth America.

People often move to exurban areas because they can't afford housing in more established neighborhoods. Rather than subsidizing lots of costly growth in the exurban areas, it's better to make sure people have adequate housing in established communities. I think this will lead to less sprawl and less haphazard growth in surrounding areas. This ensures better access to opportunities and less vulnerability to escalating transportation costs.

Consumer preferences are now beginning to shift. Baby boomers are aging and many are demanding in-town living with compact neighborhoods and the ability to walk to their destinations — not only because they want a sense of community, but also because their ability to drive is not as good as it used to be.

I think the new federal transportation bill is going to be critically important to housing providers and people who care about revitalizing older communities. The bill will reauthorize how the gas tax is used. This is an opportunity to link housing and transportation through planning requirements, development incentives, and so on.

Over the last 10 years, there's been a trend to spend more money for public transit, walking and cycling, and other alternatives to driving. The demand for all those things is increasing, but what will happen to the transportation bill is really up in the air. Some people are predicting a greater proportion of these funds is going to be spent on highways and less money will be spent on things like transit and walking and cycling.

A key to making communities more livable is to maintain funding levels for alternative modes of transportation, which reduce pressures on existing roadway systems. This is an absolutely key thing people who care about housing ought to set their sights on. Alternative modes provide people with more transportation choices, including lower-cost options.