Excerpts from Report:

Concerned about how federal programs and policies affect the ability of state and local governments to plan for and manage growth, you asked us to identify (1) growth-related challenges facing local communities, (2) tools and techniques that state and local governments are using to help plan for and manage growth in their communities, and (3) federal programs and policies that state and local governments believe serve as barriers or aids in their efforts to plan more effectively for and manage growth. To accomplish these objectives, we visited five metropolitan areas and surveyed nearly 2,000 city and county governments -- all U.S. cities with populations of more than 25,000 and all counties located within U.S. metropolitan areas. The rate of response to our survey was 81 percent. ...

Infrastructure decisions are key to how communities grow, and the federal government can support state and local efforts to plan for and manage growth by helping communities make sound infrastructure investment decisions. In the view of local government officials, the federal government has opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of its substantial investment in communities' infrastructure by encouraging (1) greater consistency between local land-use planning (establishing local land-use and development objectives) and transportation planning (the process for selecting and implementing highway and transit projects); and (2) greater consideration of the growth implications of federally funded infrastructure projects. ...

Based on the views of local government officials, the federal government has opportunities to help local governments meet their community reinvestment goals by (1) reviewing the level of flexibility built into federal programs and (2) providing additional education and technical assistance for navigating the multitude of federal programs. For example, 57 percent of the cities responding to our survey believed that federal programs do not give them enough flexibility to pursue their infill development goals. ...

Larger cities and nonrural counties were more likely to be concerned about "sprawl" than smaller cities and rural counties. Whereas slightly over a third of the cities responding to our survey said that "sprawl" was a high or very high concern, 52 percent of the cities with populations over 200,000 said that "sprawl" was a high or very high concern. A significant percentage of rural counties (44 percent) were concerned about "sprawl." However, a greater percentage of nonrural counties (56 percent) said that "sprawl" was a high or very high concern. Communities concerned about "sprawl" have grown rapidly in the past and expect to grow more in the future. ...

According to the cities and counties responding to our survey, federal programs and policies both help and hinder their efforts to plan for and manage growth. While local government officials believe the federal government exercises less influence on growth decisions than the states, federal programs and policies can affect local growth decisions through programs for (1) the construction and maintenance of physical infrastructure (e.g., highways, transit systems, and water and wastewater systems), (2) "infill development" and the revitalization of downtown and distressed areas, and (3) the preservation of open space and farmland. ...

State and local officials told us that federal programs would be more responsive to local needs if federal agencies ensured that transportation planning was consistent with local land-use plans and gave greater consideration to the growth implications of federally funded infrastructure projects. Fifty-three percent of the cities and 49 percent of the counties responding to our survey said they strongly support a federal requirement that road and highway projects be linked with local land-use plans, while fewer than 5 percent of the communities said they were opposed. ...

Communities were as often satisfied as dissatisfied with decisions about the location of federal and postal facilities. Nevertheless, about a third of the cities (34 percent) and counties (33 percent) and a majority of the rural counties (16 of 28 respondents) that responded to our survey and had experienced a postal relocation in the last 5 years said their ability to plan for and manage growth was negatively affected by that relocation decision. ...

The cities and counties that responded to our survey supported several changes in the federal role that would improve coordination and help from the federal government. Over a third of the cities and counties strongly supported an increase in federal incentives for communities to pursue regional solutions to managing growth. Some experts have suggested that the federal government could encourage more regional solutions to problems by applying the regional metropolitan transportation planning approach to other federal program areas. For example, 33 percent of the responding cities and 47 percent of the responding counties strongly supported federal funding for regional water quality planning. In addition, over 40 percent of the responding cities and counties strongly supported increases in federal incentives for local governments to pursue "smart growth." One federal program that provides "smart growth" incentives -- the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot program -- is so popular that the demand for funding has exceeded the program's appropriations. ...

In the view of local communities, the federal government has the opportunity to enhance its investment in their infrastructure by encouraging greater consistency between local land-use planning and transportation planning and greater consideration of the growth implications of federally funded infrastructure projects. Greater attention to these factors could help minimize the potential for conflict between local and federal priorities, as well as the possibility of unintended consequences. Such attention could also help ensure that scarce federal resources are targeted to localities' greatest needs and that federal infrastructure investments in one community do not exacerbate "sprawl" in another. ...

The federal government also has an important role in helping communities plan for and manage growth through the assistance it provides for community reinvestment. Many communities -- especially cities -- place a high priority on revitalizing their neighborhoods and developing their downtown areas. Based on the views of local communities, opportunities may exist for the federal government to provide more training and technical assistance to help localities make better use of federal economic development programs to support their infill and downtown development priorities. ...

Based on the views of local officials, opportunities exist for the federal government to examine the need for greater federal leadership in the preservation and acquisition of farmland and open space. For example, the federal government could establish a general farmland protection policy to address the high priority that rural communites place on the preservation of farmland. Such a policy could potentially include refining the nation's farmland preservation goals and developing a strategy for identifying and giving priority to preserving the highest at-risk farmland. Similarly, the federal government could provide more assistance to communities to aid in the acquisition of parkland and open space, which would address the high priority that cities and other communities place on the preservation of parkland. ...