Thank you Mary Gade, AASHTO President Dan Flowers, and ECOS Director Robert Roberts. It is great to see your two organizations, working together, to find a solution to sprawl. Just the fact that both organizations recognize that there is a problem, and are here to find a more common-sense approach, is a big first step.

When Secretary Nishida first told me that environmental regulators and transportation secretaries from around the country were meeting to discuss Smart Growth, my first reaction was, "You mean they are meeting in the same room?"

I say that only half in jest. One of the challenges with Smart Growth / Anti-Sprawl programs is to make everyone realize the inter-connection of all that we do. The relationship, for example, of development, storm water runoff, and water quality. The effects that long distance commuting has on our air quality. The impact highway decisions have on development patterns and, in turn, on the environmental health of our communities.

The goal of our environmental secretaries and commissioners is, of course, to protect our environment. The goal of our transportation secretaries is to move people and goods effectively and efficiently. Too often, the goals of these two essential governmental functions are in conflict. That is why this meeting is historic.

The next step in anti-sprawl thinking is for each of you to be striving for a vision of a better future. It is time to look at your own job from the point of view of your counterpart in the other organization. Smart Growth is about a different future. It is about a different vision for a better America, and for each of our communities.

We all know that we will not solve our problems by just building more roads to accommodate sprawl, and not worrying about the environmental effects. Similarly, we know that we will not solve our problems without addressing land-use decisions and other root causes. There is no solution unless we look at both sides of the equation.

As we look at both sides; We see both urban and suburban deterioration; And we see loss of tax dollars as we build to accommodate sprawl. These are losses on both sides. The only way to change the losses, is to change the equation so that the future economic growth occurs in our existing communities, or in focused growth areas. It can be done!

As we move forward to the next Century - and recognize the challenges we will face. We realize that the question of how we develop our land will be, and is, one of the most important issues facing this nation.

For 50 years, Americans have acted as if moving out is moving up. In the process, we have taken our natural resources for granted. We have paid too little attention to what happens to agricultural communities when farms are fragmented by development. Or what happens to forests, and the wildlife that lives in them, when they are destroyed by roads or malls.

Across this nation, we have let too many of our great and historic cities and towns collapse. This has been done, in part, through an indifference to urban needs that has fueled the great flight to the suburbs. All over the country my counterparts are addressing the same or similar problems: Governor Mike Leavitt in Utah is dealing with the adverse effects of sprawl development; Governor Tom Carper of Delaware is doing great things regarding transportation and land-use; Governors in Vermont and Maine are experiencing the same threats from unplanned and unchecked sprawl development and are trying to do something about it before the quality of life in their states is permanently damaged.

I was pleased to see that Roy Barnes -- the Governor-elect here in Georgia - campaigned on growth issues, and that he wants to do something about the sprawl problems affecting the Atlanta area, and other parts of this great state.

Those of us who researched anti-sprawl plans - and studied the causes of sprawl; understand that government policies, even well-meaning policies, too often caused and perpetuated the very patterns of development we are now trying to reverse. For example, the Interstate Highway System provided the United States with perhaps the best national road network in the world. That highway system is so good, in fact, that it has literally paved the way for long-distance commuting from virtually any corner of this nation. The Interstate program -- combined with the G.I. Bill that made low interest mortgage loans available to returning World War II veterans -- were great programs, but they inadvertently made sprawl development financially viable for developers and home buyers.

Now, those patterns of land use have increased air pollution despite the introduction of dramatically cleaner cars, and they have cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars for new, and often redundant, highway or other infrastructure costs.

In Maryland -- and I know this is so in many other States -- we too often followed an unwritten rule that directed State funds to new suburban developments first, at the expense of our older communities and neighborhoods. In a 20-year period, in Maryland's Montgomery County -- 60 schools closed, and 60 new schools were built at a cost of $500 Million.

It was a hidden form of entitlement! No matter where a developer wanted to build, the state pitched in to help. Even if it hurt our established communities.

We have started to reverse those trends in Maryland. When I became Governor nearly four years ago, only 43% of State school construction money was directed to renovations and additions to older schools. We have dramatically changed that dynamic by shifting the priorities of where we spend State school construction funds. Now, nearly 84% -- or about $8 out of every $10 we spend on school construction - goes for the expansion, modernization or rebuilding of older schools in existing neighborhoods.

What this new school construction policy says to Maryland parents is; "You do not have to move out to the suburbs, for your child to learn in the most up-to-date science labs or the best computer centers." We did not need a new law for that - we just needed to make our priorities clear.

While such changes undoubtedly pointed us in the right direction, it became clear that we needed to address the fundamental driving force behind development decisions - bottom - line cost. We decided that if government policies had inadvertently encouraged sprawl by making it cost-effective, then new government policies could encourage investment in existing communities and Smart Growth Centers, and make it more expensive to further sprawl. People make bottom-line decisions. Homebuyers do. Builders do. Investors do. Therefore, it must be our goal to change the bottom line.

That is why we turned our $16 billion per year State budget into an incentive fund for Smart Growth. First through State law in 1997, and then by Executive Order early this year , we refocused the State's financial resources on our established communities and neighborhoods.

For development projects outside of those areas, we are saying, "Sorry, the State will not help out!" "If you building out there, and tear up one more farm, then you pay for roads, water and sewage, schools, parks, and other development costs. "If you invest in our existing communities, then you will avoid those costs, and you will have access to tax credits, grants, low-interest loans, and other bottom-line impacting incentives.

Let me emphasize: It has never been our intention to stop growth. We never wanted "No Growth," or even "Slow Growth." What we opposed was allowing the State to subsidize the unplanned, or poorly planned growth that was eating up our countryside at an alarming rate.

In the meantime, we continue to spend billions of taxpayers' dollars to build miles and miles of new roads to accommodate this increase. This highway building binge is unprecedented - yet hardly a week goes by that we do not read a newspaper article about the intensifying problem of gridlock and congestion. In fact, The Baltimore Sun just reported that with the completion of the next 20-year road construction program - a very expensive program - congestion will be worse in the year 2020 than it is today!

As transportation planners and environmental secretaries, you must be asking yourselves, How do we get off this treadmill? Is there a new approach we can take? There is no doubt in my mind the answer to that is "Yes," and that new approach -- by whatever name you want to call it -- is "Smart Growth."

It seems pretty obvious to me - and I am sure it is becoming more obvious to you -- that we cannot just keep building more and more roads. Even if we could afford it, and I would suggest that we cannot. We cannot pave our way out of this problem.

At the same time, we cannot expect our environmental secretaries to keep fighting for cleaner air, or cleaner water, or greater protection of our natural resources - If our transportation policies work counter to each of those goals. Smart Growth has the potential to help transportation and environmental departments organize their efforts - so that they address the same quality of life goals that our citizens care about.

If we do not pursue this course - if we do not insist upon more common sense land use patterns - there is no way our transportation departments will be able to keep up with the exploding demand. Nor will it be possible for us to protect our environment short of imposing increasingly burdensome, and often politically unacceptable land-use regulations.

Change will not be easy. There is no overnight solution. It will require changes in the way we do business at every level of government; local, state, and federal. And, it will take years before we begin to see change. But we must start: before it is too late, before we lose the most beautiful parts of our states forever. We must start before we allow development to ruin our farming or ranching or forestry industries, before we destroy the quality of life that makes each of our states so unique, and we must start before we lose all sense of community that holds our civilization together.

Our citizens no longer uniformly agree that building more, or wider highways is the preferred solution to our congestion problem. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the era of building huge, 10 - 12 lane superhighways is nearing an end. At least in densely populated states like Maryland.

Our citizens are demanding a more environmentally sensitive, more multi-modal approach; an approach that ties land-use planning and transportation planning more closely together, and they are right. In the past, this nation has generally dealt with congestion issues from a vehicle-oriented perspective - that is - "How can we move more cars farther and faster?" Smart Growth, by contrast, demands that we take a more people-oriented, more community-oriented view that actually asks the heretical question, "How can we reduce the need to use the car?"

A transportation department that asks that question comes to a dramatically different conclusion than one that is only trying to move more cars farther and faster. Obviously, we can only reduce the need to use the car by better aligning our transportation planning with land use. If we do that, the negative environmental impacts will be lessened, and existing communities will be reinvigorated. It is not easy to build a consensus for such a drastically different approach, but I think the public is demanding that we do just that.

As we began to piece together our program in Maryland, we placed heavy emphasis on the lessons learned from the land use battles over the past quarter century. We did extensive outreach. I sent a member of my staff out to solicit responses from more than 400 county councils, municipalities, chambers of commerce, homebuilder groups, and environmental organizations. Based on that input, we focused our goals.

We wanted a program that: Saved our most valuable remaining natural resources before they are forever lost; Supported economic growth in areas where the infrastructure is already in place or being planned; And saved taxpayers from the unnecessary cost of building the infrastructure required to support far-flung sprawl development.

Here are seven reasons why I think we have been so successful with this program so far: First, our program was balanced. While there was a temptation to lean in one direction or the other, the Smart Growth program was presented as a balanced package that addressed both urban and rural concerns. This had the practical political benefit of rallying both rural and urban legislators behind the program.

Second, the mayors of our 157 municipalities were immediately supportive. They saw that Smart Growth would funnel State resources to their long neglected cities and towns for the first time in a generation or more.

Third, the proposal overcame traditional county government opposition by preserving the counties' local decision-making authority. From the outset, we said we had no intention of creating some new Statewide zoning authority. We just no longer would pay for the cost of sprawl resulting from bad land-use decisions.

Fourth, environmental groups were eager to embrace a program that comprehensively dealt with land use! These groups now almost universally recognize the connection between growth patterns and environmental problems, they knew as the general public is now realizing - that what we do on the land has a direct effect to the quality of our air and water.

Fifth, the program had rural support because it protects rural settings, lifestyles and rural economies. This past summer, we announced the first grants under our new Rural Legacy Program -- the rural component of our Smart Growth initiative. This program protects some of the richest farm lands, waterways such as our rivers, streams, and our Bay, and historic treasures like Antietam. It has become a very popular program.

Over the next 15 years, we hope to preserve more than 200,000 acres under this initiative -- truly a Rural Legacy for generations to come.

The sixth reason for our success is that the Smart Growth approach gave Maryland businesses certainty about where the State will support growth, and where it will not. We have put in place a number of programs that support our efforts to attract businesses into existing towns and cities.

Our Brownfields law, for example, limits liability and offers financial assistance for companies that agree to clean up and redevelop properties that were contaminated by others. Our Job Creation Tax Credit allows a company to claim an income tax credit by creating 25 or more new jobs in Smart Growth areas. Our pilot Live Near Your Work program provides closing cost assistance from participating employers who agree to buy homes in targeted Smart Growth neighborhoods near their place of employment. Our Heritage Tax Credit program rewards developers for the re-use and redevelopment of historic structures. And our 40 @ 4 program provides low interest loans for first time homebuyers - 4% in Smart Growth Areas.

Finally, fiscal conservatives seemed to like our Smart Growth program because it held the promise of more efficient use of tax dollars to build infrastructure. In an era when it seems that many Americans are demanding smaller government and lower taxes, this is an important way for governments to control costs while protecting our environment at the same time.

All of this consensus notwithstanding - we have had resistance. I was forced to use the full resources of my office: Everything from budget items, to appointments, to the "bully pulpit" of my office. But when it was all over - we prevailed!

Many of us in Maryland realized that time was running out. That is the fundamental reason why Smart Growth passed in a single legislative session. We knew that if we wanted to preserve the beauty of our states for our children before it was forever lost -- we had to act now.

This is not, however, just about one package of legislation. In Maryland, "Save the Bay" is a household phrase that reflects the importance of protecting the Chesapeake Bay. What I envision in Maryland and across this country is a new "environmental ethos" -- a cultural change -- built around Smart Growth. We must change the way people -- both young people and adults -- think about our environment.

Smart Growth represents a dramatic shift in attitudes about the kind of world we wish to live in, and the quality of life we will leave for generations to come. And in Maryland, we are convinced that Smart Growth, the road less traveled, is the road that we all will travel someday.