Challenges of Integrated Transportation and Land Use Planning

Reid EwingRutgers University

The Challenges

• New Vision and Goals

• New Performance Measures

• Mutually Supportive Land Use Patterns-Transportation Facilities

• Model Enhancements

• Implementing Mechanisms

New Vision and Goals

Florida’s Definition of Sprawl

(Rule 9J-5.003, Florida Administrative Code)

• Leapfrog or Scattered Development

• Ribbon or Strip Commercial

Development

• Expanses of Low-Density or Single-Use

Development

Sprawl

Sprawl

Sprawl

Sprawl vs. Walk Share to Work

COMPAC0N

1601401201008060

PC

WA

LK

0

10

8

6

4

2

0

Coefficientsa

-2.744 2.788 -.984 .329

-.278 .233 -.091 -1.198 .235

-9.61E-03 .052 -.017 -.185 .854

4.420E-05 .000 .140 1.653 .103

.185 .027 .748 6.881 .000

4.223E-03 .021 .017 .200 .842

5.770E-02 .021 .231 2.802 .007

-9.20E-03 .026 -.037 -.356 .723

2.330E-03 .020 .009 .116 .908

(Constant)

MILD

PWKAGE0

PCINC0

DENFAC0N

MIXFAC0N

CENFAC0N

STRFAC0N

SIZFAC0N

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: PCWALK0a.

Sprawl vs. VMT per Capita

Coefficientsa

1.469 15.205 .097 .923

.716 .277 .333 2.582 .012

3.281E-06 .000 .003 .022 .983

-.361 .139 -.361 -2.593 .012

-3.51E-02 .109 -.036 -.321 .749

-.242 .115 -.252 -2.101 .040

-.128 .133 -.127 -.965 .338

-.231 .109 -.239 -2.118 .038

(Constant)

PWKAGE0

PCINC0

DENFAC0N

MIXFAC0N

CENFAC0N

STRFAC0N

SIZFAC0N

Model1

B Std. Error

UnstandardizedCoefficients

Beta

StandardizedCoefficients

t Sig.

Dependent Variable: VMTPC0a.

COMPAC0N

1601401201008060

VM

TP

C0

40

30

20

10

Demand for Alternatives

• Changing American Demographics

• Desire for Community and Neighborliness

• Growing Frustration with Congestion

• Growing Interest in Health and Fitness

Too Much Grass to Mow

We Are Not European

Charlotte Corridors and Wedges Plan

It Can Happen

New Performance Measures

Commonly Used Performance Measures

HIGHWAYCAPACITYMANUAL

Special Report 209

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARDNational Research Council

Are these really the best measures for quality of transportation service?

The “Bible”

Old Speed Paradigm -> Roadway LOS

New Paradigms

TEA-21 Planning Factors

• Economic Vitality

• Accessibility and Mobility Options

• Safety and Security for all Users

• Environmental Protection, Energy Conservation, and Quality of Life

• Enhanced Modal Integration and Connectivity

• Efficient System Management and Operation

• System Preservation

Oregon’s Transportation Policy Rule

Rule requires MPOs to reduce VMT per capita by 10% over 20 years in metro areas with more than 1 million population, and by 5% over 20 years in metro areas with 1 million or less population

New Florida Law

Multimodal Development District law allows local governments to establish multimodal level-of-service standards that rely primarily on nonvehicular modes of transportation within a district

New Maryland Law

Transportation Funding Areas Law requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish measurable long‑term and short‑term performance goals in designated smart growth areas for increasing the systemwide share of trips by mass transit, walking, bicycling, and high occupancy vehicles

Mutually Supportive Land-Use Patterns and Transportation Facilities

Rail Lines Without Riders

Sidewalks Without Pedestrians

Limits of New Urbanism

Cognitive Dissonance

The Future Belongs to Hybrids

Megatrends

“In a relatively short time, the unified mass society has fractionalized into many diverse groups of people with a wide array of different taste and values, what advertisers call a market-segmented, market-decentralized society.”

Naisbitt 1982

Urban Refill

Green Development

Transit-Oriented Development

Pedestrian Villages

Hybrid Communities

Hybrid Neighborhoods

Model Enhancements

Travel Demand Modeling Issue

Conventional 4-step models are not sensitive to effects of density, mix, and design on travel behavior

=

Differences in Travel Patterns

• Vehicle Ownership• Home-Based Trip Productions• Non-Home Based Trip Attractions• Intrazonal Trips• Transit Trips• Walk Trips• Peak Hour Factors

TRANSIMS Framework

LUTRAQ Study Area

Different Future Land Use Patterns

Less VMT (and Everything Else) with LUTRAQ

Westside MAX Line -- Suburban TOD

Land-Use Impacts

Implementing Mechanisms

Examples

• Adequate Public Facilities Requirements

• Transit-Oriented Development

• Context-Sensitive Highway Design

• Traffic Calming

• Access Management

• Regional Growth Management

Change in VMT Per Capita (1990-99)

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Sacramento, CA MSA

Oklahoma City, OK MSA

New Orleans, LA MSA

Phoenix, AZ MSA

El Paso, TX MSA

Las Vegas, NV MSA

Tampa--St. P

etersburg--Clearwater, F

L MSA

Seattle, W

A PMSA

Baltimore, M

D MSA

Omaha, NE--IA

MSA

Columbus, OH MSA

Fresno, CA MSA

Jacksonville, F

L MSA

Rochester, NY MSA

Denver, CO PMSA

Orlando, FL MSA

Houston, TX PMSA

Indianapolis, IN MSA

Austin, TX MSA

Ch

an

ge

in V

MT

Pe

r C

ap

ita

(1

99

0-9

9)

Orlando = 3.95

Portland = 4.64

Baltimore = 2.15

Florida Growth Management – General Failure

1985 Concurrency Requirement

Rural

Areas

Transitioning

Urbanized

Areas, Urban

Areas or

Communities

Urbanized

Areas

under

500,000

Urbanized

Areas

over

500,000

Roadways

Parallel to

Exclusive

Transit

Facilities

Inside

Transportation

Concurrency

Management

Areas

Constrained

and

Backlogged

Roadways

Intrastate

Limited

Access

Highway

(Freeway)

B C C(D) D(E) D(E) D(E) Maintain

Controlled

Access

Highway

B C C D E E Maintain

Other State

Roads

Other

Multilane

B C D D E * Maintain

Two-Lane C C D D E * Maintain

Constant Reform –Will They Ever Get It Right?

Transportation and Land Use Study Committee

“The state land planning agency and the Department of Transportation shall evaluate the statutory provisions relating to land use and transportation coordination and planning…and shall consider changes to statutes, as well as to all pertinent rules…”

1998 Florida Legislative Session

Oregon Growth Management – Mixed Results

Regulatory Tools

• Urban Growth Boundaries

• Density Targets

• Transportation Policy Rule

Documented Accomplishments

• Stronger Downtown Employment Base

• Higher Suburban Densities

• Less Land Consumption

Maryland Smart Growth – Promising Alternative

Inside and Outside Games

Smart Growth Results

The Good News: – 75% of new parcels are INSIDE PFAs– Thru Rural Legacy and related POS projects,

committed $137 million over last 4 years to permanently protect 54,000 acres.

– In last 7 years, total MD acres protected increased 40%, from 589,000 to 825,000 acres

The Bad News:– 75% of acreage developed is OUTSIDE PFAs– The average lot size OUTSIDE PFAs is 8 times

the size of lots INSIDE PFAs– County-specific performance varies widely

GARRETT

ALLEGANYWASHINGTON

CECIL

HARFORD

BALTIMORE

CARROLL

FREDERICK

KENTBALT.CITY

HOWARD

MONTGOMERY

QUEEN ANNE'S

ANNE ARUNDEL

CAROLINE

PRINCE GEORGE'S

TALBOT

DORCHESTER

CHARLES

WICOMICO

ST MARY'S

WORCESTER

CALVERT

SOMERSET

5 BYPASSES

550 ACRE TRACT

2 DISTRICT COURTS

COUNTY BLDG.

Investments Altered by Smart Growth