Strengthening the Linkages Between Land Use and Transportation

Planning in the Washington RegionPresentation to the TPB Technical

Committee

September 8, 2006

2

Current Status□At the July meeting, TPB members were

briefed on:□A recap of options identified for a regional

initiative to link transportation and land use□Typical projects funded by grant programs in

other regions□Potential challenges to initiating a similar

program in this region, and how those challenges might be addressed

□Next steps, including a “gap analysis” to identify need for and potential benefits of a regional initiative

□In review . . .

3

Initiative OptionsOption 1: Administer a grant program for both

planning and capital activities, with funding awarded to projects based on merit and adherence to set criteria

□ Patterned after MTC – San Francisco ($30 million/year)Option 2: Administer a grant program for planning

activities only, with funding awarded to projects based on merit and adherence to set criteria

□ Patterned after DVRPC – Philadelphia ($1-2 million/year)Option 3: Using resources out of the TPB Unified

Planning Work Program, identify priority transportation needs (large- and small-scale) crucial to strengthening regional land use/transportation linkages (existing UPWP funds)

4

Option 3 would be fairly easy to implement . . .

□Priority projects or needs reflecting regional priorities and RMAS scenario study insights would be highlighted

□The TPB would facilitate discussion about promising regional initiatives, explore funding options, and promote inclusion of projects in the CLRP

□Could be accomplished with current TPB capacity and funding

5

Options 1 and 2 would present unique challenges . .

.□Accommodating a Multi-State Region

□Funds that come from each state would only go toward projects in that state

□Developing Appropriate Selection Criteria□The TPB could appoint a task force to

develop a process and criteria, potentially based on TPB Vision Goals, Objectives, and Strategies, and results of the Regional Mobility and Accessibility Study

6

And the biggest challenge of all . . .

□Funding the Program□Other MPOs have funded grant programs with

a combination of STP, CMAQ, TE, and other sources; the situation in this region is more complex, as each of the three jurisdictions has a different method of allocating these funds to projects

□A similar program here would have to be set up to avoid diminishing funding sources already committed to needed transportation activities

□Direct funding support from the governors and the mayor could enable such an initiative to move forward

7

Concerns Expressed in July □ Moving forward with Options 1 or 2 is not

feasible unless sources of new money are identified□ Letter from Chairman Knapp to the governors and the

mayor intended to explore possibilities and inform discussion

□ A better understanding is necessary of current activity in the region and value added, if any, by a regional initiative beyond these efforts. □ The TPB was promised a preliminary “gap analysis” in

September □ If warranted by this analysis, discussion of

implementing one or more of the three options would move forward

8

Gap Analysis□Inventory recent or current

activities linking transportation and land use in the region□Based on feedback from TPB

Technical Committee and staff research

□Identify potential benefits of a regional initiative□Based on experience in other regions

and inventory of recent or current activities in our region

9

Regional Overview: District of Columbia

□ Great Streets Program□ Penna. Ave., SE□ H St., NE

□ Area Studies□ Adams Morgan/18th St. □ Anacostia Transit Area□ Upper Wisconsin Ave.

□ Neighborhood and Revitalization Plans

□ Area and Corridor Transportation Studies

□ Transportation Enhancements Program

10

Regional Overview: State of Maryland

□ Transportation Enhancements Program

□ Access Management Program□ BRAC Transportation Action

Plan□ 1997 Smart Growth Initiative

□ Office of Smart Growth□ Priority Places Strategy□ Development Capacity Study□ Greenbelt Metro□ Smart Growth Scorecard□ TOD Opportunities

Assessment□ Sidewalk Retrofit Program

11

Regional Overview: Charles County

□ Transportation Network Strategy□ Sub-area plan conformance with state Smart

Growth Initiative□ Bryans Road-Indian Head Sub-Area Plan (2001)□ Waldorf Sub-Area Plan (2004)

12

Regional Overview: Frederick County

□ County Comprehensive Transportation Plan

□ Transit Oriented Design Guidelines□ “ . . . seek to integrate land

use, zoning, and transportation planning elements to promote higher density, mixed use development that is easily accessible by various modes of transportation.”

□ Walkersville Region Plan□ City of Frederick 2004

Comprehensive Plan Update□ Includes “alternative growth

scenarios”

13

Regional Overview: Montgomery County

□ Go Montgomery! Transportation Plan□ Includes land use policy

goals and targeted local funding

□ Centers, Boulevards, and Public Spaces Strategy

□ Bethesda CBD□ Silver Spring Transit

Center□ Shady Grove Sector Plan□ Twinbrook cooperative

agreement

14

Regional Overview: Prince George’s County

□ Strategic Framework for Transit-Oriented Development in Prince George’s County (2004)□ TOD Strategy for the West

Hyattsville Metro Station (Pilot-2003)

□ West Hyattsville Metro Transit District Development Plan (2003)

□ New Carrolton Metro Station (2004)

□ Morgan Boulevard□ Prince George’s Plaza

□ Livable Communities Initiative□ LCI Task Force□ Strategic Plan for Developing

Sustainable Livable Communities

15

Regional Overview: State of Virginia

□Northern Virginia Transportation Authority□Sub-allocated CMAQ and STP funds□Alternative Transportation and Land Use

Activity Strategies (ATLAS) Study □TransAction 2030 Northern Virginia

Transportation Plan

16

Regional Overview: City of Alexandria

□Potomac Yard□Crystal

City/Potomac Yard Transit Implementation Strategy

□Eisenhower East Small Area Plan

□Carlyle/PTO□Landmark Mall

17

Regional Overview: Arlington County

□ Ballston-MU Metro Station Access Improvement Project

□ WALKArlington □ Sector Plan Revisions

□ Virginia Square Sector Plan □ Clarendon Sector Plan

□ Columbia Pike Initiative □ Form-Based Code

□ Shirlington Bus Transfer Station

□ Crystal City/Potomac Yard

18

Regional Overview: Fairfax County

□ Transit-Oriented Development Committee

□ Tysons Corner Special Study

□ Lorton/Laurel Hill□ Springfield□ Dunn Loring□ Vienna Station Capital

Improvement Program

19

Regional Overview: Loudoun County

□ Route 50 Task Force□ Leesburg Town Plan□ Broad Run Community

Plan□ One Loudoun

□ Dulles Rail□ Moorefield Station□ Loudoun Station

20

Regional Overview: Prince William County

□ Potomac Communities□ North Woodbridge

Urban Mixed Use Zoning Plan

□ Belmont Bay□ Rippon Center□ Urban Land Institute

Study: Barriers and Incentives to Transit-Oriented Development

21

Regional Overview: WMATA

□Joint Development Program

□Projects with WMATA involvement were included within discussion of each jurisdiction

22

What value can be added through a new regional initiative?

□Raise the profile of local efforts by emphasizing the regional context of the work being done, and build on the current momentum in the region

□Provide additional assistance and funding for local efforts

□Support efforts to secure additional investment in the region’s transportation system

23

Potential Benefits of Option 3: Highlighting Projects and Needs Using Existing TPB

Funds□Facilitate the sharing of experiences and

strategies region-wide□Supply local jurisdictions with useful

resources such as national best practices and localized modeling information

□Place pending local projects in a regional context, potentially building support and creating opportunities for partnerships and leveraging of resources

24

Potential Benefits of Option 2: Funding Planning Activities

□All the benefits of Option 3, plus:□Increase technical assistance available to local

governments□Provide more visibility to local planning efforts

through regional selection and funding □Increase public involvement, facilitate

stakeholder cooperation, and promote pooling of resources of multiple stakeholders

□Improve treatment of infrastructure challenges on periphery of development sites

25

Potential Benefits of Option 1: Planning and Capital Projects□All the benefits of Options 2&3, plus:□Provide additional financial incentives for

development of projects that link land use and transportation

□Accelerate implementation of projects by making more funds available

□Assist locations where transportation investment is needed to catalyze revitalization or facilitate development

26

Why should we be doing anything more?

□A proactive regional approach to linking transportation and land use could respond to key concerns at the top of the public policy agenda, and promote more creative use of transportation dollars

27

Next Steps

□The TPB has before it three paths forward:□Exhort staff to continue and strengthen efforts

encompassed by Option 3 using existing TPB resources, and follow the status of these efforts

□Pursue Option 2 – funding planning activities – including forming a task force to develop selection criteria and seeking funding for a start-up program

□Pursue Option 1 – implementation of a program to fund both planning and capital projects – including forming a task force to develop selection criteria and seeking significant amounts of funding