National Academies Press: OpenBook

Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned (2005)

Chapter: Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?

« Previous: Keynote Presentation
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Where: How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location?." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23322.
×
Page 88

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Where How Does Smart Growth Differ with Location? 63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 69

63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 70

7 1 Introduction Charles Howard, Washington State Department of Transportation Our first speaker is going to be LuannHamilton. Luann is the Director of theTransportation Planning Division of the Chicago Department of Transportation, and she is going to be dealing with the urban infill example. The second presenter is Mike Cummings. He is the Environmental Systems Director at the Urban Corridors Office, which is the group in our Department of Transportation in Washington State that is developing some major projects in the Seattle area. He is going to be talking about the I-405 redevelopment, a suburban ring corridor. Jim DeGrood will be our last presenter. Jim is the Development Services Administrator for the town of Marana, Arizona. He is going to be talking about growth in the urban fringe. 63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 71

7 2 Smart Transportation in Chicago Luann Hamilton, Chicago Department of Transportation Iwanted to start by giving you some background onChicago. There are more than 8 million people inour six-county metropolitan area as of 2000, and about 2.9 million live in the city itself. Chicago reached a peak population of 3.5 million or 3.6 million in the 1950s. We have come down somewhat, but during the 1990s we grew from 2.7 million to 2.9 million, so we are on our way back up toward the 3 million range. When we think of smart growth and what places epitomize it, older central cities quickly come to mind. I was speaking with someone today from Boston, and we were saying that some of the issues discussed this morning—what people are trying to achieve in their communities—we already have in our old central cities. Cities like Chicago grew up before the automobile age and are thus already suited for a less auto-dependent way of life. This is particularly true of Chicago’s down- town. Transit, including our commuter rail system Metra, rapid transit, and bus, is readily available there. Indeed, the downtown is the hub of all the transit ser- vices in the region. Our blocks are short. Our sidewalks tend to be wide. Buildings hug the property line and face the street, providing a walkable environment. In the last two decades of the 20th century, new res- idential areas developed in and near the downtown, including conversions of older manufacturing and warehouse buildings into lofts, redevelopment of old rail yards into communities like Dearborn Park and Central Station, and, most recently, conversion of older office buildings in the heart of downtown into condo- miniums. As a result, our central area population increased 56 percent between 1980 and 2000, to 83,000, which included a net increase of 23,000 hous- ing units. This proximity of housing to workplace makes it practical for workers to ride their bikes to work, walk, or take a short bus or taxi ride. It also ensures that the downtown streets stay lively in the evening and on the weekends. However, even places like downtown Chicago face challenges that require smart growth solutions. During the post–World War II years, downtown streets were widened and some sidewalks were narrowed to make room for more cars. The goal was to move quickly between outlying homes and downtown jobs. As we now know, such roadway enhancements facilitated the subur- banization of housing while diminishing the attractiveness of the downtown itself. Although our downtown contin- ued to grow, most of the new growth over the past few decades has been outside our traditional central business district, in areas with less community transit service. Figure 1 shows our current central area boundary. Our core central business district is on the right, bounded by the Chicago River on the north and west, Congress Parkway, and Grant Park. A lot of develop- ment occurred north of the river in the areas called Streeterville, North Michigan Avenue, and River North. These areas, while they have transit, aren’t at the center of the regional system. At the same time, suburban office space grew at a faster rate, diminishing the down- town’s share of new office development. While the cen- tral area still contains about 55 percent of the region’s total office space, which is pretty good (the only place that has more is New York City, with 62 percent), we captured only 40 percent of new development in the 63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 72

1990s. And some of the newer central area develop- ments feature blank walls along the street that discour- age pedestrian activity and deaden the environment. With all of this came a lot more traffic and congestion. In response, in the late 1990s, the city of Chicago joined with the business community and civic and com- munity leaders to develop a new 20-year plan for the central area to address these challenges. The plan is based on an economic analysis that developed long- range forecasts for various land uses downtown. The plan has three guiding themes: ensure a dynamic central area made up of vibrant and diverse mixed-use urban districts, ensure that the central area remains accessible and connected, and reinforce the central area’s focus on its waterfronts and open spaces. The Chicago Department of Transportation’s (CDOT’s) role was to focus on Theme 2, keeping the central area accessible and connected. The goal we set was to make transit the first choice for people coming to and moving around the central area. To accomplish this, we need to expand and upgrade the transit system to provide higher-quality service from outlying areas to the central area and within the central area itself. This will allow us to diminish auto congestion, future traffic, and parking demands. We want to create high-quality landscaped streets and highways, both to improve the city’s image and to make it a more inviting place to walk in. We want to reduce barriers faced by pedestri- ans and people with limited mobility. I was thinking about the fact that two of these goals can sometimes be in conflict with each other because we have cases where we have encouraged developers to put in a lot of land- scaping when they do planned development. What hap- pens is that they build planter boxes right in paths that pedestrians need to take to get to the commuter rail sta- tion. As part of all this, we are looking at how to make sure we maintain clear paths for pedestrians. As part of the economic analysis, consultants sur- veyed businesses to determine why they locate in our downtown. They found that proximity to mass trans- portation was the factor with the strongest influence on the location decision. Mass transportation was men- tioned by 73 percent of respondents. Of note, nearly one-third of the companies interviewed indicated that an urban residential lifestyle was a factor in the location decision. The economic analysis concluded that office space growth would continue following the trends of the past 20 years (Figure 2). This projection drives the planned transportation recommendations, since the transporta- tion system needs to accommodate peak-period com- muting trips. The projected downtown employment increase will result in 165,000 to 239,000 new daily work trips. Our goal is to increase the transit mode share for these trips to 70 percent—substantially more than the current mode share of 53 percent for down- town transit but consistent with the transit share we see in the downtown core, where transit is most conve- nient. This would bring our overall mode share for transit up to 58 percent in 2021. So we are looking for a 5 percent increase in transit mode share, from 53 to 58 percent. To accomplish this, we need to invest in transit capacity regionally and provide better transit connections within the central area. We also need to manage auto use better. We did a traffic analysis as part of the long-range planning process and looked at the existing level of ser- vice across various corridors in and out of the central area, including bridges over the Chicago River as well as expressway access points. We found that right now 7 3HOW DOES SMART GROWTH DIFFER WITH LOCATION? " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( ( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( ! !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!( FIGURE 1 Regional transit network focuses on central area. 1980 1985 1990 1995 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 0 30 60 90 120 150 m illi on s q. ft . FIGURE 2 Central area office space growth. 63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 73

a number of intersections are at Level of Service E, which means traffic is pretty congested. I’m not a traf- fic engineer, so I’m not going to use more technical terms for it, but it is already pretty congested. If we leave our parking policies as they are now, congestion levels will increase in some key areas, like some bridge crossings, to Level of Service F, which is gridlock. However, if we enforce more parking restrictions in our downtown area, we can at least keep those critical crossings at Level of Service E. That is our goal—to maintain Level of Service E. It is a little different from some other environments. The Chicago central area plan is based on a core belief that directing growth to the historic center of the region will eliminate sprawl at the regional fringe, protect regional open space, enable the greatest number of people to commute on transit, maximize the value of existing infrastructure, and improve the environmental quality of the region. Transportation recommendations in the plan, including transit, roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements, will be brought online in coordination with development over a 20-year period. Within the central area, the plan recommends pursu- ing transit-oriented development, encouraging high- density office and retail development near transit stations, designating corridors along existing and pro- posed transit lines for high-density development, encouraging developers to incorporate transit stations in buildings to increase transit convenience, and reduc- ing or minimizing parking requirements for develop- ments adjacent to Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) and metro stations. The Central Loop is already zoned to permit high densities. The plan recommends extending the high- density office core into the West Loop to the Kennedy Expressway, to center on our existing transit stations. We are proposing to expand that area to the west of the river where our two largest commuter rail stations are—Union Station and the Ogilvie Transportation Center. So we are encouraging high-density office in that area, where it is very convenient for commuters to take the train and then go to their office. It is also right next to our expressway corridor so that if they do drive, they don’t have to drive all the way through the central business district. We are also expanding the high density north of the river, where we are proposing to put in bus rapid tran- sit (BRT). This corridor is already seeing increased density. We just passed a planned development by the Trump organization for a new 85-story office/ residential building. For roadways, our recommendations focus on man- agement of the existing system. We are not in a location where we can really grow the roadways very much, so our goal is to manage them better. We recommend revisiting our on-street loading and parking policies to address issues such as on-street loading by UPS, FedEx, and similar companies that are contributing to traffic congestion. We recommend developing a traffic man- agement center to better coordinate traffic operations, both downtown and in the neighborhoods. We just recently were awarded Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to construct the traffic man- agement center. We call for completing the street and bridge grid in the former rail yard areas to tie new development into the rest of the central area. This may sound obvious, but in the 1980s, when we first started redeveloping the railroad lands, that wasn’t done. Instead, the communities that were built were very insu- lar. They have cul-de-sacs and fencing all around them, and you can’t really get through. As a result, you can’t have good transit service or good pedestrian access for the people that live in them. They disconnect the grid. So now, in our newer developments, we require the developers to tie into the existing grid network to make those areas more permeable for transit and walking. Plan recommendations are being incorporated into the ongoing update of our citywide zoning code, which was written in 1956. This is the first time we are attempting to rewrite zoning since 1956—almost 50 years. One proposed component will be limited drive- way access, particularly on streets with heavy pedes- trian and bus volumes. One of the problems that we now face is that when people walk to the commuter rail stations, they have to walk past many driveways into parking garages, and it makes it very hard to keep up the flow of movement. The same thing occurs with buses and bus lanes, where there are cars turning in and out constantly. We are trying to either prohibit or restrict driveways on a lot of our major corridors. I know this is going to be a sensitive issue for the busi- ness community in Chicago. We are already hearing about it. Another thing we can do is look at parking. Right now, Chicago has a restriction on freestanding parking garages in certain areas. The plan proposes several alternatives. One would be to expand the restricted area to the area outlined that runs along the river, which would mean that we wouldn’t have as many people crossing the bridges to get to parking, and that would reduce the congestion in those key bottleneck areas. Another alternative would be to review all parking pro- posals in the larger square outlined area. That would cover freestanding garages, surface lots, and parking within developments. Again, we are starting to talk to the parking community about this, and they are very concerned. I hope we are successful. To increase transit use, we recommend increasing CTA and Metra rail for rail and bus capacity into downtown. As I said before, we are expecting a lot of 7 4 SMART GROWTH AND TRANSPORTATION: ISSUES AND LESSONS LEARNED 63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 74

growth. Getting to 70 percent transit mode share will mean 115,000 to 167,000 additional transit trips daily, and we will need to expand our capacity going from the suburban areas into the city in order to achieve that goal, or make that goal possible. We also want to improve transit distribution in the downtown itself, improve intermodal connections between rail and rail and rail and bus, and provide express rail to our air- ports, Midway and O’Hare. We already have rapid transit to both airports, which is unusual, but we would like to put in an express-type service to both airports so that you could check your baggage downtown and not have to look at it again until you get off the plane and you would have a faster trip out to the airport. Then you would get on the normal transit service. Those are goals we are trying to achieve and projects that we are starting now. Our phasing plan recommends starting with improve- ments to the existing system before undertaking the largest, most expensive projects, which may not be needed right away. Downtown transit improvements have been under way for the past 15 years, and addi- tional improvements will continue to be made in the coming 20 years, including renovating and improving stations, both in the subways and on the elevated line. My department, CDOT, builds stations, and then CTA operates and maintains them. So this is one of our tasks. As for adding new stations along existing lines where warranted by development, the biggest issue we have right now is that all the new developing areas think they need a new transit station. We have to set up criteria to make sure we put the stations in the places with the greatest need and then provide intermodal facilities between commuter rail, rapid transit, and bus. One example—we have a commuter rail station in the South Loop, the LaSalle Street station on the Rock Island line. The nearest bus stops are two to three blocks away, so when you get off the train you have to walk two to three blocks to catch the bus. We just got CMAQ funds to build a new intermodal center adjacent to the train station so that the buses can be right there next to the trains. With those kinds of conveniences, we think we can get more people to use transit. Another thing we can do right away is to preserve corridors for the future where we think we’re going to need higher capacity. We can move from our current bus network to BRT in selected corridors. Features of BRT include exclusive travel lanes, traffic signal prior- ity, limited stops, enhanced boarding areas with canopies and real-time bus information to increase cus- tomer comfort and convenience, and wide doors with low floors for easier boarding. Over time, we want to grade-separate some of these BRT corridors where feasible. We have already done one—the Lakefront Busway near the lake. This is an old commuter rail corridor that is still active, and we built a bus lane there that moves convention visitors from the hotel district in the north down to our McCormick Place Convention Center in the south. Another existing rail right-of-way that we are pursuing is up on the north end along the river where the Trump development is going to be. This is the Carroll Avenue corridor, which is an old Union Pacific (UP) freight line. We are in discussions with UP to acquire its interest in that corridor to provide BRT below street level. There is currently no below-grade right-of-way avail- able, but if demand warrants in the future and traffic requires it, we would pursue below-grade busways along Clinton in the West Loop and along Monroe in the heart of the Loop. The Carroll Avenue busway would follow the north bank of the Chicago River on the old UP right-of-way. This particular busway would connect our commuter rail stations in the West Loop with the Streeterville area, the medical district by Northwestern University Medical Center, North Michigan Avenue, and Navy Pier. It would also allow residents in the Loop to get to the commuter rail sta- tions and to get to the new office growth that we are planning in the West Loop. Finally, the most visionary of the various proposals is the West Loop Transportation Center, which is shown in Figure 3. This is truly a multimodal facility in the West Loop along the Clinton corridor. This is some- thing we expect we might need in 20 years if we achieve all our goals, we have the kind of growth we would like, and we can get the transit funding from various sources. There are two commuter rail stations in this corridor. One is the Ogilvie Transportation Center and the second is Union Station. The West Loop Transportation Center would link those two stations. There would be a mezzanine level connected directly into the commuter rail stations, a busway that would connect to our other grade-separated busways, a CTA rapid transit line connection, and at the bottom level, 7 5HOW DOES SMART GROWTH DIFFER WITH LOCATION? FIGURE 3 West Loop Transportation Center. 63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 75

intercity rail or regional rail. It could be used by high- speed rail if the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative ever takes off. In conclusion, we think that Chicago’s central area plan is a smart growth plan because it clusters new development near transportation. It focuses higher-den- sity office in the Central and West Loop, which are already denser and more built up and have good tran- sit. It encourages residential development within walk- ing distance of the jobs downtown, including just north of the river, west of Halstead, which is just west of the expressways, and south of Congress. Finally, we recog- nize that regional policies need to change to support growth in the central area to promote better integration of our various transit services as well as more funding for mass transit. 7 6 SMART GROWTH AND TRANSPORTATION: ISSUES AND LESSONS LEARNED 63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 76

7 7 Smart Transportation in the Puget Sound Region Michael Cummings, Washington State Department of Transportation I’m here to talk about how there are good reasonswhy Seattle is not Chicago. Figure 1 is symbolic ofwhat is happening. This is the south end of the I- 405 corridor in Renton. The left side is Boeing’s facil- ity. On the right side is housing in the area. To the north is Lake Washington. When you think water in our area, you think salmon because there is this incred- ible linkage due to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There is congestion in both directions on the I-405 cor- ridor most of the day. This is typical of what happens in this area. I’m going to break this presentation into two parts because there are a lot of things happening in Puget Sound related to smart growth. First, I’m going to talk about the land use issues in the area, and then about the 405 program. Metro Seattle, in the Puget Sound region, has about 3.28 million people, which is approximately 55 percent of the state’s population. What is happening in the region related to the corridor? The I-405 corridor is about 30 miles long and has about one-half million people living adjacent to it. The I-405 program was a demonstration program for reinvention of the National Environmental Protection Act process. It has been 3 years since we issued our notice of intent, and we will have a record of decision in October of this year. We have congestion in certain locations, particularly on the I-405 corridor. In some areas of the corridor it is up to 12 hours per day. There are huge business and public concerns about the level of congestion in the Seattle area. When congestion occurs on the freeway, trips move off the freeway system to the arterials, which results in cut-through traffic in our neighborhoods. The region is currently experiencing an economic downturn. As mentioned earlier, we have an ESA- threatened species in the region. This and other factors have made transportation a major topic of most of the radio talk shows in the Seattle area. In the Puget Sound region, we expect population growth of about 1.5 million between now and 2030. Travel demand will increase by about 60 percent. As Mary indicated, both she and Charlie Howard were active in helping to implement a growth management program within the state of Washington to reduce sprawl. One of the key elements of that program was to establish a growth management boundary and to pre- serve rural lands. The growth management program has three goals in regard to transportation: encourageFIGURE 1 I-405 corridor program. 63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 77

mixed use and multimodal development activities, establish level of service standards for local arterials and transit systems, and define specific actions to bring transportation facilities into compliance with estab- lished standards. Figure 2 shows the Puget Sound region. The dark area is rural, and the lighter area is the urban growth area. The dots are the activity centers, which are intended to be the focus of the urban growth. Now, what has happened since growth management was adopted in the early 1990s? An article from one of the local newspapers quoted the King County executive saying at a recent update, “We are going to direct growth into the urban areas. We do not like sprawl. We are looking at eliminating 5,000 lots in the rural area through down-zoning.” Figure 3 shows the I-405 corridor. Seattle is to the west, and Bellevue, Redmond, and Lynnwood are at the north end, with Tukwila and Renton in the south por- tion of the corridor. Lake Washington lies between Seattle and the I-405 corridor. The corridor runs through 2 counties, 9 suburban communities, 6 urban centers, and about 14 business and housing activity cen- ters. The corridor is located within the urban area. What is happening? We are getting infill develop- ment. Bellevue is the largest city on the east side, inside the corridor. A lot of new housing is being built. Microsoft’s campus in Redmond is located in the corri- dor and is becoming more heavily developed as it expands its facilities. We are getting mixed-use development. Kirkland has housing above some of the retail areas. There is housing above a retail area in Redmond. There is an open-air regional shopping mall; it is part of the mixed-use project in Redmond. You see walkable street concepts being developed and encouraged in these towns. We also have an aggressive transportation demand management pro- gram, with 25 years of experience. We have more than 200 high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane miles. We have park-and-ride systems throughout the area. The Puget Sound region has the largest public vanpool system in the nation. We have had a commute trip reduction program that has been successful in reducing single-occupant vehi- cle trips. Here is an existing park-and-ride lot that was recently converted to a transit-oriented development by building housing above it. The I-405 corridor is planned to accept a large por- tion of population and employment growth for the region. It has been estimated that growth will add about 200,000 people and 150,000 jobs and increase daily person trips to the corridor by 56 percent by 2020. In 1999 the I-405 corridor program was started. We had 35 agencies involved in this program and 24 con- curring agencies. The concurring agencies had to agree in writing, at three critical steps in the process, that they would support that decision and would not revisit it unless conditions changed. We had five co-lead agencies on our environmental impact study (EIS) and four leg- islative representatives. The program had three commit- tees: a steering committee, which included resource agencies and local staffs; a citizens’ committee composed of environmental groups, business interests, and neigh- borhood groups; and an executive committee, which was the decision body for the effort. The executive com- mittee included elected officials and senior staff from the Federal Highway Administration, the Washington State Department of Transportation, and others. We understood that the general public wasn’t neces- sarily represented on these committees, so we made a big 7 8 SMART GROWTH AND TRANSPORTATION: ISSUES AND LESSONS LEARNED 8 Rural Urban FIGURE 2 Puget Sound region has established a growth management boundary, with activity centers to focus growth and development within urban areas. Rural Urban I -405 Corridor FIGURE 3 I-405 corridor, located within urban growth boundary, is targeted to accommodate a major portion of the region’s housing and employment growth: 2 counties, 9 suburban communities, 6 urban centers, and 14 business and housing activity centers. 63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 78

effort to meet with people. We met with the public in residential basements and in business boardrooms. We had more than 140 speaking engagements and did a sta- tistically valid survey as part of our public involvement process. In November 2001, our executive committee adopted a multimodal vision for the corridor. It involves improvements in both roadway capacity and transit systems within the corridor. The goal of this rec- ommendation is to accommodate planned growth, con- nect centers, support infill development, address concurrency requirements in the area, support eco- nomic vitality, and provide choices. The recommenda- tion included more than 150 projects in a 20-year program at a cost of approximately $10.9 billion. The recommendation included the purchase and for- mation of 1,700 new vanpools in the corridor. HOV and carpools and vanpools are a far bigger market in this area than is transit, both now and 20 years from now. The formation of these vanpools would require nearly 8,000 parking stalls. It included a plan to complete the HOV system in the corridor. We have a large HOV system, but it is hard to get in and out of. The plan included development of direct access ramps and freeway-to-freeway connec- tions at various locations in the corridor. A BRT system is included as a key part of the planned transit invest- ment, and additional bike and pedestrian facilities would be improved throughout the corridor. Figure 4 shows the central portion of the corridor and shows how the transit elements work together. The large dots are urban centers. The smaller dots are smaller business and employment centers within the corridor. The first component is the BRT spine that would service the 30-mile corridor from Lynnwood to SeaTac Airport. BRT stations are added that support the BRT line at activity centers. Other all-day BRT ser- vice is developed to connect with the I-405 spine and provide service to downtown Seattle and to the areas east. Also operating in the HOV system is the express bus service, which serves a commuter market that does not want to stop at all the BRT stations. There is also the all-day bus feeder. This increase in transit service will require transit centers to be expanded in several activity centers in the corridor. The plan includes adding about 5,000 permanent park-and- ride spaces primarily to support the transit element. Our roadway component, shown in Figure 5, is prin- cipally defined as up to two additional lanes in each direction, throughout the corridor. With this improve- ment it is necessary to add the freeway-to-freeway con- nections and the arterial connections to make sure people can get on and off the expanded freeway system. The plan also provides for additional HOV and freight improvements in the corridor. 7 9HOW DOES SMART GROWTH DIFFER WITH LOCATION? Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Other All Day BRT Routes Express/ Commuter Bus Routes All Day Feeder/ Local Bus Service Park & Ride Lots Transit Centers Committed HOV Projects Proposed HOV Projects BRT Stations 112TH AVE SE Urban Center Urban Center Activity Center Activity Center Activity Center Activity Center Activity Center NE 44TH ST FIGURE 4 How the transit elements work together. Freeway Connections Added Lanes Arterial Connections 2 2 2 2 Arterial Improvements Arterial HOV Committed HOV Projects Proposed HOV Projects 112TH AVE SE 1 Urban Center Urban Center Activity Center Activity Center Activity Center Activity Center Activity Center 1 2 1 NE 44TH ST FIGURE 5 Roadway component. 63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 79

We are also looking at managed lanes. This poten- tially means taking the existing HOV lane and the lane adjacent to it and separating them from the general- purpose lanes. These two lanes would be managed through access control, occupancy, or pricing. This is not a popular topic in our area, but it is being actively considered. The other important piece of any smart growth strat- egy is environmental planning. We want to integrate these environmental investments as we make the trans- portation investments. The proposal is to take a water- shed-based approach to environmental strategy. We also want to support growth management goals through our implementation strategy. We will continue to work with our partners—the tribes, jurisdictions, and resource agencies—to refine and improve our envi- ronmental program. We have an opportunity to go out in advance of these improvements and not only mitigate them but also correct existing environmental problems. Keep in mind that one of the key things we have to deal with is the ESA. The issue is how we address devel- opment in urban areas while improving the habitat for salmon and other threatened species. Where are we now? There are two funding proposals. Referendum 51, which goes to the ballot in November, is a statewide measure to raise the gas tax by 9 cents. I- 405 is targeted to get about $1.8 billion of that for investments. A regional transportation improvement district proposal is also being formulated now, which we anticipate will go to the ballot next year. Between $2 bil- lion and $4 billion might go to I-405. We also have future funding opportunities related to Sound Transit (high-capacity transit provider in the Puget Sound region) Phase II investments. We have been at this for about 2 years. We believe it is a balanced and integrated approach and that it is a critical part of a strategy to make growth management work in Washington State. 8 0 SMART GROWTH AND TRANSPORTATION: ISSUES AND LESSONS LEARNED 63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 80

8 1 Smart Transportation in Marana, Arizona Jim DeGrood, Town of Marana, Arizona It is a little intimidating coming from an edge city totalk about smart growth. The town of Marana islocated in Pima County, a suburb of the city of Tucson. It is the second-largest urban growth area within the state of Arizona. The Tucson metropolitan area has a population of about 900,000. It is sur- rounded by mountains. Interstates 10 and 19 come through the center of the valley, and Interstate 10 bisects Marana, heading to Phoenix. Right now, within the valley, most of the available land has been consumed up to the mountain fronts, so new growth is extending out along the Interstate corridors. As a result, Marana is experiencing a lot of new growth. True to our western heritage, Marana wasn’t built to facilitate growth. Rather, it was meant to keep the city of Tucson from sticking a straw into our aquifer; water rights have clearly been at the heart of our history. The town of Marana started in 1977 with water issues. Since that time we have had to grow, basically to build a strong, stable economic foundation for our community. Right now we are at about 115 square miles. We have a population of about 18,000. That is up from the 1990 census, which showed us at only 2,200. That made us the fastest-growing community in Arizona: 500 percent during the 1990s. Because of our position within the Tucson metropolitan area, we expect to continue to grow, and we are looking at an estimated population of nearly 90,000 in 2025. Where is growth taking place? Dove Mountain con- sists of two master-planned communities, and there are other outlying areas where housing activity is occur- ring. Then we have the historic part of town, or the older part—I can’t really call it historic—where we are just now starting to see economic activity. There is a lot of land use planning in this area. All of this activity is really quite dizzying and has prompted a lot of debate within the region. The state of Arizona has certainly had its fair share of discussions concerning the merits of growth management versus smart growth. When you start talking about smart growth, a couple of things come to mind. The first is transportation, and the other is the environment. We certainly have our issues there. We enjoy being a center for biological diversity. We have a little bird called the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl, which is a listed endangered species, and back in 1999 there was a critical habitat established for it. In 2001, it was judicially vacated. So we are in a state of flux. The Fish and Wildlife Service has an obligation to bring back a new designation by next June. As a result, we have seen a lot of shift in devel- opment emphasis. We thought we were going to be looking around the master-planned communities, the residential golf communities up in the Catalina Mountain foothills, but we are now looking at a shift in interest to the agricul- tural lands. As a result, we are stranding a lot of public investment in infrastructure. What we are probably looking at in the critical habitat areas is a maximum of 20 percent disturbance. So we will be preserving a lot of open space not necessarily because we want to, but because we have to. We are considering changing land uses in the existing agri- cultural fields because there is a lot of interest in growth and development there. Low cotton prices have also contributed to the inter- est in developing in that area because a lot of the old cot- 63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 81

ton-farming families find that they are being driven from business. We may be looking at little continuation in that as a result of the recent farm bill, but we still think that as a lifestyle, farming will diminish over time. Frankly, even though there is a lot of interest in preserv- ing farmlands nationally, that isn’t necessarily the best thing in an arid environment. We are experiencing over- drafting, and there are probably some good environ- mental reasons for diminishing the amount of farmland in our area. The other part of the growth debate has been trans- portation, and certainly there is not consensus on how we should do that. We don’t have a strong bus system within our region. We had, I think, a very well-run one, but unfortunately, because of a funding situation—it is financed by general funds—it has no dedicated funding source, and it has eroded in service provision because of fiscal constraints. In terms of going forward with our transportation planning efforts, we first need to keep in mind a num- ber of institutional issues. The first one is the highway user revenue fund. Within Arizona, the distribution of the highway user revenue fund is based on the last cen- sus population count. Clearly, we don’t fare very well. We’re presently delivering services to a population of 18,000, and just 2 years ago the census said we only had 13,200. So our ability to deliver even operations and maintenance with that funding source is difficult. We also have the growth management initiative. It was soundly thrashed at the polls in 2000, but not for lack of interest. It was largely because the home-building industry mobilized very well at the polls. One of the things the state legislature did to address the issue was pass legislation called “growing smarter plus.” It requires that we go back and revisit our gen- eral plans and bring them before the voters. The plan also has to contain a component showing how growth will pay for itself. Another institutional issue that we need to deal with is transit. The city of Tucson is the provider within the region, and it is a general fund activity. As a result, the only way we get bus service into our area is through intergov- ernmental agreements. We also have to continue to work on coordinating our regional route development. We do that pretty effectively through the Pima Association of Governments. But that is not to say that we necessarily have the same opinion about route alignments as do our neighboring communities. Finally, we need to keep in mind that the endangered species issues are not over. I mentioned the cactus ferru- ginous pygmy owl. In 2000, there were 22 of those owls in the portion of town that has critical habitat. A count this spring found only seven. Only one of them was female, so it is going to take some real soul-searching on how we address that. We have just recently completed a transportation plan update. It is a run-of-the-mill small area transportation study. We updated our population, construction costs, and demographics; tied it to our land use information or general plan; developed an updated traffic model; and came up with a recommended roadway network. We also made an effort to forecast revenues from our exist- ing sources and identified a cost for a recommended roadway network. Although we have other elements that are more ori- ented to smart growth, such as park-and-ride lots, our major public investments are going to be in our roadways. We will continue to rely on Interstate 10 as our main street, more or less. We need to develop additional inter- changes and access for our community, and we need to provide mobility within our community with the arterial road upgrades. I don’t know how other regions deal with it, but as a matter of course we always provide bike lanes and sidewalks along all of our roadway improvements, at least our arterial and collector streets. This plan results in a need for about $700 million worth of expenditures. I calculated that at upwards of $40,000 per capita when you look at our current resi- dential population. It is quite a daunting number. Most of it is spent on roadway capital improvements. Many other cities and towns, certainly existing ones, spend a lot more on operations and maintenance than we expect to. But we have a lot more new roads to build. Within the state, our traditional sources of funding for road improvements include the highway user rev- enue fees, which consist of two components. One is our vehicle license tax, which is always subject to being slaughtered at the state legislature by the new car busi- nesses. Second, we have the fuel sales tax, which is not indexed to inflation and has not changed since 1992. We also have federal and state project funds that come down to us through the council of governments. We have improvement districts available, which are useful for localized improvements. Nobody likes talking about it, but we do use some of our general sales tax funds for road improvements. And Marana does not have prop- erty taxes. We would have to seek that from our voters, and it is not very likely. The city of Tucson is faced with the same issues, and it has been strapped for a number of years and has not been able to do needed improvements. Over the past 15 years, it has gone before the electorate three times with sales tax proposals tied to transportation, and each of them has failed, not without the city having done an awful lot of legwork. The city has done community out- reach to try to identify what plan would be acceptable, and it has never gone before the electorate without hav- ing what it thought was a generally well-received plan. However, come election time, pretty much everybody has a reason to vote against a plan. 8 2 SMART GROWTH AND TRANSPORTATION: ISSUES AND LESSONS LEARNED 63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 82

We engaged a blue ribbon panel of interested parties in our transportation planning effort. We brought in our chamber of commerce and our building community and our neighborhood associations as well as our citi- zen activists and basically posed to them the question, How are we going to pay for this? We know where we are going. These are the things they offered to us, and in a very constructive fashion. First, impact fees. There is nothing new about them; they have been pretty common within our region for the last 10 years, and they are more common in other places of the country. Rather than look at a capacity consump- tion-based approach to deriving an impact fee, we have gone to a more direct benefit area approach, where we look at new interchange development costs paid for by impact fees. In our region, we have fairly high relative costs for developing new interchanges because we have not just the Interstate but an adjacent UP railroad line and a river to cross to get to the Interstate. So we have fairly costly interchange improvements—much more so than a standard diamond. We are considering using community facilities dis- tricts more frequently, particularly in looking at master- planned communities, which we are always encouraging. Probably our most important new rev- enue source is the construction sales tax. We’ve raised ours to 4 percent, three-quarters of which we have ded- icated to our transportation capital improvements pro- gram. This is the same area that would be subject to a general sales tax, but within the Arizona model tax code, we are allowed to identify our tax construction sales differentially. To give you an idea of how much revenue it raises—for a $120,000 home, our construc- tion sales tax is about $2,300, plus a development impact fee of $2,400. The total funding contribution on what we would consider an affordable home is about $4,800. For luxury homes, for example, a $2 million home, a construction sales tax raises a substantial $39,000. So normally we look at sales taxes as being regressive, but in the case of new housing, I would argue that it may be progressive. How are we working toward meeting our $700 million cost? We are still about $160 million short through our 2025 horizon year. We expect that we will expand the use of impact fees and development exactions, and we will probably narrow the gap substantially on the roadway side. We still have some needs to meet in the transit area, and I think that is probably more of a regional issue. We need to continue our transportation planning efforts by matching up funding needs with appropriate sources, working to develop further our funding pro- gram with the local home builders, fine-tuning our gen- eral plan, and coordinating with our transportation plan. We need to recognize the changing environmental issues, and certainly the pygmy owl will factor into that. In closing, I would like to reiterate that we found the construction sales tax to be a good funding source. We normally think of construction sales taxes as one-time only, like impact fees. But you see that occurring over time when people reroof, repaint, remodel, add a swim- ming pool, landscape—all of these contribute to our construction sales tax revenues. The public generally equates construction sales taxes with new growth, so it is politically a popular thing to tie it to. The home builders actually were very supportive. They see the remodeling industry as competing with them. They are happy to have that industry participate in the funding of transportation improvements. Also, as I mentioned, it does appear to be somewhat progressive as it relates to housing affordability. 8 3HOW DOES SMART GROWTH DIFFER WITH LOCATION? 63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 83

8 4 Discussion Audience question: A question for any or all of the pan- elists. As we think about what constitutes smart growth, have you, in your efforts, had a discussion locally or regionally about what makes it smart and how smart it is? I ask that in the context of a larger question. We just finished the Johannesburg global environmental summit, and one of the issues of great concern to leaders across the world is reducing green- house gas emissions. It seems to me that one criterion for judging how smart our transportation and smart growth are is whether they help produce significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions over the life of the transportation plan. Jim DeGrood: One of the things I didn’t speak about in my presentation was our land planning efforts. Clearly that is key in my mind to reducing emissions. We are working to strengthen our business district to try to reduce trip lengths by bringing both commerce and jobs closer to the residential communities that are developing. That is the only technique that we really have available to us within the framework under which we are operating. Certainly, I think we would like to participate regionally on more transit-related issues, but we are the small fish out there. Michael Cummings: We did air quality monitoring, and the local clean air agency was part of this effort. Ozone is a big issue for the Seattle area. Our EIS process looked at various types of transportation investment strategies, ranging from doing nothing all the way to a major road expansion program. Basically, we found that there wasn’t a lot of difference in overall air quality levels. The Puget Sound area may have an issue around 2007 because the performance improve- ments in vehicles don’t occur fast enough to deal with the increase in travel demand. After 2007, air quality for most emissions is projected to improve. Charles Howard: A couple years ago I was able to go to Europe to study transportation sustainability. We looked at experiences in Stockholm, Berlin, The Hague, and Edinburgh. One of our conclusions was that the local efforts in each of those places were well nested within a national strategy. The European Union has a very strong focus on global warming and CO2-reduc- tion strategies. We don’t have that in this country. I’m not going to say whether that is good or bad, but the fact is we don’t have a national direction. So it is really hard for each individual location to do anything. For example, there is much concern and activity in the city of Seattle in the direction of sustainability and CO2 reduction, but it really is difficult for individual juris- dictions to take that direction without this national umbrella. We saw in Europe that the strong national umbrella got the localities moving in that direction. Audience question: Chicago has a really interesting approach to central business district development, yet I suspect 80 percent of residential growth is going on at the edge. Do you have any information that would describe whether the growth in your central business district would, in fact, draw more residential development inward from the far edges, or don’t you know? Luann Hamilton: I’m involved in the regional trans- portation plan process at our metropolitan planning organization, and I know the region is going to continue to spread out. But I do think that having housing near 63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 84

the downtown offers choice. I assume that some people may choose that. They tend to be empty nesters or young singles or couples who don’t have children yet. I think one issue putting pressure on us is, If you want to keep people when they are having families, what do you do about your schools? Traditionally, downtowns didn’t even have schools, because they didn’t have populations. So how do you handle that? I think we have to struggle with those kinds of issues, and perhaps we can provide more and more amenities and services that will make living downtown attractive to a wider market. Audience question: As a follow-up to that question— can you talk about what, if anything, Chicago’s plan does or says outside of the central business district? You mentioned transit-oriented development in your presen- tation, neighborhoods outside of the central business district but still in Chicago. I’m thinking of places like Garfield Park and the Bethel transit center. I’m not sure what its status is right now, but I was wondering whether the plan incorporates or contemplates that? Luann Hamilton: The plan really focused on the cen- tral area, which is the central business district plus the residential communities immediately surrounding it. Garfield Park with the Bethel area is farther out. However, I do think we say in the plan that we would like to repopulate a lot of the corridors that are along our transit lines so that, besides having the jobs down- town and some housing downtown, we also encourage redevelopment in those corridors where people can take transit easily to get downtown. I don’t believe the Bethel project has happened yet. I think they are still working on the financing. Audience question: Michael, in your discussion you suggested concurrency was partly driving the 405 reengineering. Could you talk a little about how you view concurrency—whether it is smart growth or not, and how much that depends on how it is measured? Michael Cummings: Mary McCumber is probably more familiar with this than I am, but there are different concurrency standards in different communities in the Puget Sound region. There hasn’t been a really good effort to coordinate these standards between jurisdic- tions. The city of Bellevue, for example, moved from a 1- hour level of service to a 2-hour level of service requirement. A neighborhood association that has stand- ing in the land use planning process objected and tried to overturn that decision. I think the city of Bellevue ulti- mately prevailed. The public perception that we are not addressing congestion does and could in the future limit plans to increase densities in our urban areas. Charles Howard: Washington State’s concurrency program requires having level of service standards both for roadways and for transit. Transit has been pretty well ignored in a lot of those, and not for any deliber- ate reason. It is just difficult to come up with one and work with the regional transit agencies. Both are required. Then actions are required—the law doesn’t say to widen the roadways to meet this concurrency. It says to take some transportation actions. In essence, you don’t have to restore the level of service standard that you have, but you do have to address the type of growth that you’re experiencing, address the travel behavior, and come up with a plan that accommodates the travel behavior. It is balanced that way. It does not require specific highway improvements if your highway is deteriorated. I think that is an important distinction to note. Whether it is being carried out that way or not, that is another issue and there is a lot of review. I think the Puget Sound Regional Council is doing a review of concurrency in the region, and we are trying to refocus on whether concurrency is working or not. I think it can be a smart growth strategy. Mike brought up an interesting point: regardless of what you do with the standards, the people who live in the communities know what is going on with the system. That is really the origin of our concurrency standards: in 1989 the city of Bellevue had a moratorium by citizen initiative to stop growth. It was because the congestion was getting, in their minds, unbearable. So the citizens are the ones who are ultimately going to test whether these strategies are the right ones to be implemented. Audience question: Can you explain what “concur- rency” means? Charles Howard: Concurrency is the requirement that we establish level of service standards both for roadways and for transit facilities and then provide sufficient trans- portation facilities to meet those standards concurrent with growth. “Concurrent with growth” is defined as within 6 years of the development, in a transportation improvement program (TIP) time frame. That is the basic requirement. The idea is that if you cannot show in a TIP the type of transportation investment needed to support the growth taking place, you have to deny the develop- ment. It requires areas to grow only as fast as their trans- portation systems can grow, to accommodate the travel behavior that will come with growth. Audience question: I have a question for Luann. The BRT on elevated structures really surprised me. Usually when you get into structures like that, jurisdictions jump to a rail system. I was curious about why specifi- cally there was a pretty elaborate BRT loop being planned downtown that would involve so much capital investment. Luann Hamilton: Actually, the BRT would be below- grade, so it wouldn’t be on an elevated structure. It would use available corridors. Two of the corridors are freight rail corridors—well, one is a commuter rail/for- mer freight rail, and the other is a freight rail. So we would just take over parts of the right-of-way for the busway. You do need ramps in certain places to connect 8 5HOW DOES SMART GROWTH DIFFER WITH LOCATION? 63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 85

to the streets, but it is not a fully on-structure facility. Several are new below-grade corridors, and those would be more costly. Part of the reason we were shy- ing away from rail is that we had a really bad experi- ence. I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of the central area circulator project, but we tried to do an extensive light rail system in downtown Chicago earlier in the 1990s, and we expended a lot of energy on it. I believe we had a federal funding agreement for one-third, and we had a taxing district put into place in our central area so that the businesses agreed to pay one-third of it, but then the state assembly refused to pay the other third. After that happened, the whole thing crashed and I think we are staying away from new rail. Audience question: This question is directed to Michael, but any of you can answer. To what extent in evaluating your alternatives did you try to predict the effect of the various alternatives on land use and take that shift in land use into account in the evaluation? Michael Cummings: We developed four major alter- natives that were evaluated in our EIS process. We used the Puget Sound Regional Council model, DRAMEM- PAL, to look at how each alternative might affect growth. We found what you would expect: the more accessibility that was created in the corridor, the more development it tends to attract. One of the biggest problems with the model, and I think it is very common to models in other regions, is that some of the zones, particularly in rural areas, are so large that the model does not show how the growth occurs within them. The result was that major transportation investments within the urban area tended to encourage the growth to occur there. Audience question: Did it take into account your concurrency requirements? Michael Cummings: It took into account the require- ments of growth management, so it tended to dampen the development in the rural area. It did not specifically take into account concurrency. We did explore that, but there wasn’t a way of structurally including it in the model. Audience question: One of the issues we are facing right now is our version of concurrency, called “ade- quate public facilities ordinances.” We have a number of areas close in that are shut down to development under adequate public facilities ordinances. The unintended consequence of that is to drive more of the development further out. That is why I asked the question that I did, in light of your concurrency requirements. Charles Howard: I want to emphasize that—making employment sites more accessible inside the boundary and continuing the development inside the urban growth boundary are good things. That is what we wanted to accomplish, rather than having it go out fur- ther, which tends to happen if you are not providing the type of capacity inside. I want to point out a unique feature of our concur- rency issue is that concurrency does not apply to many state highways, including freeways. That was a compro- mise put out a few years ago because the local govern- ments believed it was difficult to deny a development on the basis of the level of service on a freeway. They were successful in passing another piece of legislation to exempt state highways. So, 405 does not have to meet concurrency requirements. That is both good and bad. It doesn’t account for the growth, but it also probably counteracts your experience, which is saying no to development because the freeway is jammed. Although it is counterintuitive to most of the public, from an orga- nizational and transportation perspective, you can accommodate more growth in the corridor. That is inside the growth boundary, which is where we want it. Audience question: Have you heard discussions relating to smart growth and the financing of trans- portation—that there may be smarter ways to finance transportation? Mike mentioned a proposed 9-cent increase in the gas tax, for example. Luann Hamilton: I think that depends on the elected officials. I think planners would say, “Sure, let’s have gas tax increases to make driving more expensive and to have drivers more fully bear the costs.” But it is out of our hands. Michael Cummings: In the Puget Sound region we are exploring value pricing. The Regional Transportation Improvement District is exploring tolls as a funding option. It certainly has significant implications for addressing smart growth and dealing with strategies for funding the kinds of investments we’re talking about. To quote one of the local elected officials, “I don’t want to be out front of the tolling issue, but when you start to look at these kinds of projects and these kinds of invest- ments, the belief is that tolling and value pricing will sur- face on their own merits.” So that issue is starting to surface in the Puget Sound region. Audience question: I have a question for Jim. Could you talk about the current and expected travel patterns in Marana? Is it essentially going to provide housing for the employment in Tucson? A follow-up question to that concerns how the wildlife habitat issues limited the loca- tion of growth and essentially moved it into a different place. Have you tried to put together a vision of where you want that growth to occur in the community? Jim DeGrood: With respect to the first question, there is a fear that we will become more of a bedroom community to the city of Tucson. That is clearly some- thing we are trying to avoid. We do have industry and commercial areas within our community, and we need to strengthen them in order to try to keep the growth and shorten the average vehicle miles traveled. We are committed to that as we look at land use decisions. If we are looking at a new resort hotel in a very exclusive area, we will look at things like requiring SROs as a 8 6 SMART GROWTH AND TRANSPORTATION: ISSUES AND LESSONS LEARNED 63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 86

part of the approval process. These are kinds of things we need to do to ensure there is appropriate housing proximate to the generators. With respect to the habitat conservation issue, yes, it clearly has affected us and will continue to affect us. We’re not sure at this point how we’ll end up. There is some dis- cussion right now about relocating the pygmy owls from the area that has currently been identified as a recovery area because they don’t feel the population is viable. There are a number of stressors other than development, including a 3- year drought. Whether their population is large enough to sustain continued occupation in that area, we don’t know. If that occupation and the habitat designation are gone, it is going to throw everything back into the mix in terms of land use decision making. That is probably our greatest fear. We have been working on doing a habitat conserva- tion plan. We are in the initial phases of that. An overall Sonoran Desert conservation plan is under way county- wide, and we are looking at doing Section 10 permitting with our habitat conservation plan. Audience question: The three of you come from quite different kinds of communities and have different perspectives. Do you see anything on the horizon that will substantially lower the costs of transit or trans- portation projects in the future? A lot of the improve- ments we are seeing on the environmental side come from better cars. Is there anything in the overall trans- portation picture that looks like it may give us quantum steps in cost improvement for transportation systems, looking out 10, 20, 30, 50 years? Jim DeGrood: That is a pretty broad question. We are looking at techniques we can apply locally. For the bus system in the region, the highest single cost component is the labor for operating the buses. If we can form vanpools more effectively and provide recreational and commercial opportunities close to home, even if it means crosstown commutes to work, that will be one way we can bring some sense to the vehicle miles traveled problem. Luann Hamilton: In Chicago it is BRT as opposed to doing light rail. BRT is more affordable for us. It uses existing rights-of-way, often either below grade or at street level. Actually, about two-thirds of our regional transit ridership is on bus and not rail, even though every- one thinks of rail as the main mode of transit. If we can do things to make bus travel more attractive and desirable by getting better travel times and more convenience, I think that would be a good step. Michael Cummings: Probably the initial thing is to make transit more effective. We’re still struggling with getting ridership and density close to stations. We looked at various transit technologies, and BRT cer- tainly provided the dollar value for the ridership that is projected to occur. Even in downtown Bellevue, which is looking at about a 40 percent mode split for a single occupant versus transit and HOV, more than 60 percent of that is HOV traffic. Audience question: Jim, you spoke of using I-10 as your main street. If you’re a satellite suburban commu- nity, I-10 is your lifeline access into Tucson. If you develop your own industrial base, I-10 is your supply lifeline access to the rest of the world. How do you jus- tify, as you approach a population of 90,000 people, clogging up I-10 with local traffic as a main street and cutting off your access to the rest of the outside places? Jim DeGrood: I don’t know that I necessarily justify it, but within eastern Pima County, that is the way it is functioning. Even if traffic does not grow in our com- munity, it would grow on other parts of the I-10 system because we haven’t done a good job of developing alter- native routes. We are looking to lessen the impact by building parallel routes. We are certainly looking at doing that—we have a river park, as I mentioned earlier, with a major river through the region that parallels I-10. However, we do not have a roadway parallel to I-10 that could take some of the traffic to Tucson. In terms of looking for additional right-of-way, we have tried to work cooperatively with UP. They have been receptive; however, right now it exists as a single main line through town, carrying about 65 trains per day. So it will not be an option anytime soon. 8 7HOW DOES SMART GROWTH DIFFER WITH LOCATION? 63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 87

63805_079_126 4/7/05 2:55 AM Page 88

Next: Where: How Do Smart Growth Transportation Systems and Institutional Arrangements Vary with Location? »
Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Conference Proceedings 32: Smart Growth and Transportation: Issues and Lessons Learned summarizes the highlights of a conference—Providing a Transportation System to Support Smart Growth: Issues, Practice, and Implementation—held September 8-10, 2002, in Baltimore, Maryland. The conference was designed to address how transportation policy makers and frontline professionals can support the diverse goals that different communities associate with smart growth.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!