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

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.

Conference Wrap-Up 63805_165_184 4/7/05 3:46 AM Page 155

63805_165_184 4/7/05 3:46 AM Page 156

1 5 7 Why Brian Bochner, Texas Transportation Institute As noted at the beginning, the conference wasdivided into four themes: the what, where, who,and how of pursuing smart growth and sup- portive transportation. Background on trends in trans- portation and land use was presented during the first session. There was general agreement that transporta- tion is central to determining land use and that we cre- ate problems when we treat land use and transportation separately. Integrating them will require major changes in mind-sets, as well as new visions developed with the public of how our communities should look. Alan Pisarski presented trends in transportation over the past several decades. Alan reminded us not to con- fuse transportation with commuting, because trans- portation involves both passengers and freight, and nonwork trips make up about three-quarters of total trips. We need to pay attention to those, not only to commute trips. Alan also said that driving alone continues to increase, which surprised him. He discussed some indi- cations of current population changes. We should expect that there will be more changes to demographics as the baby boomers, the echo boomers, and the gener- ation in between progress through their lives. He pre- dicted that locations that provide mobility to the local regions and overall regions would become and remain more attractive as places for activity. That gives us a hint as to what we might be trying to accomplish. Gregg Logan discussed land use and development. He reviewed trends over the past 50 to 75 years. Households dispersed to the suburbs, and residential development, retail, and employment followed them. His projection was that this dispersal is likely to continue, although we can influ- ence at least some of the growth if we make an effort. He indicated that the National Association of Home Builders had done a survey that indicated that roughly one-third of the public might be interested in acquiring housing in in- town locations. Hence, there could be more people living in infill locations if we provide them housing under the right circumstances. Gregg also indicated a need and potential for more town centers, because urban areas are getting larger and we need services and products located closer to them. In his opinion, while there is no guarantee, there is an opportunity to make a difference through smart growth. Reid Ewing reviewed land use and transportation relationships. He stated that we are not able to pave our way out of congestion and that we have to reduce vehic- ular travel demand to provide good levels of service. In addition, as we think about smart growth, we need to remember that land use—the locations of residential and employment and their relationships to transportation infrastructure—is the key to the solution. Urban design alone will not bring about changes in travel modes. Finally, Charlie Howard reviewed the working defi- nition of smart growth. It was based on the Smart Growth Network’s definition and its 10 key points. 63805_165_184 4/7/05 3:46 AM Page 157

1 5 8 What Robert Dunphy, Urban Land Institute The next session was the “what” of smartgrowth—what smart growth transportation sys-tems looks like and how they vary from place to place. We heard general remarks from Mary McCumber of the Puget Sound Regional Council; Harrison Bright Rue of the Jefferson Planning District Commission, Charlottesville, Virginia; Steve Heminger of the Metro- politan Transportation Commission (MTC) in San Fran- cisco; and Frank Moretti of the Road Information Program. We learned that populations have been exported to outlying exurban areas, which is a particular challenge in the Bay Area and California generally. So to California planners, smart growth means bringing peo- ple back. Infill is imperative. It has a mixed impact on the environment because it means adding 250,000 peo- ple to an existing urban area. In California, one prob- lem has been that they like to create jobs, not houses. The Bay Area has the TLC program, under which MTC encourages incentives for good development and offers grants to localities to generate smart growth projects. Steve also reinforced the importance of centers. This wasn’t specifically related to the Bay Area, but he pointed out that in the survey of the top 19 metro- politan areas, half of the spending in the regional plans is going to transit. Most of that is going to maintaining and operating the existing system. This is a major change. Mary McCumber discussed the argument about whether we can build our way out of congestion. The issue is not roads or transit. That is a futile argument, because you need both. The important decision is where to put them. It is essential to build more roads while expanding the transit system. She observed that the real challenge is “orderly dispersal.” The goal is to maintain mobility, not build your way out of congestion. 63805_165_184 4/7/05 3:46 AM Page 158

1 5 9 Where Alexander Taft, Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations The next session was on the different transporta-tion looks of smart growth, and we heard aboutthree. Luann Hamilton of the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) discussed the urban look, Michael Cummings of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) the suburban look, and Jim DeGrood of the town of Marana, Arizona, the exurban look. Luann Hamilton presented a downtown plan focused on smart growth in center cities, with new residential being built in the downtown, either conversions from office space or new development on vacant land or reused grayfields. Chicago has established downtown development goals to which the transportation system needed to respond. Both official estimates and the private sector indicated that a lot of development is coming to the central city. CDOT’s recommendations included tran- sit-oriented development. Obviously there was already good transit, but transit-oriented development would create a seamless system. Parking management is needed because more cars were coming into downtown and fill- ing up the streets. They wanted to manage that parking better to encourage the kinds of uses they wanted to take place. They also wanted to update the 50-year-old zoning code so they could coordinate development with the transportation improvements. They concluded that they need two things: residen- tial within walking distance of downtown to maximize the number of people and create a 24-7 atmosphere of downtown and regional policies to encourage increased transit use and discourage auto use into downtown. Mike Cummings talked about the Seattle suburbs and the reconstruction of Interstate 405 around the east side of Seattle. It is a 30-mile corridor, with 12 hours of congestion per day predicted in the future. WSDOT recommends accommodating planned growth in the suburban areas contiguous to the Interstate; improving transit in this corridor, even though the Interstate was basically built for general vehicle travel; and increasing high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and HOV access to the Interstate. They will consider bus rapid transit in areas where there would be seam- less connections from arterials onto the Interstate. Adding streets to the grid would improve local circula- tion in the contiguous areas because vehicles would not have to use the Interstate for short trips. They also pro- posed managing lanes for trucks, private vehicles, and transit vehicles. Jim DeGrood is from Marana, a fast-growing town northwest of Tucson. In 1990, the town had a population of 2,200. It is expected to have a population of 88,000 in 2025—just as impressive as Las Vegas in terms of growth, although dwarfed by the total numbers. Marana considered proposed smart growth legisla- tion, but it was voted down. Endangered Species Act issues will limit growth. Interstate 10 is the main street through town. The capital program, in order to meet the mobility needs for that future population of 88,000, is estimated at $40,000 per person. The approach is, “We are going to grow, so we just need the citizenry to know what they are getting into.” They want to make clear what the costs of growth will be. 63805_165_184 4/7/05 3:46 AM Page 159

They discussed a construction sales tax, which is a unique way to pay for the capital improvements through a sales tax for whatever facilities they need—mostly road- ways. They are going to try to bring the jobs and retail closer to residential areas. There is a controversy over whether achieving a jobs/housing balance is always good or whether it may just mean that some people travel to jobs outside their residential area while others travel from another residential area to jobs in the first area. I have a few comments on the breakout sessions. We had three questions to answer, and a fourth one was added. The first one concerned key elements. The urban group said that the key elements were everything. You need all available transportation modes. The suburban group said you need improved biking and walking. The exurban group said you need a vision to start with, along with a grid street system and community leadership. The second question was how each area differs from the other two. The urban groups thought that the trips were shorter, parking was less likely to be free, and there were more travel choices (both new kinds like car- sharing and traditional ones like taxis), which are not very prevalent in suburban and exurban areas. The suburban area was different in that there was less opportunity to change. Most residents are pretty satisfied with things the way they are. They resist change because they are content with their choice and their surroundings. There is less transit in the suburban areas. In the exurban areas, it is easy to develop; there is no infill or any of the problems associated with infill. There is a faster growth rate and a chance to “do it right” the first time. The third question was, What are the challenges fac- ing smart growth in each of these areas? In the urban area, it is the high cost of redevelopment, the need for more and better design standards, and a fear of density. Fear of density was also a challenge in suburban areas. Changing zoning and getting new smart growth options from developers were other challenges. In the exurban area, there is a skeletal transportation network. The challenges are having few staff, no infill possibilities, and much faster growth. The last question was how to measure whether growth is “smart.” The responses did not differ as much among the three groups. They included measur- ing the following: the number of people in an area, vehicle miles of travel per capita, access, mode choice, air quality, quality of life (which we all know is difficult to measure), the amount of green space available, attractive public space, and walkability. My overall impression of this whole session is that change is possible in all three types of areas. Today’s exurban development is tomorrow’s urban area. There is going to be development; they are waiting for it to come, and they will have to address it. Today’s suburban area is like the urban area of the past in many ways. It is con- gested and mature. They need solutions to maintain what they have. Finally, the exurban area is somewhat like the suburban area of the past. It is growing rapidly and it likes that growth. 1 6 0 SMART GROWTH AND TRANSPORTATION: ISSUES AND LESSONS LEARNED 63805_165_184 4/7/05 3:46 AM Page 160

1 6 1 Where and Who Mary Kay Santore, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency I’m with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyin the Smart Growth Division, and it was a greatpleasure to serve on the organizing committee for this conference. It has been great to hear from the transportation community about the innovations that are out there, the potential obstacles, and the ways that transportation can be used as a tool to move smart growth forward. I pulled together several key themes from the presenters from this morning’s first session on how to achieve a smart growth transportation system process and the institutional considerations. The diversity of panelists—Neil Pedersen of the Maryland State Highway Administration, Jacob Snow of the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada, Robert Grow of Envision Utah, and Tom Kloster of Portland Metro—reflected the range of experiences that regions might have on the basis of their cultural heritage or their geographic location. Different levels of government have different roles in smart growth, and in the case of Envision Utah, a nongovern- mental organization, a privately led effort carried the smart growth message forward. All of the panelists showed that smart growth can hap- pen in very different statutory contexts. Oregon has a his- tory of strong growth management, so it can move smart growth forward in a more regulated framework, whereas places like Utah don’t have that kind of background but are still able to advance the issue. All of the panelists showed how transportation is one of the many tools in the toolbox that helped move smart growth forward. As Tom Downs pointed out, all of these places shared a few characteristics. One was faith in the democratic process and public opinion and recognition that the public should have a say. Another was that all of these places cared about the condition of their natural and human environments. In my summary of each panelist’s remarks, I pulled out the innovative parts of their presentations. Neil Pedersen said that Maryland’s program is directed toward providing capital funding to designated priority funding areas throughout the state and that smart growth is an organizing framework for how the Maryland Department of Transportation spends its money. Smart transportation is focused on a system that is balanced, supports existing communities, and uses transportation dollars more efficiently. To implement a smart growth transportation vision, you need to con- sider the projects in your capital improvement plan with a smart growth lens and a set of screening criteria. Jacob Snow, in his presentation of how smart growth is playing out in Las Vegas, mentioned that the area has doubled in population every decade since 1950. Most interesting to me were some of the statistics about how dense the region already is. However, there are prob- lems with that density because in places it is a concen- trated, single-use density. Furthermore, because many properties are gated, there are access issues. The monorail project is innovative in its funding, with the first phase funded solely from the private sec- tor. A strong bus rapid transit program is in progress. They are purchasing new, high-tech vehicles, and future stations will have off-board fare collections, signal pri- 63805_165_184 4/7/05 3:46 AM Page 161

oritization, and multiple wider entries into the vehicle itself. Robert Grow of Envision Utah outlined the premise of the program, which is similar to that of most smart growth programs: the public has the right to choose its future, and the role of the public official is to carry out the vision. If the public is provided with the necessary tools and information, it can share and help promote that vision. Envision Utah was a privately led movement supported by the governor. The program was successful because it was an inclusive, transparent process, and the press was engaged early and became a significant conduit of infor- mation. Some of the key features of the program were conducting hands-on activities, surveying the public, find- ing out from them how communities should grow, and modeling, all designed to engage citizen planners. Tom Kloster presented Metro’s experience in imple- menting its 2040 plan. Oregon has a strong regulatory history of working on growth management and com- bining transportation and land use planning. Metro uses a combination of regulations and incentives to carry out its program, which is based on having a cen- ters-oriented system. The street design manuals provide guidance for zoning streets and analyzing the surround- ing land uses to develop boulevard, street, and roadway design. They give citizens ideas about what to ask for in their transportation system. Tom also said that they recognized having a Level of Service F in some areas is fine, because you can save a substantial amount of money by keeping that intersec- tion or roadway segment at a more congested level rather than upgrading it. The next session was on institutional obstacles to smart growth and transportation systems that support smart growth. John Porcari pointed out that when the Maryland Department of Transportation went through its list of capital projects and found five projects that simply didn’t meet the goals of smart growth, it worked with those communities to find out what need the bypass would have filled. The department has been able to work with the communities to find a more smart growth–oriented way to deal with those problems. One provocative statement was, “State DOTs need to take the step into land use.” So often we hear that state DOTs have no authority over land use. I find it encouraging to hear the secretary of a state DOT make such a bold statement. He also mentioned that many of the programs the Maryland State Highway Administration is instituting make them very popular not only with neighborhoods but also with politicians, because the programs can be implemented fairly quickly and can serve both rural and urban areas. Jim Codell from Kentucky talked about the culture he operates in. Using the term “smart growth” didn’t work in his state; it had to be called “quality growth” to make it palatable to Kentucky’s citizens. He felt that you needed an overall change in the workforce ethic to get trans- portation agencies to realize that the projects they build should be designed to improve the quality of life more broadly, rather than just to improve mobility or access. He briefly mentioned the innovative Renaissance Kentucky program, which uses enhancement funds to revitalize cities and towns throughout Kentucky. He also mentioned that there have been some significant cost savings in projects that have used smart growth as their guiding force. The next presentation was by Bob Dunphy. He had another of my favorite quotations, from Les Sterman of the East/West Gateway Metropolitan Planning Organization, on the idea that land use is “the third rail—you touch it and you are dead.” How do you get transportation agencies to start thinking of themselves as being in the real estate business, that there is a direct relationship between the two? He discussed the notion that infill puts people where the transportation choices are and that by targeting development where infra- structure already exists, state DOTs can reduce their expenditures. Finally, Ron Kirby of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments in the D.C. area talked about a new project that has, for the first time, directly linked transportation and land use and displayed them graph- ically. That tool was designed to be descriptive and not proscriptive. They are already looking for opportunities to try to change those outcomes, to support a concept of different types of centers throughout the region. Finally, we need to address two types of situations: those in which development is forecast but there is no transit and those in which we have transportation investments but not much development. 1 6 2 SMART GROWTH AND TRANSPORTATION: ISSUES AND LESSONS LEARNED 63805_165_184 4/7/05 3:46 AM Page 162

1 6 3 How Catherine Rice, Maryland State Highway Administration This has been a great conference, and what set itapart from other TRB conferences I’ve attendedis that we have been practical and applications oriented. Speakers discussed not just theory and con- cepts, but actual application. I commend the organizing committee for making a very practical conference. This afternoon we talked about tools. Rather than summarizing each of the presentations, I will identify a few crosscutting themes from all the speakers. First and most important is that smart growth is about working with the community and stakeholders to develop solu- tions. We need to find out what our customers want and respond to that. The second point is that we cannot propose modal alternatives because we need multi- modal solutions. The third is that context-sensitive design is a critical tool to implement smart growth. The fourth is that we need to make investments that enhance the vitality of existing developed areas, rather than just investments that support new development. The fifth is that good planning identifies both existing and planned centers for development. Our job as transportation planners is to find ways both to connect those centers and to provide better multimodal accessibility to those centers. Sixth, we need to think outside the box in terms of innovative approaches, particularly those associated with marketing. I was particularly struck by the clever names of the bus routes in Boulder, Colorado. I hope we can come up with some innovative names for our bus routes in Baltimore. Seventh, transportation and land use planners must work in partnership. They must be joined at the hip. We can no longer say as transportation planners that land use is the responsibility of the land use planners, and vice versa. We need to work together as partners. The final point is that we need to think as much about bicycle and pedestrian issues as we do about highway and transit solutions. We had the opportunity this afternoon to apply some of these tools in the real-world context of the Maryland 210 corridor. In my group a number of good ideas came up. I intend to discuss them with Prince George’s County, particularly land use issues within the corridors that relate to transportation issues. 63805_165_184 4/7/05 3:46 AM Page 163

1 6 4 Conference Closing Charles Howard, Washington State Department of Transportation Iwant to give my own summary of what I got fromthis conference. This “highways versus transit”issue is posed so often, and it is really a futile argu- ment. It is much more complex than that, and we need to get beyond that rhetoric and into what is really needed in transportation. I hope all of us can be part of this transition in transportation planning. I’ve thought for a long time, and it was reinforced here, that we should quit saying that transportation doesn’t “do” land use. Transportation is a land use. And land use is a transportation strategy, and we can’t ignore it in our planning processes. It is incumbent on us to continue this dialogue among the states, metro- politan planning organizations, transit agencies, land use planners, developers, and our leaders to see how we can move the transportation planning process into a new era and actually link them and make some rational decisions about land use in transportation. I appreciate everybody’s involvement, and I want you to commit yourselves to continuing the dialogue that started here in Baltimore. Let’s not allow this to stop here. 63805_165_184 4/7/05 3:46 AM Page 164