The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 40-61

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 40... ... 40 C H A P T E R 8 To gain a better understanding of the relationship between smart-growth land-use developments and freight movements, the analytical tools available at the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) were used to conduct a series of model runs. Read the entire page →
From page 41... ... Modeling 41 Regional Growth Centers are a VISION concept, described as "locations characterized by compact, pedestrian-oriented development, with a mix of different office, commercial, civic, entertainment, and residential uses."3 Centers are small geographies, generally centered around downtowns or other vibrant urban neighborhoods within cities. The State of Washington Growth Management Act requires cities and counties to designate Urban Growth Areas, which are intended to concentrate growth as a means of controlling urban sprawl, and the areas must have sufficient capacity for absorbing forecast growth. Read the entire page →
From page 42... ... 42 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement Figure 2. Regional context map. Read the entire page →
From page 43... ... Modeling 43 central Puget Sound region must create comprehensive plans, which are to be updated every 7 years. The Washington State Office of Financial Management creates forecasts of population and employment growth for this time period, and cities craft comprehensive plan policies to accommodate this growth in accordance with policies within the GMA, as well as more specific regional and county planning policies. Read the entire page →
From page 44... ... Figure 3. Scenario one -- Current Plans Extended. Read the entire page →
From page 45... ... Figure 4. Scenario two -- Regional Growth Strategy. Read the entire page →
From page 46... ... 46 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement the target horizon for the current planning cycle at the time of scenario creation. The assumption was that the share that a city or unincorporated area held in 2025 would remain fairly constant for the next 15 years, up to 2040. Read the entire page →
From page 47... ... Jurisdicon % of Regional 2040 Populaon % of Regional 2040 Employment Jurisdicon % of Regional Pop. Target 2040 Populaon % of Regional 2040 Employment KING COUNTY 48.90% 2,440,420 66.60% 2,045,207 PIERCE COUNTY 22.00% 1,096,635 15.10% 463,637 Unincorporated 9.10% 455,639 2.40% 73,479 Unincorporated 9.30% 465,994 3.40% 105,634 Uninc Rural 3.50% 173,001 0.80% 23,370 Uninc Rural 3.80% 188,075 0.80% 25,861 Uninc UGA 5.70% 282,638 1.60% 50,109 Uninc UGA 5.60% 277,919 2.60% 79,773 Incorporated 39.80% 1,984,782 64.20% 1,971,728 Incorporated 12.60% 630,641 11.70% 358,002 Algona 0.10% 3,831 0.10% 2,816 Auburn (Prc) Read the entire page →
From page 48... ... Pacific (Kin) 0.20% 8,706 0.00% 1,422 Incorporated 9.70% 486,261 10.70% 328,185 Redmond 1.60% 77,984 4.10% 126,538 Arlington 0.40% 20,218 0.60% 17,480 Renton 1.50% 74,081 3.80% 115,970 Bothell (Sno) Read the entire page →
From page 49... ... Modeling 49 2004 employment data were also calculated. This percentage was then averaged with the average annual change between 1995 and 2004 to lessen the significant swings in the economy. Read the entire page →
From page 50... ... 50 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement income required to run the model, and the characteristic data were translated to percentage shares. For example, in year 2000, the percentage of the jobs in each FAZ that were Retail, Manufacturing, and so forth, were estimated. Read the entire page →
From page 51... ... Modeling 51 system) Read the entire page →
From page 52... ... 52 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement transportation-network investments. The lowest daily truck hours of travel appear in the scenario that combines the smart-growth land use with the smart-growth transportation investments (transit and non-motorized) Read the entire page →
From page 53... ... Modeling 53 Notably, truck miles of travel are higher in the altered transportation networks (roadway and smart-growth investments) as compared with the baseline transportation network. Read the entire page →
From page 54... ... 54 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement type. Transportation investment (roadway or smart growth) Read the entire page →
From page 55... ... Modeling 55 alternative (see Table 10) Read the entire page →
From page 56... ... 56 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement 8.3.3 Truck Delay Overall daily delay for trucks is slightly higher for the smart-growth land-use scenario than under the baseline scenario (see Figure 8) Read the entire page →
From page 57... ... Modeling 57 in one land-use scenario over the other. However, for the smart-growth transportation investments (transit and non-motorized) Read the entire page →
From page 58... ... 58 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement not centers of activity, all have shorter truck trip lengths across all the time periods under the smart-growth land-use scenario. 8.3.5 Travel Times In most cases, only minor differences in average travel times between different types of zones are observed when comparing the baseline and smart-growth land-use scenarios (see Table 17) Read the entire page →
From page 59... ... Modeling 59 Transportaon Investment Baseline Roadway Smart Growth From To Baseline Smart Growth Baseline Smart Growth Baseline Smart Growth Most Concentrated Most Concentrated 50.0 50.1 42.2 43.2 36.7 37.3 Most Concentrated Goods Dependent 61.8 60.6 52.7 53.0 46.1 46.1 Most Concentrated Smart Growth 50.9 54.5 43.9 47.6 38.0 41.1 Most Concentrated All Else 66.4 66.5 57.3 58.6 50.5 51.6 Goods Dependent Goods Dependent 70.5 69.0 61.0 60.9 53.4 53.1 Goods Dependent Most Concentrated 62.0 61.3 53.2 53.5 46.3 46.3 Goods Dependent Smart Growth 61.6 64.5 53.8 56.8 46.5 49.2 Goods Dependent All Other 74.8 74.4 65.3 66.1 57.6 58.3 Bold indicates instances in which the baseline land-use scenario performs beer than the smart-growth land-use scenario. Table 17. Read the entire page →
From page 60... ... 60 Smart Growth and Urban Goods Movement The smart-growth land-use scenario creates large benefits in terms of emissions reductions as compared with the baseline land-use scenario. Table 18 summarizes the reduction from all the scenarios in terms of tons reduced (or gained) Read the entire page →
From page 61... ... Modeling 61 transportation-investment scenarios, and, notably, the greatest gains appear to be when the smart-growth land-use scenario is coupled with the smart-growth transportation investments (transit and non-motorized) Read the entire page →

From page 40...

... 40 C H A P T E R 8 To gain a better understanding of the relationship between smart-growth land-use developments and freight movements, the analytical tools available at the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) were used to conduct a series of model runs.