Gary Binger, Principal Investigator
Richard Lee
Charles Rivasplata
Alexis Lynch
Marlene Subhashini

a publication of the

Mineta Transportation Institute
College of Business
San José State University
San José, CA 95192-0219

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors greatly appreciate the help and support of the many people and agencies that assisted in the completion of this report. These individuals, from all over the country, contributed by providing their time for personal interviews and reviews of the case studies. In particular, we would like to thank the following individuals for their valuable time and contribution to this project:

• Trixie Johnson, research director, Mineta Research Institute; Adhir Kackar, senior policy analyst, Smart Growth Program, Environmental Protection Agency; John Thomas, senior transportation analyst, Smart Growth Program, Environmental Protection Agency; Shishir Mathur, assistant professor, Department of Urban & Regional Planning, San José State University.
• Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC): Dan Reuter, chief, ARC Land Use Division; David Haynes, short-range planning manager, Transportation Division; Rob LeBeau, program manager, Livable Centers Initiative; Julie Kovach, transportation program manager, Livable Centers Initiative.
• Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC): Sandy Misiewicz AICP, senior transportation planner.
• Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Todd Fontanella, manager of alternative transportation, Executive Office of Transportation, Massachusetts.
• Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC): Barry Seymour, DVRPC executive director; Rich Bickel, AICP, director, Planning Division.
• Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG): Nathan Chatfield, DRCOG; Steve Rudy, transportation operations manager.
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC): Doug Johnson, transportation planner; Rebecca Long, legislative analyst; Ross McKeown, programming and funding manager.
• North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTOG): Alicia Hopkins, principal transportation planner.
• Portland Metro: Christina Deffebach, long-range policy planning manager; Pamela Peck, regional travel options program manager.
• Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC): Norman Abbott, director of growth management planning, and Rocky Piro, principal, Growth Management Planning.
• Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG): Gordon Garry, director of research and analysis; Gregory Chew, senior planner.
• San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG): Carolina Gregor, senior regional planner; Chris Kluth, associate lane use/transportation planner; Colleen Clementson, principal planner; Rob Rundle, TransNet project manager; Stephan Vance, senior regional planner.
• State of California: Brian Travis, staff member of Caltrans Districts 01, 04, 06, and 10, Caltrans; Chris Ratekin, chief, Office of Community Planning, Division of Transportation Planning, Caltrans; Judith MacBrine, chief, Research and Transit Outreach Branch, Division of Mass Transportation, Caltrans; Linda Wheaton, assistant deputy director, California Department of Housing & Community Development.
• State of Florida Department of Transportation: Terry Kraft, AICP, P.E., senior transportation planner; Ron Magee, MPO/growth management liaison.
• State of Illinois: Les Nunes, bureau chief, Urban Program Planning, Illinois Department of Transportation; Susan Stitt, section chief, Planning Services, Urban Program Planning, Illinois Department of Transportation.
• State of Maryland: Bihui Xu, transportation planning manager, Maryland Department of Planning; Don Halligan, assistant secretary, Department of Planning, State of Maryland; John Frece, associate director, National Center for Smart Growth, University of Maryland; Kelly J. Clifton, assistant professor, National Center for Smart Growth, University of Maryland.
• State of New Jersey: Ben Spinelli, executive director, Office of Smart Growth, New Jersey.
• Twin Cities Metropolitan Council: Guy Peterson, director, Community Development Division; Jan Gustafson, manager, Livable Communities; Joanne Barron, coordinator, Livable Communities Demonstration Account; Phyllis Hanson, manager, Local Planning Assistance; Bonnie Kollodge, media relations coordinator, Office of Communications; Connie Kozlak, manager, Systems Planning, Transportation Services Division.

Thanks are also offered to MTI staff, including student assistant Sahil Rahimi and Research Assistant Megan Fitts. Editing services were provided by Jean Blomquist and Irene Rush.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Connecting Transportation Decision Making with Responsible Land Use: State and Regional Policies, Programs, and Incentives highlights a growing number of state and regional initiatives aimed at curbing unsustainable land use patterns through the use of targeted transportation funding. Just as a disconnect between transportation decision making and land use planning can develop and continue sprawling urban conditions, the linkage between the two processes can, in contrast, foster growth patterns that support compact development and enhance transit accessibility. This potential linkage between land use and transportation planning can enhance “responsible” land use decision making. Responsible land use decision making, for the purposes of this report, is defined as planning that strives for compact, transit-oriented development; balanced employment and housing opportunities; affordable housing; and balanced travel mode split.

STUDY PURPOSE

This report is intended to provide planning agencies at various levels of government with tools that can be used to strengthen the connection between transportation and land use planning. This report showcases 17 jurisdictions (listed below) in the United States that have developed policies, programs, and incentives to connect transportation funding with various responsible land use efforts. These jurisdictions are both state governments and regional planning agencies.

STATES	REGIONAL AGENCIES
California	Atlanta Regional Commission (Atlanta, GA)
Florida	Capital District Transportation Committee (Albany, NY)
Illinois	Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (Philadelphia, PA)
Maryland	Denver Regional Council of Governments (Denver, CO)
Massachusetts	Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco, CA)
New Jersey	North Central Texas Council of Governments (Dallas–Ft. Worth, TX)
	Portland Metro (Portland, OR)
	Puget Sound Regional Council (Seattle, WA)
	Sacramento Area Council of Governments (Sacramento, CA)
	San Diego Association of Governments (San Diego, CA)
	Twin Cities Metropolitan Council (Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN)

METHODOLOGY

The jurisdictions discussed in this report have been chosen based on an innovative approach to responsible land use practices through noteworthy transportation programs. Although the selection of jurisdictions in the report is not exhaustive, it is intended to include diverse and well-known programs currently at work. The first phase of research was a literature review that identified potential case studies, policies, and programs. The research team reviewed both professional and academic literature to find strategies that have recently been implemented or are currently being pursued. This first phase also involved a state-by-state analysis to gather information from state governors’ offices and departments of transportation (DOTs). A similar analysis was also conducted of publications such as peer-reviewed journals (particularly in the fields of transportation, city planning, housing, and urban affairs) and websites of professional, academic, and nonprofit organizations.

The second phase of research focused on identifying and examining state and regional agencies that are promoting responsible land use practices by channeling transportation funds to meet certain growth objectives. Information gaps in the details of these strategies were filled through interviews with public agency officials.

The third and final phase involved summarizing and categorizing the range of approaches highlighted in the case–study reports for each jurisdiction.

CASE STUDIES

Case studies in this report have been evaluated in terms of their attempt at addressing the following five elements of responsible land use:

• compact development patterns
• transit-oriented development
• jobs–housing balance
• adequate housing supply and affordability
• balanced travel mode split

The report identifies key programs in each agency that attempt to advance either all or some of these five elements of responsible land use. The elements satisfied in each case study are identified and tabulated in the form of a matrix. A total of 40 programs in 17 jurisdictions are reviewed in the report. Of these forty programs, nine address all five of the responsible land use elements listed above. These programs are the Atlanta Regional Commission’s Livable Centers Initiative and Community Choices Toolkit, the State of California’s Proposition 1C and Community-Based Transportation Planning Grants, the Denver Regional Council of Government’s Mile High Compact, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Housing Incentive Program, the State of New Jersey’s Plan Endorsement process, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ Blueprint Initiative, and the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council’s Livable Communities Grant Program. The remaining 31 programs vary in terms of the range of elements addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

The programs reviewed have had varying levels of success and have implemented a range of approaches in order to meet program goals. This variety of approaches shows that there is no single formula for achieving a strong linkage between transportation funding and responsible land use planning.

Programs highlighted are either regulatory or incentive-based, with the majority of programs falling under the latter category. The Florida approach illustrates a strong regulatory stance. Florida’s Growth Management Act of 1985 set the stage for the state’s various smart growth strategies. The state also administers regional planning processes in order to ensure that local development decisions meet state goals. Florida’s concurrency requirements have received national attention as a model for linking infrastructure and growth management. Several governmental agencies use a concurrency requirement as a growth management tool. Concurrency policies require that certain needed public facilities and elements be in place when a development takes place.

In contrast to the regulatory approach employed in Florida is the more commonly used incentive-based strategy such as that used by the North Central Texas Council of Governments. This agency has taken an approach that involves the private sector as a way of using federal transportation funds and educating jurisdictions about growth management. This approach reflects the strong support of Texas for development and property rights. The North Central Texas Council of Governments’ programs do not include mandatory compliance measures, but rather rely upon incentives to local jurisdictions. Unlike the State of Florida’s framework, which has strengthened regional authority over local land use decisions, the Texas approach has avoided usurping local authority.

In an effort to further distinguish the programs rather than only in terms of regulatory versus incentive-based, the “Conclusions” section of the report identifies four categories under which the majority of programs fall: resource, planning grants, infrastructure, and hybrid. Resource programs provide planning tools or technical assistance such as software packages, staffing support, and information. Planning grants fund initiatives such as transportation plans, community-based planning efforts, redevelopment initiatives, and corridor plans. Infrastructure programs fund capital improvements such as housing, roadways, bicycle facilities, pedestrian amenities, transit improvements, and transit-oriented development. Hybrid strategies use a combination of these approaches, such as coupling technical assistance with capital improvement funds.

These various approaches show that success in linking transportation planning with land use decision making most likely depends on creating context-specific strategies. In an area that heavily values local land use control and private property rights, it seems that incentives are the most appropriate—and therefore most likely to be effective. In a state with a history of strong public visioning, a regulatory “top-down” approach may be the best way to ensure that local and regional land use decisions meet state criteria. Alternatively, in agencies not often cited for involvement in growth management, success has been achieved by focusing on coordinating various departments and strengthening citizen education and participation.

The evolving nature of state politics poses a recurring barrier to program implementation. Too often the changes in administration that come with elections interrupt growth management programs carefully planned by previous administrations. Maryland and Massachusetts, a pair of states well regarded for their smart growth efforts, have been affected by such disturbances. While the new governors in these states have stressed the importance of smart growth, the transition periods between administrations bring periodic uncertainty to the future of existing programs.

APPENDICES

Following the Conclusions section of this report are two appendices. Appendix A contains a table with selected information regarding the jurisdictions highlighted in the report (population size, jobs supply, and so on). Appendix B contains two tables. Table 24 compiles the program matrices from each case study. This table will assist readers who may be interested only in particular elements of responsible land use planning (compact development, transit-oriented developers, jobs-housing balance, housing supply and affordability, and travel mode split). Table 25 is designed to assist readers in determining which case studies may be most relevant to their research interests. It contains detailed information regarding programs and funding. Readers can use this table to see which programs are based on regulations or incentives, when programs were started, whether programs allocated funding, and other selected characteristics.

INTRODUCTION

Transportation planning influences development patterns in fundamental ways. New highway corridors attract auto-based commercial and residential activity, while mass transit investment helps fight sprawl. Similarly, development patterns influence travel patterns. Low-density development makes automobile use a necessity, while dense development reduces dependency on the car. ¹ Although transportation and land use planning over past decades often prioritized the automobile and suburban development, recent federal actions have improved the link between transportation funding and land use planning.

In 1991, Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). This act ended the focus on building the interstate highway system and made it possible for communities to use federal transportation money on a broader range of transportation investments. ISTEA stressed the importance of flexible use of funds to promote multimodal transportation. ² Since ISTEA was passed, the federal government has instituted several programs to channel transportation funds toward transit-oriented development (TOD), traffic calming, livability measures, and other projects that promote a balanced travel mode split and community safety. Federal programs such as the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program, the Transit Enhancements Program, and the New Starts Program provide funding to states, local governments, and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to investigate and address the relationship between transportation and community and system preservation. These programs aim to fund projects that make mass transit service attractive and convenient, and to fund public transportation projects. ³

This report focuses on the coordination between land use practices and transportation funding. This coordination is necessary for “responsible” planning. Responsible land use decision making, for the purposes of this report, is defined as planning that strives for compact, transit-oriented development; balanced employment and housing opportunities; affordable housing; and balanced travel mode split. Responsible land use planning is related to other movements that seek to reform the planning process in order to create more livable, ecologically sound communities. The “smart growth” and “sustainability” movements are two related fields that seek to enhance long-term conditions through better planning. The Smart Growth Network is a national organization that was started in 1996 as a partnership of nonprofits and government organizations. ⁴ The Smart Growth Network serves as a resource for individuals and communities interested in pursuing smart growth practices. Their website states that there is no single formula for achieving smart growth but outlines the following central principles of the movement:

• to create a range of housing opportunities and choices
• to create walkable neighborhoods
• to encourage community and stakeholder collaboration
• to foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place
• to make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost–effective
• to mix land uses
• to preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas
• to provide a variety of transportation choices
• to strengthen and direct development toward existing communities
• to take advantage of compact building design ⁵

The sustainability movement, which seeks to create better communities, is a related effort that balances short- and long-term needs. A widely accepted definition of sustainability, put out by the Brundtland Commission in 1987, is “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” The Brundtland Commission, also known as the World Commission on Environment and Development, popularized the term in the United Nations report Our Common Future. Since that time, sustainability has evolved to encompass several definitions and variations. The most widely used view of sustainability seeks to balance the three E’s: economy, ecology/environment, and equity. ⁶

Another commonly used planning goal is the concept of “livability.” Livability is in many ways related to smart growth planning, and the two terms are often used interchangeably. The California Department of Transportation provides a thorough definition of the term that encompasses many of the components of livability that are used in this report: “The characteristics that make livable communities so appealing are also the characteristics and principles that support smart growth. These characteristics include: mixed land uses; compact development; range of housing choices; walkable neighborhoods; sense of place; preservation of open space and farmland; rehabilitation and redevelopment in existing communities; and, [sic] variety of transportation choices. In the area of transportation planning, livable communities are supported by terms like intermodal, integrated, seamless, and pedestrian/bicycle friendly.” ⁷

Smart growth and sustainability both emphasize the importance of balancing different goals in order to achieve a healthier, more viable future society. The standards for responsible land use planning put forth in this report fall within the frameworks of smart growth and sustainability but are not as comprehensive. That is, while our criteria for responsible planning meet smart growth and sustainability aims, they do not encompass as wide a range of values. Rather, this report focuses on the land use aims that are successfully targeted with transportation funding.

An increasing number of government agencies are incorporating transportation initiatives into the land use decision-making process. The agencies profiled in this report represent only some of the state and regional governments advocating responsible planning.

STUDY PURPOSE

A growing number of agencies throughout the United States are implementing policies, programs, and incentives aimed at curbing unsustainable development. Some of these initiatives leverage state and regional transportation funds toward responsible land use goals. Many of these programs provide incentives for local planning efforts and avoid usurping local government control.

The purpose of this study is to identify and evaluate the efforts of a diverse group of state and regional agencies by examining the historical context, major legislative and programmatic elements, and overall impacts of a diverse set of programs aimed at promoting responsible land use.

This study identifies 17 state and regional agencies working to connect transportation and land use through the following methods:

• establishing compact urban development patterns
• encouraging transit-oriented development
• strengthening the balance between jobs and housing
• encouraging adequate housing supply and affordability
• achieving a more balanced mode split of travel types among auto, bicycle, pedestrian, and public transit

This report is intended to serve as a resource for state and regional policy makers and practitioners, local government leaders, academics, and stakeholders representing economic, environment, and equity interests. It is the authors’ hope that readers may find this research useful in developing policies to make growth more sustainable.

Finally, implementing state and regional transportation policies and funding efforts to encourage responsible land use can play a significant role in advancing new federal and state priorities. For example, when assessing funding requests for new rail systems, the Federal Transit Administration gives credit for policies that encourage TOD ⁸ through its New Starts Program, which funds locally planned and implemented transit-related capital projects. ⁹ The Federal Transit Administration’s attention to TOD illustrates the way in which funding agencies are increasingly encouraging a link between land use and transportation decision making. Local, regional, and state agencies across the United States are taking similar measures to support responsible land use planning. Although this report only focuses on regional and state agencies in its case studies, it should be noted that local governments have also established significant measures to promote responsible land use within their own jurisdictions. Just as federal regulations have increased state and regional involvement in responsible planning, the lessons learned from lower levels of government can inform future federal programming.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY

This study identifies and investigates state and regional agency transportation strategies that advance on-the-ground responsible land use practices. The focus is on policies, programs, and incentives that promote compact development patterns, transit-oriented development (TOD), jobs–housing balance, housing supply and affordability, and balanced travel mode split.

The research methodology has been conducted in three phases. The first phase was a literature review identifying potential case studies, policies, and programs relating to the research objectives. The research team reviewed professional and academic literature conducted in the past ten years on the subject. This included selected strategies that have been recently implemented, are currently being pursued, or have been recommended by independent institutions or experts. A state-by-state analysis gathered information from websites of the governor’s office and departments of transportation (DOTs). An analysis was also carried out on publications such as peer-reviewed journals (especially in such fields as transportation planning, urban planning, housing, and urban affairs) and websites of professional organizations such as the National Governors Association, Western States Governors Association, Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, National Association of Regional Councils, Urban Land Institute, Brookings Institution, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Environmental Design Research Association, Urban and Regional Information Systems, Congress for New Urbanism, Surface Transportation Policy Project, American Planning Association, National Center for Smart Growth at the University of Maryland, and the Smart Growth Network. A key source of information was research conducted in a graduate studio entitled “Workshop on Metropolitan Planning” within the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley, in the spring of 2006.

In the second phase, the study selected 17 state and regional agencies that are promoting all, or some, responsible land use plans and practices. Selection criteria included potential applicability to a wide range of states and regions, and identifying a diversity of approaches. For each case study, an effort was made to provide the context in which these programs were created. To this end, each case study includes a brief history of noteworthy political and planning events. Interviews with public agency officials who were actively involved in policy-making and implementation processes filled information gaps. Stakeholder feedback included comments on preliminary case study findings, implementation barriers and how they were overcome, effectiveness of the activities to date, planned next steps, and evaluation procedures measuring strategy effectiveness.

The third and final phase involved summarizing and categorizing the range of approaches undertaken in the case studies. This process included summarizing existing plans and policies in place that help to connect transportation and land use. Following an examination of plans and policies, each case study highlights various programs. These programs were analyzed to develop conclusions about the range of possible state and regional strategies, and the identification of lessons learned. Each program is classified in terms of whether or not it addresses the following elements of responsible land use planning:

1. Compact development patterns
2. Transit-oriented development
3. Jobs–housing balance
4. Adequate housing supply and affordability
5. Balanced travel mode split

These strategies combine elements of both smart growth and sustainability. As such, an effort was made to include goals toward environmental, accessibility, and social ends. (Selection of these criteria was admittedly subjective in part, as the authors already had knowledge of programs and best practices currently in place.)

CASE STUDIES

Agencies selected for analysis had varying goals, policies, and program objectives.

In preparing case studies, the purpose was to review and evaluate the efforts of a diverse group of state and regional agencies by examining the historical and legislative context, major programmatic elements, and the stated or implied evaluative criteria of their programs. After we investigated transportation-related state and regional programs across the country, 17 agencies were selected for in-depth evaluation.

Each agency is discussed individually, beginning with an overview of institutions, legislative history, and existing plans. This is followed by a summary of each implementation program that is related to at least one of the responsible land use objectives listed above. Each summary begins with a matrix that classifies the programs in terms of their attempt to address the following elements of responsible land use:

1. Compact development patterns
2. Transit-oriented development
3. Jobs–housing balance
4. Adequate housing supply and affordability
5. Balanced travel mode split Each case study ends with a set of findings summarizing the effectiveness of the programs. The

following states and regional agencies were studied:

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC; Atlanta, Georgia region)

State of California

Capital District Transportation Commission (CDTC; Albany, New York region)

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

region)
Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG; Denver, Colorado region)
State of Florida
State of Illinois
State of Maryland
State of Massachusetts
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC; San Francisco, California region)
State of New Jersey

North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG; Dallas–Fort Worth, Texas region)
Portland Metro (Portland, Oregon region)
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC; Seattle, Washington region)
Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG; Sacramento, California region)
San Diego Council of Governments (SANDAG; San Diego, California region)
Twin Cities Metropolitan Council (Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minnesota region)

= state agencies

= regional agencies

ATLANTA REGIONAL COMMISSION
(ATLANTA, GEORGIA REGION)

BACKGROUND

Atlanta was the fastest growing metropolitan area in the United States from 2000 to 2006, gaining almost 900,000 new residents. ¹⁰ Atlanta’s steady population growth, coupled with regional congestion problems, has made regional growth management a salient issue in Georgia. One of the most notable agencies working for growth control is the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), the regional planning agency for the metropolitan Atlanta area. ARC encompasses more than 10 counties and 63 municipalities. ¹¹ It provides comprehensive and up-to-date statistical information about the region’s population, job market, and transportation trends, which helps in making informed decisions on regional policies. ¹²

The ARC board comprises 39 individuals, with 23 members being locally elected officials of political subdivisions. ¹³ The board includes

• each county commission chairman in the region;
• one mayor from each county (except Fulton County, which has two representative mayors);
  
• the mayor of the city of Atlanta;
• one member of the Atlanta City Council;
  
• fifteen private citizens;
• one member appointed by the board of the Georgia Department of Community Affairs. ¹⁴
  

PLANS AND POLICIES

As a federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for 18 counties (the 10 ARC counties plus 8 additional counties), ARC adopts a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) every four years and a six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) annually. ¹⁵ The RTP covers a variety of transportation topics, including safety improvements, bicycle paths, sidewalks, bridges, roadways, transit services, transportation demand management initiatives, and emission reduction strategies. ARC’s current RTP, Mobility 2030, was drafted through a two-phase plan. Phase 1 created the Aspirations Plan, in which the ARC determined, free from financial constraints, what would be required to improve mobility and reduce congestion. Phase 2 created Mobility 2030 and its associated TIP, identifying the gap between aspirations and current revenue sources. ¹⁶

In addition to its RTP, ARC has also developed a regional development plan (RDP), which sets forth policies for guiding future development decisions in the Atlanta region. The RDP contains two components, the regional development plan policies and a technical report. ¹⁷ The regional development plan consists of 18 policies that seek to integrate land use planning with transportation, environmental, and community development actions. ¹⁸ The technical report consists of eight elements: population, economic development, natural and historic resources, public facilities, community services, housing, transportation, and land use. The technical report is submitted to the Georgia Department of Community Affairs for review and approval, along with a regional work program. The regional work program outlines programs and strategies working to address regional needs and achieve regional goals outlined in the technical report. ¹⁹

PROGRAMS Table 1 ARC Programs Checklist

^Compact Transit-Oriented Jobs–Housing ^{Adequate Housing} Balanced Travel

• bicycle and pedestrian planning
• quality growth audits
• context-sensitive street design
• green building
• greyfield redevelopment
• infill development
• jobs–housing balance
• mixed-income housing
• mixed-use development • overlay districts
• planning in a fast-growth environment
• retrofitting corridors
• traditional neighborhood development
• transit-oriented development 36

FINDINGS

As of February 2007, the Livable Centers Initiative had awarded more than $115 million since its inception, including approximately $7 million in planning grants and $107 million in funding for transportation projects. At that time, 724 Livable Centers Initiative plans were in the implementation stage. These projects will ultimately add more than 62,000 new homes, 9,000 hotel units, 11.5 million square feet of commercial space, and 40 million square feet of office space. Transportation projects and developments have cut vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled by up to 25 percent, have increased transit ridership and opportunities, and have reduced air pollution. ³⁹

According to Dan Reuter, chief of ARC’s Land Use Division, the Livable Centers Initiative “has been successful because it puts the resources in the hands of the local communities to envision, plan, and implement the kinds of environments they find desirable and highly livable. It’s a grassroots process that yields unique and quality ideas that are changing our entire region.” ⁴⁰ Another reason for the success of the Livable Centers Initiative lies in the fact that it does not require localities to think “regionally.” Instead, it enables localities to pursue their own goals as long as they are consistent with the regionally established smart growth criteria and transportation strategies. As the market for more livable places takes hold, many Atlantans are optimistic that the Livable Centers Initiative will play a crucial role to help the region in accommodating the projected additional two million people by 2030. ⁴¹

The Community Choices Toolkit program has been successful in making ARC planners available for technical assistance to communities implementing quality growth practices. A public involvement strategy was also incorporated into this effort. ⁴² It has helped to advance and implement regional policies set forth by the regional development plan. ⁴³ It also provides technical information in the form of technical assistance papers and model ordinances. The Community Choices Toolkit is a logical adjunct to and useful catalyst for the Livable Communities Initiative.

According to Rob LeBeau, Livable Centers Initiative program manager, ARC has drafted a scope of work for examining travel changes in Livable Centers Initiative communities in a systematic manner and hopes to implement such an evaluation program in the coming fiscal year. ⁴⁴ To date, ARC and Georgia Tech faculty have used the INDEX software to estimate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) changes attributable to land use changes affected by Livable Centers Initiative plans and policies. ARC staff have identified the need to quantify and measure Livable Centers Initiative benefits, not only to convince skeptical politicians, but also to distinguish and rate proposed projects that are competitive (only one-fourth of the proposals for infrastructure grants were funded in the most recent round). ⁴⁵

A notable aspect of ARC’s efforts is to provide municipalities with significant information and resources. The Livable Centers Initiative and Community Choices Toolkit place a strong emphasis on research, planning, and implementation; it is perhaps this balance between various approaches that makes the strategies successful.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

BACKGROUND

For the past decade, California has been experiencing a steady increase in population. As of January 1, 2007, the state’s population had grown to nearly 38 million. One in eight people in the United States currently live in the state, ⁴⁶ making California the most populous state in the country. ⁴⁷ The state’s population and geographic size make growth management and transportation both vital and challenging issues to address.

PLANS AND POLICIES

Facing problems with traffic congestion and air quality, the State of California is looking to policies and programs to increase the quality of life in communities across the state. In October 2001, the passage of Governor’s Executive Order D-46-01 promoted smart growth planning on a statewide level. In 2000, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) created a new division, the Office of Community Planning, designed to assist local communities with smart growth. The Office of Community Planning was created, in part, to link smart growth with transportation planning and projects and to integrate local community goals with the Caltrans planning processes. ⁴⁸ Key players in the state’s growth management efforts are for the most part regional agencies; however, the State of California does have some noteworthy programs in place, two of which are outlined below.

PROGRAMS Table 2 California Programs Checklist

^Compact Transit-Oriented Jobs–Housing ^{Adequate Housing} Balanced Travel

FINDINGS

On a statewide level, Caltrans is a primary player in connecting transportation and land use planning. The Community-Based Transportation Planning Grants program represents one way in which Caltrans is working to specifically link transportation provision with smart growth efforts.

The Office of Community Planning has been making Community-Based Transportation Planning Grants program grants for eight years. While staff administrators note that much has been learned, the wide variety of projects, along with staff and reviewer turnover, means that some relearning must be done every year.

The passage of Proposition 1C, the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006, provides $300 million of bond funding for transit-oriented development, greatly increasing the commitment of the state to promoting development that is supportive of public transportation. This program will complement the planning grants provided by the Community-Based Transportation Planning Grants program and will result in substantial capital grants for housing development near transit stations.

CAPITAL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
(ALBANY, NEW YORK REGION)

BACKGROUND

The Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) designated for the Albany–Schenectady–Troy region. CDTC originated from the 1965 Capital District Transportation Study, which was set up through agreements between the State of New York, the four Capital District Counties (Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Schenectady), and the seventy-eight municipalities within those counties. Within the Capital region, a wide variety of development patterns, densities, land uses, and community character can be found.

Initially, CDTC was charged with developing a long-range transportation plan for the region. Today it takes on broader planning activities to guide development patterns, create incentives for responsible growth, manage and improve the region’s transportation system, and secure financial requirements for planning goals. ⁵⁹

CDTC is composed of both elected and appointed officials from the following jurisdictions and agencies:

• Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Schenectady counties
• eight major cities within those four counties
• New York State Department of Transportation
• Capital District Transportation Authority
• Capital District Regional Planning Commission
• New York State Thruway Authority
• various other members representing the region’s towns and villages

The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration serve as advisory members to CDTC. CDTC’s staff is funded primarily with Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and county funds. ⁶⁰

PLANS AND POLICIES

CDTC developed and adopted its first long-range Regional Transportation Plan under modern federal transportation legislation (ISTEA) in the mid-1990s. The planning process involved a strong public outreach component that revealed strong regional consensus that the region’s quality of life, mobility, and economic vitality depend upon improving land use planning and better integration of land use and transportation. CDTC determined that meeting the region’s social, economic, and environmental goals would require both reducing automotive travel and improving transportation services and facilities.

The resulting plan, New Visions for Capital District Transportation, calls for a one-third reduction in the growth of vehicular travel. This is to be achieved largely through altering the form and location of future growth and its accompanying transportation infrastructure. The central premise of the New Visions policies is that site and community design, coupled with transportation actions, can realize the region’s goals. ⁶¹ It should be noted, however, that the home-rule powers of New York State weaken the ability of regional agencies such as CDTC to directly plan for the region as a whole, that CDTC has no direct authority over land use, and that localities are not required to follow New Visions principles nor required to consult with CDTC on local land use or transportation planning.

New Visions for Capital District Transportation is currently in draft form and is available for public review. ⁶²

PROGRAMS Table 3 CDTC Programs Checklist

^Compact Transit-Oriented Jobs–Housing ^{Adequate Housing} Balanced Travel

FINDINGS

CDTC has less planning and project programming resources available to it than Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in larger regions. In addition, some MPOs have access to additional resources due to specific state policies (for example, California MPOs have direct access to state transportation funds). Despite those disadvantages, CDTC commits roughly 25 percent of its total federal planning funds per year to Linkage Program studies. ⁶⁸

As of early 2007, the Linkage Program had funded 55 collaborative studies, in coordination with various sponsors. Study sponsors included 30 municipalities and counties from urban, suburban, and rural areas. Other sponsors included nonprofits and public agencies. Since 2000, over $3.3 million in federal, state, and local funds had been allocated to the Linkage Program. ⁶⁹ Communities within the Capital region have had positive feedback regarding the program. In 2005, the Upstate New York Chapter for the American Planning Association awarded the program with the Outstanding Comprehensive Planning Award. ⁷⁰

CDTC is very careful in how it views linkage studies. Although many are community–based, in most cases control of the study is not given to the community entirely. By retaining influence over the study through consultant administration, the use of a memorandum of understanding, and so on, CDTC staff remains directly involved with the study and can offer assistance to the community in guiding study progress. This also assures that New Visions principles are integrated into local plans. ⁷¹

Six evaluation criteria have been developed for use in proposal review. The criteria include meeting the program requirements, demonstrating a need for the study, past sponsor performance on a linkage study, demonstrating local commitment to the study, the degree of regional benefit/involvement of multiple jurisdictions, and satisfying one or more of the program strategies. ⁷²

In recent months, a CDTC working group has been discussing some specific ideas that could help CDTC more fully realize the model’s potential. One recommendation calls on CDTC to undertake a review of completed linkage studies to see to what degree they have been successfully implemented. This effort may highlight areas that represent weaknesses in implementation opportunities, weaknesses in the plans themselves, or other lessons learned that could lead to changes in the Linkage Program or additional assistance initiatives.

Overall, CDTC’s Linkage Program has proved effective in funding urban, suburban, and rural planning efforts to link transportation and land use efforts. It appears that the program will continue, and possibly expand, in the near future.

DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

(PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA REGION)

BACKGROUND

The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) is a regional planning body that was formed in 1965 as a result of a bistate compact to address the needs of the greater Philadelphia area. The DVRPC covers a 9-county area in 2 states (Pennsylvania and New Jersey), including 353 townships, boroughs, and cities. ⁷³ The major cities in the area, apart from Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, include Trenton and Camden in New Jersey. The area has a total population of approximately 5.5 million people, with 3.9 million in Pennsylvania and 1.6 million in New Jersey. The population is growing slowly, at about 0.4 percent per year, although Philadelphia itself is actually losing population. ⁷⁴

The DVRPC is governed by an 18-member board, which is composed of

• elected officials from the four major cities and eight suburban counties in the region, and three representatives from each state—the state representatives come from the Pennsylvania and New Jersey Departments of Transportation, the Pennsylvania Governor’s Policy Office, the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, and appointees of both governors; and
• additional nonvoting board members representing other interested parties, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development. ⁷⁵

The DVRPC is the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for this area, and in that capacity approves a long-range transportation plan and shorter-range Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in a process that includes public participation and consultation with the various transportation agencies in the area. A transportation project must be on the TIP to receive federal funds, but the TIP also includes other regionally important transportation projects that will be funded from other sources. In assigning priority to projects, the TIP attempts to reflect the goals of the DVRPC’s long-range plan. ⁷⁶

The DVRPC initially focused on regional transportation planning but has expanded to provide support for other regional planning objectives. For instance, DVRPC has conducted a study on housing affordability and proximity to jobs, and another on regional open space needs. ⁷⁷ It also maintains a regional inventory of protected open space and has developed a series of brochures on tools that jurisdictions can use to implement smart growth concepts. ⁷⁸ For transit-oriented development (TOD), it has conducted and made available a study of regional rail stations to identify priority sites for TOD. ⁷⁹

PLANS AND POLICIES

On June 23, 2005, the DVRPC adopted Destination 2030, the long-range plan for the Delaware Valley region. ⁸⁰ The plan includes land use and transportation policies supporting eight major issue areas: urban revitalization, growth management, economic development, the environment, equity and opportunity, transportation facilities, transportation operations, and transportation finance. The policies touch on many of the smart growth strategies highlighted in this report, with the exception of jobs–housing balance. Similar to the approach studied in New Jersey (see the “State of New Jersey” on page 71 ), DVRPC’s long-range plan calls for growth in centers; different locations and types of centers are expressly identified in the plan. The plan also includes growth areas and farmland/open space preservation areas. ⁸¹

An interesting idea from Pennsylvania, which DVRPC has helped publicize, is that of “transit revitalization investment districts,” authorized by law in 2005. This program allows for the creation of public–private partnerships between transit agencies, municipalities, and developers to create TOD (usually within one-quarter mile of transit stations), and is meant to have an impact on a regional scale. A transit revitalization investment district, once established near a transit station, can use tax-increment financing. These transit revitalization investment districts are still in the planning stages and have not yet been implemented. ⁸² Pennsylvania also has grant money available for multimunicipal planning projects. ⁸³

The DVRPC conducts regular environmental justice analysis of current transportation infrastructure, its plans, its TIP, and other programs in order to ensure that disadvantaged communities (low-income, minority, Hispanic, limited English proficient, elderly, disabled, carless, or single-mother residents) have accessibility to transportation. The analysis involves qualitatively reviewing plans’ goals and policies to assess whether they conform to environmental justice principles. Public participation continues in the form of a regional citizens’ committee that meets monthly to provide citizen access to, and participation in, the regional planning and decision-making process.

PROGRAMS

FINDINGS

These programs generally fit into three categories of assistance: the provision of tools for localities; the provision of financial support for local planning work; and the provision of capital funding for implementation. The Transportation and Community Development Initiative falls under the first two categories; however, these have led to the provision of capital funds to implement the plans (the third category). The program has also helped implement regional goals and policies through the local implementation of these projects by way of the TIP program. The first program uses monies, largely for planning projects, that originally went to capital funding.

Historically, a number of factors led to the creation of these programs at the regional level. For example, the central reason for developing the Transportation and Community Development Initiative was to strengthen ties not only with communities in Philadelphia and a few other central cities, but also with suburban counties, where inner-ring suburbs had faced some critical problems, including job loss and competition with other areas. The Transportation and Community Development Initiative is seen as a vehicle for awarding planning grants to municipal governments rather than solely to suburban counties in the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. In turn, counties have helped promote DVRPC programs, serving on selection committees for projects.

It is expected that these programs will continue to operate, as they have been well received at the municipal level and the DVRPC Board is pleased with the work that has been completed. While the Transportation and Community Development Initiative grants are funded from the TIP, many of these efforts have also leveraged funding for capital projects that eventually receive capital funding from the TIP. For example, Transportation and Community Development Initiative planning grants have funded economic feasibility and market studies that eventually led to transit and streetscape improvements funded by the TIP. Similarly, the DVRPC has highlighted the success of the Environmental Justice Assessment program when applying for MPO certification from the federal government.

While the impacts of these programs have not yet been measured over the entire DVRPC region, the agency has measured how investment has been able to leverage other funding, such as grants, capital projects, and private investment. The DVRPC has not actively measured the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or other key indicators attributed to a program because it has been more concerned with providing available funding to counties.

It appears that the DVRPC will maintain the current structure of the Transportation and Community Development Initiative and its relationship to the TIP. Recently, the board studied the possibility of carving out a separate component of the TIP that would provide capital funding for successful Transportation and Community Development Initiative projects; however, the board decided to keep the same program structure but give strong consideration to Transportation and Community Development Initiative projects when awarding TIP allocations. This strategy recognizes that some Transportation and Community Development Initiative projects may depend on other capital projects that are only eligible under the TIP (for example, infrastructure-related projects). The DVRPC’s 2002 assessment report for the Transportation and Community Development Initiative grants shows the progress of the projects themselves through late 2003, but does not quantify regional impact.

The DVRPC is considering developing a program that would be aimed at assisting the newer, suburban municipalities that rely heavily on the private vehicle. Only half of the region’s municipalities are eligible to receive Transportation and Community Development Initiative funding (most of them in the inner areas). Emphasis needs to be placed on educating the newer suburbs, thereby promoting the development and implementation of sustainability plans and incentive programs.

DENVER REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
(DENVER, COLORADO REGION)

BACKGROUND

The nine-county Denver metropolitan region is one of the nation’s fastest-growing regions. More than 2.6 million people currently live in the nine-county Denver region. By 2030, the population is expected to increase again by nearly 50 percent, to almost 3.9 million. ⁹² Approximately 500 square miles of the region were built out or classified as urban development in 2000. ⁹³

The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) is the designated metropolitan transportation organization (MTO) and regional planning authority for the Denver region. The DRCOG formed in 1955 and is a nonprofit, voluntary association of 9 counties and 43 cities. Each participating local government has an elected official as its representative on DRCOG’s Board of Directors. In 1969, DRCOG supported legislation creating the Regional Transportation District to coordinate transit service for the region. Under state law, DRCOG must review Regional Transportation District plans for consistency with regional goals. The Regional Transportation District is the lead agency for the Denver region’s FasTracks program, which will build 114 miles of light rail within the next ten years and is being monitored by DRCOG.

Despite recent attempts to enact regional growth-related bills, Colorado does not have strong statewide regional planning legislation. In January 2000, Governor Bill Owens made smart growth a priority of his administration, launching the Smart Growth: Colorado’s Future initiative. During the subsequent year, a number of bills aimed at improving coordination in local planning, preserving open space, and implementing regional planning measures failed to pass in the legislature.

During the 2000 legislative session, five bills related to regional planning did pass. The first, HB 1427, created the Office of Smart Growth, which administers $750,000 in planning grants to designated “heritage communities.” A second bill, HB 1001, provides additional criteria that may be used in local comprehensive plans. The third, HB 1306, promotes infill development through a state income tax incentive of up to $100,000 for each developer. The fourth, HB 1302, provides a state income tax credit to developers who build low-income rental housing and make it available for 15 years. The fifth measure that was signed, HB 1348, offers a state tax refund up to $20,000 for the donation of conservation easements. ⁹⁴

PLANS AND POLICIES

In 1997, the DRCOG Board of Directors adopted Metro Vision 2020, the region’s growth and development plan. The plan was prepared by a task force of local elected officials, business leaders, and environmental group representatives that reviewed a set of four regional development scenarios and chose one preferred alternative scenario. Metro Vision 2020 established the following goals:

• Ensure that urban development occurs within a defined 750-square-mile area, known as an urban growth boundary/area, to promote smart growth.
• Minimize the amount of low-density, large-lot development occurring on the urban area’s edge.
• Encourage the location of higher-density, mixed-use, transit- and pedestrian-oriented centers throughout the metro area.
• Keep Boulder, Brighton, Castle Rock, and Longmont distinct and separate from the larger urban area, and build their self-sufficiency.
• Recognize small communities located in the region’s rural and semiurban areas, and define and support their role in the regional context.
• Promote development patterns and urban design features that meet the needs of older residents.

In 1998, the DRCOG Board of Directors adopted standards for reviewing urban growth boundary changes proposed by local governments. ⁹⁵ In 1999, the board adopted the Regional Open Space Plan to provide policy direction for open space preservation. In January 2005, the board adopted an updated Metro Vision 2030 plan and three associated plans, the Regional Transportation Plan, the Regional Open Space Plan, and the Clean Water Plan. ⁹⁶

In 2005, seven years after the first Metro Vision report was adopted by DRCOG, the agency released “Measuring Progress” to evaluate progress toward meeting the region’s goals. The progress report has 23 indicators, covering these topics: growth and development, transportation, environment, and social and economic factors. Of the 23 indicators, according to the report, 17 show positive or stable trends toward the stated goals. Notably, urban land consumption and congestion have both gotten worse since Metro Vision was adopted. While urban density has increased, the region is having difficulty attracting jobs to urban centers and peripheral “freestanding community town” centers to achieve a jobs–housing balance.

PROGRAMS Table 5 DRCOG Programs Checklist

^Compact Transit-Oriented Jobs–Housing ^{Adequate Housing} Balanced Travel

FINDINGS

Since it was adopted in 1997, the urban growth boundary has been amended and expanded several times, partly in response to concerns from local governments who felt that their original allocations were inadequate. It should be noted, however, that the boundary was not expanded at all when the planning horizon was extended from 2020 to 2030, even though the population was forecast to increase by an additional 350,000, because it was felt the boundary was large enough to accommodate the increase.

The boundary is now 757 square miles in area, leading some Colorado environmental groups, including Environment Colorado, to question the effectiveness of the boundary. Some also contend that the effectiveness of the boundary has been further compromised by local policies that allow for unlimited semiurban development on 1- to 35-acre parcels outside the boundary. Currently, approximately 4 percent of the metropolitan area population lives in such areas, occupying about 250 square miles of land outside the growth boundary. ⁹⁸

Although density is increasing in the region, according to DRCOG’s “Measuring Progress” report, land consumption has not slowed since the adoption of Metro Vision 2020. If land consumption continues at the current rate, DRCOG predicts that the urban area will consist of 800 square miles by 2030, exceeding the goal by 50 square miles.

Politically, the Mile High Compact has been successful. As the program has progressed, local officials and the DRCOG Board have become increasingly resistant to changes to the adopted regional plan, including pressure to extend the urban growth boundary. ⁹⁹ The voluntary nature of the agreement gave municipalities a sense of ownership and commitment to regional goals, whereas state legislation was seen as imposing state or regional interests on local jurisdictions.

The Mile High Compact is considered by academics and practitioners to be one of the most significant aspects of the regional planning strategy in the Denver area. It should also be noted that even those jurisdictions that have not signed the Mile High Compact are generally participating in the Metro Vision planning program. This is in part because there are other incentives available for them, including transportation funding opportunities and wastewater-permitting regulations that require consistency with the urban growth boundary. ¹⁰⁰

According to Steve Rudy, transportation planner for DRCOG, the TIP funding criteria system has been successful in supporting the Metro Vision plan. Although there is not a way to quantitatively measure its efficacy, localities recognize that complying with Metro Vision will give them an advantage in the highly competitive allocation of transportation funds. According to Mr. Rudy, the program particularly affects middle-range projects—those that are neither obviously good nor bad according to the other, transportation-related criteria. ¹⁰¹

The Fiscally Constrained Regional Transportation Plan, which outlines implementation and funding of transportation improvements, includes the following breakdown of funding:

• 52 percent: preservation, maintenance, management, and operation of transportation system
• 9 percent: expansion of regional roadway system (adding 1,100 lane-miles and 26 new interchanges)
• 7 percent: expansion of rapid transit and bus system (adding 150 miles and 350 buses in fleet)
• 32 percent: miscellaneous funding for local and private streets, aviation, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and debt service

According to Mr. Rudy, the land use elements of the TIP are accepted by and popular with local jurisdictions. Despite this acceptance and popularity, the program’s future is not assured because of uncertainty about the level of federal funding for the region. The region has fared well under the federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, but this level of funding may not be matched in the next federal legislation. Local support plus measurement of effectiveness and results by DRCOG might prove essential to continuation of the TIP program in which 26 percent of funding criteria are related to implementing the Metro Vision plan. ¹⁰²

STATE OF FLORIDA

BACKGROUND

The State of Florida has a relatively long history of growth management planning. Since 1940, Florida has experienced steady population growth, with a 1949 population of 1.9 million growing to 6.8 million in 1970 and nearly 16 million by 2000. In response to the state’s growing population and a number of environmental crises related to land use and development in the late 1960s, an important series of environmental and planning legislation was passed in the 1970s. Included in this legislation were the Environmental Land and Water Management Act, the Water Resources Act, the Land Conservation Act (which provides for the purchase of environmentally endangered lands), and the Florida Comprehensive Planning Act (which provides a basis for statewide policies guiding long-range social, economic, and physical growth within the state).

In 1975, the state passed the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act, making Florida the second state to require a comprehensive plan for all levels of local government. By 1982, 419 of 461 cities and counties had adopted comprehensive plans, and by 1984 all local governments had adopted plans reviewed by state agencies. Concerns about the quality, consistency, and implementation of these plans led to the 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act and the Omnibus Growth Management Act. These laws required local city and county governments to redraft local comprehensive plans in accordance with a statewide comprehensive plan, which included growth management goals, objectives, and policies. The State Department of Community Affairs was given the power to review and approve these local plans. Enforcement mechanisms included the ability to fine local governments and withhold state funds. Noteworthy elements of these acts were the requirement of regional planning and the establishment of a concurrency requirement, which requires that approval of new developments be contingent on the presence of adequate public facilities and services.

As the state planning agency, the Department of Community Affairs reviews local comprehensive plans and plan amendments to assure compliance with requirements of the Growth Management Act; assists local governments in developing and implementing their plans; adopts explanatory rules and sets timetables for evaluation and appraisal reports that are required by statute of local governments; and enforces concurrency requirements and the maintenance of five-year capital improvement element statements in the local comprehensive plans.

PLANS AND POLICIES

The State of Florida has enacted a number of statutes as part of its planning reform effort to address developments with regional significance. In 1998, two laws added criteria to the future land use elements of local comprehensive plans and clarified that mayoral veto power did not extend to zoning variances. In 1999, another law passed authorizing counties and municipalities to designate urban infill and redevelopment areas based upon specific criteria.

In 2005, the state enacted legislation (SB 360) that amended the 1985 Growth Management Act. The bill took effect July 1, 2005. The new act seeks to enable further implementation of its growth management laws by focusing on

• school planning;
• transportation planning;
• water-supply planning;
• capital improvements and financial feasibility;
  • the fiscal impact analysis model.
    The act represents the most significant changes in Florida’s growth management laws since
    
  • 1985. The following elements of the act add considerably to the already-complex planning requirements imposed on local governments:
• mandatory school concurrency
• proportionate fair-share mitigation ordinances (each local government must develop an ordinance allowing developers to choose to satisfy concurrency requirements through a “pay as you grow” scheme)
• funding for technical assistance for assessment of fiscal feasibility
• GIS tools for making growth assessments and planning impacts on infrastructure
• public visioning processes
• financial feasibility standards for transportation facilities

The act also offers incentives for local governments to adopt 10-year urban service boundaries and requires workshops and public meetings for a “visioning” process that must precede boundary designation. Future land use map amendments within an urban service boundary will be exempt from state review. The act includes the first major funding for infrastructure in many years, with a total of $1.5 billion composed of $750 million in recurring and $750 million in nonrecurring revenues. ¹⁰³

PROGRAMS

Table 6 Florida Programs Checklist

^Compact Transit-Oriented Jobs–Housing ^{Adequate Housing} Balanced Travel

FINDINGS

The two programs featured in this case study represent the most recent steps on a path toward better growth management that began in 1985. Each provides support at a number of levels, while imposing limited regulation. On the one hand, the Pay as You Grow program has effectively linked development approval to infrastructure planning, providing some tools and financial support to localities. This policy seems clear and concise, not overburdening local authorities or making compliance and enforcement difficult. Similarly, the Strategic Intermodal System program follows through with support for cooperative arrangements at all levels.

Since the 1980s, state transportation planners have recognized the fact that Florida cannot continue to expand its transportation infrastructure to meet prevailing growth rates. It was shown that infrastructure expansion is not necessarily desirable because it can induce additional travel demand. Florida’s 2020 Transport Plan, released in 2000, was a response to this concern. It directly led to the creation of these programs, clearly identifying the need to balance environmental issues with economic vitality. In light of the fact that rapid growth was expected to increase, the only way to accommodate this growth was for regions and communities to work together.

Development of the Strategic Intermodal System program in 2005 clearly altered the institutional culture that had historically focused on the private vehicle as the principal mode of choice, providing funds for local implementation. The Strategic Intermodal System has brought about a change in thinking, resulting in the formation of a comprehensive planning partnership between local planners and regional planners in Florida. It created an atmosphere that brought all parties to the table, carving out a series of regional visions.

Initially, interagency coordination was not valued and was generally nonexistent at the local level. A principal barrier was distrust among transportation planners, stemming from a historic pattern of fragmented planning, where modes were planned in isolation of one another and planning was only conducted locally. An assessment of the situation identified the need to break down these barriers and begin to work together to solve common, cross-jurisdictional issues. Resources were shifted into the Strategic Intermodal System program to provide localities with the necessary tools to pursue cooperative working arrangements. Eventually a consensus was developed on the role of the Strategic Intermodal System.

It is anticipated that these programs will continue indefinitely because they are supported by state legislation, especially on the growth management side. In light of the successful buy-in that has occurred by planning bodies throughout the state, there is an additional incentive to continue these programs. Nevertheless, in the case of Pay as You Grow, while it is likely that the program will continue, its scope has been constrained by a slowdown in development (for example, developer revenues available for transportation improvements have decreased). In addition, infrastructure costs have risen dramatically throughout the state, and less can be constructed per dollar of investment.

The Florida DOT has struggled with transportation performance measures, as they have tended to employ capacity and throughput measures in the overall evaluation of impacts rather than such measurement indicators as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or transit ridership. Instead the agency has focused on qualitatively measuring the success of these programs and how they have helped in the advancement of growth management throughout the state. This approach emphasizes the value of weighing policy and partnership perspectives, particularly as they relate to the Strategic Intermodal System.

The most salient new program currently being developed at the state level is probably Future Corridors, which employs a 50-year time horizon to determine where new corridors will need to be developed or changed. It will be based on a series of comprehensive corridor plans incorporating the collective vision of the more than 460 separate jurisdictions throughout Florida. Similarly, Pay as You Grow will play an important role in the establishment of cooperative arrangements for corridor planning.

STATE OF ILLINOIS

BACKGROUND

In 2006, Illinois was the fifth most populous state, with a population of over 12.8 million. ¹⁰⁴ Population growth in Illinois has been inconsistent among the state’s largest cities, with some cities growing quickly and some cities, including Chicago, losing population during 2005. Despite its recent periods of population loss, Chicago was ranked as the nation’s third largest city in 2005. Three Illinois cities—Joliet, Aurora, and Naperville—are on the nation’s list of the 50 fastest-growing large cities. The city of Joliet, located approximately 40 miles southwest of downtown Chicago, experienced a cumulative population growth rate of more than 27 percent between 2000 and 2005, ranking twelfth in growth rate among United States cities for the five-year period. ¹⁰⁵

In the 1990s, Illinois was experiencing decreasing open space, aging infrastructure, and increasing congestion. Unbalanced growth patterns were identified as a factor in these problems, as was the disconnect between transportation projects and their impacts on nearby land uses. In April 2000, in an effort to address these concerns, the governor created the Balanced Growth Cabinet, intended to serve as an advisory group to the governor regarding growth and planning issues and strategies. ¹⁰⁶

The governor’s senior advisor for environment and natural resources acts as cabinet chair. Other members include the secretary of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) and the directors of the state’s Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, Development Finance Authority, and Housing Development Authority. ¹⁰⁷

PLANS AND POLICIES

One of the Balanced Growth Cabinet’s first actions was to launch the Illinois Tomorrow Initiative, in order to promote smarter growth practices. The initiative was designed to assure the effective implementation of existing state programs, and to promote new solutions aimed at affecting growth problems and promoting livable communities. The overall effort is guided by long-range transportation plans under the auspices of the Balanced Growth Cabinet. Some state legislation has developed grant programs for the initiative. Ninety-five percent of grant funds are used to maintain existing urbanized areas and emphasize balanced growth principles. ¹⁰⁸

Transportation plans now follow balanced growth guidelines and focus less on new and expanded highways, with more emphasis on pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly facilities and transit-oriented development (TOD). The main objectives of the initiative are to enhance quality of life and allocate public resources more effectively. It is anticipated that better planning to create denser and more economically vibrant communities will result in environmental preservation, open space conservation, and reduced land consumption. ¹⁰⁹

PROGRAMS Table 7 Illinois Programs Checklist

^Compact Transit-Oriented Jobs–Housing ^{Adequate Housing} Balanced Travel

FINDINGS

Stakeholders consider the Illinois Tomorrow Initiative’s Corridor Planning Grant Program to be successful because it promotes voluntary state–local partnerships, focuses on investment in existing communities, coordinates among various agencies, and increases public awareness of growth management issues. ¹¹⁶ It has responded to growing citizen concerns about the need for smarter growth practices throughout the state without creating a centralized land use management system that threatens to usurp local control over land use decisions.

IDOT determined early in the process that when it came to responsible land use and balanced growth, the communities themselves were in a better position than IDOT to suggest what was of greatest interest and importance. The state’s ability to fund both relatively small-scale local plans as well as interjurisdictional corridor efforts is seen as a positive feature in assuring the program’s popularity and likely continuation.

IDOT found that meeting with recipients of the grant money to explain how the contracting process worked, how to bill the department, and how to handle other administrative details helped minimize mistakes and reduce the likelihood of future problems. This, in turn, contributed to successful outcomes and encouraged more grant applications. One procedural area of concern revolves around state delays, occasionally taking several months, in acting on and formally announcing the awarding of grants.

The Corridor Planning Grant Program does not require or suggest that the state would direct future transportation investments to implement plans developed through this program. There has not been any measurement of the effectiveness of the program, from the standpoint of reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or in accomplishing some other congestion relief objective, and its sponsors are not intending to do this because they believe that the primary purpose of the program is to promote responsible planning, not simply to focus on mitigating automobile congestion or air-quality problems.

IDOT staff members involved in managing this grant program believe that there would be significant program benefit from greater involvement by senior representatives from all major state agencies. It is felt that such an interagency approach would broaden the program’s potential benefits and strengthen internal cooperation and coordination.

There is no plan to expand the planning grant program beyond its present scope. There is, however, discussion among staff about possibly having different themes in each year’s planning grants, such as promoting economic development one year and historic or environmental preservation the next.

STATE OF MARYLAND

BACKGROUND

Maryland, the fifth most densely populated state in the country, is expected to see population grow from 5.6 million in 2005 to 7 million by 2030. The 5.7 percent population growth between 2000 and 2005 exceeded the national average of 5.3 percent and ranked the state nineteenth in the country in terms of growth rate. In the past 30 years, there was a 30 percent increase in population with a 124 percent increase in the amount of developed land within the state. Prompted by such rapid land development relative to population growth, the state has been pursuing a variety of smart growth planning initiatives to encourage reinvestment in older communities and development in designated growth areas to mitigate loss of farmland, environmentally sensitive land, and rural landscape areas.

The Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Policy, adopted by executive order in 1998, required state agencies to consider whether development proposed for funding supported existing communities and promoted mass transit use. The more recent State Smart Growth Areas Act of 1997 links the disbursement of state funds with local growth planning. It calls for the establishment of Priority Funding Areas, outside of which the state cannot fund growth-related projects. Every six years local plans are assessed, amended, and submitted to the state to be reviewed for compliance with state law and consistency with the state’s planning policies. ¹¹⁷

State policies aim to support and enhance existing communities, to preserve natural resources and agricultural areas, to save taxpayers the cost of providing new infrastructure, and to provide a high quality of life for communities. ¹¹⁸ In 2006, the state passed legislation concerning water resources, municipal growth, priority preservation, and workforce housing that local jurisdictions are required to incorporate into their comprehensive plans.

PLANS AND POLICIES

Maryland articulates its growth policy through eight “visions.” This policy not only guides state activities, but also applies to local jurisdictions that are required to address these visions in their comprehensive plans:

• Development is concentrated in suitable areas.
• Sensitive areas are protected.
• In rural areas, growth is directed to existing population centers and resource areas are protected.
• Stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay and the land is a universal ethic.
• Conservation of resources, including a reduction in resource consumption, is practiced.
• To assure the achievement of the above, economic growth is encouraged and regulatory mechanisms are streamlined.
• Adequate public facilities and infrastructure under the control of the counties or municipal corporations are available or planned in areas where growth is to occur.
• Funding mechanisms are addressed to achieve these visions.

Five major smart growth programs were established in 1997: Priority Funding Areas, Brownfields, Live Near Your Work, Job Creation Tax Credits, and Rural Legacy. Local participation was critical in carrying out these programs, and the state achieved a high level of participation through the allocation of funds for open–space preservation and infrastructure development.

Legislation in 2006, amended in 2007, established a task force to study and make recommendations concerning laws or regulations that are needed to address challenges hindering the state’s growth management efforts. This task force is directed to report its recommendations to the governor and state legislature by December 1, 2008.

Information on programs is paraphrased and excerpted from documents available on the State of Maryland website, http://www.maryland.gov/.

PROGRAMS Table 8 Maryland Programs Checklist

^Compact Transit-Oriented Jobs–Housing ^{Adequate Housing} Balanced Travel

FINDINGS

Since passage of the 1997 Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act, Maryland has directed its major growth-related transportation capital projects to smart growth areas (Priority Funding Areas, as discussed above). MDOT, in coordination with the Department of Planning, reviews each major transportation project for compliance with 1997 Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act and the Priority Funding Areas law, and its consistency with the 1992 Maryland Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act.

Maryland’s programs have the involvement and support of several state departments that promote cooperation and effective implementation of the policies. However, most programs are dependent upon the state’s “carrot” of funding for growth and land preservation—often subject to cuts in times of budget crunches. The impact of these programs has also depended on likemindedness of local governments and leadership and support from the governor’s office.

The Priority Funding Areas program’s effectiveness in controlling sprawl is largely dependent upon the buy-in of the local jurisdictions because tools such as rural zoning and private development financing can be used instead of dependence on the state for growth funding. Many counties are experiencing such rapid growth or constraints on existing urban infrastructure that they have not embraced the state’s growth strategies. The governor’s leadership and pressure on counties has promoted smart growth participation at the local level. Counties that allowed development contrary to smart growth policies were proactively encouraged to get on board by the threatened reduction of funds for infrastructure and open space preservation. In certain cases, the governor reduced and removed funding from some counties based on these admonishments and slowness in spending previous allocations. ¹²⁹ In recent years, the governor has chosen to be less aggressive in the local application of smart growth policies. The most recent exemption given was for a project to widen Maryland Route 32 in Howard County, which led to criticism that this exemption will increase sprawl in rural areas. This project was granted on grounds of public safety concerns with the existing highway. ¹³⁰

Although distance parameters were undefined in the original Live Near Your Work program, studies have concluded that the program did reduce commute times of those who participated in the program. By 2000, 267 homeowners had bought a home through the program and 49 employers had participated. Although it is too early to assess the effects of the current Live Near Your Work Plus program, there has been criticism that the 25-mile maximum distance is too great and that home purchases are not limited to priority development areas. The program is, however, being touted as less complicated than its predecessor because of the elimination of local government and employer involvement and the more generous grant size. Whether this will lead to greater participation, despite relatively muted publicity, and reduced commute times is to be determined. Demand for the program in Baltimore has been so strong that it surpassed the state’s funding, which the city has decided to cover.

The Priority Places program has been criticized for its limited reach (originally 20 projects were targeted for assistance). Also, despite the primary purpose of the program to speed processes, two of the first four redevelopment projects were held up due to political and other reasons, mostly at the local level. ¹³¹ Environmentalists have expressed concern that expedited processing of development initiatives might cause natural resources to be mishandled or overlooked. ¹³² It is still too early to determine whether this program has been effective at reorienting development to these older neighborhoods.

For transportation planning, challenges include (1) different agencies’ missions, goals, and priorities occasionally creating conflicting interests; (2) priority and policy changes at the top of the state administration; (3) lack of understanding and support from project and program lead agencies; (4) different interests and needs of suburban counties and inner cities; (5) lack of a clear statewide smart growth strategy; and (6) lack of effective coordination mechanisms.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

BACKGROUND

Massachusetts, although only larger than five other states in land area, has been the thirteenth most populous state since 1990. As of 2005, Massachusetts was ranked as being the state with the third-highest population density in the United States, with a density of 816.2 people per square mile. ¹³³ In 2006, the population of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts exceeded

6.4 million. ¹³⁴ Despite these statistics, the growth rate in Massachusetts has slowed over recent years. From 1980 to 1990, the commonwealth experienced a population growth of

4.9 percent, and during the 1990s this rate increased to 5.5 percent. From 2000 to 2005, however, the growth rate decreased to 0.8 percent, a figure significantly lower than that of most other states. ¹³⁵

Massachusetts has become increasingly engaged in responsible land use planning and policy making. In 2003, Massachusetts created the Office for Commonwealth Development, an oversight agency that coordinated the work of state-level environmental, transportation, housing, and energy agencies with the objective of creating a unified set of statewide development policies. The increased level of coordination also facilitated collaborative interagency relationships. Massachusetts government officials cited rapid growth, development, and sprawl as reasons to implement initiatives to improve the quality of life in its communities. These initiatives are intended to reduce neighborhood traffic congestion, improve the quality of life, and use infrastructure and public resources more efficiently. ¹³⁶

PLANS AND POLICIES

Since 2003, Massachusetts has implemented several legislative actions to support smart growth. These actions include the Community Preservation Act, Executive Order 418, and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act.

Under the Community Preservation Act, voters chose an increase in property taxes to be used with state matching funds for open space, historic preservation, and affordable housing. Although the state has no land use authority because of home rule, it issued Executive Order 418 in 2000. The order mandates that the state provide technical assistance to cities and towns in preparing community development plans. The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act triggers impact assessments based on thresholds of development. If the minimum threshold is exceeded, the project must go through a higher-level impact assessment to ensure that it does not create negative sprawl and traffic impacts.

Three commonwealth executive offices jointly develop and administer smart growth policies and programs in the disciplines of energy, environment, housing, and transportation. From 2003 to 2006, these executive offices coordinated their work through the Office for Commonwealth Development. Since early 2007, the executive offices have administered their policies and a program with oversight from Governor Deval Patrick’s newly formed Development Cabinet. The cabinet’s members include the secretaries of the three executive offices. The Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs has regulatory, funding, advisory, and policy roles in these smart growth efforts. The Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development has both funding and policy roles. The Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works acts in regulatory, funding, advisory, planning, and implementation roles. In sum, the Development Cabinet is the successor entity to the Office for Commonwealth Development for interagency sustainable development program coordination.

In addition to these legislative efforts, Massachusetts also has established a policy to promote smart growth principles. Its 2004 Draft Long-Range Transportation Plan outlined the following strategies: smart growth/sustainable development, Communities First, and Fix-It-First.

The smart growth strategy promotes the creation of housing and employment that

• preserve natural and cultural landscapes;
• recognize the need for choice and equity in the provision of transportation services;
• respect the mobility needs of all users;
• link community preservation with economic growth.

The commonwealth’s Sustainable Development Principles are designed to facilitate the integration of traditional development patterns common throughout Massachusetts with present-day state-of-the-practice development strategies. The principles were updated and reissued in 2007; while fundamentally similar to the preexisting principles, the updated version adds emphasis to certain issues, for example, energy development and use.

Announced in January 2003, ¹³⁷ the Fix-It-First policy prioritized the preservation of central business districts, traditional town centers, and areas that have already been designed for commercial, industrial, and business use, and enhanced expenditures encouraging development in those areas. This policy was rooted in the premise that by strengthening investment and encouraging growth in existing centers, open space would likewise be preserved and enhanced. ¹³⁸ Also announced in January 2003, ¹³⁹ the Communities First initiative works with the Fix-It-First policy. Communities First emphasized the importance of achieving densities that are contextually appropriate, support transit and pedestrian-scale activities, encourage the creation of new housing and employment, and respect the natural and cultural environment of Massachusetts. ¹⁴⁰ These two policies will likely continue to inform the commonwealth’s sustainable development agenda.

On April 4, 2007, Governor Patrick announced a plan for action to bring passenger rail to the South Coast of Massachusetts by 2016. The project will bring rail transportation from Boston’s South Station to the cities of Fall River and New Bedford. The project is estimated to cost a total of $1.4 billion. The Patrick administration made an initial commitment of $17.2 million to advance the project through 2010. ¹⁴¹ On May 18, 2007, Patrick’s administration announced two new developments in the South Coast rail project. The administration is launching a $2 million economic development and land use study that will be conducted by the Land Use and Economic Development Study Team. The goal of the study is to ensure long-term benefits of the rail project through the creation of new jobs and housing along rail lines in a form that is consistent with environmental goals and community character. ¹⁴²

Major transportation expansion projects typically begin with a corridor planning study, which identifies the transportation deficiency and how it can be addressed through improvements. When considering project alternatives, current and potential land uses and development must inform the decision-making process. Evaluation criteria used to assess the benefits and impacts of a given transportation alternative must include the effect on land use and development. Projects that are prioritized are those that not only address a transportation problem, but also advance state and regional growth goals.

The corridor planning study process is intended to be a tool to help municipalities balance the opportunities and pressures in the project. As part of the corridor planning study process, the commonwealth asks that community and regional leaders consider the following issues:

• targeting job growth, economic development, and brownfield redevelopment
• maximizing TOD opportunities
• increasing housing stocks (including multigenerational neighborhoods and multifamily housing)
• developing travel demand management strategies
• reforming zoning to prevent sprawl and focus development
• protecting open space and managing watersheds
• avoiding environmental injustice by meeting the needs of underserved constituencies
• adopting guidelines for access control and traffic management ¹⁴³

The commonwealth is also implementing other smart growth initiatives. Its Commonwealth Capital Program was launched in 2003; its purpose was (and remains) to foster municipal alignment and coordination with the Sustainable Development Principles. The Commonwealth Capital Program coordinates several state programs relating to energy, environment, housing, and transportation with the Sustainable Development Principles. In the summer of 2007, the governor announced that the Commonwealth Capital Program will be continued in fiscal year 2008 with relatively minor changes.

60 Commonwealth of Massachusetts
PROGRAMS Table 9 Massachusetts Programs Checklist Program Compact Development Patterns Transit-Oriented Development Jobs–Housing Balance Adequate Housing Supply and Affordability Balanced Travel Mode Split

FINDINGS

As Massachusetts continues to advance its smart growth programs, additional TOD projects should generate local, regional, and statewide economic development, enhanced tax revenue, increased transit ridership, fewer traffic and environmental impacts, and an improved quality of life. ¹⁵¹ To date, Massachusetts has awarded $13 million in two grant rounds. ¹⁵²

The commonwealth’s sustainable development agenda and many of its smart growth programs, initiated during Governor Romney’s administration, have continued under the Patrick administration. Constituent agencies are conducting internal program reviews and making recommendations for improvements. ¹⁵³

Massachusetts has recognized that sustainable development is a broad-reaching term that includes smart growth as well as sound management of existing resources. Regardless of how the issue is defined, Massachusetts appears committed to focusing on the importance of promoting smart growth and responsible land use patterns.

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
(SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA REGION, CALIFORNIA)

BACKGROUND

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) was created by the California Legislature in 1970 as the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. It functions both as a state-designated transportation planning agency as well as the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). ¹⁵⁴ The San Francisco Bay Area comprises Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties. This area includes Silicon Valley, the technological center of the southern Bay Area. With a population of nearly 7 million, the Bay Area is the second largest metropolitan area in California and the fourth largest in the nation. By 2020, the Bay Area is projected to have a population of 8 million and employ 4.7 million people. ¹⁵⁵

The Bay Area currently faces a severe housing shortage. With high housing costs, many workers live outside the region, increasing the number of vehicle miles driven and adding to traffic congestion. ¹⁵⁶ In response to this trend, MTC has developed several programs to boost transit ridership and increase housing supplies near transit centers.

The MTC Board includes 19 members, composed as follows:

• Fourteen commissioners appointed by the local elected officials. Of the fourteen commissioners, two representatives are from each of the five most populous counties; the remaining four counties appoint one commissioner each.
• Two representatives each from the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
• Three nonvoting members who represent the federal and state transportation agencies and the federal housing department. ¹⁵⁷

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has established many innovative grant programs that have allowed for federal dollars to be spent on the Bay Area’s transportation needs. ¹⁵⁸

PLANS AND POLICIES

In 1996, the MTC adopted a Transportation/Land-Use Connection policy statement that began an effort to find a way to better coordinate regional transportation planning with local land use planning and decision making. This process lasted for several years and involved extensive research, close collaboration with MTC’s advisory council, and countless interviews with federal, state, and local agencies and community-based organizations. ¹⁵⁹ Under the policy, MTC encourages community plans that

• enable residents to use a range of travel modes;
• support transit, streets, pedestrian ways, and bicycle lanes as an integrated system;
• provide for the development of housing and activity centers accessible to the regional transit network;
• provide for a variety of transportation strategies designed to maximize opportunities to access basic daily necessities within one’s own community;
• integrate the design of streets and transportation facilities into a community design conducive to a sense of community identity and pride. ¹⁶⁰

The commission is also responsible for the regular update of the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan. In February 2005, the agency prepared the long-range plan, known as Transportation 2030, to promote smart growth development patterns. ¹⁶¹ The plan is updated every three years to reflect new planning priorities as well as changing projections of growth and travel demand, while having a realistic forecast of future revenues. ¹⁶²

PROGRAMS

Table 10 MTC Programs Checklist

^Compact Transit-Oriented Jobs–Housing ^{Adequate Housing} Balanced Travel

FINDINGS

The two programs featured in this study—Transportation for Livable Communities and Transit-Oriented Development Policy for Regional Transit Expansion Projects—provide planning support and capital funding to local jurisdictions while regulating local planning. For example, the Transportation for Livable Communities and TOD programs provide financial support to local planning. Similarly, the Capital Grants and Housing Incentive Program components of Transportation for Livable Communities provide capital funding to implement land use planning in the selected cities. The TOD extension policy lays out regulatory requirements to cities applying for station-area grant funding.

The Transportation for Livable Communities/Housing Incentive Program and TOD programs have sought to achieve two principal objectives: promoting infill development and encouraging community revitalization throughout the region. In California, where there is no land use authority at the regional or multicounty level, MTC is one of the few organizations providing incentives for smart growth, facilitating the revitalization of communities through the provision of grants, and focusing on encouraging smarter land use at the local level. These programs effectively support investment in transit, efficient operation of services, and construction of housing in areas with good access to transit.

The Transportation for Livable Communities program was initiated in 1998, beginning with small grants ranging from $20,000 to $80,000. These funds were modest and locally focused. More recently, Transportation for Livable Communities has evolved into a robust capital funding program. The Housing Incentive Program was initiated later, providing an even stronger linkage between transportation and housing, while the TOD program has a transit-oriented policy framework that focuses on the provision of station-area planning grants on the part of MTC.

Experience has shown that it is important to locate transit facilities near housing. TOD policies are largely driven by the need to make efficient use of transit. Over time, MTC has come to understand the impact that small funding allocations can have on local jurisdictions (for example, station area design). In light of budget shortfalls, MTC planners recognize that transportation funds need to be invested in responsible land use practices.

While the Transportation for Livable Communities program is popular throughout the region, some jurisdictions initially viewed it as a threat to their own autonomy and ability to secure funding for local projects. Many jurisdictions felt that MTC should not be involved in the establishment of local housing densities near stations. Development of the Transportation for Livable Communities/Housing Incentive Program and TOD programs has often come at the expense of other, local programs, causing some regional tension between local planning authorities and MTC.

One way of mitigating this conflict has been to direct some of these funds to the county congestion management agency. This action, originally supported under the 2004 Regional Transportation Plan, has allowed MTC to give one-third of the Transportation for Livable Communities funds directly to counties. While MTC has continued to evaluate proposals applying for the remaining two-thirds of the Transportation for Livable Communities funds, it has provided counties with sole discretion over how to use their share of funding (for example, on streetscape improvements or pedestrian projects) as part of a county vision. Funding for the MTC share of Transportation for Livable Communities comes from CMAQ funding; the county share comes from both CMAQ and TEA funding.

While it is anticipated that MTC will continue to operate these programs, it will revisit the Transportation for Livable Communities/Housing Incentive Program and make the necessary adjustments to impact smart growth and infill development planning. It is anticipated that the initial Transportation for Livable Communities planning grant component will be removed and will be replaced in part by the station-area planning grant money offered out of the TOD program. Thus, the direct ties between planning and capital planning may draw the Transportation for Livable Communities and TOD programs closer.

In an attempt to improve its programs, MTC is currently reassessing the Transportation for Livable Communities/Housing Incentive Program. Modifications may be made to the Housing Incentive Program in response to the recent downturn in new development throughout the region. This decrease in revenue flow has meant that funds have not always been secure and some projects have not been completed. Given the size and diversity of the projects funded under these programs, assessment is difficult. MTC has chosen not to focus funding on real estate assessments of projects and investments. Consequently, it has taken a more qualitative approach to the evaluation of programs, seeking to explore the following areas:

• how jurisdictions, merchants, and residents feel about projects and their impacts
• whether there is reinvestment, meaning a market for private development, in these areas

MTC has focused on making investments in areas where transit is accessible to the public, especially in residential or mixed-use areas. To this end, it has attempted to target a set of localities that could stand to benefit from these funding programs. One way to identify these areas is through the use of quantitative tools, such as the Bay Area Travel Survey or the recent Transit Passenger Survey.

MTC intends to continue administering many of its successful Transportation for Livable Communities/Housing Incentive and TOD programs. One area of discussion in the coming months will be the reorientation of programs to support the regional vision. Recent developments in the region have focused on encouraging cities and counties to develop a vision for future development in their areas.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

BACKGROUND

New Jersey, with a population of approximately 8.7 million people, has 566 municipalities and 21 counties. ¹⁷³ The state’s approach to growth management operates as both a top-down and bottom-up process. There is a statewide plan developed through a cooperative process between the state and municipalities, with mandatory public participation. The State Plan (see below) acts as a policy guide and is not regulatory. Local and regional governments are strongly encouraged by cross-acceptance and incentives to have plans consistent with the State Plan. Cross-acceptance is a process where various government agencies compare plans to assure compatibility and consistency between different levels of government. In New Jersey, local and regional governments are encouraged to use cross-acceptance as a means of ensuring accordance with the State Plan. The notion of cross-acceptance began in the late 1970s and in 1986 evolved into a “state development guide plan” that identifies areas of growth, limited growth, agriculture, and conservation.

PLANS AND POLICIES

As a result of the State Planning Act of 1986, New Jersey now has a State Development and Redevelopment Plan, or State Plan. There have been several subsequent State Plans since the passage of the 1986 law. ¹⁷⁴

The purpose of the State Plan is to “coordinate planning activities and establish Statewide planning objectives in the following areas: land use, housing, economic development, transportation, natural resource conservation, agriculture and farmland retention, recreation, urban and suburban redevelopment, historic preservation, public facilities and services, and intergovernmental coordination.” ¹⁷⁵ The plan divides the state into five different planning areas—Metropolitan Planning Area (PA1), Suburban Planning Area (PA2), Fringe Planning Area (PA3), Rural Planning Area (PA4), and Environmentally Sensitive Planning Area (PA5)—with different policies for each planning area. These areas are mapped on a State Plan policy map. ¹⁷⁶ The plan defines centers—areas of compact growth—as the best way to direct and organize new growth and redevelopment in the state. Each planning area has different types of centers. ¹⁷⁷

The State Board of Public Utilities considers the State Plan policy map in its regulation of infrastructure extension. The Board of Public Utilities has adopted a rule that developers must pay the full bill for extending infrastructure to new development when it is outside of smart growth areas. ¹⁷⁸

First drafted in 2004, a new State Plan is now going through a cross-acceptance process before being finalized. ¹⁷⁹ Under this process, each local and regional government is able to comment on the draft statewide plan, and changes are then made to the draft in response. This process repeats several times before the plan is ultimately adopted. County officials, coordinating with their municipalities, discuss with the State Planning Commission and negotiate over proposed policies and planning area boundaries. There is first a preliminary plan, then an interim plan, and an impact assessment of the interim plan, before the final plan is adopted. At the end of the process, a municipality or county can disagree with the plan but is nevertheless encouraged to comply with it. ¹⁸⁰

PROGRAMS

Table 11 New Jersey Programs Checklist

^Compact Transit-Oriented Jobs–Housing ^{Adequate Housing} Balanced Travel

FINDINGS

While only a small minority of municipalities has pursued the plan endorsement or the centers designation process to date, there could soon be a large increase in the number of municipalities pursuing endorsement because of growing financial and regulatory reform incentives linked to plan conformance and a new rule linking local housing strategies with plan endorsement. ¹⁸⁸ The Office of Smart Growth has been working over the past year with local and county governments as well as members of the public to complete the cross-acceptance process as part of the update of the State Plan. The input received during the cross-acceptance process, as well as contributions from various state agencies and departments, will be incorporated into the final version of the plan. This next version of the plan will contain statewide goals and policies as well as elements covering various subjects. It will be similar in structure to local master plans, and will also contain suggestions for implementation strategies at the local and state level. The ultimate goal of this collaborative process is to adopt a State Plan that will be a reliable, easy-to-understand, and useful tool for local planners and officials as well as for the state’s agencies and departments.

Since their introduction in 1999, state planning grants have been politically effective in getting local governments to care more about the State Plan process. It has been noted by staff, however, that it would have been helpful if these grants had been available earlier. ¹⁸⁹

The Transit Villages program does seem to have been effective in encouraging TOD. Using building permit data, a report by the Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers University in 2004 found that between 1999 and 2003 in the first seven transit villages, there was $186 million in new construction within a half-mile of transit stations, $147 million of which was nonresidential and $39 million residential. The amount spent per year increased from 1999 to 2003. The residential construction was focused within a quarter-mile of the transit station: $24.6 million was spent and 61.2 percent of the 478 new housing units were built in those areas. Over the same time, public investment, estimated based on municipal reports, was $150 million to $175 million. More research needs to be done, however, on the extent that vehicle miles traveled have been reduced. A monitoring and assessment tool has now been developed to gather further information, such as transit usage, public perception, affordable housing created, and area of brownfields reclaimed. ¹⁹⁰

Some of the major lessons learned in New Jersey’s efforts are that it has been hard to coordinate state agencies through the multiplicity of programs that have been established. Although the current governor’s support for smart growth programs is strong, over the years the priority given to these efforts has varied as changes in leadership within the governor’s office has occurred. It also appears that while the power to implement many of these programs has come from the leveraging of available funding from the Department of Transportation, there has been growing influence on local jurisdictions to adhere to state planning policies coming from the Department of Environmental Protection on such issues as water quality, wastewater disposal, and endangered species protection objectives.

NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
(DALLAS–FORT WORTH, TEXAS REGION)

BACKGROUND

The North Central Texas area, which includes Dallas and Fort Worth, is the largest urban area in size and population in Texas, with approximately 5.2 million residents in 2000. In 2002, the Arlington–Fort Worth area was named the tenth most sprawl-dominated habitat in America by Smart Growth America. ¹⁹¹ By 2030, the population is expected to grow by another 4 million, putting strains on already low transportation resources, water, and air quality. While many individual counties have started to incorporate smart growth in their land use planning, the region as a whole has only started to have a more positive view of this type of development in the past five to ten years. For example, poor traffic and air quality in the region has attracted special funding from the federal government and is helping communities to realize the connection between these effects and past land use choices. ¹⁹² Progress has been made—for example, in 2003 the Dallas–Fort Worth region was found to have the highest carpooling rate in the nation. ¹⁹³

The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) is a voluntary association of local governments that was established to promote regional opportunities and allow for greater efficiencies within the area. The NCTCOG was enabled through legislation in 1966 that made it a political subdivision of the state without any of the regulatory power or other authority possessed by cities, counties, or other local governments. Any county, incorporated city, municipality, town, or village, as well as independent school, hospital, water, sewer, and other special-purpose districts within the North Central Texas State Planning Region, is eligible for membership with the payment of dues and passage of a resolution. Currently there are 230 member governments, including all 16 counties covered by the NCTCOG.

The NCTCOG’s Executive Board writes policies, decisions, plans, and budgets for the NCTCOG, but these decisions are not binding on the members. The executive board is elected by the general assembly, which is made up of one appointed representative per member. (Representatives must be an elected public official.) A professional staff supports the board, and committees comprise elected and appointed officials, and representatives from business, industry, education, and the public. NCTCOG’s staff and programs are organized into various divisions including administration, public affairs, transportation, community services, environmental resources, workforce development, research and information services, and emergency preparedness.

The federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is also housed within the NCTCOG. It is made up of the NCTCOG Transportation Department, NCTCOG Executive Board, Regional Transportation Council, and several technical committees. The Regional Transportation Council is an independent policy body of the NCTCOG that is made up primarily of local elected officials. Its responsibilities include the planning and implementation of transportation projects, including the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Transportation Improvement Program, Congestion Management System, and Unified Planning Work Program. The Dallas region is ranked ninth nationally in demand for transit-oriented development (TOD). This is perhaps a result of the successes of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit light rail system. TOD demand is expected to grow by 364 percent by 2025.

NCTCOG avoids using the term “smart growth” because of a poor connotation (related to earlier exclusionary policies) and chooses to use the terms “sustainable development” and “development excellence” in its current initiatives. Governments in Texas generally have a high level of concern for landowners’ property rights and thus tend to favor developers and market mechanisms over legislation to promote these initiatives. ¹⁹⁴ Like all of NCTCOG’s programs, there are no mandatory compliance measures, only incentives to local jurisdictions. Cities in Texas hold all zoning power; however, there are efforts currently underway to give counties land use authority. Although efforts in the past have failed many times, there is optimism that another push to give counties some local zoning authority in order to better promote sustainable development and farmland conservation may succeed. ¹⁹⁵

PLANS AND POLICIES

In NCTCOG’s Strategic Plan for 1999–2003, a Center of Development Excellence was created with the mission to “promote quality growth in North Central Texas that enhances the built environment, reduces vehicle miles of travel, uses water and energy resources effectively and efficiently, and helps advance environmental stewardship in order to ensure continued economic vitality and provide the highest attainable quality of life for all residents.” The Development Excellence Steering Committee, a diverse group of stakeholder representatives from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, drafted 10 principles that were ultimately approved by the NCTCOG Executive Board. These principles include balanced and varied development, efficient growth, pedestrian design, housing options, mixed-use and TOD centers, environmental stewardship, and transportation efficiency. The Center of Development Excellence does not mandate any specific policies for members, but serves as a repository of successful programs and policies executed by member jurisdictions.

The Center of Development Excellence is in the process of gaining stakeholder input into potential responsible land use policies through its Vision North Texas program. The program is established as a public–private partnership among NCTCOG, the Urban Land Institute, and the University of Texas at Arlington. The program serves to bring public awareness of and promote dialogue concerning the immense growth (nearly 80 percent) expected in the North Texas region over the next 30 years. Phase I included participation from the 10 counties expected to be most affected by the growth and took approximately nine months to complete with a budget under $90,000. In April 2005, a Phase I workshop brought together constituencies to formulate growth patterns for the future. Fifteen possible plans were developed by teams of participants, and follow-up studies were conducted on how well these plans performed on important regional measures including overall growth distribution; transportation; downtown and neighborhood revitalization; jobs–housing balance; air quality; infrastructure; development near rail stations; open space and agricultural lands; and ability to walk or bike to work. At the same time, the Transportation Division created its own scenarios—one focused on growth near rail, a second on growth in existing urban centers, and a third scenario, a hybrid of the first two. Anonymous feedback was extremely positive, with over 90 percent of participants believing that the scenarios presented were realistic and that the region should consider development patterns that differ significantly from current trends.

Phase II of the Vision North Texas program will continue through 2006–2007, with a budget of over $300,000 (including donations from the private sector). The process will include all sixteen counties and have four initiatives as its basis: education and outreach, involvement, research into development excellence best practices, and policy decisions. Among the questions that NCTCOG hopes to answer during this phase are, “Is there a preferred regional scenario?” and if so, “How should such a regional scenario be implemented?” ¹⁹⁶

The Regional Transportation Council also has pushed sustainable development through its Mobility 2025 Update that was amended in April 2005. In the plan, sustainable development was positioned as the region’s new strategic approach to transportation planning, programming, and construction. The approach recognizes four categories of sustainable development: strategic urban development, integrated land use planning/urban design, transit-oriented development (TOD), and access management. The Regional Transportation Council’s programs use existing tools such as special assessment districts, tax increment financing districts, and local enterprise zones to carry out their goals. NCTCOG is available for planning support and technical assistance.

Information on programs is paraphrased and excerpted from documents available on the North Central Texas Council of Governments’ website, http://www.nctcog.org/.

PROGRAMS

Table 12 NCTCOG Programs Checklist

^Compact Transit-Oriented Jobs–Housing ^{Adequate Housing} Balanced Travel

FINDINGS

The Regional Transportation Council was one of the first regional agencies to use CMAQ and STP-MM funds to promote sustainable development initiatives. Now other government agencies, such as the City of Atlanta, have followed the Regional Transportation Council’s lead. A number of sidewalks, street enhancements, pedestrian plazas, and crosswalks near town centers have been approved through this program. ¹⁹⁸

The NCTCOG has not only provided tools to localities and educated local governments on the implications of growth and what needs to be done to make the region more sustainable, but also has carefully monitored project performance to determine the agencies that have been the most successful, further improving the scope and quality of proposals submitted.

These programs, designed to encourage and support sustainable development practices, were originally developed in 2001, in response to rapid growth in the area. Local planners and politicians began to realize that it was neither feasible nor desirable to continue investing in roads, as growth was rapidly outstripping infrastructure improvements. Planners began to explore ways of accommodating growth through demand-side strategies at the local level.

With the support of the Regional Transportation Council, a new set of funding programs was developed to

• increase transportation capacity;
• allow for greater mobility;
• encourage access management;
• promote mixed-use development.

At the outset, the NCTCOG encountered barriers to implementation: funding shortfalls, allocation delays, and local zoning requirements. During the first cycle of funding allocation, when federal CMAQ and STP monies were distributed, the amount of funding available far exceeded the amount requested. In addition, the process was found to be long and drawn out, with a significant learning curve for applicants. As a result, NCTCOG established a public outreach program to educate prospective applicants.

In an attempt to remove these initial barriers, a number of program changes were introduced for the second cycle of funding in 2005. For example, NCTCOG entered an arrangement with local jurisdictions to exchange federal monies for local monies, providing greater flexibility and allowing it to more freely manage funds. This allowed the agency to enter individual planning agreements with local areas and to offer funding not only for implementation but also for initial planning. In the case of TOD, it encouraged “land banking,” an arrangement whereby future development opportunities are preserved through interest-free loans to localities. In addition, to qualify for funding, the NCTCOG requires that applicants have required zoning in place.

The NCTCOG has continued to reach out and educate communities on the benefits of good land use planning. In addition to local funds, project planners have two options:

1. Standard reimbursement of costs once the notice to proceed is given.
2. Some funding commitments under a “proceed at risk” arrangement.

It is envisioned that these programs will continue on into the foreseeable future. For example, the NCTCOG is currently directing staff to allocate program funds to sustainable development activities for the next call for projects in 2008–2009. During this period, it is anticipated that staff will have close to $40 million to award to the most promising project proposals.

Planners at the NCTCOG are always looking for performance measures that will allow them to highlight the benefits of these programs. For example, they have employed before-and-after data for measuring changes in property values, local sales tax revenues, and transit ridership. In addition, the agency has begun to track vehicle miles traveled by household, and has developed demographic profiles and policies based on best-case scenarios.

The NCTCOG is currently planning for the next call for projects. Over time, the agency has become increasingly aggressive with respect to the sorts of projects encouraged. In 2001, it promoted some greenfield projects, but by 2005, the focus was clearly on brownfield projects. The agency’s long-term goal is to continue maximizing investment in these land use–transport projects.

The approach of the North Central Texas Council of Governments has been to involve the private sector, relying heavily on market motivations, to use federal transportation funding dollars and to educate local jurisdictions with successful examples of development throughout other parts of the region. The Vision North Texas program is one way the NCTCOG is trying to promote better land use, but it is just beginning by bringing awareness to the problem. Any real change will have to come from strong private sector and public awareness of the problem and coordination for an agreed-upon solution.

PORTLAND METRO
(PORTLAND, OREGON REGION)

BACKGROUND

The policies and plans enacted by the State of Oregon and the Portland metropolitan area governments have been nationwide models for pursuing smart growth objectives. Metro is a directly elected regional government that serves more than 1.3 million residents in Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington counties, and the 25 cities in the Portland metropolitan area. ¹⁹⁹ Metro was established in 1979 when the Columbia Region Association of Governments combined with the Metropolitan Service District. Initial Metro functions included solid waste management, transportation planning, zoo management, and oversight of the region’s urban growth boundary. ²⁰⁰ With its elected governing body, the Metro Council, Metro became the only elected regional government in the nation and the only regional government organized under a home-rule charter approved by the voters. ²⁰¹

The council has the ability to adopt enforceable ordinances governing land use and growth management within its jurisdiction, defined as the territory within the Metropolitan Service District and its annexes. Ordinances primarily address matters of the regional framework plan, such as

• regional transportation and mass transit systems;
• management and amendment of the urban growth boundary;
• protection of lands outside the urban growth boundary for natural resource, future urban, or other uses;
• housing densities;
• urban design and settlement patterns;
• parks, open spaces, and recreational facilities;
• water sources and storage;
• coordination of growth management and land use planning policies with those of Clark County, Washington;
• planning responsibilities mandated by state law. ²⁰²

The charter requires each city and county within Metro’s jurisdiction to make local land use decisions consistent with the regional framework plan until its comprehensive plan has been determined to be consistent with the regional framework plan. The council can require changes in local land use standards and procedures if changes are necessary to remedy a pattern or practice of decision making inconsistent with the regional framework plan. ²⁰³

Metro is responsible for establishing and maintaining the state-mandated urban growth boundary (UGB) for the Portland region. Revisions to Metro’s UGB currently meet 20-year demand projections. State laws require local governments to prepare comprehensive land use plans. Changes to zoning must comply with local comprehensive plans, Metro statutes and plans, statewide plans, and federal mandates.

PLANS AND POLICIES

Portland’s Metro 2040 Growth Concept, adopted in 1995, defines regional growth and development in the Portland metropolitan region. The plan was adopted in the region 2040 planning and public involvement process in December 1995 with the unanimous endorsement of local government partners. Policies in the 2040 Growth Concept encourage

• efficient use of land;
• protection of farmland and natural areas;
• balanced transportation systems;
• a healthy economy;
• diverse housing options;
• mixed-use urban centers;
• interrelated types of centers; 204
• open spaces.

Metro’s Centers Program is designed to further the 2040 Growth Concept by creating compact, mixed-use areas of high-density housing, employment, and retail that are pedestrian oriented and well served by public transportation and roads. Adopted by the Metro Council in December 2002 as part of the urban growth boundary expansion decision, this program is a major part of Metro’s 2040 Growth Concept, which defines regional growth and development in the Portland metropolitan region through the year 2040. On November 6, 2003, the Metro Council approved a resolution naming Beaverton as the pilot for the Centers Program. The council allocated $100,000 in funding toward consulting and local government efforts toward developing the Beaverton strategy.

In creating the 2040 Growth Concept, planners studied mixed-use areas and distinguished them by size, market area, and density. The areas were subsequently categorized as the central city, regional centers, town centers, station communities, or main streets.

The Regional Framework Plan, adopted in 1997 and amended in 2005, contains all of Metro’s adopted land use planning policies and requirements that direct the region’s growth. Metro’s charter directs it to address a comprehensive list of issues, including mass transit, management of the UGB, urban design, open space, and housing densities. ²⁰⁵

Benchmarks are formulated for key indicators to gauge advancement toward the goals set forth in Metro plans and in the 2040 Growth Concept. Every two years, Metro gathers and analyzes data to determine the level of progress toward the goals. In recent years, the reports have included annual data updates. However, the performance measures reports avoid specific policy suggestions. The Metro Policy Advisory Committee and other committees use the reports to inform policy development and adjust the regional plans based on actual performance. These adjustments may include changes to funding requirements and the development of specific programs. ²⁰⁶

Another one of Metro Council’s efforts to promote responsible land use planning is its New Look at Regional Choices policy. New Look is the Metro Council’s collaborative effort to find new, creative ways to absorb the arrival of a million new residents in this region in the next 25 years while preserving the values of its long-term vision. It is a program and policy visioning process rather than a single program. The Metro Council works with leaders and practitioners from a broad cross-section of businesses, governments, and other interests to identify new growth management tools, potentially recommend changes to state law and local policies, and pursue financial investment strategies, all in order to make its desired vision for how the region should grow.

In general, the New Look is divided into three broad policy categories:

1. Community Investment: Steering growth into existing commercial areas and promoting vibrant mixed-use centers that use land most efficiently and provide more housing and transportation options for residents.
2. The Shape of the Region: Managing expansion of the urban growth boundary in a way that protects valuable agricultural land, but also allows for responsible growth in outlying areas.
3. The Regional Transportation Plan: Updating the plan to make it financially realistic and to support the region’s growth management values.

Information on programs is paraphrased and excerpted from documents available on the Portland Metro website, http://www.metro-region.org/ .

PROGRAMS

Table 13 Portland Metro Programs Checklist

^Compact Transit-Oriented Jobs–Housing ^{Adequate Housing} Balanced Travel

FINDINGS

Plans, policies, and programs managed by Portland Metro have offered tools to local jurisdictions, have provided funding for planning work, and have allocated monies to capital projects. While Metro used to closely monitor activities in the past, they have now moved away from the regulation of local governments.

Twenty-six programs have been funded as part of the TOD program since 1998. There has not been any agency-led research or evaluation of the program’s impact on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and transit ridership. However, a case study of the Merrick TOD by Professor Jennifer Dill of Portland State University found that the project altered travel behavior. The study concluded that 29 percent of residents switched from private vehicle travel to another mode. Over 75 percent of the residents moved from outside of the city, indicating the generation of new transit riders and the support of higher densities and mixed land use in the Portland center.

The grants provided by the TOD program have ranged from $30,000 to $2 million. The land acquisition practices of TriMet, the transit agency for the three-county Portland region, also contribute to the TOD program. When assembling land for rail projects, TriMet often negotiates to obtain additional adjacent lots. Later it partners with Metro to plan these lots as joint developments.

The Centers Program is relatively small, reflecting Metro’s comprehensive approach to growth management. Conceived as an integral part UGB management, it recognizes the need to collaborate with local authorities to ensure infrastructure concurrency and to understand the broader economic trends that impact growth. As this is a pilot program, its success in furthering the 2040 Growth Concept is yet to be seen.

While the 2000 Regional Transportation Plan was the first regional, multimodal planning document linking transportation investment to comprehensive land use planning, the 2040 Growth Concept, released in 1995, was the document that first encouraged land use coordination and strengthened ties between land use planning and transportation facility planning.

The principal barrier to the full development of Metro’s programs has been funding. Often agency planners have assumed funding levels that have not materialized, leading to problems.

For example, lack of funding has proven to be a constraint to the Centers Program. Similarly, the TOD program has helped underwrite projects, but has had very limited funding.

These programs are likely to continue indefinitely. Currently, program funding has been secured for the next six years, although the RTP considers a 20-year horizon, and efforts will be made to set up funding for the future. At this time, TOD program funding comes from federal flexible funding such as CMAQ and STP.

PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
(SEATTLE, WASHINGTON REGION)

BACKGROUND

The Puget Sound region of Washington comprises the four counties of King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish. Since 1990, population and employment have increased throughout the region. The exception to this trend can be found in Kitsap County, which lost 1 percent of the region’s employment from 1990 to 2000 but nevertheless received 9 percent of the region’s population growth during that period. King County, which includes the state’s largest city, Seattle, has received the majority of the region’s recent growth, receiving 75 percent of the region’s employment growth between 1990 and 2000, and 38 percent of the population growth. Along with this population growth, traffic congestion on the region’s roadways has risen steadily. ²⁰⁷ Increases in residential and economic activity link closely to growing traffic concerns. These concerns have played a large role in improving growth management in Washington at both the regional and state levels.

In 1990, the Washington State Legislature agreed that “uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack of common goals ... pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by the residents of this state. It is in the public interest that citizens, communities, local governments, and the private sector cooperate and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning.” This is the foundation for the Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990. ²⁰⁸

The key elements of regional planning at the state level in Washington are

• state growth goals;
• transportation and land use concurrency requirement;
• urban growth boundaries.

The seeds of the Growth Management Act (GMA) can be traced back to 1987, when the speaker of the house was stuck in traffic. He, like many residents in Washington, watched the quality of life diminishing because of increased traffic congestion, urban sprawl, and the loss of open space. Some counties experienced increased population growth of up to 38 percent from 1980 to 1990, according to Growth Management Services. In counties within the Puget Sound area, King County saw a 19 percent increase, Kitsap 29 percent, Pierce 21 percent, and Snohomish 39 percent. In 1991, the legislature passed amendments on how the Growth Management Act would be implemented. In 1992, the governor appointed the first growth management hearing board members.

One of the key features of Washington’s Growth Management Act is the emphasis on coordinated and consistent planning among jurisdictions. The act requires coordination and consistency among planning efforts where there are common borders or related regional issues.

The act also requires countywide and multicounty planning policies to serve as a framework for ensuring consistency among local comprehensive plans. In addition, Regional Transportation Planning Organization legislation, which was adopted with the Growth Management Act, mandates that regional agencies certify that the transportation elements in local comprehensive plans are consistent with regional transportation plans. The Puget Sound Regional Council’s (PSRC) Framework Plan for regional planning also directs the agency to work with local, state, transit and other regional planning agencies to ensure that planning efforts are coordinated.

In addition to state-level regional planning, the PSRC coordinates planning among King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties, including most of the cities they contain as well as the Muckleshoot and Suquamish tribes. Of the 83 cities in the region, 72 are members of the PSRC. ²⁰⁹

Regionally, a general assembly and an executive board govern the PSRC. The general assembly is composed of all members, and each has a vote on major regional decisions. The 32 members of the executive board are appointed by PSRC’s membership to ensure full representation. A transportation policy board and a growth management policy board both make recommendations to the executive board.

The PSRC is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Puget Sound as well as the Regional Transportation Planning Organization under state law. The PSRC has multicounty planning policies that guide local comprehensive plans. PSRC does not review local transit plans; transit agencies are not subject to the Growth Management Act plan review requirements. They do have a certification-of-consistency review under state law for Sound Transit, the regional high-capacity transit agency. Each year the regional council is responsible for distributing approximately $160 million of federal transportation dollars to regions. ²¹⁰

PLANS AND POLICIES

The Growth Management Act requires all cities and counties in the state to

• designate and protect wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and other ecologically critical areas;
• designate farmlands, forest lands, and other natural resource areas;
• determine that new residential subdivisions have appropriate provisions for public services and facilities. ²¹¹

The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires counties to create and submit a comprehensive plan that designates an urban growth boundary if the county has a population of 50,000 or more and the population increased by at least 10 percent in the previous 10 years, or the county has a population of less than 50,000 and the population increased at least 20 percent in the last 10 years. Other communities can chose to comply. All cities that comply with the GMA can levy a 0.5 percent real estate excise tax, which can be used to fund infrastructure contained in the comprehensive plan’s capital improvement projects. Each municipality must have a comprehensive plan with six elements (land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities, transportation, and economic development) that conforms to the countywide comprehensive plan. Regional Transportation Plans have to address a number of land use elements, including development patterns that promote pedestrian and nonmotorized transportation, density, mixed-use development, development corridors and urban design that support high-capacity transit, and economic activity areas.

All counties that are subject to the Growth Management Act are required to identify an urban growth area in consultation with municipalities. These areas are to accommodate 20 years of growth, based on projections provided by the Washington State Office of Financial Management. Urban growth area designations are to be reviewed every 10 years. ²¹² No annexations are allowed beyond designated growth areas. The creation of these growth areas marked a breakthrough, changing the way business is done in the region.

In 1997, the Washington State Legislature adopted the Buildable Lands Amendment to the Growth Management Act. The amendment requires the six most populated western Washington counties and their cities to determine the amount of land suitable for urban development, and evaluate its capacity for growth, using a five-year time frame. ²¹³ King County and the other five counties first had to report findings to the state by 2002 and every five years thereafter. Within their reports, they had to provide remedial measures to address shortfalls in density and capacity.

The state provided $4.5 million in grants to local governments for buildable lands work from 1997 to 2000. All state funding was eliminated as of June 30, 2002, but the buildable lands requirements for the six counties remain. According to regional planners, the program has been successful at the county level but not at the regional level. Builders look for redevelopment opportunities, so part of the equation is infill development.

The Growth Management Act sets 14 statewide planning goals and allows local governments flexibility in achieving the goals. The 14 goals are to

1. encourage development in urban areas where public facilities and services exist or can be efficiently provided;
2. reduce urban sprawl;
3. encourage efficient, multimodal transportation systems;
4. provide affordable housing for citizens of all income levels, promote a variety of housing densities and types, and preserve the existing housing stock;
5. promote economic opportunity consistent with the capacities of the state’s natural resources and public services and facilities;
6. respect private property rights;
7. provide timely, fair, and predictable permit review processes;
8. conserve and enhance natural resources;
9. retain open space, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and provide recreational opportunities;
10. protect the environment and enhance the state’s high quality of life;
11. encourage citizen participation in the planning process and ensure coordination among jurisdictions;
12. ensure that public facilities and services are adequate;
13. preserve historic and archaeological resources;
14. provide consistency between shoreline management and growth management. ²¹⁴

Throughout the development of comprehensive plans is an extensive public process. Public participation is critical and enables local jurisdictions to develop comprehensive plans that are a truer reflection of their communities. As counties, cities, and regional planning organizations must work together to ensure consistency with each other, they are informed of issues that cross jurisdictional boundaries. Even though the state requires counties to provide 20-year growth management plans and set urban growth boundaries, the state does not approve plans. However, the Growth Management Services division of the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development assists counties and cities in designing growth management programs. It also provides many forms of technical and financial assistance for cities and counties planning under the Growth Management Act, helping them to fulfill necessary requirements such as supplying minimum guidelines for resource lands and critical areas and providing procedural criteria. In addition, cities and counties send draft versions of plans and policies to the Community, Trade, and Economic Development department and other state agencies (such as the DOT) for comment. In the Puget Sound region (King, Pierce, Kitsap, and Snohomish counties), the Puget Sound Regional Council reviews draft plans and policies as part of an interlocal agreement. It can only review the plans and make recommendations.

The Growth Management Hearings Boards act as the judicial arm of the Growth Management Act. They review allegations that a city, county, or state agency has not complied with the goals and requirements of the Growth Management Act or related provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the State Environmental Policy Act. ²¹⁵

VISION 2020 is the regional growth, transportation, and economic development strategy that calls for preserving and developing compact communities, redeveloping urban transportation corridors, and directing employment and housing growth into centers that support walking, biking, and transit use. Adopted in 1990 and updated in 1995, VISION 2020 contains policies and strategies that address the following key components: (1) urban growth areas; (2) contiguous and orderly development; (3) regional capital facilities; (4) housing; (5) rural areas;

(6) open space, resource protection, and critical areas; (7) economics; and (8) transportation. ²¹⁶

To better coordinate land use and transportation, VISION 2020 designated twenty-one regional growth centers and eight manufacturing/industrial centers in the region. These growth centers include both older neighborhoods and newer developments. The regional growth centers are around 730 acres or 1.14 square miles, though some are smaller. ²¹⁷ The number of designated regional growth centers in the Puget Sound area is now up to 26.

Destination 2030 is the transportation plan for VISION 2020 and is the region’s strategy for addressing transportation issues. Destination 2030 strongly emphasizes the link between land use and transportation. The regional centers laid out in VISION 2020 were also encouraged to implement ten physical design guidelines to promote “people-oriented” development. ²¹⁸

PROGRAMS

Table 14 PSRC Programs Checklist

^Compact Transit-Oriented Jobs–Housing ^{Adequate Housing} Balanced Travel

FINDINGS

While the PSRC does not directly regulate local areas, it does seek to encourage sound planning through regional guidance. For example, it has developed and tested some model ordinances that local jurisdictions can adopt or modify to encourage smart growth and strengthen linkages between transportation and land use planning.

In addition, under growth management legislation introduced by the State of Washington, the PSRC is charged with reviewing local planning provisions, such as the establishment of land use (density, mixed uses) and transportation criteria. It regularly takes action to confirm if a local plan complies with state and regional planning provisions. Of course, this applies only to those local jurisdictions that have formerly applied for funding as part of one of the PSRC’s programs.

In general, these programs were initially created to address anticipated growth in population, jobs, and travel in the Puget Sound area. Institutionally, they were created in direct response to federal (TEA) and state (Washington State Growth Management Act) provisions. The latter was initially introduced in 1990 and is amended regularly. These regulations are primarily concerned with growth management and environmental protection as it relates, in this case, to the metropolitan region.

The principal barrier to the success of these efforts has been funding. Despite a high degree of regional concurrence on principal issues and program acceptance, many areas find it difficult to achieve everything, largely due to financial constraints. In addition, the local tax structure makes it somewhat difficult to capture revenues that can be invested in the programs.

The PSRC is currently restructuring its methodology for evaluating programs, hoping to incorporate ideas into the new VISION document. A series of regional monitoring reports have attempted to determine if programs are proceeding as expected. However, it is felt that these reports have looked at regionwide trends and have not directly measured program impacts. The new VISION update will introduce a monitoring and measurement program that measures inputs against desirable results (for example, VMT). The next steps may be to determine the impacts that were attributable to particular strategies.

At present, the VISION 2020 is being updated and will evolve into the new VISION 2040 document. PSRC is in the process of defining numerous possible program actions in such areas as environment, monitoring, and the economy. Two new transportation-related areas of action involve growth and pricing. In the first case, the PSRC is proposing a numeric growth strategy aimed at quantifying the magnitude and distribution of population and employment growth. This represents a commitment to the growth strategy, that is, strengthening regional guidance and setting a pattern for growth.

In the area of pricing, the PSRC hopes to implement both standard tolls and time-of-day charging. The former would control traffic more efficiently on major bridges in the area, while the latter would impose a toll on vehicle users for use of the roadway, charging them for some of the real costs imposed on the system.

SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
(SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA REGION)

BACKGROUND

The Sacramento region comprises the six counties of El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba, as well as 22 cities including the city of Sacramento. Encompassing more than 6,500 square miles and with a 2005 population of 2.1 million, the region is expected to grow by 1.8 million in the next 50 years. ²²⁴ Regional growth management is accorded to the Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG), which is both the federally designated MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) and the regional transportation planning agency for the Sacramento area.

Historically, efforts to coordinate transportation and land use planning in the Sacramento region have been largely unsuccessful. In 1989, SACOG released a regional planning document called Metro Study, which included three alternative scenarios for growth management and transportation infrastructure provisioning. Despite the SACOG Board’s approval of this plan, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) a few years later did not include Metro Study’s recommendations. In its 1995 MTP, SACOG tried to include land use issues but was criticized for its lack of collaboration with local government, among other issues.

In 2000, in efforts to better integrate land use and transportation issues, SACOG funded a regional land use study that resulted in the Blueprint Initiative, a series of community-derived goals and policies that will be incorporated into the 2007 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 2030. Instrumental in the success of this project was SACOG’s Transportation Roundtable, an advisory group that brainstormed and devised goals for the plan. Between 1999 and 2002, the roundtable met 13 times, and has been hailed as the Sacramento region’s first attempt at multistakeholder planning. ²²⁵

PLANS AND POLICIES

The following are the primary planning documents influencing land use and transportation decision making in the Sacramento region:

• Sacramento Region Blueprint: Land Use and Transportation Study—Preferred Scenario (December 2004);
• Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2027 (March 2006) and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program 2007–2009 (July 2006);
• Affordable Housing Compact (2004)

Although the MTP is generally similar to federally mandated Regional Transportation Plans in other regions, Sacramento’s plan contains some interesting measures that may be applicable to other areas. First is the application of federal transportation funding to Blueprint and other smart growth programs throughout the region, connecting land use with transportation issues. Additionally the MTP lays out a set of quantitative indicators that compares vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2006 with a 2027 projection, shown in the table below. In its support for compact development, jobs–housing balance, and VMT reduction, the MTP addresses many goals with which this report is concerned. ²²⁶ The information in the following table came from the 2006 MTP.

Table 15 Key Performance Indicators for the 2006 MTP

Indicators	Year 2005	Year 2027
Vehicle Miles Traveled per Capita	22.3	23.4
Vehicle Trips per Capita	3.2	3.5
Daily Mode Shares	Carpool – 46.5% Transit – 0.9% Bike/Ped – 6.2% SOV – 46.4%	Carpool – 46.9% Transit – 1.1% Bike/Ped – 6.1% SOV – 45.9%
Peak Period Mode Shares	Carpool – 9.8% Transit – 2.6% Bike/Ped – 5.4% SOV – 82.2%	Carpool – 10.9% Transit – 3.0% Bike/Ped – 4.9% SOV – 81.2%
Percent Growth in Vehicle Trips (2005–2027)		33.5%
Percent Growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled (2005–2027)		33.3%

PROGRAMS
Table 16 SACOG Programs Checklist
Programs	Compact Development Patterns	Transit-Oriented Development	Jobs–Housing Balance	Adequate Housing Supply and Affordability	Balanced Travel Mode Split

FINDINGS

As a standard transportation management tool, the MTP seems to be successful in both laying out measurable goals and enforcing their implementation through the allocation of funding. SACOG’s MTP 2027 allocates $1.1 billion in federal transportation funds toward three types of grants: bicycle and pedestrian ($4.9 million awarded for the 2005–2007 funding cycle), community design ($12.1 million awarded for the 2005–2007 funding cycle), and air quality ($4 million awarded for the 2003–2005 funding cycle). SACOG receives further funding from the federal CMAQ program for being in a nonattainment air-quality zone, which has provided SACOG with $44 million through 2027 for transportation demand management (TDM) funding for their rideshare, carpool, and vanpool incentive programs.

The key performance indicators shown above that forecast the implementation of the 2006 MTP goals in the year 2027 appear to prevent any significant increase in vehicle miles traveled per capita—this seems promising. However, while they envision a 33 percent growth in overall VMT due to population increase, the indicators do not reveal that the 2006 MTP will substantially increase the proportion of alternative transit modes used by 2027.

Community Design is SACOG’s primary program for providing incentives to implement the responsible land use consistent with the MTP. SACOG staff reports that past recipients would all like to see the program continue and grow, as they see the program as one of the few means through which they can receive critical funding for Blueprint-style projects. Preliminary discussions have revolved around focusing the funding in three specific areas:

1. Dedicate a higher percentage of the funds (approximately 90 percent) to capital rather than planning projects. The main reason is that capital projects are much more likely to meet federal transportation funding requirements.
2. Segment the current program into at least three separate programs targeted at different situations:
   1. an infill program designed to produce more housing and help create a higher-density, mixed-use environment in transportation corridors (for example, arterials) and nodes (around light rail stations, downtowns in any community in the region);
   2. a program for those jurisdictions that take more than their SACOG-estimated “fair share” of low- and very-low-income units;
   3. a program designed to produce more base sector jobs in communities located far from the urban core to facilitate more self-sustaining communities on the metropolitan fringe.
3. Possibly move toward funding fewer, larger projects, to make a difference at a larger scale.

Although these program enhancements are preliminary, the Community Design Program seems destined to continue and grow. ²³⁹

SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
(SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA REGION)

BACKGROUND

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is both the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the council of governments for San Diego County, as a result of state legislation effective January 1, 2003. ²⁴⁰ Its board is made up of representatives from the local jurisdictions it encompasses, including some mayors, council members, and other regional representatives. ²⁴¹ San Diego County encompasses almost all of the San Diego metropolitan area, with an estimated population of over 2.9 million in 2006. ²⁴² This is one of the fastest-growing regions in the country, with a forecast population of 3.8 million in 2030, a 37 percent increase from the 2000 population.

SANDAG has little legal authority over constituent jurisdictions. As a result, its approach to planning, according Carolina Gregor, a senior regional planner at SANDAG, has been extremely cooperative and inclusive so as to encourage the participation and agreement of as many jurisdictions as possible.

SANDAG is designated by the State of California as the areawide clearinghouse for the review of environmental documents and certain grant applications for projects and programs to be conducted or located in the San Diego region. In this way, SANDAG can ensure that large federally funded projects are not at odds with the Regional Comprehensive Plan. ²⁴³

In November 2004, 67 percent of voters approved a 40-year extension of TransNet, a half-cent sales tax for local transportation projects. TransNet is expected to generate $14 billion for public transit, highway, and local street and roadway improvements.

PLANS AND POLICIES

In 2000, SANDAG adopted the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which explicitly addressed the goals of coordinating land use planning and transportation, demand management, capacity enhancements, and system management. ²⁴⁴ Its forecasts are based on land use plans that jurisdictions have approved. ²⁴⁵ In 2002, SANDAG began the process of developing a Regional Comprehensive Plan to develop a long-term planning framework for the region that all jurisdictions could rally around. It was developed with the participation of all jurisdictions in order to ensure broad agreement regarding its principles. The process of developing the plan took two years, and SANDAG’s Board of Directors adopted the Regional Comprehensive Plan in 2004. ²⁴⁶ The vision statement for the Regional Comprehensive Plan is as follows:

To preserve and enhance the San Diego region’s unique features—its vibrant and culturally-diverse communities, its beaches, deserts, mountains, lagoons, bluffs, and canyons, and its international setting—and promote sustainability, economic prosperity, and an outstanding quality of life for everyone. ²⁴⁷

Among its main strategies are to coordinate land use and transportation, to use transportation and land use plans to guide decisions regarding public and environmental facility investments, and to focus on collaboration and incentives as means for encouraging compliance with the plan. ²⁴⁸

SANDAG is still in the process of develop