MTI Report 01-18
Richard W. Lee
Paul Wack
Judy Deertrack
Scott Duiven
Lisa Wise
a publication of the
Created by Congress in 1991
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2001095734
To order this publication, please contact the following:
The Mineta Transportation Institute
We would like to thank the many persons and organizations that greatly assisted in the preparation of this report. The MTI Project Team consisted of Dr. Richard W. Lee, Principal Investigator, and Paul Wack, Research Associate. Another Mineta Research Associate, Steve Colman provided the first level peer-review. Three highly capable student assistants Scott Duiven, Susan Law, and Lisa Wise were also essential members of the team, taking the lead and otherwise playing key roles on survey administration and analysis, compilation of the plan scoring, and development of survey and scoring as well of the project library and workspace. Judy Deertrack contributed her legal knowledge and skills to the review of the literature.
Many other students contributed to the project: Kris Szlawkowski provided assistance in development of computer databases. The graduate students in Cal Poly's Quantitative Planning Methods course (Winter 2001) assisted with the plan scoring. Chandra Slaven performed the GIS analysis of the Central Valley General Plans' residential densities. Gemma Justimbaste Iturribe contributed to the literature review on the origins of sustainable development. Suzanne Drolet contributed the San Diego case study, and together with Shandell Healy, helped pull the pieces of the report together.
Special appreciation is also due:
The many interviewees as well as the more than 120 planning directors and deputies who completed a web-based survey;
The staff of the Office of Planning and Research, for basis of the survey mailing list;
The Government Documents Department of the Robert E. Kennedy Library at Cal Poly, particularly Melissa Mertogul, for plan collection and other help;
All of our faculty colleagues at Cal Poly for their ideas and inspiration;
Professor Phil Berke, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and Professor Maria Manta Conroy, Ohio State University, for valuable ideas and guidance; and
All who agreed to be interviewed, provided documents, or assisted the case studies in other ways.
And last, but not least, we would like to thank MTI Researh Director Trixie Johnson, Research and Publications Assistant Sonya Cardenas, Graphic Designer Shun Nelson, and Editorial Associates Catherine Frazier, Robyn Whitlock, and Jimmie Young for editing and publishing assistance.
summary of key tasks and findings 1
OVERVIEW: GENERAL PLANS AND
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 7
INTRODUCTION: Description of the Project 7
California's General Plan Process 11
Sustainability and the OPR Guidelines 13
APA Policy Guide on Planning for Sustainability 14
Working definitions of sustainable
transportation planning 18
Scoring General Plan Elements 35
plan collection and selection 35
methodology AND AIMS of the plan scoring 37
Survey of Planning Directors 45
Survey rationale and Method 45
Planning Directors' Comments on
the General Plan, Sustainability,
and Sustainable Transportation 69
THE CITY OF DAVIS CASE STUDY 84
THE SAN FRANCISCO CASE STUDY 106
The City of San Luis Obispo case study 124
the city of santa monica: a brief case study 132
san diego case study: city, county and region 140
Observations and Recommendations 155
Section I: A Review of Supreme Court
and Appellate Court Cases On the Nature
of the General Plan 181
Electronic Mail Survey Invitation,
sent to Planning Directors
(January 2001) 233
Appendix D: Analysis of General Plan Densities, 23 Central Valley Cities and Counties 241
Abbreviations and Acronyms 267
This research project assesses California's General Plan process as a tool for implementing sustainable development, with particular emphasis on transportation systems at the local level, including the relationship of local transportation systems to regional and statewide systems. The emphasis on local transportation follows from the fact that California law requires General Plans, master plans of anticipated future physical development, only for local governments, i.e. California's 58 counties and nearly 500 cities.
The General Plan process is well established in California, and transportation plans (termed circulation elements) have been an essential part of General Plans from the early 20th century, and a legally mandated element since 1955 (OPR, 1998, 9). Sustainable development is a concept that is now 30 years old; it may be summed up in the phrase providing for present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to provide for theirs. As a major consumer of non-renewable resources, and a major contributor to air, water, and noise pollution, transportation clearly poses challenges to sustainability.
Despite the long established history of the General Plan, transportation planning and the sustainability concept, and despite the high level of interrelatedness among these concepts, very few efforts have been made to look at this interrelatedness. In this respect, this is a pioneering work with few precedents to build upon.
summary of key tasks and findings
The work program was divided into several major tasks. The following sections summarize of these tasks and resulting key findings.
Relevant literature was reviewed aimed at reaching an operational definition of "Sustainability," and "Sustainable Transportation." The literature review also documented the nature of the California process, including recent legal developments. The definition provided a foundation for evaluating key General Plan elements, particularly circulation, land use, and housing. The operational definition of sustainable transportation and key principles and criteria for effective General Plan policy are reproduced as Tables ES-1 and ES-2.
Table ES-1. Transportation Sustainability Principles
Principle A: Efficiently and equally serve (be subordinate to) the community's comprehensive economic, environmental and equity goals. Example: All transportation projects shall be designed and implemented to facilitate and assist the County's Growth Management programs.
Principle B: Promote self-sustaining (financing) systems wherein users (benefactors) pay the full costs of system construction, operation and expansion. Example: Downtown parking expansion should be funded by parking charges.
Principle C: Promote and enhance more environmentally-friendly transportation modes (essentially any modes other than single-occupant autos). Example: The city will require comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle networks in all new neighborhoods.
Principle D: Reduce use of and dependence on conventional automobiles. Example: Automobile traffic within the City's historic commercial districts shall be discouraged.
Principle E: Reduce the need for travel in general. Example: To lower travel demand, new housing should incorporate infrastructure and provisions to facilitate telecommuting and other home-based work.
Principle F: Make all transportation modes more environmentally sound, without attempting to change the market share of different modes. Example: Newly-purchased buses and other city vehicles should have lower emissions than the vehicles that they replace.
Table ES-2. Characteristics of Effective General Plan Policies
Task 2: Plan Collection and Scoring
The team, with the assistance of the staff of the California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) Robert E. Kennedy Library, collected over 400 California General Plans and assessed key elements of 26 General Plans. Exemplary plans were sought that have actively incorporated sustainability principles. The focus was upon General Plan policies. The selected plans were assessed using a scoring protocol (a step-wise, rule-based qualitative and quantitative ranking procedure) of polices contained in the circulation, land use, and housing elements.
It was found that most policies focus on promotion of alternative modes. Most policies are articulated only in the circulation or transportation element of the General Plan. The land use elements contain far fewer policies supporting sustainable transportation, and housing elements examined contained almost no such policies. Moreover, most plan policies depend on voluntary rather than mandatory or incentive-based implementation measures.
Task 3: Planning Directors' Survey
The team conducted a survey of local planning directors to determine attitudes toward sustainability and sustainable transportation, and to discover issues, strategies, and policies not yet incorporated into the General Plan documents. This recognizes that California has many jurisdictions still "in process" regarding development of their General Plan.
The survey found that California's planning directors feel that planning for sustainability is very important and that the General Plan and its key elements are potentially important tools for both sustainability and sustainable transportation. Only a small minority believe their current General Plan reflects sustainability principles to a major extent, and only a slightly larger minority believes that their next update will reflect sustainability principles. Planning directors are most supportive of definitions of transportation sustainability that focus on shifts from single-occupant autos to other modes. Conceptualizations of sustainable transport that focus on full-cost pricing of transportation, reducing travel demand, and reducing environmental impacts of all transportation via technology drew significantly less support.
Planners typically feel that their own staffs are major forces for sustainable planning and sustainable transportation. Public education and shifts in public values--together with more research into sustainable transportation--are viewed as necessary prerequisites to full implementation of sustainable transportation systems in California.
Seven case studies were conducted on selected jurisdictions with exemplary or instructive plans and planning processes. These case studies were supplemented by key informant interviews with others familiar with General Plans and transportation. This allowed a greater in-depth review of General Plan effectiveness, and its relationship to sustainability. The case studies indicate a wide variety of experiences with and uses of the General Plan, with the following standing out as consensus lessons:
General Plans take a long time to prepare and take even longer to implement, and thus require a sustained community commitment to achieve success.
Sustainable programs and practices can occur without benefit of a new General Plan with explicit policies and implementation measures.
Sustainable transportation requires a holistic, multi-modal approach to community mobility, including pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and automobile use. In general, reduction in the use of the automobile is necessary.
Sustainable transportation also entails simultaneous inter-related planning for resource conservation, air quality, land use, housing, design, and other community conditions related to mobility.
Sustainable transportation requires a regional approach and cooperation among neighboring communities.
Sustainability in general requires community consensus and inclusion, together with a public education process to build a long
The case studies also indicate that some communities use sustainable principles as a method to control urban growth (getting bigger) over positive development (getting better). There seems no inherent reason why the same policies and practices can't be applied to more development oriented local governments ("smart growth").
The results of these several lines of analysis and inquiry were synthesized into a series of observations, conclusions, and recommendations. Chief among these are: the desirability of encouraging more frequent General Plan updates; the need for greater emphasis on implementation of plan policies; and the need for, and utility of, educational and outreach efforts aimed at enhancing the proliferation of General Plan policies that promote more sustainable transportation systems at the local level.
OVERVIEW: GENERAL PLANS AND SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
INTRODUCTION: Description of the Project
This research project assesses California's General Plan process as a tool for implementing sustainable development, with particular emphasis on transportation systems at the local level, including the relationship of local transportation systems to regional and statewide systems. The emphasis on local transportation follows from the fact that California law requires General Plans--master plans of anticipated future physical development--only for local governments, i.e. California's 58 counties and nearly 500 cities.
The General Plan process is well established in California, and transportation plans (termed circulation elements) have been an essential part of General Plans from the early 20th century, and a legally mandated element since 1955 (OPR, 1998, p. 9). Sustainable development is a concept that is now 30 years old; it may be summed in the phrase providing for present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to provide for theirs. As a major consumer of non-renewable resources, and a major contributor to air, water, and noise pollution, transportation clearly poses challenges to sustainability.
Despite the long established history of the General Plan, transportation planning and the sustainability concept, and despite the high level of interrelatedness among these concepts, very few efforts have been made to look at this interrelatedness. In this respect, this is a pioneering work with few precedents to build upon.
The work program was divided into several major tasks:
Task 1: Relevant literature was reviewed aimed at reaching an operational definition of "sustainability," and "sustainable transportation." The literature review also documented the nature of the California process, including recent legal developments. The definition provided a foundation for evaluating key General Plan elements, particularly circulation, land use, and housing.
Task 2: The team, with the assistance of Cal Poly's Robert E. Kennedy Library, collected over 400 California General Plans and assessed key elements of 26 General Plans. Exemplary plans were sought, including those that have actively incorporated sustainability principles. The study team also searched for model elements and language. The focus was upon General Plan policies. The selected plans were assessed using a scoring protocol (a step-wise, rule-based qualitative and quantitative ranking procedure) of polices contained in the circulation, land use, and housing elements.
Task 3: The team conducted a survey of local planning directors to determine attitudes toward sustainability and sustainable transportation, and to discover issues, strategies, and policies not yet incorporated into the General Plan documents. This recognizes that California has many jurisdictions still "in process" regarding development of their General Plan.
Task 4: Five major and several minor case studies and key informant interviews were conducted on selected jurisdictions with exemplary or instructive plans and planning processes. This allowed a greater in-depth review of General Plan effectiveness and its relationship to sustainability.
Owing to a short timeline of only seven months, these tasks were not strictly sequential, though the tasks were begun in the order listed. The remainder of the project entailed devising model guidelines and recommendations for practices that can enhance the General Plan process as a vehicle for transportation sustainability.
This chapter summarizes key documents and findings from the literature review on four related areas: sustainability; General Plans; plan quality and effectiveness; and sustainability and transportation. The overall goal was to operationally define sustainability and sustainable transportation.
This introductory chapter is not the full literature review, which is contained in Chapter Six. Instead, this chapter concentrates on the definition of sustainability in terms of General Plan policy approach focusing on sources that are landmarks in the planning field. These key sources are listed in Table 1-1 below by subtopic.
Table 1-1 Key Literature by Topic
These primary sources form the basis for our examination of sustainability and for the criteria used in the General Plan review and scoring. It also provides a theoretical underpinning for survey and case study components of the research.
The aim was not to simply duplicate existing sustainability criteria already published, since these for the most part were not developed with the specifics of the California General Plan process nor transportation planning in mind. Our goal was instead to conduct a critical examination of sustainability definitions and criteria currently extant in the light of the legislatively established California General Plan process; the literature on plan quality and plan implementation; and the literature on sustainability and sustainable transportation.
Sustainability terminology now appears to be inextricably interwoven into mainstream planning, along with newer related (and arguably, subordinate) concepts, such as "smart growth," "New Urbanism," traffic calming, and other planning phenomenon. The planning field has assumed that such design concepts, which typically entail mixed land use, compact growth, and alternative transportation provision, will make significant inroads on alleviating adverse environmental and cultural conditions. Though there is insufficient documentation regarding actual results to convince all observers, there is good reason to assume these assumptions are valid and will be effective over time.
But it is less valid and more dangerous to assume that by placing the "magic words" like "sustainability" in the General Plans of cities and counties, our jurisdictions can reconcile the serious conflicts that now exist between growth and the environment.
The overall study is a close look at the General Plan and its effectiveness as the policy backbone for more sustainable transportation, land use, and planning decisions. But there are larger questions that this study must begin (if only begin) to address: If the General Plan is a visionary statement, will the vision hold against the pressures of unforeseen change? As a policy document, can General Plan policy be written to effectively guide implementation? Can the General Plan cope with transportation needs as they occur at the differing levels of neighborhood, local jurisdiction, region, and state?
This chapter will highlight key literature and authors. It will address how the planning profession looks at sustainability as a concept, both generally and in the transportation field. It will inspect suggested criteria and relate them to policy development. It is the first step toward answering the larger question of how California might adapt the General Plan process to better promote transportation systems that help establish livable and accessible communities in the truly long term.
California's General Plan Process
By statute, California's General Plan functions as the "constitution for all future development" (52 Cal 3d 531, 553, 1990). California law requires each planning jurisdiction to adopt a General Plan "for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which...bears relation to its planning" (GC Section 65300). In addressing physical development, the jurisdiction must consider locations, appropriate mixtures, timing, and extent of land uses and supporting infrastructure (Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Guidelines, 1998, p.12).
To assist local governments in meeting the responsibility, Government Code 65040.2 directs the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to adopt discretionary guidelines. These were last comprehensively updated in 1998. Though they are termed guidelines, the OPR recommendations frequently incorporate provisions of California statutory and case law that are mandatory and strictly construed. The recommendations also incorporate "commonly accepted principles of contemporary planning practice."
There are seven required elements of the General Plan. They are land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open-space, noise, and safety. A jurisdiction can add optional elements. Once adopted, these optional elements have equal legal status to the remainder. This study focuses on the first three, which are described by OPR (1998, p.18) as follows:
The land use element designates the type, intensity, and general distribution of uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open-space, education, public buildings and grounds, waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses.
The circulation element is correlated with the land use element and identifies the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities.
The housing element is a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all segments of the jurisdiction and all economic groups. In addition, it embodies policies for providing adequate housing and includes action programs for that purpose. By statute, the housing element must be updated every five years.
The statutes and OPR Guidelines make much of the need for consistency in the creation of a General Plan. The General Plan and its elements must comprise an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency (GC 65300.5). The elements have equal legal status between them. Consistency is measured between elements and within elements. Both text and diagrams must be consistent.
Constituent Parts: Each element of the General Plan consists of constituent parts that are defined by code. Development policy is addressed in the plan, and is worked out through the transition between objectives, policies, standards, and implementation measures.
Objectives: The highest abstractions are defined by OPR as objectives, which serve as "future goals for the general welfare." Typically objectives are end-state conditions that are at once desirable and measurable: Some commentators (e.g., Kaiser et al, 1995) distinguish intangible goals from more tangible and measurable objectives. "Quiet residential streets" would be a goal under this distinction, whereas specifying a maximum acceptable decibel level for residential areas would be an objective.
Policy: Policy is more specific than an objective. A policy is a commitment toward a particular course of action. It must be clear and unambiguous, leading to specific standards and strategic implementation. "Solid policy is based on solid information. The analysis of data collected during the planning process provides local officials with a knowledge of trends, existing conditions and projections they need to formulate policy" (OPR, 1998, p. 16).
"The City shall not approve plans for downtown parking until an independently conducted market study establishes feasibility."
Standards: Standards set measures that quantify, qualify, and/or rank the abstract terms of objectives and policies. Example: A minimally acceptable peak hour level of service for an arterial street is level of service C.
Implementation Measure: An implementation measure is an action, procedure, program or technique that carries out General Plan policy. In California, each policy must have at least one corresponding implementation measure. Example: The city shall use tax increment financing to pay the costs of replacing old sidewalks (OPR Guidelines, p.16).
In conclusion, the OPR Guidelines and California statutory and case law set out the framework for planning under the General Plan. Regulatory requirements are the bare minimum of what planners must consider when using the General Plan to create communities. State law gives a great deal of responsibility--and allows many options--to localities regarding how they choose to address the complex needs of communities, their transportation infrastructure demands, and natural resource issues.
Sustainability and the OPR Guidelines
The OPR Guidelines have been written to guide cities and counties when they prepare the comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the development of their communities. Though the Guidelines are advisory, the document "is the state's only official document interpreting and explaining California's legal requirements for General Plans" (OPR Guidelines, 1998, p. 8).
"Sustainability," when it is incorporated into a plan, functions as a principle, or the "assumption, fundamental rule or doctrine guiding General Plan policies, proposals, standards and implementation measures" (OPR, 1998, p.15). As such, sustainability is a choice, or series of policy choices, that penetrates the plan orientation. The State of California and OPR do not mandate or suggest any distinct orientation to sustainability.
The OPR Guidelines define sustainable development as follows:
Sustainable development is an integrated, systems approach to development, which attempts to maximize the efficient and effective long-range management of land, community, and resources. Sustainable development principles may be applied to the overall development, specific policies and programs, and/or the implementation of the General Plan.
...its basic principle is to provide for today's needs while ensuring that future generations have the resources available to meet their own needs. To achieve this, sustainable development must balance economic prosperity, social equity, and environmental integrity (OPR, 1996, p.178).
The OPR Guidelines consider the General Plan an excellent vehicle for implementing local sustainable development goals. It suggests that this can be done piecemeal throughout the plan, or through development of overall guidelines in the introduction of the plan. It sets no requirements or recommendations.
In the sustainability discussion, the guidelines define the "New Urbanism," as encompassing principles that emphasize:
...compact development at urban densities; clustered, mixed-use commercial districts; distinct, cohesive neighborhoods with a mixture of residential densities and other compatible land uses; pedestrian scale (including narrow roadways and pedestrian access); urban open-spaces, parks, and civic buildings as community foci; and transit connections (OPR,180).
The OPR discussion of these principles are mentioned because these principles have come to dominate the theoretical orientation of the planning profession regarding sustainability, particularly in the area of transportation.
APA Policy Guide on Planning for Sustainability
This is a landmark document, adopted in April 2000 by the American Planning Association (APA), the primary professional organization for city and regional planners in the United States. It is becoming a standard reference for planners, and contains one of the most comprehensive policy approaches to be found in the planning literature. It is an excellent example of what OPR (1998, p. 15) terms a "generally accepted planning doctrine" in the field. The document focuses upon a global orientation to planning, seeing local decisions within a larger "range of indicators" addressing large-scale degradation of the natural environment. It speaks to the growing gap "...between human consumption and the Earth's capacity to supply those resources and reabsorb resulting wastes."
The APA Policy Guide takes universal problems, links these problems to local decisions, and notes potentially catastrophic effects if current practice remains unchanged. It is a call for fundamental change. Yet the document is effective because its changes do not require a dramatic break from established planning concepts, nor are they outside the jurisdiction of planners.
The report discusses four overall aims of sustainability:
We want to sustain communities as good places to live.
We want to sustain the values of our society--things like individual liberty and democracy.
We want to sustain the biodiversity of the natural environment.
We want to sustain the ability of natural systems to provide the life-supporting "services" that are rarely counted by economists.
The APA Policy Guide plainly identifies the root cause of disruption and resource depletion as "the failure to recognize fundamental limits to the Earth's ability to withstand alterations to its natural systems." Most Americans consume wastefully, and communities use limited resources inefficiently and inequitably. This conclusion is the underpinning to the APA orientation to sustainability. It is a position squarely on the side of environmental systems conservation.
The APA definition of sustainability is standard:
The capability to equitably meet the vital human needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs by preserving and protecting the area's ecosystems and natural resources.
The concept of sustainability describes a condition in which human use of natural resources, required for the continuation of life, is in balance with Nature's ability to replenish them.
Key "Global Indicators" of unsustainable practices are listed: global warming; soil degradation; deforestation; species extinction; declining fisheries; and economic inequity.
These indicators, when monitored at all, are normally monitored on national and international levels. Because of their global scope, it is likely that local planners minimize their importance. Too often, the planning profession focuses upon the processing of near-term development, neglecting more sophisticated growth management techniques that underlie responsible management of the natural resource base and regulation of the economies dependent upon those resources. Local indicators of unsustainable planning practices are targeted as including:
Segregation/unequal opportunity;
Loss of agricultural land and open space;
Depletion and degradation of water resources;
Traffic congestion and air pollution; and
Disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards.
Transportation is on the list, but not at the forefront. The APA then identifies four basic objectives that can be used as a sustainability framework for policy development:
Reduce dependence upon fossil fuels;
Reduce dependence on chemicals;
Reduce dependence on activities that harm life-sustaining ecosystems; and
Meet the hierarchy of present and future human needs fairly and efficiently.
The action recommendations (implementation policies) are built off of this framework, and every policy relates back to one of these four criteria. The report emphasizes two main features of land use practices that have created haphazard and indefensible urban sprawl and unsustainable practices--zoning regulations that separate housing, jobs, and shopping, and low-density development that requires the use of the car. The policy statement is particularly adamant in these areas.
Specific policy recommendations emphasize alternatives to auto use; alternative energy sources; reduced use of chemicals in building materials; water conservation; restoration of brownfields; compact growth; conscious restoration of ecosystems; re-use of by-products and waste. It also incorporates most of the principles we now recognize as "smart growth" or "New Urbanism."
The APA's recommended transportation policy emphasizes:
Reduced dependence upon fossil fuels by reduction in vehicle trips;
Mixed-use developments in compact form;
Enhancement of transportation alternatives to the automobile;
Changes in local street design for pedestrian usage; and,
Street design that emphasizes access between neighborhoods.
The APA also calls for transportation that is affordable for all, and housing that is near employment. All of these policy recommendations correlate well with the principles of the New Urbanism and associated development standards.
In conclusion, the APA Policy is striking for its breadth, and for its uncompromising stand against environmental degradation. Anyone familiar with local planning environments should know the resistance and discomfort these discussions foster when applied to local development issues. APA has the status of a backbone organization, and its publications are a standard source for planning guidelines. It will doubtless help "mainstream" sustainability, particularly environmental sustainability concepts, into the public debate within the planning field. Planners should be less uncomfortable with directly incorporating standards that are purely environmental--something that can currently be controversial because of old, unresolved conflicts between development and environmental advocates.
The APA Policy cannot be said to be complete nor completely new. Despite the grounding in four basic environmental objectives, it might be argued that many of these policies might be found in vision statements of General Plans a generation ago. (See, for example, the discussion of the 1975 Arcata General Plan in Chapter Four.) Policy deals with high-level abstractions; easy to talk about, difficult to implement. Is sustainable transportation planning lacking because we do not have the concept right, or has implementation been the problem? Have we failed to grasp how implementation feeds back into policy and strengthens it? It is possible that a gap between the high and low "ends" of planning is the crux of the issue.
The New Urbanist and anti-sprawl orientation has developed a great following, and not just among design professionals. But while the New Urbanists design objectives are quite distinct from traditional unplanned urban sprawl, implementation is another matter, particularly if legislators and citizens who do not believe in or understand the concepts are the ones who must carry out policy. Vigorous implementation measures are necessary, and educational efforts may be necessary before implementation can occur. Ultimately, it is results that will count, not the sparkle of a well-written policy plan.
The biggest challenge to sustainable transportation planning is that it aims to correct a transportation and land use pattern that took at least century to develop, one with deep historical foundations. We are not starting from scratch. Regardless of how destructive our current system looks, it is there for a reason. It is rooted in attitudes, institutions, laws, customs, and practices that will be hard to correct, despite the best of our intentions. To have widespread impact sustainable transportation planning principles and policies will have to be solid, simple, and compelling. And it will take time. We cannot expect over 500 jurisdictions within California to change overnight. Policy language can have a great impact, but it is only a beginning to a great task.
Working definitions of sustainable
transportation planning
William Baer on General Plan Evaluation Criteria
William Baer published an article in 1997 in the APA Journal that has already become a classic reference on General Plan evaluation.
The article is divided into several sections. The first section is a literature review of the numerous authors who have proposed plan evaluation criteria. The foundation of the General Plan's purpose is challenged. Is it the policy outcome we focus upon in assigning value to plans, or is the plan incidental to the process? This becomes critical in measuring plan outcomes. Is a plan like a blueprint, and if so, must the city look like the blueprint to be considered successful? Is it necessary to establish a correlation between the plan's vision and policies and the actual planning decisions of a community? Does value result from a high correlation? If we plan something, and it happens, does this ensure quality of life? Does it ensure that we initially made the right decision? Or should plans contain a self-corrective mechanism that happens between policy and implementation, particularly considering that community development is a long-range process with many, many interim changes.
Baer mentions that postmodernist social critics often classify plans as symbols rather than planning instruments; rhetoric rather than substance; and that the "public interest" cannot be reconciled or represented through General Plan policy. Is this also true with sustainability, which is another high-order abstraction, with policy conclusions about what makes my life fulfilling as one person within a planning jurisdiction? How do we rate success? How do we judge a good plan? The literature review was partially a process of identifying award-winning plans. Is plan quality a result of a well-funded planning department with writing skills and data to produce excellent documents? Does this ensure that the implementation will create communities of scale, beauty, and sensitivity to its inhabitants and to nature? How do we establish the correlation?
Baer states that a vision plan implies different criteria than a blueprint plan. Perhaps the goal of a blueprint is mapping capability. What land use decisions are made may matter less than the fact that the map is comprehensive and accurate, and that the land use and other geographic classifications are consistent with General Plan policy.
Baer's fundamental question about plans is: are we concerned with process or substance? Should evaluators look for integrity and comprehensiveness in the document, or be less concerned with its structure, and more concerned with its substance regardless of how imperfectly it is set forth? Evaluators often use checklists. This helps quantify the evaluation. The more sustainability tools in the plan the better the score. This is problematic without knowledge of implementation or a planning context that ensures tools are used appropriately and wisely.
Baer quotes Altshuler (1965): "Planning is more important than any plan." Excellence in producing a General Plan on sustainability may be far less important than whether it accurately reflects the needs of a community or whether it accurately assesses the natural social and economic resource constraints and carrying capacity of the jurisdiction. Plans can be evaluated for their internal symmetry and consistency. It does not ensure the facts are correct. OPR states that policy should be an outcome of good data collection. Does a review of the General Plan tell us anything about the reliability of that data collection? In fact, California's overwhelming emphasis on consistency, accuracy, and relevance are understated assumptions that good data makes good policy.
Baer sets out general criteria for plan assessment. The titles (below) are followed by lists of criteria that implement their intent:
Adequacy of context - plans are not self-evident; explain the context to the public.
Rational model considerations - show the underlying theory and its criteria in the plan.
Procedural validity - what went on in making the plan; who was involved?
Adequacy of scope - the plan orientation to other jurisdictions and the world.
Guidance for implementation - most plans do something. What implementation tools?
Approach, data, and methodology - where did the data come from; how was it used?
Baer's criteria was adapted and simplified to form the structural approach to sustainability and appropriate evaluation criteria. The substantive policies for sustainability in APA and other planning sources were also considered in fashioning an innovative approach at looking at the General Plan. Baer is a good reminder not to be too sacrosanct with General Plan language and structure. Plan quality is an elusive concept. It may be language based, or the evaluation criteria may come from unanticipated realms. His article encourages a creative approach to General Plans.
Mazmanian and Sabatier, Implementation and Public Policy, 1983
This work takes a comprehensive approach to policy formation and effective implementation. The purpose of the book was to identify the primary factors contributing to successful public policy implementation. Mazmanian and Sabatier boiled their analysis down to a "checklist" to aid in creating effective policy (pp. 41-42). The checklist recommends the following conditions:
Policies that are clear and consistent.
Policies that are based in theory and identify the key variables used in policy development. Agencies should be given the authority to achieve the prescribed goals.
Implementation efforts are assigned to a regulating agency that has the capacity to carry out the mandate--including financial resources and adequate staff support.
Implementation efforts are assigned to a regulating agency that has adequate managerial skills.
The program enjoys political support throughout the implementation process and is not subject to legal challenge.
The program remains a priority for the agency, politicians, and the public and is not compromised due to a change in priorities.
These guidelines provide an excellent reference source for the plan evaluation task. Beyond this, they offer direction for strengthening planning policy development, preparing a quality General Plan, and increasing the likelihood of effective implementation.
Berke and Manta Conroy, "Are We Planning for Sustainable Development?"
Berke and Manta Conroy's article sets forth a set of six principles that define and operationalize the concept of sustainable development. Using these six principles, a sample of 30 comprehensive plans were evaluated to determine how well their policies support sustainable development.
They started with the definition of sustainability from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (1987): "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
The authors viewed this definition as fairly abstract, and went further to operationalize the definition. They reviewed the writings of various authors, such as Campbell; Beatley and Manning; Kaiser; Mega; Neuman and others, many of which may be found in the Chapter Six literature review. Incorporating principles from these authors, Berke and Manta Conroy developed a "working definition" that at first glance appears over-vast.
However, at the point they develop criteria, the definition seems to hold firm: "Sustainable development is a dynamic process in which communities anticipate and accommodate the needs of current and future generations in ways that reproduce and balance local social, economic, and ecological systems, and link local actions to global concerns."
Their six principles used in evaluating the General Plans for sustainability criteria were developed from this definition. Like the APA Guidelines, it can be complimented for its breadth, and the authors' courage in advocating directly for an end to environmental degradation. It is a constraint-based approach, which is welcome within a field where setting identifiable constraints to development in intangible areas can be difficult:
Harmony with nature - mimic ecosystem processes.
Livable built environments - physical spaces adapted to the desired activities of inhabitants.
Place-based economy - operating within natural system limits without deterioration (this refers to both economic and natural systems).
Equity - equitable access to social and economic resources.
Responsible regionalism - taking responsibility for how we impact other communities.
Importantly, Berke and Manta Conroy aim to establish a principled orientation to the planning process. The OPR Guidelines state that principles "underlie the process of developing the plan but seldom need to be explicitly stated in the plan itself. They can act as a powerful impetus to policy formation." The OPR Guidelines remark upon how such planning principles may be introduced as a "statement of intent" or a series of underlying planning criteria (such as Berke and Manta Conroy's six principles, above), or they can operate as an unspoken and unseen influence. The developers of the plan may operate from principles without calling them by name. Language and planning orientations can be so charged with stereotyped meaning that "naming" the objective is actually avoided.
Berke and Manta Conroy's study grouped plans according to how the principles were introduced into the General Plan. There were two groups of plans in their study: those that explicitly used sustainable development as an organizing concept for plan preparation; and those that did not, but were selected because they were award-winning, high-quality plans.
The study found no statistically significant difference in their quality rankings when they scored the plans, which means actually "naming" sustainability and its underlying principles may not be as important as ensuring the principles are worked out through policy. The conclusion? "Use of the `sustainable development concept' as an organizing framework appears to have no effect on how well sustainability principles are integrated in the policies of plans."
Berke and Manta Conroy also asked "do plans provide balanced support of sustainable development?" Here balance is defined as addressing all six of their principle criteria. The degree of balance was itself an important criterion in their judgment of overall plan quality.
The sampled plans were found to most strongly advance the livable built environment principle, and those aspects that encourage strong economic growth. The plans contained integrated strategies for livable communities, but neglected the harder issues of ecological integrity, polluters' pay, and responsible regionalism.
These findings are significant. They establish that even sustainability plans may fit the "old shoe" of comprehensive General Planning as outlined as early as 1964 by Kent, and more recently by Kaiser et al (1995). Berke and Manta Conroy also conclude that plan policies still overwhelmingly rely on a conventional land use and humanistic focus. Establishing better balance between the principles, rather than over reliance on those that fit human "amenity needs" is still a problem.
Other Attempts to Define Sustainable Planning Principles
Duiven (2001) examines sustainable planning principles from Berke and Manta Conroy as well as several other studies and planning efforts, and then develops his own (Table 1.2). For Duiven, the process of sustainable planning must employ multiple techniques, disciplines, and outlooks:
A successful approach will require both substantive strategies that promote sustainability through creative technical, architectural, and institutional solutions and procedural strategies that promote involvement while managing and resolving conflict. Progress will require an integrated approach in which lasting solutions are the result of the application of several resolution strategies applied to any given problem. Planners must be truly interdisciplinary in their approach to finding solutions. It is essential to view each strategic area within the context of the goals of environment, economy, and equity (Duiven, p. 19).
Table 1-2 Comparison of Principles of Sustainability.
|
Use resources efficiently, eliminate pollution, reduce wastes |
||
|
Implement local government fiscal reforms and revenue sharing |
||
Source: Duiven, 19 (Table 2-1)
From the standpoint of this study, what is notable about all of these statements of sustainable planning principles is the small, and sometimes invisible role assigned to transportation and transportation planning. Very few authors have focused on transportation planning. We now turn to these authors before developing our own set of sustainable transportation planning criteria.
Longtime critics of automobile-oriented cities and automobile-oriented transportation planning, Newman and Kenworthy are best known for their global analysis of how major metropolitan areas of the world vary based on their urban form characteristics and consequent automobile use (Newman and Kenworthy, 1989). While much of this thorough empirical research was well documented and well received, the two Australians were criticized for their implicit assumptions that urban form and transportation choices were subject to planning controls (Gordon and Richardson, 1989). In short, their global analysis was lacking in local prescription.
In Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence (1999) Newman and Kenworthy attempt to set out specific local plan goals and polices for attaining simultaneously the two goals of the book's title (which the authors argue are very closely linked). Local transportation goals are defined as indicators, which permit measurement of relative success (p. 19):
Increase transit, walk/bike and carpooling and decrease sole car use;
Reduce average commute to and from work;
Increase average speed of transit relative to cars;
Increase service kilometers/miles of transit relative to road provision;
Increase cost recovery on transit from fares;
Decrease parking spaces per 1,000 workers in central business district; and
Increase kilometers/miles of separated cycleways.
The authors note: "[t]he problem with indicators...is that they are not always linked to a process that can lead to an improvement in the indicator...They need to be tied into policies and programs" (p. 18).
Newman and Kenworthy devote most of their book to elaborating such policies and programs, but they distill their findings and arguments into five fundamental policies:
Traffic calming - to slow auto traffic and create more urban humane environments better suited to other transportation modes;
Quality transit, bicycling, and walking - to provide genuine options to the car;
Urban villages - to create multinodal centers with mixed, dense land use that reduce the need to travel and that are linked to good transit;
Growth management - to prevent urban sprawl and redirect development into urban villages; and
Taxing transportation better - to cover external costs and to use the revenues to help build a sustainable city based on the previous policies (p. 144).
Though broad, the scope of these policies is well within the ambit of California's General Plan process.
Todd Litman's "Reinventing Transportation"
Litman begins this 1999 article with two telling statements: "A sustainable economy is sensitive to economic, social and environmental constraints," and "Sustainable transportation planning begins with a community's strategic plan, which individual transportation decisions must support. It requires policies that reward individuals, agencies and communities" [Emphasis added].
For Litman, transportation is a scarce and costly service to provide, and transportation policy must be built upon "constraints." This is largely antithetical to the conventional method of building capacity to meet demand, and then providing facilities to users for free or with substantial subsidy. Litman also boldly states a truism found in every textbook on transportation, namely that most transportation is an intermediate means to an end, and not a good in itself. Litman forcefully asserts that transportation must be at the service of other elements of a community's plan, which he identifies as land use, housing, noise, and conservation (air pollution). It is, in a word, subservient.
Litman is reacting to the fact that community transportation is too often conceptualized as the "infrastructure grid" that goes in first to support development later. It is often designed in isolation from other element policies. The field of transportation planning has been criticized for its technicality and isolation; in particular, from the land use and housing plan elements, whose policies are highly interactive with transportation.
Litman sharply distinguishes conventional transportation from sustainable transportation (Table 1-3). For Litman, conventional planning defines and measures transportation primarily in terms of vehicle travel. It maximizes road and parking capacity to meet predicted traffic demand.
Sustainable transportation planning, by contrast, defines and measures transportation in terms of access; the ability of citizens in a community to access needs and wants. It uses economic analysis to determine optimal policies and investments based upon true market analysis, considering all externalities--including frequently overlooked environmental and social needs--in the cost/benefit assessment of transportation projects.
Table 1-3 Conventional vs. Sustainable Transportation Planning
Source: Litman, 1999, p.11 (Table 1)
Litman emphasizes principles of transportation planning that are also set forth in APA Sustainability Policy, and many also echo principles of the New Urbanism. In that regard, they are not new. Current theory suggests that the proper planning context for transportation is compact growth, mixed-use development, higher densities around transportation nodes and corridors, and streets/thoroughfares that do not isolate residential areas from services and employment. Reducing speed and vehicle use in neighborhoods is a goal. Developing alternative transit is a goal. Cutting down vehicle usage is a major priority, and balancing the system with alternative transportation is the goal. The method is to re-work planning priorities so that non-vehicular transit modes can fairly become competitive for transportation funds.
Litman addresses "market distortion" and "bias" as fundamental distortions in the planning field. He gives a list of "biased transportation terms," and works to neutralize the language so that transportation policy is not unintentionally biased toward motor vehicle usage. Via such market distortion, he argues convincingly that we are overbuilding our transportation routes because our pricing for road and access is biased downward. Conventional transportation planning also assumes that all vehicle transportation time is equally valuable, when in fact, the value of travel time is known to vary with the traveler and the purpose of the trip. Litman also recognizes transportation policy decisions as having land use impacts that often far outweigh their direct transportation effects.
Litman's vision of sustainable transportation planning ranks as the best articulated and most operational. Litman's principles provide firm theoretical footings for the transportation criteria for plan evaluation. Perhaps the most relevant principle contained in this and other essays by Litman is his principle that individual transportation decisions, and the policies that guide decisions, should be subordinate to a community's strategic vision of the type of community it wants to become.
The California Air Resources Board's 1995 report Transportation-Related Land Use Strategies to Minimize Motor Vehicle Emissions does not define sustainability. It was, however explicitly researched and written to assist "...a city or county that wants to begin moving in the direction of providing multiple transportation options" (ARB, 1995, 7-2), a direction that equates to important aspects of transportation sustainability. The unstated assumption is that sustainbility begins with moving beyond auto dominated planning, and creating a policy framework which supports alternative transportation.
Chapter 7 of the ARB document discusses implementation approaches to the General Plan. This chapter contains a matrix that cross-correlates implementation tools with "priority policies" that promote lower dependence on cars, an important aspect of sustainability.
Its checklist of implementation tools is familiar and reiterates New Urbanism standards: provide pedestrian facilities, increase density near transportation corridors, encourage mixed use, encourage infill and densification, develop concentrated activity centers, develop interconnected roadways, and provide strategic parking facilities. The matrix is quite comprehensive, and a helpful tool for linking policy and implementation. Relevant portions of this matrix are reproduced in Appendix A as Table A-1.
Sustainability is now relatively well, if simply, defined in the planning field. This simplicity often borders on vagueness, particularly regarding transportation; however, there is no great controversy over basic definitions. There is some concern that we have become complacent in using new terms, which simply re-label old processes without making the all-important step to implementation.
The other concern is the reliance on the New Urbanism as the foundation for sustainability. These concepts appear constructive, but not much implemented. There is a shortage of monitoring and data on whether the assumptions of higher density, compact growth, and the resultant trade-offs are workable in practice.
The literature review might be expanded, given more time. One question to pursue is whether planning has the technical capability to pursue the subtle interrelationships between planning phenomena. We are pursuing a delicate balance between elements of our society that have been in sharp conflict, particularly regarding appropriate use of natural resources in a growth-oriented economy. Individual and organizational behavior has consistently resisted principles of equity and conservation.
The literature of General Plans, sustainability, and sustainable transport are streams of varying breadth and depth that have only recently begun to intermingle. The challenge for the research was to develop General Plan criteria that will resolve conflict rather than augment it, while lending tangibility to sustainable transportation.
The consensus as to the major aspects of sustainable transportation gleaned from the team's review of the literature and extensive dialogue and debate regarding these issues is presented in Table 1-4. As can be seen, our definitions are explicitly focused on transportation and local planning, as is evidenced by the illustrative hypothetical plan policies that accompany each principle. In a similar manner Table 1-5 presents the team consensus view of what constitutes an effective plan policy.
Table 1-4 Transportation Sustainability Principles
Principle A: Efficiently and equally serve (be subordinate to) the community's comprehensive economic, environmental and equity goals. Example: All transportation projects shall be designed and implemented to facilitate and assist the County's Growth Management programs.
Principle B: Promote self-sustaining (financing) systems wherein users (benefactors) pay the full costs of system construction, operation and expansion. Example: Downtown parking expansion should be funded by parking charges.
Principle C: Promote and enhance more environmentally-friendly transportation modes (essentially any modes other than single-occupant autos). Example: The city will require comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle networks in all new neighborhoods.
Principle D: Reduce use of and dependence on conventional automobiles. Example: Automobile traffic within the City's historic commercial districts shall be discouraged.
Principle E: Reduce the need for travel in general. Example: To lower travel demand, new housing should incorporate infrastructure and provisions to facilitate telecommuting and other home-based work.
Principle F: Make all transportation modes more environmentally sound, without attempting to change the market share of different modes. Example: Newly-purchased buses and other city vehicles should have lower emissions than the vehicles that they replace.
Table 1-5 Characteristics of Effective General Plan Policies
In an effort to link sustainability theory with planning practice, approximately 400 California General Plans were collected for review and analysis. From this, a sample of 26 was selected for detailed evaluation. The sample selection was not random, but deliberate, focusing on communities that have in some way been recognized for promoting principles of sustainability in literature, have received American Planning Association Awards, or have been noted in the California Planners' Book of Lists (OPR, 1999) as having adopted principles of sustainable development.
For example, both San Jose and Davis were rated highly (in the top 10) in Berke and Manta Conroy's study (2000) for promoting sustainable development principles. Merced received the APA's "Comprehensive Planning Award for a Small Jurisdiction" in 1997, while Arcata received a similar honor from APA's Northern California Chapter in 2001. Petaluma is well known for both its past General Plans as well as for an ongoing four-year, multimillion dollar General Plan update process built around the concept of sustainability. Chico, Davis, Merced, Oakland, San Diego County, San Jose, San Luis Obispo and Santa Monica were noted as jurisdictions having adopted sustainable development policies by 1998 (OPR, 1999, p. 50).
Considerations of geographic diversity and currency also influenced the selection of the plans. The sample provides a diverse spectrum of California communities with current plans. Diversity is reflected in population size, geographic locale, and growth rates. Current plans were defined as no greater than 10 years old, recognizing that the concept of sustainability has only become prevalent in the mainstream of the planning field in recent years. Table 2-1 illustrates some of the general characteristics of the plan documents sampled.
While a serious and strenuous attempt was made to select plans that reflect a broad range of California communities, no sample of 26 can be fully representative of all California communities, though given the nature and goals of this research this does not necessarily preclude limited generalizing of findings. The sample size was limited by the amount of time required to conduct the evaluation protocol outlined below. The scoring via the adopted protocol required approximately eight to twelve hours per plan (i.e., to score the three elements evaluated). The scoring time does not include time spent collecting and initially evaluating the plan documents.
Table 2-1 Plan Sample Breakdown By Geographic Region, Population, And Growth Rates From 1990 To 2000
Northern California includes the San Francisco Bay region and the Sacramento region.
Southern California includes the Los Angeles and San Diego regions.
Inland/Central includes the Sierra Nevada, the Central Valley and the Central Coast.
Population of 100,000 is the break point between large and small jurisdictions used by the California Chapter of the American Planning Association.
Growth rates are calculated from population statistics available on the California Department of Finance Website in January, 2001 using the following formula:
(Jan 2000 population/Jan 1990 population) ^ 0.1
Fast growing is defined as growth that is faster than the statewide rate from 1990 to 2000; slow growing is defined as growth that is slower than the statewide rate from 1990 to 2000.
Growth rates for the counties include incorporated and unincorporated areas.
In sum, the sample represents some of the latest and most highly regarded General Plans from throughout the state. Given what we now know about transportation planning sustainability, to what extent and in what ways is the concept being integrated into California General Plans?
methodology AND AIMS of the plan scoring
The plan scoring focused on General Plan policies. Policies are fairly specific and action-oriented in comparison to goals and objective, but are less site and project-specific than General Plan programs component, enhancing their transferability to other communities.
The General Plan elements selected for detailed examination were the circulation, land use, and housing elements. All of these are mandatory elements. These elements typically make up the bulk of the General Plan, and the focus of these three elements is on transportation or the built environment that directly creates and affects travel demand. By contrast the other required elements (open space, conservation, noise and safety) deal with transportation more indirectly, though of course transportation is the most prominent source of noise impacts in a community.
A method for evaluating the extent to which plan policies promote sustainable development principles was devised. The plan evaluation protocol that was developed entailed a three-step analysis of each transportation-related policy statement.
Step 1. Each policy was classified based on the sustainable transportation principles promoted by the policy (see Table 1-3 above). The principle was identified primarily based on language of the policy itself, plus any directly referenced supporting text elsewhere in the plan.
More than one principle was coded only if the policy equally supports more than one principle. If a policy did not promote any principle it was coded "None Applicable" and no further analysis was made.
Step 2. The type of implementation technique stipulated by each policy was identified. Three categories of implementation technique were recognized:
Voluntary, suggested or discretionary implementation - Policies containing keywords such as "encourage," "consider," "intend" or "should."
Voluntary implementation, but with incentives, e.g. financial incentives, density bonuses, and similar measures.