T Transportation and Land Use There is a growing acceptance in the transportation planning community that the effects of transportation and land use are highly interrelated. Thus, it is vitally important that transportation and land use planning be closely coordinated. TRANSPORTATION 2030: Baltimore Metropolitan Council, Baltimore Maryland, 2004

T Transportation and Land Use Two factors in particular are stretching the transportation system to its limits: 1. the growth of suburban job centers and 2. suburban housing development. The dispersal of the region’s population by increasing suburbanization is a major factor in increased trip-making and traffic congestion. TRANSPORTATION 2030: Baltimore Metropolitan Council, Baltimore Maryland, 2004

Daily Commuters Trips to Work FROM Howard County 51K work in Howard County 79K leave the County every day 26K – Baltimore City/Co 14.5K - Prince Georges 14K - Ann Arundel 13K - Montgomery 12K - DC/No. Virginia US Census 2000 County-To-County Worker Flow Files

Daily Commuters Trips to Work TO Howard County 51K work in Howard County 60K drive to Howard County every day 30K – Baltimore City/Co 14K - Ann Arundel 7.8K -Fredrick & Carol 7K - Prince Georges 5K - Montgomery 1.3K -DC/No. Virginia US Census 2000 County-To-County Worker Flow Files

Congested Roadways – 2000 TRANSPORTATION 2030: Baltimore Metropolitan Council, Baltimore Maryland, 2004

Congested Roadways – 2030 TRANSPORTATION 2030: Baltimore Metropolitan Council, Baltimore Maryland, 2004

T2030 – The Preferred Scenario Growth in Daily VMT and Daily CONGESTED VMT in Baltimore Region TRANSPORTATION 2030: Baltimore Metropolitan Council, Baltimore Maryland, 2004

Public Transportation and Land Use Policy While incentives and improved service can increase mobility by public transit, These improvements by themselves are NOT enough to reduce auto use. People with autos available will choose to drive, unless restrained by an obstacle such as high nonresidential density. The positive features of good transit service have relatively little effect on them. Pushkarev, Boris S., and Jeffrey M. Zupan. Public Transportation and Land Use Policy. Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press, 1977.

Land Use Policies that Reduce Auto Usage Number One Increase Density in Urban Centers million square feet/square mile of gross non- residential floor space will be needed to attract an appreciable proportion of trips by transit. Pushkarev, Boris S., and Jeffrey M. Zupan. Public Transportation and Land Use Policy. Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press, 1977.

Land Use Policies that Reduce Auto Usage Number Two Exceed Auto Capacity in Urban Centers Urban Centers must exceed their capacity for automobiles before riders will switch by choice to transit. (roughly 23,000 vehicles/S.M.) Pushkarev, Boris S., and Jeffrey M. Zupan. Public Transportation and Land Use Policy. Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press, 1977.

Land Use Policies that Reduce Auto Usage Number Three Increase Nearby Residential Density Increasing residential density within 2.5 miles of Urban Centers of 25 million square feet is far more important than increasing density 10 miles away. Pushkarev, Boris S., and Jeffrey M. Zupan. Public Transportation and Land Use Policy. Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press, 1977.

Land Use Policies that Reduce Auto Usage Number Four Building Transit Oriented Developments Concentrating residential density within 2000 feet of a transit station will generate the most transit riders. The same density spread out within one square mile will not. Pushkarev, Boris S., and Jeffrey M. Zupan. Public Transportation and Land Use Policy. Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press, 1977.

Final Thoughts Are we prepared to plan land use with sufficient density to support transit? Can we do that under current locally controlled zoning regimes? Are we prepared to deliberately build an alternative transportation system to the automobile? –BY CHOICE, NOT BY CHANCE