1. Challenges of Integrated Transportation and Land Use Planning Reid Ewing Rutgers University

2. The Challenges New Vision and Goals New Performance Measures Mutually Supportive Land Use Patterns- Transportation Facilities Model Enhancements Implementing Mechanisms

3. New Vision and Goals

4. Florida’s Definition of Sprawl (Rule 9J-5.003, Florida Administrative Code) Leapfrog or Scattered Development Ribbon or Strip Commercial Development Expanses of Low-Density or Single-Use Development

5. Sprawl

8. Sprawl vs. Walk Share to Work

9. Sprawl vs. VMT per Capita

10. Demand for Alternatives Changing American Demographics Desire for Community and Neighborliness Growing Frustration with Congestion Growing Interest in Health and Fitness

11. Too Much Grass to Mow

12. We Are Not European

13. Charlotte Corridors and Wedges Plan

14. It Can Happen

15. New Performance Measures

16. Commonly Used Performance Measures

17. HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL Special Report 209 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD National Research Council Are these really the best measures for quality of transportation service? The “Bible”

18. Old Speed Paradigm -> Roadway LOS

19. New Paradigms

20. TEA-21 Planning Factors Economic Vitality Accessibility and Mobility Options Safety and Security for all Users Environmental Protection, Energy Conservation, and Quality of Life Enhanced Modal Integration and Connectivity Efficient System Management and Operation System Preservation

21. Oregon’s Transportation Policy Rule Rule requires MPOs to reduce VMT per capita by 10% over 20 years in metro areas with more than 1 million population, and by 5% over 20 years in metro areas with 1 million or less population

22. New Florida Law Multimodal Development District law allows local governments to establish multimodal level-of- service standards that rely primarily on nonvehicular modes of transportation within a district

23. New Maryland Law Transportation Funding Areas Law requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish measurable long ‑ term and short ‑ term performance goals in designated smart growth areas for increasing the systemwide share of trips by mass transit, walking, bicycling, and high occupancy vehicles

24. Mutually Supportive Land-Use Patterns and Transportation Facilities

25. Rail Lines Without Riders

26. Sidewalks Without Pedestrians

27. Limits of New Urbanism

28. Cognitive Dissonance

29. The Future Belongs to Hybrids

30. Megatrends “In a relatively short time, the unified mass society has fractionalized into many diverse groups of people with a wide array of different taste and values, what advertisers call a market- segmented, market-decentralized society.” Naisbitt 1982

31. Urban Refill

32. Green Development

33. Transit-Oriented Development

34. Pedestrian Villages

35. Hybrid Communities

36. Hybrid Neighborhoods

37. Model Enhancements

38. Travel Demand Modeling Issue Conventional 4-step models are not sensitive to effects of density, mix, and design on travel behavior =

39. Differences in Travel Patterns Vehicle Ownership Home-Based Trip Productions Non-Home Based Trip Attractions Intrazonal Trips Transit Trips Walk Trips Peak Hour Factors

40. TRANSIMS Framework

41. LUTRAQ Study Area

42. Different Future Land Use Patterns

43. Less VMT (and Everything Else) with LUTRAQ

44. Westside MAX Line -- Suburban TOD

45. Land-Use Impacts

46. Implementing Mechanisms

47. Examples Adequate Public Facilities Requirements Transit-Oriented Development Context-Sensitive Highway Design Traffic Calming Access Management Regional Growth Management

48. Change in VMT Per Capita (1990-99) Orlando = 3.95 Portland = 4.64 Baltimore = 2.15

49. Florida Growth Management – General Failure

50. 1985 Concurrency Requirement

51. Constant Reform – Will They Ever Get It Right?

52. Transportation and Land Use Study Committee “The state land planning agency and the Department of Transportation shall evaluate the statutory provisions relating to land use and transportation coordination and planning…and shall consider changes to statutes, as well as to all pertinent rules…” 1998 Florida Legislative Session

53. Oregon Growth Management – Mixed Results

54. Regulatory Tools Urban Growth Boundaries Density Targets Transportation Policy Rule

55. Documented Accomplishments Stronger Downtown Employment Base Higher Suburban Densities Less Land Consumption

56. Maryland Smart Growth – Promising Alternative

57. Inside and Outside Games

58. Smart Growth Results The Good News: –75% of new parcels are INSIDE PFAs –Thru Rural Legacy and related POS projects, committed $137 million over last 4 years to permanently protect 54,000 acres. –In last 7 years, total MD acres protected increased 40%, from 589,000 to 825,000 acres The Bad News: –75% of acreage developed is OUTSIDE PFAs –The average lot size OUTSIDE PFAs is 8 times the size of lots INSIDE PFAs –County-specific performance varies widely

59. 5 BYPASSES 550 ACRE TRACT 2 DISTRICT COURTS COUNTY BLDG. Investments Altered by Smart Growth