A Network of Livable Communities: Evaluating Travel Benefit Effects of Alternative Transportation and Community Design for the National Capital Region

This study indicates that the Washington DC region could reverse the trend towards a growing number of motor vehicle trips per household and cap the growth of vehicle miles of travel per household by 2010. This paper is only a beginnings, and is not presented as a regional plan. The idea behind it is to indicate the benefits of an overall change of direction within the region as a whole, not to make specific suggestions for individual communities.

A Network of Livable Communities: Evaluating Travel Behavior Effects of Alternative Transportation and Community Designs for the National Capital Region A Project of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation Annapolis, MD Environmental Defense Fund Washington, DC Copyright © 1996, Environmental Defense Fund, New York, NY In cooperation with American Council for an energy- Efficient Economy Washington, DC Cambridge Systematics Inc Cambridge, MA MCV Associates McLean, VA Okerlund Associates Charlottesville, VA With financial support from The Task Force on Transportation and the Environment Energy Foundation The Pew Charitable Trusts The Nathan Cummings Foundation, Inc Prince Charitable Trusts The Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation 2 A Network of Livable Communities: Evaluating Travel Behavior Effects of Alternative Transportation and Community Designs for the National Capital Region Introduction: This report examines how we are " conducting ourselves across the land" in the heart of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It asks how we might conduct ourselves differently and what the results might be if we did. Washington DC, the nation's capital, lies at the heart of the bay watershed. Surrounding the District of Columbia are 7 counties and 11 independent cities that officially comprise " Metropolitan Washington." This area is small compared to the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed- - it covers only about one-fifth of the geographic area. Yet it is home to over four million people-- about one quarter of the watershed's population-- and contains the region's primary growth area. This region is projected to grow by nearly 50 percent in the next 20 years and contain over ten million people by 2050. Both the capital itself and the surrounding region face uncertainty about how the region will accommodate so much growth. It is the premise of this report that today's citizens can consciously determine a clearer, brighter future by applying a relatively simple set of planning principles for growth and making a commitment to implementing the plan. Other regions have begun this process; the Washington metropolitan region could also. " Saving the Bay" used to seem simpler… Nowadays, the task is as complex as life itself. The focus has expanded to include the ways we farm, forest, develop, drive, and generally conduct ourselves across the lands of six states and the District of Columbia, a 64,000 square mile watershed." -- Chesapeake 2000, Chesapeake Bay Foundation Long Range Plan 3 Executive Summary The substantial growth expected to occur in the Metropolitan Washington DC region over the next several decades can be accommodated with a variety of transportation and community designs. A 1993 report by the Washington Regional Network ( WRN) A New Approach: Integrating Transportation Development in the National Capital Region, has inspired two recent analyses of alternative long- range scenarios for the Washington region. The WRN scenario recommends that the region focus new development, redevelopment, and services in walkable, transit- served neighborhoods. This report presents the findings of the study conducted by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation ( CBF) and the Environmental Defense Fund ( EDF). The other study, prepared by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, describes itself as an analysis of " a WRN- like land use and transportation scenario." ** While the Council of Government's study purports to reflect the WRN report, it falls short of representing many of the key concepts of A New Approach, which we have attempted to address in this study. A technical paper summarizing the findings of these two studies and comparing some of their key assumptions and methods can be found in the appendix ( pg. 30). Our study indicates that the national capital region could reverse the trend towards a growing number of motor vehicle trips per household and cap the growth of vehicle miles of travel ( VMT) per household by 2010. A scenario was tested that reduced daily vehicle trips by 15%, VMT by 11.5%, and vehicle hours of travel by 22%, yielding a 13% increase in average daily highway speeds, compared to the current regional transportation plan. Achieving these reductions would require combining pragmatic pricing reforms with transit service improvements, transit- oriented development, the curtailing of growth in areas where people have no travel choices but the car, and significantly improving conditions for walking, bicycling, and local access to public transportation. The modeling framework developed for this paper should be useful for evaluating a wider range of alternatives that will not otherwise be considered in regional transportation planning, including major investment studies, environmental and project planning studies, and long- range plan update activities. It is potentially transferable to other regions. This paper is only a beginning, and is not presented as a regional " plan." The idea behind it is to indicate the benefits of an overall change of direction within the region as a whole, not to make specific suggestions for individual communities. * Copies of A New Approach are available from Chesapeake Bay Foundation ** An analysis of regional transportation pricing strategies with land use and transportation scenarios, Executive summary ( draft), Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, February, 1996. Table of Contents: Part one: Why we need an alternative design 4 The problem is sprawl Not whether but how Trends are not destiny-- Example: Portland Transportation perpetuates sprawl Benefits of proximity Part 2 A New Approach 10 Start with a vision Guidelines for implementing the vision Add more detail Share the analytical tools What is a transit oriented community? Examples: Newfair and Westover New Centers Throughout the Region A Network of livable communities Existing metro sites Part 3 Sprawl vs. Proximity: Which will better serve the region? 20 Going with the trends-- Sprawl Continues Creating a different future-- Proximity Prevails Translating the vision into numbers Key Findings Proximity works-- Example: Ballston Timing Urban Growth Boundaries Part 4 Moving Toward the Vision 27 Reading List 30 Appendix 31 Resources/ Acknowledgements 32 4 Part 1: Why We Need an Alternative Design " Unfortunately, there is a whole generation who have no idea what a wonderful and enriching place a city or town can be, especially for a child. In fact, most suburbanites think cities are terrible places to live... And the reason they think cities and towns are so awful, even though people have been living there for the last 6000 years of human history, is because they've witnessed the results of 50 years of senseless public and private policies, which have given every incentive for middle class and affluent people to abandon our cities instead of improving them, and which have legally mandated an ugly, inefficient, environmentally damaging and socially divisive way of life known as suburban sprawl." -- Save our Land, Save our Towns, by Tom Hylton RB Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania The Problem is Sprawl In the next 15- 25 years, the Washington Metropolitan region is predicted to grow by about 50 percent. The seven counties surrounding the District of Columbia are projected to have a 42% increase in population and add 49% more jobs. If these new people spreads themselves across the landscape in the same patterns as those of the past 25 years, suburbia will stretch at least 80 miles north to south and 70 miles east to west. To accommodate growth, counties that are now rural will need to significantly expand their road, sewer, and school systems. They will need additional community and recreational services and facilities. New developments built out in sprawling, low density pattern will destroy farms and forests, perpetuate automobile dependence, create more impervious surfaces, generate more air pollution, and severely over- tax the filtering systems of wetlands and rivers that support life in the Chesapeake bay. At the same time, older established neighborhoods located closer to the center are likely to deteriorate as businesses and affluent families move farther out. The only affordable housing will be in the cities, inner- ring suburbs or far out on the fringes of the region. Some inner-ring suburbs will have aging populations requiring that schools be closed. A demand for more social services will be placed on counties experiencing a declining tax base. In an era of fiscal conservatism, all parts of the region will be wanting resources. This report looks at this pattern of growth, which is often called sprawl development, and studies what would happen if the region were to plan for and promote a different pattern of growth and development-- a pattern based on proximity. It is the premise of this report that a regional plan for growth based on proximity is not only a workable plan, but is vital for the long- term health of the region, including the Chesapeake Bay. 5 " When the light finally dawns, the ruination of our cities and countryside may be almost total" -- former Oregon governor Tom McCall, Compact cities hearing, July, 1980 Throughout the region the trends of sprawl are the same: · New housing tracts have pushed deeper into agricultural and environmentally sensitive areas · Employment locations are scattered · Older communities, including central cities and suburbs, are becoming more isolated · Dependence on the automobile has increased · Use of the expensive metro system is not increasing Sprawl poses a series of threats to our everyday quality of life: · Extended peak hour traffic congestion · Declining water quality and quantity · Lack of affordable housing · Worsening air quality · Destruction of the Chesapeake bay The current automobile- based system is not sustainable; it is: · Too expensive and difficult to expand · Generating massive congestion · Highly polluting · Resource- intensive to build and maintain · Too consumptive of land · Disruptive of communities 6 " The question is not whether to address the sprawl. The question is how to address it." -- Beyond sprawl: New Patterns of growth to fit the new California, bank of America, California resource agency, greenbelt alliance, the low income housing fund, January, 1995 Not Whether But How Numerous books, reports, and articles have documented the negative social, fiscal, and environmental impacts of sprawl development. * Yet the factors that support sprawl development have become so entrenched in American society that it may seem overwhelming to untangle the strands and consciously plan for a different future. After decades, there are a host of administrative, market, and psychological conditions that need to be examined if the problems associated with sprawl are to be addressed. Trends are Not Destiny Sprawl is the result of a long- term accumulation of social, financial, and public policy decisions. Changing it will take time. The experience of other regions that have mobilized to identify problems and reinvent themselves indicates that a pathway to the future involves two steps. Local residents must be willing to help design and implement the steps: · Create an alternative vision based on five principles: · Jobs and housing proximity · A light rail and busway transit network · Travel demand management · Growth boundaries · Regional cooperation and coordination · Develop a plan for getting there. Example: Portland Portland, Oregon is one American City that has planned and executed a different approach to transportation and land use. Nearly 20 years ago, Portland began an integrated series of measures to revitalize downtown, invest in light rail, institute growth boundaries, and coordinate transportation and land use planning to achieve different outcome. The results are being seen in the vitality of downtown Portland, increases in affordable housing, and a host of other economic and social benefits not being achieved in other downtown areas of similar size. In 1979, Portland area governments banned development outside a boundary ringing the city. Voters established the country's first elected regional government, called Metro, and gave it control over planning for the 24 municipalities and three counties in the metropolitan area. Money earmarked for a new freeway was funneled instead into a light rail system and improved bus service. New regulations required new downtown buildings to devote at least 50% of their frontage to retail space with windows or other displays. The number of downtown jobs has doubled since 1995 without the city adding a single parking space, widening roads or building new ones. According to the city's transit authority, traffic still gets congested, but with 40% of downtown workers commuting on light rail or buses Portland hasn't had any air quality violations since 1991. The ambitious future goal is to reduce auto traffic and parking spaces 20% during the next few decades. Similar successes are being achieved in Toronto, San Francisco, Boulder, and Chattanooga. * See reading list p 29. 7 " It has taken seven or eight decades to bring about the present, unhealthy dependence on the automobile; it would presumably take nothing less than several further decades to reduce it to its proper place in modern American life. " -- George F Kennan, Around the cragged hill: A personal and political philosophy, 1993 Transportation Perpetuates Sprawl To develop a workable vision and an action plan for the future, it is necessary to understand the factors that perpetuate the present patterns. Among the most significant are: * Authority over transportation and land use decisions is split, making truly coordinated planning difficult. Land use decisions are made by local governments where there is no incentive or requirement to protect either transportation capacity or the environment from diffuse growth. Transportation planning is chiefly the role of state governments and is determined in large part by the availability of federal funding. * Transportation planning practices and models are based on extrapolations from past trends. Transportation planners rely on computerized models that are designed to favor expanding highway capacity. Although some jurisdictions have developed models that evaluate proximity, access, and quality of pedestrian environments, the Washington DC region continues to use models favoring sprawl and highway investment. Such models are incapable of measuring, except in the most gross terms: ( 1) the impact of design, density, and location of development; and ( 2) the impacts of transportation facilities on land use. * There is no regional system of accounts over most land use decisions. None of the current government structures has the authority to require counties to make decisions for the good of the region as a whole. No officials are elected to serve the region. As a result, each county tends to maximize its internal advantage, while pushing the costs outside its own borders. * Automobiles now receive a number of " hidden subsidies" that make other forms of transportation seem less appealing and more costly: -- The cost of driving is artificially cheap: The cost of fueling a car has declined substantially in recent decades. If the price of gasoline reflected the full social and environmental costs of driving, gasoline would cost between $ 6 and $ 8 per gallon. -- Free parking is not really free. The cost of building and maintaining a parking space over 20 years is 10,000 to 15,000, which is more than the cost of providing an employee with free transit over the same time period. The estimated value of employer- provided subsidies for driving to work in the District of Columbia adds up to $ 240 million per year-- nearly the same amount the District, Maryland and Virginia spend to subsidize the entire metro system. -- The nondriving public subsidizes the cost of building and maintaining roads. The myth is that gasoline pays for building roads. The reality is that those taxes cover only about 40- 60% of the direct costs of building and maintaining roads. The rest comes from state and local sources that could be going to other public services. 8 Benefits of Proximity If the many structural subsidies of sprawl are reduced or changed, the benefits of transit- oriented communities might be more fully appreciated. These include: 1. Benefits to residents: Opportunities to live and work nearby Home and workplace are often within walking or biking distance. Reduced household cost for auto ownership and operation If residents can reduce the number and distance of their auto trips, they should be able to live as comfortably yet own fewer cars, thus saving about $ 4,000 per year. Time savings By reducing long auto commutes and consolidating local trips, residents could gain time for family and community activities. Increased mobility for those with special needs Alternative transportation serves more residents, particularly elderly, disabled, low income, and young people. Lower housing costs Smaller lot sizes and more efficient public services should help reduce housing costs. 2 Benefits to business A Broader market Base for Business Businesses in compact communities, well served by a variety of transportation modes, can access larger market areas. Lower operating costs More intensive use of land and building space, greater sharing of common facilities, and more efficient public services can reduce business costs. Reduced parking requirements Businesses will need fewer parking spaces if visitors use public transit or walk. Reduced employee absences and late arrivals Employees using public transit are less affected by highway congestion and inclement weather. 9 "... if the U. S. wishes to avoid incurring ever- higher environmental, social and economic costs of vehicle use and achieve a sustainable transport system, measures to reduce private vehicle use should be an essential element of long- term environment and transport strategies." - Report of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Environmental Performance Review for the United States, 1996. 3 Benefits to the Community Strong Community Identity A compact community with well- defined boundaries and an active center can foster civic identity and pride. Retention for Landscape Character Concentrating growth in compact communities may allow surrounding open space to be preserved for the protection of natural features, public recreation, and maintenance of farming operations. Reduction of Environmental Impacts A compact community minimizes intrusions into its surrounding environment, has less effect on sensitive areas and wetlands, damages fewer animal habitats, reduces air and water pollution, supports the recycling of wastes, and consumes less energy. Increased Public Safety. Compact communities usually are busy places where people pursue different activities and, in so doing, contribute to a sense of public safety and security. Participation in community affairs. Residents who spend less time commuting may wish to devote more time to civic affairs and community efforts. 4 Benefits to government More efficient and less costly infrastructure Compact communities should result in more efficient sewer and water systems, reduced maintenance costs, fewer public parking spaces, and lower energy consumption. More efficient provision of public services By serving smaller areas, compact communities can provide more efficient public services such as police, fire, schools, waste collection, and recycling. Reduced needs for new or improved roads By emphasizing public transit on one hand and pedestrian environments on the other, governments can reduce both the demand for and the costs incurred with highway construction and maintenance. Higher tax revenue Well- disposed compact communities can result in higher property values and more local tax revenues compared to comparably sized, low-density suburbs. 10 Part 2: A New Approach Start with a Vision The basis for this study is the report published by the Washington Regional Network for Livable Communities in 1994, A Net Approach: Integrating Transportation and Development in the National Capital Region. That report contained the following vision for the national capital region to become a " Network of Livable Communities:" · Plan and act as a region, not as individual, competing entities within the region. · Concentrate new economic and housing development in centers spread throughout the region, yet largely contained within the radius of existing development. · Use Metro and light rail as the spine of settlement rather than just highways. · Improve sidewalks everywhere, but especially in metropolitan centers and at transportation hubs. · Establish a complete system of bicycle lanes, paths and shoulders, making the region a national model of bicycle friendliness. · Change road pricing and parking policies to provide incentives to use means of transportation other than automobiles. · Establish growth boundaries, either through regulations developed by each county under state supervision, or through a combination of greenbelts and agricultural preservation districts. Guidelines for Implementing the Vision · Invest in the existing system- use the road and transit networks to move people and good efficiently, not just vehicles. · Make transit, bicycle, and pedestrian investment a much higher priority. · Organize new residential and business development around urban and town centers. 11 Sharpen the Analytical Tools The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments ( COG) uses a conventional " MIN-UTP" software based transportation model for regional traffic analysis. This study relied on the same modeling procedures. However, to extend the capabilities of the COG MINUTP model to consider changes in the quality of pedestrian and bicycle environment and other factors, this study developed a new pivot point spreadsheet computer model. Tom Rossi, a noted modeling expert with Cambridge Systematics, one of the nation's leading transportation consulting firms, and Michael Replogle, a transportation modeling expert with Environmental Defense Fund ( EDF), collaborated in this work. The resulting " proximity mode choice model" ( PROMO) interacts with COG's MINUTP regional transportation model to determine the sensitivity of auto, transit, and walk travel to changes in several key factors: transit in- vehicle travel time, transit out- of- vehicle travel time, auto travel time, auto vs. transit travel cost, quality of the pedestrian and bicycle environment, and employment density. Through a series of small group meetings, a group of citizens from the region identified 40 sites for potential infill development and helped the planning team in articulating in numerical terms appropriate descriptions of A New Approach concepts for more detailed analysis. These were put into the PROMO and COG MINUTP models and analyzed to estimate changes in the share of walk, bike, and transit trips caused by the land use, policy, investment, and service changes. Technical documentation of the Proximity Mode Choice Model is available from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and EDF. Add More Detail This study takes A New Approach a step further by identifying where and how this vision might be realized and by modeling what the transportation- related effects might be. 1 Identify Sites for New Centers The study identified 40 existing locations throughout the Washington metropolitan region as candidates for some level of additional density or commercial intensity. Local jurisdictions could attract new investments and economic growth to these areas and create new " centers" of varying size. This would be done by establishing incentives for creating new mixed-use centers and by re- designing and configuring existing sites. These new centers would be designed to encourage walking, bicycling, and use of mass transit. Growth in areas that are now rural would be contained within growth boundaries to prevent sprawl. 2 Create a Transit Network Connecting These New Centers A New Approach proposes that the region invest in a major light rail system that would link these new centers and form the first arcs in what would eventually become a circumferential transit- link around the region. Most of the communities identified are located along the existing Metro or proposed new light rail or busway system. This would create a region- wide network of transit- oriented communities ( TOCs). 3 Manage Demand To represent an array of strategies that might be used to these ends, this study envisioned a restructuring of employer commuter subsidies and changes in community street space management. Instead of free parking and costly transit ( the situation that exists today), we assumed that urban and suburban workers would be offered free or deeply discounted transit passes, while facing worksite parking fees ranging from $ 1.00 to $ 7.00 per day. We envisioned greater priority for pedestrians, bicycles, and public transportation vehicles, which would reduce average transit travel time by about 5- 10% and make it easier and more attractive to walk or bicycle for short trips and for access to and from transit. 12 " In part, the problem is a product of simple arithmetic. Loudon county officials, for example, estimate that a new family must buy a $ 400,000 home to generate sufficient property taxes to cover county services to that household. Anything less, and those newcomers become an economic burden, at least temporarily. The average home in Loudoun, however, sold for just less than 200,000 last year." - The Washington Post, Feb 26, 1995 Membership in the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments consists of seven counties and eleven incorporated cities. However, any regional planning must take into account the growth pressures on the counties on the edges of the region. These include the Baltimore metropolitan area adjacent to the northeast; Annapolis and the Eastern Shore to the west; the southern Maryland counties of St. Mary's, Calvert, and Charles; and Stafford and Faquier counties in Virginia to the west. 13 "... One result is an increasing competition between the old and new sides of Fairfax, as residents in the still- growing Western end clamor for new schools, roads and recreation centers, while older neighborhoods in the eastern end grumble about their rundown ice rink and antiquated schools." -- Eric Lipton, The Washington Post, April 23, 1995 The existing regional development pattern pushes growth out to the edges of the region where new roads, schools, sewers and recreational and social services need to be provided. 14 What is a Transit- Oriented Community? · A transit- oriented community ( TOC) is a center, town, or village that is located on a regional transit system interconnecting it with other communities. · Such a community is compact and has well- defined boundaries and a central focus-- often a public space or a park near the transit station. · Many forms of transportation are available to residents of transit- oriented communities although the basic design facilitates public transit. · Instead of requiring automobile use within it, this type of community favors pedestrian movement and activities. · Residents have access to nearby employment opportunities and retail, office, and service facilities. In contrast to conventional developments and shopping centers, which typically have a single developer or owner, TOCs generally are a product of planned evolution with multiple developers and owners. · In contrast to conventional developments and shopping centers, which typically have a single developer or owner, TOCs generally are a product of planned evolution with multiple developers and owners. -- From " Washington DC/ Richmond Rail Corridor Study, Community Development Strategies." Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Prepared by Community Design group, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1994. 15 Examples: Newfair and Eastover The Chesapeake Bay Foundation undertook the design of two prototype communities - Newfair in Fairfax County, Virginia, and Eastover in Prince George's County, Maryland. These communities, which have been designed but not built, are prototypes to help citizens and elected officials visualize some of the concepts of transit- oriented communities in the context of real places within this region. Newfair is intended to demonstrate two aspects of transit- oriented communities: the redevelopment of a mall from an auto-oriented development containing a single use to a transit- oriented development containing a variety of uses, and the creation of an entirely new community on a small tract of land. Eastover is an example of the opportunities for new development or infill that exist on underutilized urban land. Eastover illustrates three concepts: redevelopment of a highway- oriented shopping center into a true neighborhood center, creation of a transit- oriented community focused on a bus transit center, and the use of transit-oriented infill to promote urban revitalization. A publication describing these two prototypes in detail is available from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 16 New Centers Throughout the Region Transit oriented communities come in many sizes and can have different styles and characters. A transit-oriented community may be a thriving city center, an urban district, a small town, or a main street. Declining suburban strip malls offer opportunities for revitalization through infill investment and improved transit and pedestrian services. Strategically located but underdeveloped areas could become transit- oriented communities if land use and zoning were changed along with improved access. Similarly, rural villages experiencing growth pressures could become transit- oriented communities by slightly increasing densities, allowing mixed uses, and establishing and enforcing growth boundaries. Five different types of centers have been identified for the Washington Metropolitan region. The categories were created based on differences in size and scale, location, and placement on the existing or planned transit network. Each of these newly designated centers would be approximately 250 acres in size. They would be created out of existing, underutilized land and would be designed to facilitate use of transit, bicycling, and walking as convenient means of transportation. Metropolitan Center: Metropolitan centers are intensely developed, mixed- use communities. They may currently be classified as " edge cities." These centers now tend to be dominated by office and commercial space, with little residential space and very poor conditions for pedestrian access. Usually there is potential for additional, higher density, and improved transportation facilities and management. A new Metro stop would be the centerpiece. Urban Center/ Transit Hub: Urban centers have the next highest density and would be ideal for transit hubs. They are prime locations for residential, employment, and commercial activities supportive of bus and light rail connecting to the existing Metro system. They would be located principally in the inner suburbs, in outer suburbs with major transit access, and along urban corridors. It would be possible to both live and work in these centers and have commuter accessibility between other transit- oriented communities. Emphasis would be on creating compact development surrounding the transit hubs. 17 Suburban center: Suburban centers are located in suburban areas currently characterized by low- density development and auto dependence. New, mixed- use centers would be created by restructuring older shopping centers, by providing additional housing, and by creating a village center. Suburban villages would be located in the inner and outer suburbs between existing radial and future circumferential transit corridors. Emphasis would be on creating more employment opportunities, and housing for smaller- sized households in these areas. Rural center: Rural centers are similar to urban centers but are located in exurban areas currently characterized by rural and large lot densities. They are now almost exclusively automobile oriented. In most cases, a rural center was once a remote community. Revitalization efforts would be directed toward adding additional housing and employment facilities in close proximity to the center and creating a growth boundary. The center would be built around a major transit line. Densities within 1/ 2 mile of the center would help support transit and an internal bus system. Moderate residential and local- oriented convenience retail are encouraged. Rural village: Rural villages are smaller centers scattered around the region. They have mixed- uses, walkability, and growth boundaries. Rural villages may be too small for a transit line, but they are connected by excellent bus service to transit hubs. 18 A Network of Livable Communities: Much of the growth projected for the region could be accommodated in areas that already have access to transit, or would be along a projected new light rail or busy system. Over 40 existing places in the Washington Metropolitan Area-- varying in size, design and character-- were identified as potential locations for infill redevelopment or as sites for transit-oriented communities ( TOCs). They include: In Maryland: Juncture of 193 & 214 Juncture of 410 and 450 Burtonsville Bowie Branch Avenue Brandywine Briggs Chaney Broad Street Largo Centreville Columbia Pike Davis Tract Eastover Georgia Avenue Gaithersburg Sites along Rte 1 Olney Prince George's Plaza Rockville Rockville Pike Sites along rt. 29 north Shady Grove Takoma/ Langley Upper Marlboro Wheaton White Oak. In Virginia: Cherry Hill Herndon King Street Leesburg Newfair Reston Loudon Toll Springfield Tyson Corner Dale City Seven Corners Vienna West Falls Church Sites along Rte 1 In DC: Navy Yard 19 Existing Metro Sites: Many development sites are available at Metrorail stations throughout the Washington area. A recent publication by Metro describes them as follows: · Sites are right- sized for residential, retail, and office development. · Air rights, surface lease rights, and subjacent rights are available. · Metro encourages aesthetically pleasing mixed development that draws new riders to transit. · Access to transit, combined with favorable floor area ratios, gives Metro development projects a competitive advantage in today's real estate market. · Local governments have created development incentives in Metro station areas through floor area bonuses. Acreage available at existing metro sites: Braddock road: 8.2 acres Franconia- Springfield: 35 acres Van Dorn Street: 7.6 acres Huntington: 54.5 acres King street: 12.1 acres Arlington bus garage: 4.1 acres Court House: .57 acres Anacostia: 5.25 acres Gallery place: 1.2 acres Capitol heights: 6.1 acres New Carrollton: 35.7 Acres Landover: 31.0 acres Cheverly: 30.2 acres Deanwood: 3.5 acres Minnesota Ave.: 8.53 acres Greenbelt: 64 acres College Park- U of MD: 127.72 acres Prince George's plaza: 24.1 acres West Hyattsville: 27.5 acres Fort Totten: 16.1 acres Wheaton: 5.6 acres Takoma: 14.7 acres Brookland-- CUA: 72 acres Rhode Island Ave: 13.0 acres Shady Grove: 88.0 acres Rockville: 11.0 acres Twinbrook: 30.78 acres White Flint: 32.43 acres 20 Part 3: Sprawl vs. Proximity-- Which Will Better Serve the Region? Going With The Trends- Sprawl continues Each year the jurisdictions that are part of the Metropolitan Washington council of Governments produce a cooperative regional forecast of growth for the next 25 years. The method for developing the forecast involves collecting local development plans and trends, which then are adjusted according to regional and national trends. Because the forecasting process is iterative, it is called the forecasting " round." A recent round of forecasting, round 5.1, was used in the Transportation Planning Board's 1994 computer model to calculate how the regional transportation system will perform in the future, given the location and type of growth predicted. The maps on the adjacent page show the location of household and employment growth predicted through round 5.1. Given these numbers and this pattern of growth, the model forecasted a transportation system with the following average daily characteristics: · Vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) increase from 100 million to 185 million, an increase of 54% · Transit use, while growing numerically, falls behind VMT and auto driver trips in growth, meaning that transit accommodates a decreasing proportion of trips. · Vehicle hours of delay go from 2.2 million to 16.8 million-- a seven- fold increase. What the COG numbers show is that the more the trend for automobile dominated transportation is projected into the future, the less sustainable it becomes. The region simply cannot build enough highways to prevent traffic congestion from becoming worse in the future. More traffic congestion means more air pollution, lower productivity, higher costs for business, and a declining quality of life. The region has made a substantial investment in a high- quality transit system that is underutilized, in part, because the land around Metro stations is under- developed and a coherent set of regional policies and practices to support the Metro system have not been implemented or received full support from local jurisdictions. This constitutes a major economic inefficiency for the region as a whole. Not only do these predictions indicate an unacceptable quality of life, but the region cannot even afford to build the system modeled here. The projected regional revenues show that the transportation system that would lead to these conditions would cost about 30% more than the amount currently projected to be available. If this scenario were to come to pass, the region would no longer be a very attractive place for new investments and would tend to " lose out" to other regions that are better able to manage their transportation and land use activity. 21 Less than 500 500- 999 1,000- 2,499 2,5000 and greater Less than 1000 1,000- 1,999 2,000- 4,999 5,000 and greater 22 Creating a Different Future- Proximity Prevails In the trend projections, growth just adds more sprawl and congestion. In the WRN scenario, growth is harnessed to create new community centers and increased economic energy. The WRN scenario concentrates growth in places that have access to regional transit. The same amount of regional growth is still projected, but the WRN scenario imagines that through a series of new public policies and incentives, the new jobs and households are located closer to one another and to transit. To ensure an appropriate analysis of a more " WRN- like scenario" the Chesapeake Bay Foundation ( CBF) and Environmental Defense Fund ( EDF) commissioned an independent analysis of A New Approach by Cambridge Systematics and MCV Associates, in cooperation with the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. This analysis was based on the same COG transportation model, with refinements to account for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-oriented urban design and land use changes. With the COG 2010 Constrained Long- Range Plan ( CLRP) as a baseline, this study evaluates the composite effect of changes in land use, pricing, urban design, and transit investment. Many individuals involved in developing A New Approach collaborated with the consultants in further articulating and quantifying this report's alternative vision for less automobile dependent regional development. Translating The Vision Into Numbers The scenario that CBF/ EDF developed and tested would shift 28% of the 1995- 2010 projected regional household growth and 10% of the 1995- 2010 projected regional job growth from low- density automobile dependent areas into 40 transit oriented centers ( TOCs) around the region, including urban, suburban, and semi- rural locations. Another 15% of the 1995- 2010 projected regional household growth and 10% of the 1995- 2010 projected regional job growth would be reallocated from low density, automobile dependent areas into higher density, less automobile dependent areas outside the TOCs. This is consistent with what would occur with regional application of a transferable development rights ( TDRs) program similar to Montgomery County, Maryland's pioneering and now much imitated initiative. The CBF/ EDF scenario assumed that traffic calming, sidewalk and bicycle path construction, and other strategies would be used to produce pedestrian and bicycle friendly urban areas and TOCs with significant improvements also in suburban areas, and only small improvements for rural zones. The scenario assumed that a combination of higher workplace parking fees, deeply discounted transit passes, and VMT fees would produce differences in the net automobile commuting cost relative to transit, with large price differences in TOCs, modest differences in urban and suburban zones, and small changes in rural areas. * In Vehicle Travel Time ( IVTT) changes were assumed to represent new services and transit priority treatment on existing streets and highways. Out of Vehicle Travel Time ( OVTT) changes were assumed to represent the effects of new services, improved transit passenger information systems, and improved access and connections.** * This composite difference was assumed to be $ 4.55 a day for TOCs, $ 2.50 for urban and suburban zones, and $ 1.00 for rural zones. Although A New Approach envisioned electronic congestion pricing on the region's major highways, this was not tested due to the challenge of representing the major impacts of such strategy on the time- of- day travel. ** IVTT decreased 2 minutes on average in OTCs and OVTT decreased 5 minutes on average in TOCs but this varied, depending on the nature of the assumed transit improvements. Outside TOCs, urban and suburban areas were assumed to have a 2- minute decrease in IVTT and a 3- minute decrease in OVTT. Rural areas were assumed to experience no IVTT improvement and a 2- minute reduction in OVTT. 23 KEY FINDINGS For the region as a whole: The CBF/ EDF study indicates the potential for much greater and earlier reductions in vehicle trips and vehicle travel than the COG's recent analysis of what they characterized as a " WRN- like" scenario. For the region as a whole in 2010, the CBF/ EDF scenario produced a 15% reduction in daily vehicle trips. An 11.5 % reduction in daily VMT, a 22% reduction in daily Vehicle Hours of Travel, and a 13% increase in average daily highway speeds, compared to the baseline COG Constrained Long Range Plan Forecast. Achieving these reductions requires combining pragmatic pricing reforms with transit service improvements, transit- oriented development, the curtailing of growth in areas where people have no travel choices but the car, and significantly improving conditions for walking, bicycling, and local access to public transportation. * The Appendix contains a technical comparison of the COG and CBF/ EDF studies. For the transit oriented centers: A special model called PROMO was developed to analyze how a transit- oriented center would work from a transportation perspective. The following improvements were predicted within each center in this region: · By improving proximity and increasing residential density and commercial intensity, the number of automobile trips per person and per job decreased for every center for both work and non- work trips. The decreases average about 9% although there are locations achieving as high as a 16% reduction depending on the configuration of the TOC. These are significant numbers, not only for the immediate term, but because once the prevailing trends are reversed, more significant improvement can be expected to follow. · Walk shares increase significantly in the centers, commonly doubling and in some cases tripling, due to the dramatic improvement in the pedestrian and biking environment ( from " poor" to " outstanding"). · Transit shares increase slightly: in some cases ( generally those without significant transit improvements) transit shares actually decrease due to the large increase in non- motorized trips. · On average, for home- based work trips originating in the TOCs, the auto share falls from 77% to about 69% with the assumed bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements, and without transportation demand management ( TDM) pricing measures. On average, major improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle environment have a larger effect on non- work trips within the new centers, boosting their mode share from 8% in the base case to 20- 25%, depending on the level of TDM pricing applied. · With the addition of strong pricing measures and other incentives, the auto share falls from 69% to 46%. The combined walking and bicycle share increases from 4% to 11% without TDM pricing, and to 16% with pricing. The TDM pricing measures decrease the auto share dramatically, due to the high increased cost ( over $ 3.50 per auto, assuming parking cost is split between both ends of the round trip). With the introduction of stronger pricing strategies, the transit share doubles to an average of 38%. Outside of the TOCs, with use of more modest TDM and transit improvement, vehicle trips per person also decrease. 24 " The metro system was the primary reason that we purchased a large office building and had a second one built for us in Virginia. We have about 2,000 employees in those buildings in Virginia. During the next 15 months, we expect to increase the number of employees in Virginia to about 4000 people and add three additional office buildings." - V Orville Wright, Vice Chairman of the Board, MCI Communications Corporation " Colonial Place... combines the advantages of high quality urban design and suburban location. The proximity to downtown businesses and government facilities, direct underground access to Metrorail, the commitment of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the local governments to Metro, and the existence of nearby residential neighborhoods were major factors supporting our decision to build this project." -- James C Cleveland, Mobil Land Development Corporation of Virginia, a subsidiary of Mobil Oil Corporation Proximity Works Positive experience with proximity already exists in this region. Beginning in the 1970s, Arlington County began to plan for redevelopment around the metro stops along Wils0on Boulevard. In the ensuing 20 years, " Uptown Arlington" which includes Rosslyn, Courthouse, Clarendon, Virginia Square, and Ballston, has been created with a variety of office, housing, and retail uses. Example: Ballston In Ballston, over four million square feet of office space has been built as well as 2600 residential units and 1.1 million square feet of retail space, all within 1/ 4 mile of a Metro stop. In addition, the nearby residential neighborhoods have not only maintained but actually have increased in value. 25 Timing: Are We Talking 15 Years? 25 years? 50 years? This report uses overall growth numbers that were developed by local jurisdictions in 1994- 1995. These numbers represent estimates of growth for the next 25 years. The predictions were made on the basis of land use plans, proposals local governments have received, and local experience with growth. Because many of the projects are already " in the pipeline" it is unrealistic to expect that these projects would or could relocate according to the proximity patterns within 15 years. Does this make the study invalid? No. Some of the projects considered " in the pipeline" will never be built, and others could be directed to other sites. In addition, since these projections were made, the move to shrink government is having a dampening effect on the local economy and slowing the rate of growth. A slower rate of growth allows more time to consider our options for allocating growth. On the transportation side, if the region were to invest in a major light rail system or Ottawa style busway, it could barely be completed in 15 years, and the housing density surrounding it could take another 10- 20 years to become fully mature. The argument could be made that this report is unrealistic because the current trends cannot be reversed so quickly. Yet, continuing to plan based on current trends and patterns only perpetuates the sprawl. In a way, the region already has invested in proximity by making the commitment to build the 13 billion metro system. Unfortunately, the promise of Metro has only been partially realized. One reason is that the policy guiding land development near the metro stations has been based on providing parking, not building communities. Another is that Metro is a radial system, and the region needs suburb to suburb connections. Nevertheless, Metro represents a major regional investment that could be art the center of a proximity plan. The proximity patterns is a long- term investment; yet parts of the plan could be implemented quickly and inexpensively. These improvements would begin to build momentum that would accelerate the other benefits. In addition, many of the parts of this plan could be implemented quickly and relatively inexpensively. · The region's 20- year bicycle and pedestrian plan could be implemented within 5 years and would not represent a major expense, especially relative to the cost of highway construction. · A regional task force could develop new guidelines for adoption by local governments to improve access to the Metro system, make using the transit system easier, faster and more convenient, and promote changes in zoning and taxing policies that would have immediate payoff in increasing densities near metro stations. · Local jurisdictions could remove barriers to accessory apartments and implement transit- efficient mortgages. These ideas are further documented in Part 4: Moving Toward the Vision. Even if the actual numbers cannot be achieved for 20 or 30 years, the principles of the study remain valid. As a " What if?" study, the results tell us that a shift toward proximity will be a shift toward regional transportation -- and community-- sustainability. 26 URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES A substantial portion of regional growth anticipated in the next 15- 25 years ( and longer) could be accommodated within the area that has already been developed. To do this, each county and town, in cooperation with its neighboring jurisdictions, should establish an urban growth boundary. An urban growth boundary is an officially adopted and mapped line dividing the land to be developed land to be protected for natural or rural uses. Because urban growth boundaries are regulatory tools, designated for 25 or more years, they provide greater certainty for both developers and communities, and are rarely subject to revision.* * From Urban Growth Boundaries by greenbelt alliance, San Francisco, California. 27 Part 4: Moving Toward the Vision In order to move the Washington metropolitan region toward a Network of livable communities, a series of actions must be initiated to better coordinate and integrate transportation and land use. 1. Redesign Communities Inside the Beltway Convene a regional task force to create new development guidelines for adoption by local governments to improve transportation and community design policies. Identify centers throughout the region to apply an integrated set of measures such as: · Enhanced possibilities for using public transit · More bicycle and pedestrian friendly street and intersection design · Removal of barriers to accessory apartments · Community rent- a- car centers · Marketing older communities in creative ways · Transit- efficient mortgages · Promoting telecommuting · Removing barriers to in- home business activities · Providing proximity of residences and business to convenient services Revise local zoning codes to replace minimum- building setbacks to encourage parking behind, rather than in front of, buildings. Encourage adoption of more flexible zoning standards that encourage a mix of land uses and more transit- and pedestrian- oriented development. Replace minimum parking requirements with maximum parking limits and parking caps in areas such as downtown Silver Spring, MD Modify zoning to allow property owners to consider the adaptive re- use of parking lots. In strip development areas that have good transit service and business parks-- like around the New Carrolton Metro-- infill housing and commercial development can anchor corners and reconnect buildings to their streets, enhancing proximity and good urbanism. Establish split- rate taxing districts. The split- rate tax is an effective tool in growth management policy. The split- rate tax applies different tax rates to buildings and land. This promotes building near existing infrastructure. Pittsburgh implemented the split- rate tax in 1979- 80, taxing land at more than five times the rate of structures. Pittsburgh experienced a dramatic increase in inward building during the ensuing years. Accelerate implementation of an aggressive regional bicycle and pedestrian plan. The current plan is on a 20- year time frame for implementation; accelerating it to a 5- year plan is not very costly and would make a big difference in transportation options for many people. Designate areas of pedestrian, bicycle and transit priority where traffic calming, on minor and major arterials, would slow car traffic and encourage greater shifts towards alternative travel modes. 28 2. Act as a Region At the regional level, review local land use plans for opportunities to promote proximity. As part of its computer mapping program the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, in cooperation with local governments, could evaluate current deficiencies in the mix of land uses available in areas where people live and work. Publicize the benefits of proximity and success stories. Because the experience of sprawl is so deeply entrenched, citizens need vivid examples of what a compact community would look and feel like. Success stories of mixed use communities need to be publicized more widely. Three examples of planned urban revitalization efforts in this region include the redevelopment planned for Potomac yards, which includes privately financed stop on the metro; the redevelopment plans for downtown Rockville; and the Town Center development plans for Silver Spring. Establish local and regional growth boundaries. Without clear, defensible limits to growth, housing, jobs, and infrastructure will continue to sprawl. Urban growth boundaries have proven to be an effective tool in containing sprawl and improving the value of property within developed areas. Urban growth boundaries must be cooperatively established by cities, counties, and states. They can be determined in the context of growth projections and county master plans or by belts of protected parklands, and as part of statewide growth management. Establish a system to share tax revenues among counties. As long as basic local services are dependent on taxing local property, each county will feel compelled to compete with its neighbors for commercial investment. A system of sharing tax revenues is a critical component of metropolitan stability. Property- tax- base sharing is being done in Minnesota and helps create equity in the provision of public services. It levels the quality of education and undermines local fiscal incentives that drive sprawl. At the very least, the Washington Metropolitan region needs to begin discussing the topic. Assure safe water supplies. Protecting the regional water supply, including aquifers, reservoirs, and water treatment facilities, is a region- wide priority. One jurisdiction cannot make decisions about water usage that threatens the resources of neighboring jurisdictions, or that promotes sprawl. Enforceable regional compacts and good scientific research must go hand in hand to protect water supplies. Work for healthy air quality. Attaining healthy air quality will likely require larger reductions in NOx emissions from motor vehicle use the changes in technology alone will produce. The region should consider suballocation emissions budgets to states and counties using emission trading to reward and hold jurisdictions accountable for the regional impacts of local land use and transportation pollicies. 29 3 Create and enforce state growth management pollicies Require special studies for " projects of regional significance." State legislatures in Maryland and Virginia should enact legislation requiring large- scale projects that will have an impact on the entire region to be subject to regional review and mitigation techniques if they are found to contribute significantly to air pollution, traffic congestion, or suburban sprawl. Create a long- term regional transportation investment strategy that emphasizes light rail, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities supporting transit- oriented communities. The Transportation Planning Board and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, working with the DC, Maryland, and Virginia Departments of Transportation, should develop a long- term plan for an enhanced transit system based on light rail and dedicate busways, and supported with development district financing and transportation user fees. Utilize considerable state clout, derived from the states' abilities to expend money on infrastructure, to shape the location and design of growth. Make transportation investments dependent on complementary land use policies. Departments of Transportation should mandate that before transportation investments are made in a particular area; the local land use plans must adhere to growth management principles and performance standards. 4. The Federal Government Needs to Play by the Region's Rules. Federal government as employer. As the largest employer of the region, the Federal government has a major role to play in promoting van pools, car pools, and transit use. There should no longer be free parking at government facilities. Location of federal buildings. Federal offices should remain in the District, or at least on the rapid transit network. Federal policies should strongly discourage the relocation of significant new federal facilities such as the SEC or the FDA outside the beltway or away from transit. Federal Land Holdings. The Federal Government is the owner of the largest, most important parcels of undeveloped land in the region. Federal plans to dispose of those properties should be done in accordance with principles of environmental protection, growth management, and proximity. These properties include Fort AP Hill, Quantico, and others. 30 Reading List Following are the publications relevant to the creation of transit- oriented communities and integrated transportation systems, including current trends, approaches and case studies. The LUTRAQ Alternative/ Analysis of Alternatives, 1000 Friends of Oregon, Portland, October 1992 Urban Villages, Tony Aldous, Urban village Group, London 1992 Rural by Design: Maintaining Small Town Character, Randal Arendt, Chicago: APA planners press, 1994 Ideal Urban Form and Visions of the Good Life: Florida's Growth Management Dilemma, Ivonne Audriac, et. al., JAPA Autumn 1990 Beyond Sprawl: New Patterns of Growth to Fit the New California, Bank of America, et. al., San Francisco, January 1995 Accidental Cities: The Deadly Grip of Outmoded Zoning, Jonathan Barnett, Architectural Record February 1992 The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community and the American Dream, Peter Calthorpe, Princeton architectural Press, New York, 1993 Washington, D. C./ Richmond Rail Corridor Stud, Community Development strategies, Community Design Group, Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation December 1994 Creating Successful Communities, The Conservation Foundation, Island Press, Washington, DC 1989 Creating Successful Communities, Island Press, Washington, DC 1989 New Visions for Metropolitan America, Anthony Downs, Washington, DC Brookings Institution 1994 Stuck in Traffic, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC 1992 The Second Coming of the American Small Town, Andres Duany and Plater Zyberk, Wilson Quarterly, winter 1992 Staying Within the Lines: Urban Growth Boundaries, Gail Easley, PAS 440, APA Press, Chicago 1992 Developing Successful New Communities, Reid Ewing, Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC 1991 The Experience Of Place, Tony Hiss, Vintage, New York, 1990 The New Urbanism: Toward Architecture of Community, Peter Katz, McGraw- Hill, Inc New York 1994 Traditional Neighborhood Development-- Will the Traffic Work, Walter Kulash et. al. Real Estate Research Consultants, Washington, DC 1990 The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America's Man- Made Landscape, James Howard, Kunstler, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1993 Access By Design: Transit's Role in Land Development, Maryland Department of Transportation, Mass Transit Administration, September 1988 The Impact of Various Land Uses on Suburban Mobility, Middlesex, Somerset, Mercer Regional Council, December 1992 Creating Transportation Choices, Montgomery County Planning Commission, June 1995 Visions for a New American Dream-- Process, Principles and an Ordinance To Plan and Design Small Communities, Anton Nelessen, APA Planners Press, Chicago 1994 Citistates, Neal R Pierce, McGraw- Hill, NY 1993 Redesigning the Suburbs: Turning Sprawl into Centers, Regional Plan Association, New York, August 1994 Cities Without Suburbs, David Rusk, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore 1993 A Guide to Land Use and Public Transportation for Snohomish County, Snohomish County Transportation Authority, Washington December 1989 A New Approach: Integrating Transportation and Development in the National Capital Region, The Washington Regional Network, Annapolis May 1993 Reinventing Regionalism: A Two- Phase Approach, Allan D. Willis, Wilson Quarterly, Fall/ Winter 1994 Dealing With Change in the Connecticut River valley: A design Manual for Conservation and Development, Robert D. Yaro, et. al., Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, Cambridge 1989 A Region at Risk: The Regional Plan for the New York/ New Jersey/ Connecticut Metropolitan Area, Robert D Yaro and Tony Hiss, New York Regional Plan Association 1996 31 Appendix: Analysis of Alternative Scenarios for the Washington, DC Region By Michael Replogle, Environmental Defense Fund Introduction The rapid growth in motor vehicle use in the Washington region affects our quality of life, economy, and environment. Forecasts of how our dependence on the car will change over the next several decades are vital to addressing problems ranging from traffic congestion, unhealthful air and water quality, to global climate change, and are required to meet Clean Air Act and ISTEA planning requirements. Two recent analyses have been done of alternative long range scenarios for the Washington region using similar computer transportation planning models and analysis frameworks. This paper summarizes the findings of these studies and compares some of their key assumptions and methods. These studies indicate the potential for substantial reductions in vehicle trips and vehicle travel. A study by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation ( CBF) and Environmental Defense Fund ( EDF) indicates the region could reverse the trend towards a growing number of motor vehicle trips per household and cap the growth of vehicle miles of travel ( VMT) per household by 2010. A scenario was tested that reduced daily vehicle trips by 13%, VMT by 11.5%, and vehicle hours of travel by 22%, yielding a 13% increase in average daily highway speeds, compared to the adopted regional plan for 2010. Achieving these reductions would require combining pragmatic pricing reforms with transit service improvements, transit-oriented development, the curtailing of growth in areas where people have no travel choices but the car, and significantly improving conditions for walking, bicycling, and local access to public transportation. COG's Analysis of Transportation Pricing In May 1996, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments ( COG) is considering a draft report on the effects of transportation pricing strategies. This sketch analysis is a useful step forward for COG, but must be interpreted with a clear understanding of its assumptions and methodological limitations. This study relied on COG's transportation models to evaluate several combinations of factors: four transportation pricing strategies on two different regional transportation networks with three somewhat different land use patterns, using two different modeling methods. The key pricing strategies evaluated were: · Parking Surcharge: $ 30 per month region wide · Transit Subsidy: 50% subsidy per transit commuter trip · Carpool Subsidy: $ 1.18 per HOV2+ commuter trip · Low Occupancy Vehicle Toll: 10 cents per mile on roads with HOV lanes The COG 2020 Constrained Long Range Plan ( CLRP) served as the baseline for comparisons of scenarios. Earlier COG forecasts for five year intervals for 1990 to 2020 provide added information for interpreting these scenarios. Among the scenarios COG tested was one described as " a Washington Regional Network ( WRN)- like land use and transportation scenario" of transit- oriented land use, investment, and pricing reform. Notable differences, however, distinguish this COG scenario from the concepts described in the WRN study, A New Approach. COG's so- called " WRN- like" scenario: · Assumed no change in the current forecast pattern of dispersed edge- city employment growth. · Shifted modest household growth closer to the region's center, but irrespective of proximity to transit. · Assumed suburban growth would continue in a pattern not oriented toward transit or designed for pedestrian proximity. · Assumed no improvement in conditions, facilities, or urban design to favor walking, bicycling, or nonmotorized access to transit. · Assumed construction of a very large network of new HOV lanes on freeways across the region which would promote substantial additional sprawl and motor vehicle travel dependence. A New Approach Long Range Plan Analysis To ensure an appropriate analysis of a more " WRN- like scenario," the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Environmental Defense Fund commissioned an independent analysis of A New Approach by Cambridge Systematics and MCV associates. This analysis was based on the same COG transportation model, with 32 refinements to account for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit- oriented urban design and land use changes. With the COG 2010 Constrained Long Range Plan ( CLRP) as a baseline, this study evaluated the composite effect of changes in land use, pricing, urban design, and transit investment, reflecting the ideas expressed in the 1993 report, A New Approach, issued by CBF and the Washington Regional Network. Many individuals involved in developing the 1993 report collaborated with the consultants in further articulating and quantifying this report's alternative vision for less automobile dependent regional development. The resulting CBF/ EDF scenario would shift 28% of the 1995- 2010 projected regional household growth and 10% of the 1995- 2010 projected regional job growth from low density, automobile dependent areas into 40 transit- oriented centers ( TOCs) around the region, including urban, suburban, and semi- rural locations. Another 15% of the 1995- 2010 projected regional household growth and 10% of the 1995- 2010 projected regional job growth would be reallocated from low density, automobile dependent areas into higher density, less automobile dependent areas outside the TOCs. This is consistent with what might occur with regional application of a Transferable Development Rights ( TDRs) program, similar to Montgomery County, Maryland's pioneering and now much imitated initiative. The CBF/ EDF scenario assumed that traffic calming, sidewalk and bicycle path construction, and other strategies would be used to produce pedestrian and bicycle friendly urban areas and TOCs, with significant improvements also in suburban areas, and only small improvements for rural zones. The scenario assumed a combination of higher workplace parking fees, deeply discounted transit passes, and VMY fees would produce differences in the net automobile commuting cost relative to transit, with large price differences in TOCs. Modest differences in urban and suburban zones, and small changes in rural areas. In Vehicle Travel Time ( IVTT) changes were assumed to represent new services and transit priority treatment on existing streets and highways. Out of Vehicle Travel Time ( OVTT) changes were assumed to represent the effects of new services, improved transit passenger information systems, and improved access and connections. Key Findings The Executive Summary of the draft COG pricing study concludes that: " Transportation pricing strategies that increase daily parking costs, reduce transit fares, subsidize carpooling, and increase the cost of driving alone where there are high occupancy vehicle ( HOV) lanes would reduce future vehicular travel demand and have a beneficial effect on the region's air quality… Such pricing strategies are much more effective when combined with new transit and HOV facilities that provide feasible alternatives to solo commuting." COG found that its package of pricing measures would likely reduce vehicle trips in 2020 by 8- 12% for commuting and by 2- 3% for total daily trips, while reducing commuting VMT by 5- 13% and daily VMT by 3- 11% depending on the scenario and the modeling method used. The CBF/ EDF study's results are consistent with and basically supportive of these findings, if one accounts for differences in analysis assumptions and methodology. The CBF/ EDF analysis accounted for the effect of increases in congestion or additions of new road capacity on the average length of trips and the choice of destinations ( but not for effects related to the time of day of travel). This was done using a method similar to that adopted by COG for their air quality conformity analyses, involving the feeding back of travel times from highway assignment to trip distribution. COG's scenario analysis did not feed back travel times, except for sensitivity testing of the base CLRP network and adopted land use. With feedback, COG's forecast reductions in vehicle use were generally cut by half, to the low end of the ranges indicated above, as freed up road space was used to make longer trips. The CBF/ EDF study indicates the potential for much greater and earlier reductions in vehicle trips and vehicle travel than the COG study. For the region as a whole in 2010, the CBF/ EDF scenario produced a 15% reduction in daily vehicle trips, a 11.5% reduction in daily VMT, a 22% reduction in daily vehicle hours of travel, and a 13% increase in average daily highway speeds, compared to the baseline COG CLRP forecast. Achieving these reductions requires combining pragmatic driving reforms with transit service improvements, transit- oriented development, the curtailing of growth in areas where people have no travel choices but the car, and significantly improving conditions for walking, bicycling, and local access to public transportation. Further refinement of the COG study's assumptions and methods could similarly account for such possibilities and should be included in the regional planning work program as part of the vision planning, model improvement, and air quality/ transportation planning process. Analysis of Key Indicators: Vehicle trips/ Household: 33 The COG study suggests we can do little to change the current trend of sharply increasing motor vehicle dependence and use which threatens our ability to stem growing traffic congestion and emissions of NOx and CO2. A fundamental measure of our growing dependence on motor vehicle travel is vehicle trips per household. COG's forecasts indicate regional vehicle trips per households will rise from 8.55 in 1990 to 9.80 in 2020, an increase of 0.5% per year over 30 years, under current adopted plans and policies. This occurs as most of the new growth is planned to occur in locations where people have no practical choice but to use a car for virtually all travel. The CBF/ EDF study indicates that with significant but practical changes in transportation, land use, and pricing policies, vehicle trips per household could be instead reduced to 7.38 by 2010, as walking, bicycling and transit would become more attractive and practical options, relative to driving a car, for daily travel. VMT/ Household Another fundamental measure of motor vehicle dependence is VMT per household. COG forecasts this to grow from 69 in 1990 to 85 in 2020, an increase to 0.76% per year over 30 years under current adopted plans and policies. The CBF/ EDF study indicates that with significant but practical changes in transportation, land use, and pricing policies, the miles of motor vehicle travel could be slowed and capped at about 75 VMT per household by 2010. This would represent a 12% reduction from the VMT per household forecast for the COG 2010 adopted plan. VMT per household could be further reduced by an even more transit- oriented land use pattern, which the CBF/ EDF study identified but was unable to evaluate, the cancellation of some highway expansions contained in the constrained long range plan, and more refined pricing strategies. Modeling Methodologies The COG study suggests that land use and pricing changes do not have any synergistic interaction. The results of the CBF/ EDF study suggest otherwise: that land use and urban design changes are vital to achieving significant reductions in motor vehicle dependence and help support the travel behavior shifts that transportation pricing reforms can induce. Shortcomings in COG's modeling of ( 1) the effects of added highway capacity and congestion on trip length, traveler destination choice, and time of day travel, and ( 2) the effects of changes in urban design and pedestrian/ bicycle concessions on travel behavior, invalidate the COG study's conclusions on this matter. Together these shortcomings diminish the ability of the COG study to distinguish between different land use and investment strategies. Because congested highway travel times were not fed back to estimate changes in trip length, the COG study underestimates the congestion levels in the " more sprawl development" scenario tests and overestimates the congestion levels in more clustered development scenario tests. This makes virtually meaningless the study's conclusion that " there did not appear to be much of an interaction between the transportation pricing strategies examined and the different alternative land use scenarios." This methodological shortcoming also weakens support for the study's conclusion that " pricing strategies appear to be much more effective when combined with additional HOV and transit facilities that provide alternatives to solo commuting." Clearly, pricing strategies should be introduced together with improved travel options that deliver better value and expanded choice. However, the sketch methods used in this study overestimate the degree of congestion relief provided by expanded transportation capacity and will also overestimate congestion levels in the base case. Suggested Next Steps: COG should undertake further evaluation of alternative scenarios and strategies as part of the vision planning process, conformity analysis, and major investment studies. This should include: · Evaluating conversion of existing or planned general purpose highway lanes from the CLRP to high occupancy toll ( HOT) lanes, which would be free for HOVs but electronically tolled for single- occupant vehicles. The recently opened and highly successful SR- 91 toll road in southern California operates as HOT lanes. · Evaluating the WRN- like scenario land use of the CBF/ EDF scenario or composing another transit-oriented development scenario based in ( 1) a growth boundary to limit new sprawl, ( 2) a shift of new housing and jobs from zones with forecast future high automobile driver mode shares to zones with forecast future low automobile driver mode shares, and ( 3) curtailed exurban growth to limit external cordon productions and attractions growth. · Incorporating the PROMO pivot- point logic mode choice model developed by Cambridge Systematics and EDF for this study into the COG modeling process to enable evaluation of pedestrian and bicycle friendly scenario elements in plan alternatives. · Developing quick methods to account for time- of- day- of- travel effects of alternative strategies on travel demand to better evaluate congestion pricing; for example, for the Wilson Bridge, Dulles Toll Road, and other facilities, including possible HOT lanes on the beltway and other major highways. 34 ACKNOWLEGEMENTS These studies were supported by grants from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, Energy Foundation, and the Task Force for Transportation and Environment, a joint project of the Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra club Legal Defense fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Conservation Law Foundation. Additional support was provided by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Prince Charitable Trusts, and The Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation. It could also not have been possible without support from the thousands go individual members and contributors to the Environmental Defense Fund and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Primary authors are Michael Replogle of EDF and Kristin Pauly of CBF. Special thanks also to Lee Epstien of CBF, Joe Mehra and Ed Hurlihi of MCV associates, Tom Rossi of Cambridge Systematics, Hugh Morris go the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Gary Okerlund, Okerlund Associates, and many other individuals who helped make this study possible. The Chesapeake Bay foundation ( CBF) is the largest nonprofit conservation organization working to save the bay. CBF has programs in land management, environmental defense and environmental education. With offices in Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and Pennsylvania, CBF has over 80,000 members nationwide. The Environmental Defense Fund, a leading national NY- based nonprofit organization represents 300,000 members. EDF links science, economics and law to create innovative, equitable and economically viable solutions to today's environmental problems. Resources Environmental Defense Fund 1875 Connecticut Ave NW, suite 1016 Washington, DC 20009 202 387 3500 http:// www. edf. org Chesapeake Bay Foundation 162 Prince George Street Annapolis, MD, 21401 301 261 2350 http:// www. savethebay. cbf. org/ American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy 1001 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 801 Washington, DC 20036 202 429 8873 http:// www. aceee. org/ Gary Okerlund Community Design Group 220 East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22901 804 971 8533 Thomas Rossi Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 150 Cambridge Park Drive, suite 4000 Cambridge, MA 02140 617 354 0167 http:// www. camsys. com/ Joseph Merra MCV Associates 4605 C Pinecrest Office Park Drive Alexandria, VA 22312 703 914 4850 Patrick Hare Planning and Design 1246 Monroe Street, NE Washington, DC 20017 202 269 9334 Malcom D Rivkin Associates 7508 Wisconsin Ave Bethesda, MD 20814 301 656 5155 Ed Rissi Synergy Associates 12501 N Lake Ct, Suite 100 Fairfax, VE 22033 Washington Regional Network for Livable Communities 1730 Rhode Island Ave NW suite 403 Washington, DC 20036 202- 775- 1580 Washington Area Bicyclists Association 818 Connecticut Ave NW Washington, DC 20006 202 872 9830 http:// www. waba. org/ Action Committee for Transit Harry Sanders 1710 Noyes Lane Silver spring, MD 20410 301 587 1323 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 777 N capitol Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 202 962 3200 http:// www. mwcog. org/ 35