The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About022795 CC/PC Jnt. AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in This meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk 1909) 694-E~-. Notffication 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35,1 02,35,1 0 4ADAT:~e II] ARI=NnA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A SPECIAL MEETING HELD JOINTLY WITH THE TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM, TEMECULA CITY HALL 43174 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE FEBRUARY 27, 1995- 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute ROLL CALL: Mayor Jeffrey Stone presiding Councilmember Mufloz Lindemans, Muf~oz, Parks, Roberrs, Stone Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. SHakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item not listed on the Agenda or on the consent Calendar, a pink 'Request To Speak' form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request To Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. COUNCIL/COMMISSION RFPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council and the Planning Commission on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. 02J22~ COUNCIL/COMMISSION BUSINI:SS 1. Villaoe Center Conceot Workshoo RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 1.2 Review the enclosed material on commercial development, mixed use activities and land use planning, transportation and air quality; Participate in a round table discussion regarding the Village Center Concept. ADJOURNMENT: Next meeting: City Council, February 28, 1995, 7:00 PM, Community- Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vim Road, Temecula, California Planning Commission, March 6, 1995, 6:00 PM, Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California ITEM NO. I TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/Planning Commission/City M/anager Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning~ February 27, 1995 Village Center Workshop Prepared By: John Meyer, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION REVIEW the enclosed material on commercial development, mixed use activities and land use planning, transportation and air quality; and PARTICIPATE in the round table discussion regarding the Village Center' Concept. BACKGROUND The Village Center concept is an integral part of the City's General Plan. This workshop will help staff in carrying out this concept and other concepts within the City's Community Design Element of the General Plan. The City is currently processing some significant projects. These projects are the first projects reviewed under the guidance of the new General Plan which are affected by the adopted policies and programs of this element. The General Plan includes policies that call for concepts and ideas that have not been previously carried out in this community. These policies establish the framework for the ultimate development of the City's Village Center Concept. Some concepts will need to evolve incrementally over time, because of economic or market conditions; others will and should be carried out promptly as part of the development review process. The purpose of the workshop is to discuss alternate approaches to the application of Village Centers within Temecula. Current trends and philosophies in urban design will also be explored. During the workshop staff hopes to consolidate thinking for the Village Center Concept among the Council, Commission and staff. This will assist staff, City Officials, the development community and the public in establishing a common language for village centers. During the workshop we will discuss: What Village Centers will do for Temecula in the future The components that contribute to a Village Center Expectations over the next five years Where do we begin R:%DEVCOOE\JNTMeKSH.CC12/22/95 ktb 1 During a previous Commission workshop in January 1994, four principles for reviewing new projects were established; these are: · What makes this site different and/or unique from other similarly zoned or developed property? · How does this project connect with the Community? · Who will use this project or who is the project designed for? · How will people most efficiently access the project? · Does the project contain a focal point or public area/use? Attached to this staff report is a series of articles relating to the workshop. The first article is from "Urban Land," a publication of the Urban Land Institute and is entitled "Putting the Community Back into Community Retail." It is, in staff's opinion, an excellent article that discusses new directions in retail center development. Also. included are articles written. by The Planning Center, Cambridge Systems, and by the staff of the Air Resources Board. These articles and accompanying exhibits will provide the Commission with a solid foundation for the workshop. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Putting the Community Back into Community Retail - Blue Page 3 Retail Development - Blue Page 4 Toward Mixed-Used Activity Prototypes - Blue Page 5 Draft Report on: "How Land Use and Transportation Affect Air Quality - Blue Page 6 R:%DEVCOOE\JNTMRKSH.CC1 2122195 ktb 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PUTTING THE COMMUNITY BACK INTO COMMUNITY RETAIL R:\DEVCOOE\JNTMRKSH.CC12/22/~5 ktb 3 in recent commentaries on the de- fects of suburban development pat- terns, the developers of commu- nity or "strip" shopping centers have been particularly viiifled as perpetra- tors of sprawl, congestion, and schlock. Many new concepts--neotraditional plan- ning, transit-oriented developments, and pedestrian pockets--have been offered as alternatives that would, their proponents argue, conserve land, reduce people's reli- ance on automobiles, and essentially bring back the ambience and civic cohesivehess characteristic of small towns before World .~ Community shopping center developers ,re not responded to critics' calls for change for a number of reasons. Many have had lit= de contact with the new theories and theo- fists. Moreover, current economic conditions discourage building, let alone innovation. And, developers and financing sources doubt that the proposed alternatives would be economically competitive with the standard formulas. Indeed, in mday's market, the possibil- ity of satisfying the often conflicting needs and wants of retail developers, shoppers, and community planners is in question. Can ~xqall retail centers support community life ~own centers once did and still provide an adequate return on investment? What would such centers look like? How would The "ship" communW retail center may be high on efficiency, but it is low on a,.,e..ilics and choices. it b time to look at alternatives that rei,av,ata retail wilh breeder community functions. Back into Retail ALEX ACHIMORE EV(]LLIlff]N (JF COMMUNIIY RH~L CmnsrStom ooal Ima.. nl io IllinSIne ,, ,.ssn OI IO cLsllsmiim; townS~ -~Ri~o --"'? nedSemadtnxn Tneom~c~eNmY ~:kat as an exmn- pdedhow~the ractlorml U~mm center muff format cmvaxX. Buthb- lark: Nmmr. k~is an m~a__,~_mt case-a ~ hcdcd commu- rdyarclamumt clest~n~n. Plans for Kawaiim Town Center, the c~,m~.,jal chlTiCt for a 10,OOhcm ptannednewmm inSmthKohek, Hami, indude a canmmity shop- ping center, town slime, perk, pullc gymmsium. post oiSce, fibrap/, cin- ema, oNcEh and eR TT.,,,I,__ T --,,/q offefimz lower prices than possible in Main Street's mom-~xd-pop stores. has arguably conwibuted m postwar gains m (material) living standards. ,-_ But other important aspects of daily life were lost along the ~ay w retail effidency. Pmo~mt among these is the loss of 'habitat" for community functions. In older town centers, retail was the glu~ that connected a myriad of public phces--~ovem; merit offices, parks, schools, libraries, and so f~th. The intermingling of retail and community facilities created a setting for repetitive chance encotmtets · with friends and neighbon that built and strength- ened community bonds. Single-purpose retail envi- ronments my be great for retailing, but the seace from them of reasons for lingering and phces in which to linger has contributed m the atrophy of community and ndghborhood activities. firetail effideney is the dominant goal, perl~l~ retail ~ move toward more catalog and 'gf home shopping sale~ reducing the need for shopping cmm~ Alternatively, the call by critics for more civic-minded development patterns along with a considerably changed economic climate for developing standard s'trip shopping cmmrs may, in fact, provide oppommi- ties m find bertre- almmatives. The cmient building recession coinrides with the growing popularity of the view that the market is sainted with shopping centers of all types- The response of shopping center devdopers m compe~- "'- tire pr~mcs has been m focus mainly on cmm--ic improvements or m smm~he further the retail vimmeat with the introduction of big-box rammrs. The response of communities, evea in the face of economic hard times, has boca m talm developers through a rigorous entitlement process. All this se~ms m indicate a growing politicaVcultm'al rejec- tion of the standard formats and the need for a bet- mr dialogue between the players m find accep,-~ble lira Detaminagts d Ferm . .... One of the first grocery stores m featm'c a' l:m-king lot was constructed on Main Street in P!acer~e, California, by Tom Raley in 1935. Sul~quently, Raley and other retailers found locations outide the e~ter of town to be more suitable for their pursuit of ultimate retail efSdency. The public ftmetiom along and near Main Street were left b-hlnd, be- . came they did not appear to contribute to sales. With the low-volume/high-price form-h re- phced by a high-volume/low-price formula, retail- ing's physical plant changed as well It did not nke long for major smm to become acetLsmmed to and demand the by-then familiar strip format, 'wKieh their economic performance compare ~th the per- formance of standard-format centers? Despite its name, a typical community shopping center (defined as a single loaded re. ii ceamr up to 150,000 square feet anchored by a grocery store and a drug/variety store) often precious little to the "community' beyond the eftident distribution of staples. Since the 1930s, low prices and automobile acce_~ibility have been emphasized over service and amenities not vital to retail sales. And strip retail, by -'~ gave them the ability to atuact · ,.: ::.. in an auto-dominated, competidv%'-:...-.d Hanoldu. asUip ammwamn- and~beml ap~" a~k ww t ~rial, especially for the anchor m/man. Parking is -~ a single pod finnring all the smr~s, at substantial ratios (currently five m six and one-half stalls per 1,000 scluar~ fe~t of leasable m). Fences and the arrangement of buildings diseourag~ walk-in traffic from adjacent land uses. Fast food "pads," which also require high visibility, float in the parking lot near the entrances (while not interfering with the sight lines of the major smres or co..,p~&~g for their parking). The roller shops rely on ~ sales from patmus drawn m the major stores and pay much higher rents than the major stores, thereby creating the returns that allow these projects to be finmleeri The typical community center's pro forma lades suf- ficient profit margin to support a great deal of pub- lic space or numerous amenities. The finandal/merdmntli~ing formula ha~ become the primary determinant of the form of community shopping center. Developers seek the maximum r~- tail leasing area, balanced against automobile stor- ag~ requirements, that will fir on a given sire. ect, the developers focus is on early rrmn~ not neces- sarily on the gnamst gains over titm or on long-turn .~aLue. Until r~endy, the entrepreneurial developer ~ents and financing, and preAus~ the major as quicldy as' possibl~ m inmit~onal in,,.,tu,~ rathew than hold it for (more too&st) operating pintits. In c~ntras~ various atmmp~ ha~ bern made m revitalize older m~ ~ or m ~m n~mt- m~W io~g ~ But m~ h~ limi~ ap- phfiom S~ ~ k ~d ~ ~ ~m ~¢ Na~o~ T~t for ~c P~fion's ~ S~ Pm~ c~li~ed m~ ~- m~t (~, ~d o~ ~s bye a~mpted ~Lorefiont ~d~, ~u~pe ~pmvm~, ~d ~hg ~mr m~t ~hni~ 1~ ~e m- o~afion ofl~ ~d ~~. Some e~m lm ~ o~y ~ prim or ~ ~c m sol~. ~m hold up ~ ~g ~fic m~ ~ma ~ mpl~ of h~ ~e ~fio~ ~ ~ ~t ~ ~d m ~ ~c N~ ~g- ~ ~ ~ m N~m&t ~d ~ud, ~& ~ not o~y ~R-hee~ ~mm~fi~ ~t ~ m dmfio~ h.~ ~ ~e ~i- ~ ~e ~ ofm~or ~&g ~d met- ~ ~ ~ ~m~ ~r ~m on t- ~ ~ m~ m. ~e ~ ~~d mpl~ of Wm~ ~i ~ ~i), m ~ ~d m The dy efBea, Calixr~,hasa rewmaserplan ee~bredemthe mmaysm~g limelrmt-ied mint attire rmze the on-site population. as long as no smgte · mode, mclodmg pedestrian, is allowed to dominate. Another important consideration for more C,mmunity-minded shopping cem=rs involves links surrounding land uses. A typical strip shopping center faces only one direction, ignoring its sides and back. Homing, ofii~s; parks, enmmmmem, or public radiities could be local!, with pedesman connections, at the unused edg~ Such links would certainly br~den the range of activities occurring in and around commumty shopping centm and could ultimately benefit sales by inerusing traffic, especially in less visible areas. Shopping centen al- ready have used post offices and librarks success- fully to anchor portiota that ~re difficult m lease to conventional retailers. The strip ~ormat may also experiment with park- ing desigr~ The sea of parking around centers has g~vn larger in tandem with store sizes. But large ultimately deter cramreefs. From the retail sales perspective, it may make sense m design several smaller lots rather than one large lot, with ad~acency and visibili.ty attributes that mah patrons f~el sa~e. Crea~ng ac~vity zones, prmnoting a diversity of fi~rms of transport, forging links to adjacem land uses, and br~king up the sea ofparking would g~ a long way toward adding a co,.muaity nm~ence to ~trip shopping centers. A generic co....a.,aity/reuail iect might be arranged as shown in the rmil pro- -4pes diagram at right Milihui Town. West ofHonohdu, Mmhqi Town, a 3,500-aere now community being developed by Casde & Cooke Properties, provides a pod deal more than standard strip retail in its aptly named Town Center, designed by Group 70 International of Honoluh. In addition m traditional grucexy stores and drugstores facing a large parking lot, a number of public ameniries, gathering spaces, and non~udl ter, are linked by pedesuianwa~ But became the pro~ect sits in a sea of parking, the pedestrian streets do not connect to other logical uses, like a public brary that is sited ~st beyond the parking lot Upmwn District. Oliver McMillmK dmark & TheJan Developmont's Uptown District urban infill project in San Diego g~s much closer to the goal of a community/retail cen~r. (See Janiee F'dlip, "Up- town District, San Diego: Looking at the Future of Lind, June 1990.) Apedesuian street links housing cJusters, a cu-u,...,.ity cenu~r, and a Ralph's groce!7 store that shares a parking lot with other retail uses. ~ructm~ parking under Ralph's and under the ing help achieve an urban density.) Seconclazy ..ts for cars and pedesuiam provide additional parking, as well assires fur commercid su.ztf~oat land uses. The flexibility of Ralph's owners ms of {:OMMIINIR' fif fAIL F~OH)TYF'F~ x.,;:.., p I // ~\'X, / / '\ \ goals of mimi uses and pedestrian orientation. SGPA Archi~ and Planning developed the master plan and designed the corninertial atchimaure. Bres. The emerging edge dty of Bru, Califor- nh, seeking ane~focus, lmclevdoped--with plan- hers RLS/Elbasani & Logan Aniinns, Rob Wd- Martin Poirier also of San Di~ mr plan that broadens the function of its community shop- ping cenmr. While a sundard strip center layout provides space for anchor tt. nams and numerous smaller shops, several connecmd streets provide parking and rmil frontage that will link the strip cenmr m a park, housing, cinema, and other uses · .ii~in walking distance. The city has selecmd Watt Co....erclal Development as developer. Kawailme. Kawaihae, a 10,000-acre now eom- div~ue us~Auxmgthese are amwn square, ama~or park with a public sy,-m,~,-, multifamily housing, a post ot~ce, a library, ,eob. maats, offices, and medi- cal clinics. Parking will be bmhm into several pods. The anchors (groce~ and dmg/veriety stores) will arterials. Many ofthe sma!ler shops face the town square, along the edges of which street parking will of the square. R.M. Towill Corporation of Hono- lulu and ~ developed the pmjeces mss~r plan. The commercial su__,x~_ of altn~ative community/ retail pro~ecu depends on visibility for the retail andsou' portion of the pmiec~ and activity in the "hidden" agss, that is, streets and spaces that do not front on the major parking lots or artaials. The inclusion of nonretail auractions (anchoxs) that do not require visibOity--~ach as a post office or com- muniW social center--of the provision of ~ m in msrke~ viabiliW are ~, ~pumion, the selection of goods, and lack of competition from largedisnmun) Doeloping a snip cen~r proiect with public and tisk~Additiot~!mulisaniml}°dAttc°st' Without ~a.u~aed parking, plans like Btea's o~ Kawaihae's x~!uite at least 10 percent mote led in m mix uses encoun~r various hurdle no~ faced by of~n udude cemin combina6ons, mote compli- cated leasing negotia~ons, the potential for addi- tioml security and roelull-nee tequitexn~ls, and COHSel viL~ve Gntnc/ng practice~ the focus on short-term cash-onto ~s she primary time, however, well-placed and well-planned proj- ec~ that include spcciaJ ameni6es and bmader actions may find an investor audience. The mix of uses and provision of extra nonrmH anchon could lower long-term risk, and thex~-fore the capk~liza- tion rate. With the market apparmdy saturated with standard suip centen, invesmn will view any new projects .i~. great car~ If developers can no longer build to amin an early net operating income high enough m sell proiem m ia,,.stots, long4mn value may become the pdncipel obiective of snip cenlzr devdoptmmt- The hybrid snip cea~r slw. ma6ve is especially promising for new c~uuuanities when the devdotgr plans to hold and operate dxe co~,au dal cenlzr overtime and can control the p:,aiaaity and quality level of adiacent ,~,aF~i,t proiem. As the chin- pies of many new cc~aities male clear, produ~ lo~r initial rt~uns bagwill yield gruter iong. termvsl~~smdatdsctu~lePom~ dzandmrsmm~- d:-_~at~mlghtabolooklohybtidcenl~ Under today' s acceptui procuhu~ evm if a community v, anmt to put "the co ......,,-af hack inm asuip center, the meansms:him:aimsgr projec~srelimiu~l. Became reuil prices umst be competitive, low-c!'nliW cen~n set the smndards for development of this prodre:. Prmmr- ing developers m esceed these mndards no-grow~ politics, stringtrot design gui~!ines, or special euc~ions will simply put the project at a privilege of shopping and conSregaling in a supe- The soin~on: The co. .-..~y iself can hdp shoulder the addi6onal risks and cesm ia,,,ived in c~ating a betmr pmjea. The co~a.mky muid ~ m' a dimat= favorable m the s,,-,,,-ing and profit- ability of nonsumdani centms. h could impme spe- cific development s~ndatds in conjunction with phcing Jimira on nearby co,.,p,.titlon, and thus a~e stnmg local madcet niches for new c~,~uuaity- m help fuumce a proiect that meem ks pmiodar de- sires. It is in the co,~a,,aity's inquest m wait for thefmancialrm:urnoninvestmentinotdermen~t~? The costs and details of such ~ need m be zestached further. R~m,~.r, h0se,~, that in c~ter cities during the 1970s and 1980s. Similar Fust of all, en,,,a,u-:-'d developers and c,, ...... able, on their own, m devise ariahie Retail developers, for their part, lack iaw.~.ml,d m p, de~encesaswdlaspeople'sdesiremiu:m'axina ger lxa~the only ad~,nt,ge it offm is lowet prices. Pmu akted entidement bautes ~ that pecm of dmel~ M~ocatm of bem~ ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RETAIL DEVELOPMENT R: %.DEVCODE\JNTMRKSH. COl 2122195 k I. b 4 I · · · · · ID im _--4 ~:m m m~,L ,L ATTACHMENT NO. 3 TOWARD MIXED-USED ACTIVITY PROTOTYPES R:\DEVCOOE\JNT~RKSH.CC12/22/95 ktb 5 Toward Mixed-Used Activity Prototypes Previous sections of this memorandum have defined mixed-use urban centers, summarized the economic influences on the location of different land uses which make up centen and reviewed what is known about the effects of these land uses on travel behavior. This section contains a summary of the principal characteristics which define mixed-use urban centers and the outline of a framework which we suggest be used to identify the location and characteristics of urban centers in the Portland metropotitaft area for the year 2040. There is no one solution to the puzzle of planning land use and trans- portation for the Portland metropolitan area 50 years from now. If fact, there are many solutions to the location of land uses and transportation infrastructure. All these solutions, however, can be distinguished from one another in terms of the following six characteristics: · Transportation system mix; · Land use mix; · Design and amenities; · Size When people think of the size of a community they think about many' thin&s, inductinS feelin&s of security, neighborliness and scale. While we have presented data which su$gest the implications of various sizes of employment centers for Uansportation systems lnfformance, we admowi* edSe that there are also "rules of thinrib' which may allow people to differentiate communities by size. In any event, the definitions for mixed- use urban centers which emerge from the 2040 process must certainly' allow for'urban centers of various sizes, (numbers of residents and employees). · Densit~ In tams of the relationship between land use and travel behavior, we have presented the case for density' being the single most useeul criterion for characterizing residential element of mixed-use urban centers. Exhibit 23 identifies the tnnsportztion impficatiorts ol: different residential densities. While no comparable exhibit has been developed for this memo for densit~ of emplo.v'ment, it should be eclually clear that emplo.wrtent density can influence ~ransportation system performance as well as travel behavior. The data analyzed by Cervero indicate this fact. Thus this characteristic is useh~l in the develol:~nent of mixed-use urban center proto~'pes. · Transportation System As the number of vehicles traveling between two points by car increases, both the number of lanes and the means of access and turning to and from highway changes. Citizens can ~sualize the difference between com- munit'ies served by two lane roads and those served by eight lane Limited access highways and appreciate that there are several t.vpes of facilities available in between. In a similar manner public trznsit systems an be distinguished in terms of the fit between the number of passengers they must carry and the technology appropriate for Grry~S those passengers. However, it is not · lways productive to focus on the technolo~ required to provide pubtic transportation services. l:or the purposes of this regional transportation and land use plan, it is probably better to specify the performance dtmrm~tics of transit service without identi~FinS whether thmt particular service will be furnished b~' buses, some form of fixed rail s~stem or some other means. (There may be differences, however, in the effects which diffe~nt technologies have on development patterrts~) We cmn disting~tish urban centers, however, in tin. ms of the mix of public v3. private motorind tnmportmtion which services them. We can further distinguish them by the t,,~i, ort;on of u. lps to and from the centere which are made by mum other than motorized vehicles. These distinctions are · Lartd Use Mix Exhibits Z0 through 25 afford the ruder an oFlao, tanity to understand the relationships between different land uses, both residential and non* residential and the we, in which these mixes of land use relate to nns- portalion systems performance and travel behavior. We certainly an dis- tinSuish urban centers by the deSTee to which they are dominated by residences or employment. We can ~rzlwr differennate them, if we choose by the income level, density, style and amenities associated with the housing in the center. In a similar manner we can distinguish urban centers by the kinds of employment they contain. While we think of urban centers as being dominated by either office or retail activity,, there is no reason why an urban center dominated by manufacturing or even agriculture could not be envisioned. Furthermore we can distin~'uish centers by the degree to which they offer employment other than the convenience goods and re'vices needed by residents of the center itself. Lastly, there is room for a number o~ specialized urban centers including such uses as recreation, manufacturing, ~ se'vices or othex3. · Design and Amenities The public and elecmd officials have focused much of their attention on the dlatinction between pedestrian/transit-oriented developments and the much larger number of auto dependent urban centers in the re~ion today. These are important distinctions. However, there may be other design characteristics which ate of interest, thou~ their relationship to trsmpor- tation systems petozmance may be matp~L The extent of landscaping, the types of hiding materials, the size and location of open spare and other ~eaeures may be of importance to area residents as well as the effect of certain of these teatures and amenities on travel behavior within, to and from the centers. · Relationship to Existing Conditions Over the next 50 years there will be a need to identify centers whose form wiU require the redevelopmeat of existing land uses through a combi- nation of public and private actions. Other urban centms may fill in and Srow around exis6nS ones, makin~ use of available underutilized or vacant land. Lastly, there remain, even within the current UGB bound- aries, oFl:sortunities for new urban canters on land vacant or in aFicultural · use. It seems approlcn'iate to consider the need for identiPymS sites of all three kinds as part of the R~ion 2040 process. I Prototype Definitions AssuminS that each d these six charactertics can take no more than three di/fer~nt forms, there are 72g different possible combinations that might ddine prototypes for mixed-use urban centers in the re~-ion. Needless to say,, there are more than three variations for each characteristics. Thus the challenSe of the 2040 process is to simplLr'y these characteristics into a small enough number to be mariaStable, both mt~fively and analytically. Toward this end we recommend the framework shown in Exhibit 26. It simplifies the possible combinations of characteristics into a more man- a~.able number. Fxrst, we may, eliminat~ the need to dist'inSuish prototypes by, whether they occur on vacant land, throuSh redevelopment or infill. These can be considered means to an end rather than an end in itsel/. Secondly,, we assume that there exists a consensus amon~ area residents on the advantaSes of urban desi~m and amerUties which sul:r~ort l~edestrians, bicycles and transit. We can therdore assume that such design features and amenities are Fresant in all proto,rF~es. (The costs of these amenities merit eamination, however.) Thbdly, we can ~ transporution characteristics and density. The mix d transportation charscteristics in an urban center will be a hmction of its density mm than andthins ~. ReEardinS land use, we can assume that diversity of incomes and housinS st)des is desirable in all urban centers. This allows us to ciistin~dsh urban centers in terms of the t~/pes of employrnents oppornmities offered there. Thus it is possible to chc~se, sa~ three differ~t emplo~nent t~x,s (offin, retail other) and Saneram distinctive urban center Proto,t]~pes as a conse- Lastly,, we can simplify the man~y variations in urban canter size down to three. These are the neighborhood/village sale center, the subregional Exhibit 26. Mixed Use Activity Center Prototypes ~ / / - / / / / Medium/ High/ Tra.,~ N~ighborhoad/ Subre~onal Regional Villig~ C. mm. Cram' - Other Office ~ Sise Neighborhood or village centers might have a i:ew hundred or perhaps thousand households and a few dozens or perhaps hunctreds of jobs. At the other extreme, regional employment centers might be defined as those. with 20 million square feet of non-residential space or more and a corre- spondinky hi~rh level of adiacent residential development. In betwee, there might be a spectrum of subregional centers sized from 2 to lS million square feet of non-residential space end from several thousand to perhaps 10,000 or more households in the vicinity. Throur~h this process of simplification, we still can accommodate u many as 27 ciifferent l:rwtotype for mixed use centers. r/we choose to eliminate land use [non-residential] mix as a variable, we can reduce the options to nine di/ferent proto.tTpes- Further, we acknowledge that auw-dependent proto.tTpes are common and therefore require no illustration. This reduces the number of Frroto.tylves worthy of research to only six. On closer examination, it has proven difficult to distin~'uish meaningNlly the differences between activit~r centers that have "mixed modes" and those which have a high transit orientation. Thus, to facilitate discussion and analysis of FototTpes we have further simplified the matrix of six to three. These are the three size variations shown in F, xhibit 26. At each of these levels of size, the specific proto,types described in the subsections which follow have in all cases a relatively hirrh proportion of trips made on foot and by transit. It is simplest to avoid some artificial distinction betwee a medium and a hi&h level of transit usage and instead concentrate on the size proto,t~pes themselves. A review of these proto.t~pes discloses usehal insights into the widely varying characteristics of the protot.vlves and the reuons for their evolution and success. The search for al~,Frol~,iate prom.types is made complicated by the scarcity of places of any size which are not auto dependent. Auto dependence becomes particularly dominant at the scale of subreSional centers and neighborhoods, since there certainly are regional centers where travel, dominated by journeys to and from work, is made in large part by means other than single occupant vehicles. Since urban form Senerally is str~SiY influenced by the newest widely used transportation technolo[~'ies, it is difficult to identi/'r places which have developed during the 'automobile age' in a manner which is other than auto dependent. The search for prototype has also been complicated by the hct that many innovative communities developed in the last generation have been developed b,/sinSic entries (typic y private develol n) on larSe -acts d tindeveloped land. This su~,sts that it may be necessar~ to assemble ~ ~'~ trader sinSle ownership in order to achieve the kind of built enviru,,u,ea,, described here. However these "new towns" are, in the' end, similar in terms of their transportation systems performance to communities which evolved incrementa~y as a resuh of ac~ons b:y many [:~'ivate developers, plamm. s &rid of~:ials. Lastly, the search has not been cortfined to the Pacific Northwest or to the Pacific coast of the United SUm. Instead it has been essential to examine obter cities in the United States which evolved, at leut in their initial form, ~ to the advent of the automobile. In the aleeruptions whic~ ~ollow. we wLTI not at,m~t to iden~ e~ ch~acte~s~c, nor eve~ adv~ta~e and disadvantage, o~ ~e places m~on~. Instead our ~se is m des~be the place suffi~endy m d~om~a~ its ~evan~ m the 2040 proc~s, analyze b~e~y why the p~ w~k ~e wa~ ~ do, ~d ~nt out wht asp~ of ~e~ c~a~ ~ th~ ~ use u ~m~, ~ ~e c~xt of the Port~d Re~an's lon~-r~ Fla~ ~ms. · Neighborhood Prototypes Wheu are the neiShborhoods which exemplil'y the densities, mix of uses and transportation system characteristics totrod in mixed use centers? Outside ot the Portland Metropolitan Area one nearby reSion worth examination is the Pu~et Sound area, in which such neighborhoods as Seattle's Queen Anne have been built. Queen Anne, as well as several other dose-in neighborhoods in the city of Seattle, contain a mixture of relatively dense detached dwellings as well as apartments, retail and service establishments and other uses. The Queen Anne neighborhood is friendly to pedestrians because of it's Srid street system and relatively complete sidewalk network. It is well served by public transportation. Its revitalization in the last decade has been the result of not only the quality of its buildings but also its proximity to downtown employment. Its $entrification has Frocz~led with only modest support from municipal and reSional policy makers and planners. In the several neiShborhoods are worthy of mention. In fact, there are many from which to choose. In Berkele7, the itoclaidge and North Befkele7 ui~hborhoods are both known for their mix o~ residence and small shops, at densities which are well within the reach of those ~otmd in central arm of the C:it]r of Portland. The restaurants, book stores and other l:msinesses and services forrod in these neighborhoods make them popular destinations not only for neiShborhood residents but also for othen dudaS eveninS and weekend hours. In the City of San PP,scisco, among the many neighborhoeds which are worth7 of mention is the Sunset neighborhood on the western slope of the citT. Dominated by a grid street system, this neighborhood consists predominantly ot two and tlu'ee stor7 residential structures, with sU~htly higher densities on key artemis. The arterials are well served by nansit, · (both light rail and bus). The ~round floor of the buildings on these artzriais is almost exclusively commer~al, with a complete cross section of goods and services needed by area residents as weU as many desired by others from outside the neighborhood. The residential structures include owner occupied single family dwellings as well as "multi-family' dwellingS with two, four or more units. This nei~oorhood, like many in major cities, continues to evolve in terms of its ethnic and incm=e diversity. In turn, the commercial establishments also evolve to meet the needs of the area's newer residents. The nei~,hborhood was built to accommodate auto- mobties, however, and in this re=p,e..t it illustrates how such Pedestrian and transit friendly neighborhoods can evolve while accommodating automobiles. Many of the residences have ~round floor garages; on-street parkin~ is also permitted. In the eastern United States, we must note two famous experiments in community planning, Greenbelt, Maryland and Redburn, New/ene~/. Both these communities were planned and developed during the 1930s, as part of a short lived federal initiative in new town planning and develop maul Both survive today as mixed income communities where hausing is on relatively sinroll lots and includes both single family and multi-family structures. Both these communities have iully grade separated l:~lestrian and bicycle networks. Greenbelt has a community center with convenient shops, recreation and institutional uses including the community school, all arranged in a central location. The curvilinear street system provides vehicle circulation within the neighborhood. A network of "Greenbelt' space was arigmall.v intended to surround the neighborhood, and some of this has been in federal ownership for 50 years. Despite being built during the automobile age, both Greenbelt and Padburn are testimony to the ways in which neighborhoods (or small residential communities) can be built in s mazmer which accommodates diversity, cream a distinct identity, affords easy movement by means d either vehicles or slow modes and reFn'esents Unlike Greenbelt and Pacitmrn, two other eastern communities worthy of note emerged during the same period of time without the benefit of coordinated development planning. In Musachusetts, the town of Brookfine, which has a history ~,oing back over SIX) years, evolved during the first decades of the lOtis century as the prototypical fight rail suburb. Along the psmciple avenue d the cit]r are/our story apartment buildingS served by a fi~ht rail system. Within the town there are nearly a dozen important neighborhood commercial centers, all accessed easily by pedestrians/zorn adjacent neighborhoods. While the town development pattern emerged during the automobile aSe, the presence of transit brourrht about a high level of transit use which continues to this day. Public policies have helped to revitalize several of the commercial areas the last 20 Fears. In the Washington D.C. metropolitan area, the neighborhood of l~riendship Heights ,t~fies a densir,/of development comparable to close in West Side Portland ndShborhoods, with a mix of single family houses .on 5,000 square ~oot lots combined with multi-family developments, some of which are in hitch rise buildings. The nei~rhborhood is anchored by · larSe retail complex, which has been supplemented in recent years by an extensive arra~, of restaurants. The are· is served bF a .stop on the WashinS~:m Metro (hesv~ rail) s~stem, and it is well served bF buses. The presence of fixed rail postdated the area's development. The neiShborhoods described above illustrate the fact that people of all it·come levels condnue to five in nei~borhoods which are dense enough to support one or more transit modes, have well developed pedestrian sFstems, have a mix of local services sufficient to meet the needs of area residents, and have remained, for decades, desirable places to live. With the exception of the two new towns of the I~]Os, all of these communities evolved incrementallF, constrained only by local zoning standards for building height and bulk, permi~ land use, required set backs parking and other traditional regulations. Most of these neighborhoods evolved after the popula~tT of the automobile was well established, indicatinS that such development patterns are well within the reach of toda~'s citizens and plazaera. · Subregional Center Protot es Subregional centers can be distinguished from neiShborhoods principally by the presence of employment which is not oriented to the needs of neighborhoed residents. By combinin~ a concentration of emplo]anent of regional siS'ni~cance with the fabric of residential neighborhoods, subregional centers serve as important central places within metropolitan Two historic examples of such centers are Princeton, New Iersey and Alexandria, Vix~inia. Both these commttnities were settled in the 18th century and still display substantial amounts of development from that century. In addition to ElyinS theix' communities a distinctive chax'actm', this development has accommodated itsel/to the automobile a~e throu~,h the conversion of some slructures to emplo3anent uses (small professional offices, shops and restaurants) and the conversion of others to multi-familF uM (two to four aparmmxts). The center of each d these ccnnmunities ha ranmined lively to this day, in each case havinB~ been redeveloped, largely' privately, to accommodate modern ofi:~ce structures of ~our to sLx stories ~ height. Design restrictions have insured their compatibility with the existing fabric of the community. Both cities have traditionally been served by public transportation and remain so served to this day, with Princeton served by local and reSional bus and train to employment centers in Philadelphia and New York, and Alexandria offering bus and Metro connections to metropolitan Washington and the District of Columbia. Both areas have a rich variety of shops and services, extensive pedestrian activities, traditional Srid streets, a white collar employment base and (as a result of their attractiveness), a relatively affluent set of reidents. Other small eastern cities offer examples of what might occur in sub- regional centers in the Portland area. Burlington, Vermont, that state's largest city with a population of over ~0,000, evolved as a manufacturing community into a largely white collar dry dominated by one employer (IBM). In addition, as the seat ot the ljniversity of Vermont, it has a large student population. The city has had in recent years a~ressive politics favonng public transportation, mixed income housing, which have contributed to its current vitality. Other small New EnSland cities (Pittsfield, Massachusetts, Middletown, Connecticut, Portland, Maine and others) have s'urtilar characteristics. All support a modest level of transit, principally work trips with CBD desti- nations. All have an urban form which evolve prior to the automobile. All are free standing urban centers but exempli/y the densities, street patterns and sizes of the subregional centers which are currently emerging, (with qmte different urban ~orms), in the Portland metropofitan area today. Many other smaller cities, of a size which could be classified as subreSional centers in the Portland metropolitan area, have high levels of pedestrian activity, a well used pubtic tanspotation (bus) system, a Lively downtown area with shops, professional offices and even small manufacturing districts, and are widely teSsfried as models for liveable cities. Their most distinctive feature, however, is the presence of a ms)or colleSt or univer- sit7. These communities include Boulder, Colorado, Davis, California, as.c[ others in both the west and east couu and the heartland of the United States. In fact, when people try' to identify/communities whose transpor- tation system performance best matches that proposed for the Portland reEion, university and co!leSt town t'Fpically come to mind. 1-fiSh levels of transit utilization and extensive pedestrian activity in these communities correspond with the presence of a large transit dependent student popu- lation. Lastly, a Sroup of communities has omerSed in the last two decade with subreSional employment centers where transit and automob~es coexist with a~ressive demand mana~ment propross to minimize the of single occupant vehicles. Examples of these communities include Pleasanton, California, Bellerue, Washington and Walnut Creek, California, While each of these communities is well served by transit (either bus, rill or both) it cannot be said that they are free of aleprudence on the automobile. Furthermore, the concesttrarion of en~ployment relative to jobs distin~tishes them as subregional employment centers rather than subreSional cozruntmities. Nevertheless each serves as an example of how apsive l~bfic poUcy can shal:~ travel behavior in ·uto depe~ent · ReSional Center Prototypes Portland's centnl business district is already regarded widely across the United States as an exemplary urban center. 1'he ~nd street system, high level of 1xdestrian and transit amenities and mix of uses an con~bute to its well earned reputation. As the downtown continues to ~row during the next 50 yeaFs, what other dries might serve as models for central Portiand's form? Two possible examples are Tomato, Ontm:io, Canada and Boston, Manachusetts. Both are central dries in metrc~ofitan areas with over 3 zrdlfion residents. As such they are already larger than the Portland metropo~tan area will be 50 years hence. However, they offer a level of transit service, combined with a set of suitortire public policies, a history of interest in planning and a quality of li~e which to serve as excellent examples for how larSe cities can ~ liveable. Both cities have fixed heavy rail systems, thus distinguishing from Portland today. Toronto's downtown has remained dominated by em- ployment, with relatively few residences within walking distance. The city has undertaken poficies to correct this irabalance, and researchers have documented that automobile trips to the CBD have decreased as · result. Metropo~tan Toronto also hu suburban activity-centers which exemplify the planning principles of interest to Portland area residents. The dry of Boston has · central business d~strict surrounded by low rise but high density. urban neighborhoods. These neighborhoods evolved during the 19th century and have accommodated the automobile with some difficulty.. AgSressive parking policies in neighborhoods and employment centers, combined with a high level of transit service and perlesmart friendliness have allowed the cit?' to evolve with relatively less automobile dependence than other dries of its size. In addition, it offms the example of a city whose central area has split into at least two dis- trim, the Downtown and the Back Bay. l'hese correspond to downtown Portland and the Lloyd C. ent~r/Conventicn Center areas. Both these d~ies offer a rich variety of iz~cn-mation, l~Licies and lessons for Pcnisnd area pla.,mm and dtizens. · Summary Clearly this discussion of protory?ca serves only as a beginning l:~int for inquiry'. by area residents and officials into 'alternative models available to the Portland metrol:~litan area. As a group, however, they demonstrate the viabilit? of mixed use urban centers of all sizes in the automobile age. They demonstrate that there are many means to the desirable end of livability. They should serve as both illustrations of what the Portland area may become and sources of information on how it can achieve its desired vision. California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board DRAFT THE LAND USE- AIR QUALITY LINKlAG How Land Use and Transportation Affect Air Quality Acknowledgments This report was prepared by the staff of the Air Resources Boarffs Office of Air Quality and Transportation Planning under the direction and review of Catherine Witherspoon, Assistant Executive Officer, and Anne Geraghty, Manager of the Transportation Strategies Group. The principal author is Terry Parker, Associate Air Quality Specialist, with assistance from Pare Burreich, Associate Air Quality Specialist, and Marc Fioravanti. Stanford in Government intern. ATTACHMENT NO. 4 DRAFT REPORT ON: HOW LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION AFFECT AIR QUALITY R:\DEVCOOE\JNT~RKSH,CCl 2/22/95 ktb 6 THE LINKAGE BETWEEN LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION, AND AIR QUALITY CONTENTS Introduction .............................................................................................l The Relationship Between Vehicle Use and Air Quality .......................1 The Relationship Between Land Use and Air Quality ............................2 Existing Modes of Travel: .......................................................................2 · Walking ...........................................................................................3 · Transit Use ......................................................................................3 WHAT LAND USE STRATEGIES ARE BETFER FOR AIR QUALITY? ...................................................................4 Regional Strategies ................................................................................4 Central Business District ...................................................................5 Urban Density ...................................................................................5 · Residential Density ........................................................................5 · Employment Density .....................................................................6 Activity Centers ................................................................................6 Reurbanization ..................................................................................7 Jobs-Housing Balance ......................................................................7 Neighborhood Strategies ......................................................................8 Mixed-Use Developments ................................................................8 Integrated Street Patterns .................................................................9 "Traditional Neighborhood I~velopment". ...................................10 "Transit-Oriented Development". .......................................................10 CASE STUDIES: ....................................................................................1 ! Portland. Oregon: The "LUTRAQ" Project ...................................11 Toronto. Canada .............................................................................11 · Toronto's Strategies Are Working ..............................................12 AIR QUALITY BENEFITS ..................................................................13 OTHER BENEFITS ................................................................................13 · Lower Infrastructure Costs .........................................................13 · Affordable and Diverse Housing ..................: ...............................14 ARB-FUNDED RESEARCH ................................................................. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... SOURCES ...............................................................................................16 6-2-7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Total Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled in California, 1970-1990 ...............................................................1 Figure 2: Projected Increase in Population and VMT in California, 1992-2005 ...............................................................2 Figure 3: Typical Emissions from an Indirect Source and a Stationary Source .................................................................2 Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Portion of Personal Trips that are 5 Miles or Shorter - and Purpose of Trips ......................................................................2 Modes of Travel in California, 1991 .............................................3 Travel by Automobile and Transit in Four Cities Worldwide ...........................................................................3 Figure 7:. Figure 8: Figure 9: Rates of Transit Use for Commuting .............................................4 Proximity of Residence from a Transit Station and Frequency of Transit Use ........................................................4 Minimum Densities to Support Varions Levels of Transit Service ...............................................................................6 Figure 10: Relationship Between Population Density and Annual VMT per Capita ...... ~ ..................................................6 Figure I I: Travel Behavior at an Urban and a Suburban Shopping Center .............................................................................8 Figure 12: Integrated and Isolated Street Patterns (diagram) .........................10 Figure 13: Comparison of Characteristics between a "Traditional Neighborhood Development" and typical Suburban "Planned Unit Development". ........................................................10 Figure 14: Transit and Walking Mode Shares in Four Alternative Scenarios (from the "LUTRAQ" project) ....................11 Figure 15: Infrastructure Costs in Relation to Residential Density .................13 THE LINKAGE BETWEEN LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION, AND AIR QUALITY Introduction The form and shape that growing cities take in the next two decades will have an important impact on the future air quality of California's major metropolitan are~. A growing body of literature and research indicates that land use. and transportation strategies can reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, and thus reduce the air pollution produced by automobiles. Combined with other air quality programs that decrease motor vehicle emissions and reduce reliance on vehicles. land use and transpor- tation strategies can help to reduce air pol- lution. By creating environments that are more conducive to alternative transportation modes such as walking, biking and transit. we can create more "livable" communities -- communities with reduced congestion. incmnsM personal mobility, and cleaner. healthier air. This report summarizes data currently available on the relationships between land use, transportation and air quality, and will be updated periodically. It also highlights land use strategies that can help to reduce the use of the private automobile. And, it briefly summarizes several research projects l~mded by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). The Relndonshii~ Retween Vehicle Use sund Air Oemlity The air quality in all of California's major metropolitan areas currently exceeds State bealth-based standards for ozone and particulatet This is tnm despite the reduction of air pollution from both mobile sources (cars, trucks and buses), and stationary sources (utilities and other industries). Most of the State's metropolitan areas also fail to comply with state standards for carbon monoxide, another component of "smog." Mobile sources produce more than 50 percent of all smog precursors and over 90 percent of the carbon monoxide in the state's major urban arcaso l Today's new cars pollute about ten time less than models produced 23 yeALrS ago due to California's strict emissions standards. However, these reductions in emissions are also being offset by increased vehicle travel During the past twenty yeats, the total number of 'vehicle miles traveled" (VM'I3 in the state has increased twice as fast as the rate of population growth. We are driving more often, longer distances, and we also tend to be driving alone more often. In C',difornia. the total annual vehicle miles of travel more than doubled between 1970 and 1990. increasing from 115 billion to over 250 billion miles of travel per year. During the same period of time, the state's population grew by about 51%.2 Total Annual Vehicle MIles Traveled in California, 1970-1990 I i I I 10~ 197g INO lOeB 1990 FiFe I 3 A 1989 poll identified the nation's ten most congested urban areas. One-half of these atns are located in California: Los Angeles, San Diego. San Francisco/Oakland, San Jose. and San Bernndino/Riverside Counties.4 ff current vehicle use trends continue, increased traffic congestion will result. and avenge vehicle speeds in the state's major urban areas 1 Calif. Air Rtsounes Board. 1993. 2 Catif. 'Energy Commission. t990. 3 Calf. Dept. of Transportation. 1992. 4 Ufball [dllg[ [gt~titlitt. I find t|ge In Trnn,i~ot 1993. will continue to decline, especially during peak-hour commute periods. Increased use of cars and trucks will also counteract many of the air quality improvements that will be gained from stricter emissions controls on new and existing vehicles, the use of cleaner fuels, and other simihr measures. Projected Increase In Population and VMT In California, 1992-2005 Population VMT Figere J The RelntioBship Fletween l.nnd Use nnd Air O-nli~V The places that we drive in our dally routine, such as shopping centers, schools and univer- sities, employment centers, and medical offices, are referred to as "indirect sources" by air quality specialists because they attract vehicle travel. The numerous vehicle uips to and from such destinations produce emissions that can be quite significant when compared to the pollut,~nts emiued by typical stationary sources of air pollution, such as power plants, oil refineries and manufacturing-facilities. Vehicles traveling to and from a major regional shopping center located in a suburban area with limited transit service produce a significant mount of carbon monoxide (CO). But, if that shopping center is located in an urban downtown area that is served by a good regional transit system and is accessible by pedestrians, the mount of vehicle travel and related emissions can be much lower.6 · CoM Start Emissions Starting a vehicle that has not been driven for about one hour produces a significant mount of tail-pipe emissions because the catalyst in the catalytic converter is not yet warm enough to fully cornbust the exhaust gases. These at~ often referred to as "cold start" emissions. The cold start typically produces more than one-half of the total emissions from a vehicle trip under 20 miles in length, and 78% of the emissions from a trip of 2 miles or less.7 Reducing the number of short vehicle trips can thus help reduce emissions from cold starts. Most of our daily trips are less than five miles in length.s Reducing the number of short trips such as these can significantly reduce "cold start" emissions. The location and configuration of land uses in part determines the distances people travel to reach employment sites, stores. houses, and other destinations. These facwrs also influence which mode of transportation they choose - car, vanpool, bus, train or trolley, walking, or bicycling. Portion Of Personal Trips That Are 6 Miles Or Shorter Typical Emissions from an .. Indirect SoUme and a Stationary Soume . '"'.' "----- , ~ , ' ~ PURPOSE OF TRIPS oreusa Fanera ammm~ FilEre 49 Fib.r. 3s 6 JHK and ,,-ex'im,-s. t993. 7 Calif. Ait Rvs er r.e~Bostd. L/n/m~Repor,; tgeg- 8 U.S.D.O.T. 19~6. 9/b~. FINAL DRAFT S California Air R~soutcss Board. 1989, Inc.. 1993. /.tad l/an'ms ~: at/on/ Air Ouality LMka~ Repon Modes of Travel According to a recent statewide study of travel modes in California, about 86% of personal travel is by automobile, motorcycle or light- duty truck. Walking and bicycling together comprise about 9% of total travel, while public transit accounts for only about 2%. Modes of Travel in California, 1991 Public Sdmdeu, o, a Bbydr. 2.3% 2.1% 9.4% - '~, '~ .:' :~ ......~,~ ..... .... ?~,:...~ k,,, person-~ 86.2% Vide: F~,ure5to · Walking Walking comprises a small but very important pertion of total travel. A vital pan of any transportation system is the linkage between different modes of travel. Providing direct. safe and convenient accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists at both ends of a trip can encourage walking, bicycle or transit use, thereby reducing the need to rely on personal vehicles for both short and longer trips. Major keys to improving pedestrian facilities include: · direct t, ccessibili~ - walkers can be easily discouraged by thfficult or indirect routes, or by impassable barriers. · $R[tflL' walkers are more vulnerable to traffic and other people. Well-lighted. well-observed and spacious walL~vays increase their sense of security. · attractiveness - walkers prefer an interesting, attractive route, and tend to be 10Calif. Dept of TIt- pa_mion, 1992. Lmi tltlrm~-_r t,.t fie/ !~ge J discouraged bv large areas of asphalt and uninteresting walls or buildings. t l How far are people willing to walk? People walk at an average speed of about 3 miles per hour, or 260 feet per minute. Most people in the United States (about 70%) expressed a willingness to wutinely walk 500 feet (about 1/10 of a mile). About 40% overall are willing to walk 1,000 feet on a regular basis, but only 10% will willingly walk a half mile or more during their normal dally routim~s.z2 · Transit Use Residents of urban areas in the United States use transit much less, on average, than people living in cities in other pans of the world. Travel By Automobile and Transit in Four Cities Worldwide i "= . 211 LOi SAN TOg AMITER- ANGE,.ES FRAN- DAM The significantly higher transit use rates found in other countries can be attributed to a variety of factors, including: urban density, the level and type of wansit service available, improved pedestrian accessibility to transit, the location and concentration of urban activity centers, the availability of parking, the price of fuel. household income, and traffic congestion. A certain minimum level of transit "ridership" is needed for transit districts to be able to provide higher levels of wansit service. The quality and frequency of transit service depends in large pan on the number of people It ~Lung Auociation, 198t. t2 Unmnnan, 19i4. t3 Ksnwofihy and Newman, t990. FINAL DRAFT that use the system. And. the rate of transit use, in turn, is related to the frequency and quality of wansit service. its cost, and whether transit can take people to their destinations at convenient times. A variety of types of transit service that work together as an integrated unit, including frequent local bus service, express buses, and light or heavy rail, can also significantly encourage transit use. 14 Compact urban development, especially in proximity to transit stations, can help provide higher ridership levels needed to support good trnnsit service.ts Accessibility to transit services, the level of tral'fic congestion on streets and freeways, as well as urban form and density, arc all important factors in determining whether people choose to use transit instead of their own personal vehicles. Several recent studies indicate that higher density and mixed use developments located within walking distance of transit stations do provide significantly more transit riders. A study conducted by the Metropolitan Transit Commission in 1980 surveyed the travel behavior of San Francisco Bay Area residents. Rates of Transit Use for Commuting i !!! i iiii!:::''' ' '' ' *.. , '/-:': AVERAGE COMMUTERS COMMUTERS LIVING NEAR "BART" STATIONS F/Im'e 7 16 This study found that an average of about 8% of the residents of the East Bay portion of the Bay Area (including Oakland and Berkeley) routinely commute w work on the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) high-speed rail system. In contrast, a much higher proportion of residents, about 40%, who live within easy walking distance of BART stations, commute to work or school by transit, This rate is five 14 Arkins. t992. t$ Snohomish Count,/Transpormtioa AutO. 19WJ. 16 E~*-iri-~ Have?, Sk~ t981. /~slw4 times higher than the typical East Bay commuter's transit usage rate. Results of another study also indicate that commuters who live and/or work within 1/4 mile of a B ART station are the most likely commuters to take transit to work. Rates of transit use begin to drop off for people who live farther than 1/2 mile from a transit station. · Proximity of Residence from a Transit StaUon and Frequency of Transit Use % of ~4 -- Residents 12 - ~ Transit S - to e- Commute ~ ' o- ~ lass 114 mile Ovm' 2 114 2 miles F/g~re8 17 According to a recent nationwide survey,* people who live within 1/4 mile of a wansit stop or station arc nearly three times more likely to use transit than those who live between 1/4 miles and 2 miles from a station. Residents of housing situated within 2 miles of a wansit station arc almost four times more likely to use transit for commuting than those who live further than two miles from a station. t 8 Providing better access w transit, as well as convenient and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle facilities, can potentially reduce the number of vehicles people need to own, which can save money. On average, it costs about $7,000 per year to own and operate a typical automobile or light-duty track in Southern California (not including parking fees. fines. or traffic tickets). This equates to a little more than $600 per month. ~9 WHAT LAND USE STRATEGIES ARE BETTER FOR AIR QUALITY? Land uses that enable people to walk or to use transit, rather than relying primal'fly on their ~ 17 Bsmick, 1992. ' 18 U.S.D.O.T, 1986. 19 AAA of SomlmmCaliL 1992. cars for mobility. are better for air qu-',lity. This section describes several such land use strategies. and summarizes available data on their potential bcnetits in reducing vehicle travel and supporting convenient alternatives. A study of public wansit use conducted in Washingwn:, D.C., identified key land use programs for making the best use of a transit system: · Promote land uses that generate the most transit trips near stations; · Locate these uses in close proximi.ty to transit station entrances; · Provide high densi.ty land development around stations, including suburban locations.2o Land use decisions for the areas around transit corridors are critical due to the fixed nature of rail transit and the limited land supply near stops. Such decisions need to be made with a long-term view, as they will lust for many years to come. Land use strategies to support alternative travel modes and reduce automobile use are available on both the regional (metropolitan area) and local (neighborhood) levels. Regional Strategies Less costly land prices in fringe areas of most metropolitan areas have helped to disperse development patterns and reduce overall regional densities. This pattern of growth has generally resulted in longer travel distances and increased reliance on vehicles for personal mobility.21 Specific regional level strategies that can reduce reliance on automobiles as the primary mode of wansportation are summarized below. Centrnl Rnsiness District A strong central business district (CBD) has historically influenced the ability of transit 20 JHK & .tqoei'*q, 1987. 21 Sullivan. 1990. districts to provide good service.22 Rates of transit ridership are typically higher at downtown sites because of a variety of factors, including: a concentrated number of destinations near the transit stations (such as jobs, shops, public facilities and retail services), higher parking costs, traffic congestion, limited parking availability, and better access to transit at both trip encls.23 A study of the New York Metropolitan area identified similar connections between certain land uses and a successful transit system that serves a large number of people. This study also found that a strong central business district. rather than a highly dispersed employment pattern such as is occurring in many suburban ureas. is a crucial ingt~ient in creating and supporting a strong trnnsit system. increasing transit usage rams and decreasing personal vehicle travei.24 The central business districts of many major cities in the U.S. tend to have a number of high-rise buildings, with some restaurants, shops and other services, but little activity after business hours or on weekends.:s Providing housing in the downtown and nearby areas contributes to safer and more lively central cities, and reduces the commute for those residents who live and work downtown.26 Residential units in the downtown also tend to increase the use of transit during non-commuting times of the day and evening, which has been found to greatly improve the efficiency of public transit.27 Urban Density The average rate of transit use has generally been found to increase in areas where the overall density of residential and non- residential land uses is higher.28 Concen- trating land uses help to reduce VMT and personal vehicle travel in these ways: · Activities located spatially closer together reduce travel distances 22 J!IK and .A--ocitfet 1987. 231bid. 24 Pushkarev and Zulxm. 1977. 25 Newman and Kenworthy. 1989. 26 Jane Jacobs. 1961. 27 .~tohomish C, amy Transit Au~aority, 1989. 28 Snolm.d/Coumy; JHK: Comzy of Sanstamina. FD/A/, DJMJr'r .... JamflgfJ. · Higher densities provide a larger number of potential transit riders anti support a more efficient transpormnon system · Activities located closer together facilitate mode shifts from automobiles to walking, biking and transit. Higher levels of transit service are much more feasible in areas with higher densities of residences, employees and services. The tnstitute of Transportation Engineers (IRE) has suggested the following general guidelines for m/n/mum densities of residential develop- meat and intensifies of non-residential floor area that can provide the ridership to s.uppon various types and levels of transit service. Minimum Densities To Support Various Levels Of Transit Service Type of Transit Minimal level of local bus service (@ one bus per hour) Noll- Residential Residential (du/acre) * (mill. sn.ft.) 4to6 51o8 tntenncdiatc level of local bus service (@ one bus per 1/2 hour) 7~8 8m20 Light rail transit 9 &above 35 to 50 with feeder buses *(average number of dwelling units (du) per acre) Figure 9 29 A report published by the American Institute of Architects in 1990 states that the "number- one growth u'cnd of the decade would he the dcnsi~cation of the suburbs." This trend is expected to especially affect tic more office- oriented suburbs. which have suffered increasingly severe levels of traffic congestion on highways that were already nearing capacity by the end or' the 1980s. The architects also expect this densit]cation trend to lend suburbs "a more urban flavor, com- bining the benefits of suburban living with an exciting urban environment." 3o · Residential Density 29 Insfimm of TIt- r antian Enginmn (ITEk 1989. 30 Urban Land lns~lme. Land (/se in Traas~t/~& 1993. A/r Ossi'Y L/shsgs Ra~msa Pap6 A 1993 report by the Oovcrnor's Growth Management Council points out: "If the State wishes to preserve mobility, open space and a viable agricultural industry, clean axr and environmental quality. and an economy that works. it cannot continue to support traditional low-density land use patterns based on large, single family detached dwellings, nor a transportation system based overwhelmingly on single-occupancy vehicle usage. It must promote alternatives-"31 Large areas of low density housing generally cannot justify or support effective levels of transit service. As noted by the ITE and others. the minimum density threshold for minimal local bus service to residential ~ is between four and six dwelling units per acre. At or above seven dwelling units per acre. bus service may be improved to one-half hour from one-hour headways, if this density is clustered and/or maintained over a large enough area to provide sufficient ridership. Clusters of medium-density residential areas that average 7-15 dwelling units per acre can generally support frequent local bus service. If such dcusities arc maintained over a large enough area, with good pedestrian acces- sibility, then light rail transit service may also become feasible.32 Heavy rail transit. such as the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) and Cal Train in the San Francisco Bay Area. is generally appropriate for linking major concentrated urban areas. The relationships hetwecn different land uses and peoplc's travel behavior have recently been explored in several studies. A 1990 study comparing travel behaviors in several neighborhoods located in the S.F. Bay Area concluded that for each doubling of density, the average VMT per capita per year is reduced by 25%-30%. The neighborhoods studied had varying mounts of services and employment. were different distances from the central business district. and had a wide range of Wansit services.33 A region-wide travel survey conducted in the S.F. Bay Area also concluded that there is a ~-~ 31 Growth Manag~mant Council. 1993. pg. t t. 32 Snohomish County Transpomgion AuOsssity, 19S9. 33 Holmlaw. 1991. F/NALDP,/IFr definite relationship between overall popuhtion density and increased transit availability and use.s4 A worldwide study of urban density, travel patterns and transportation facilities in 32 major cities, also supports the conclusion that lower levels of vehicle use are related to urban form and density. This study concluded that urban density has a significant relationship with shifting travel to transit and away from automobiles. It found that for each doubling of population density in cities throughout the world, the average per-capita consumption of gasoline is reduced between 25-30%.as Most of this reduction is due to higher rates of transit usage, with walking and bicycling playing a lesser though also important role. Relationship Between Population Density and Annual VMT per Capita VMTdelwimsss I I I S0 100 DENSITY (perens per mskmllsl Figure lO · Employment Density The location, size and concentration of different employment activities are also significant factors in determining the type and level of transit service that can be efficiently provided and its eventual rate of use. Employment sites scattered over a large area often atwact enough vehicles to create significant traffic congestion, but usually do not generate enough wansit riders to sustain convenient-levels of wansit service. In conwast, industrial facilities or offices with more closely-spaced buildings that are connected by direct pedestrian mutes and 34 D.K.S. 1981. 35 Kenwormy and Newn~n. 1990. Lmsd UswTrwm , _ ,,I wt ' gwt Paffe7 served by convenient wansit can result in increased use of alternative modes of travel A study in the Seatde area concluded that transit ridership increases signi~candy when the density of jobs exceeds 50 employees per acre in centers that provide at least 10,000 jobs.36 A typical threshold for providing good. local bus service to employment areas is between 50 to 60 employees per acre.37 Activity Centers If a variety of activities, such as shops and services,-offices and other employment sites and residences, are clustered, they can become lively "activity centers." A network of such centers. or "nodes." can more easily be linked by a transit network to other similar centers and to the central business district. Activity centers served by transit located in suburban areas can also provide accessibility to transit service for surrounding residential areas. Such activity centers or nodes can also referred to as "Urban Villages" or "Suburban Vilhge Centers." These can signi~e~n~y enhance the efficiency of transit service and promote pedestrian activity by increasing the number of people with access to transit services. In some cases, the concentration or "intensity" of employment and other activity centers can have an even more significant influence on levels of trait provision and use than the density of residential arena.3s A study of travel behavior at five major regional shopping centers in California was recently completed for the ARB.39 The researchers concluded that the location of the shopping centers, the density and mixture of surrounding land uses, and proximity to a high-quality regional transit system, are the most importnnt factors in explaining the differences in travel at the five centers studied. Tb.~ results of this study show a dramatic incrense in transit and pedestrinn travel at malls located in urban areas that are surrounded by dense mixed use development and accessible to a regional transit system. In 36 ,~attl~ METRO. 1987. 37 Pushkarev and Zulmn, 1977. 38 ~id. 39 ~K ~ A--~a~ t~3. F~AL D~ comparison, shopping centers located in low density suburban areas with poor transit service and limited pedestrian facilities tend to have much higher automobile travel rate~ than their more urban counterparts. Over 60 % of the 300 customers surveyed at Honon Plaza. a major shopping center in the downtown area of San Diego, traveled there by transit or on foot.`*° In comparison, only 5 % of the customers at a comparable suburban center with only limited bus service and poor pedestrian accessibility, traveled to and from the shopping center by bus or on foot. Travel Behavior at an Urban and a Suburban Shopping Center ,cA, UebBn 7elk ~ ~ [] Sti)mtmll 5hol~klg ~enter 4e/e · . · PERSONAL TRANSIT WALKING VEHICLE Mode of Travel to Shopping Center Figure 11 41 Another important conclusion of this study is that land use and transit factors are much more. important in reducing .vehicle trips than a number of transportanon control measures, or "TCMs," that were also' tested. JHK evaluated ten TCMs appropriate for major regional shopping centers, and found that they would reduce vehicle travel at the centers by only about 5 to 7%, even if several me~sures are combined. A study of five alternative land use and transportation scenarios in the Seattle, Washington metropolitan area. concluded that establishing a number of fairly concentrated suburban activity centers connected by transit could eventually result in lower levels of VMT and traffic congestion, increased transit use, and less air pollution than the continu- ation of existing land use patterns. Each new 40 Pemuion m cim Hone. Plaza granw. i by The Hahn Co. 41 Rill 1993./b~. Air amORy Lisks~ R~p~ Pap 8 sub-center would include a variety of high intensity activities and denser residential areas, but would still remain less important regionally than the major central business district (downtown Seattle)-42 Reurbanization The in~lL redevelopment and reuse of vacant ' or underutiLized parcels within existing urban areas can help to decrease vehicle traffic, reduce walking distances and support better transit systems. Such strategies also have other benefits: lower infrastructure costs, more efficient delivery of services, increased economic viability of cities, and reduced conversion of agricultural land and open spaces to urban or suburban development. Paying attention to the design, quality, mixture and compatibility of residential and other types of in~ll projects helps increase their acceptability to neighboring residents and businesses. especially in the case of higher- density infill and redevelopment projects. Jobs-Housin[' Balance "' The term "Jobs-Housing Balance" refers to progrnms that attempt to attract employers to locate in housing-rich areas, and to encourage the provision of housing at prices affordable to the people working in the community. If residential areas are located far from major employment centers, longer commute distances, increased traffic congestion, and significant vehicle emissions usually result. Between 80 to 100% of the new jobs created in the U.S. during the past two decndes were situated in the inner to outer suburbs of metropolitan areas-43 Partly as a result of quickly-expanding metropolitan areas, the average commute distance in the U.S. has increased by 2.$% between 1983 and 1990.44 Several analyses of historic urban =ends have found that irabalances in the ratio of jobs and housing tend to eventually resolve themselves over time as more jobs move closer to sub- urban residential districts. In cases of extreme irabalances in the jobs/housing relationship, --,. 42 puget Sound Council of C-mve, :n,k 1990. 43 Urban Land Inssits& Land Use in T~"q. 199~. 44 U.S.D.O.T. 1990. FINAL DR4Fr policies and progrums to increase the number of jobs or housing units may help to acccleruu: this process. Neighborhood Strategies Neighborhood str-negles ire site-specific measures that can be applied to exxsting us well as new development or redevelopmeat projects. Combined with overall regional strategies. they cnn help reduce the vehicle emissions associited with various types of land uses. Mixed-Use l)evelopmen,q Mixed-use development policies allow compatible land uses, such as shops, offices. and housing, to locate closer together and decreases travel distances between them. Mixed-use development. if properly designed and implemented, can reduce VMT and trips on-site, and can increase wansit aldership, especially during the off-peak (non-commute) hours. For example, a mixed-use area containing restaurants, a museum, a theater and retail stores, has a greater potential to generate bus and rail ridership than an area with retail stores alone. Adding housing w the mix of uses can improve the situation substantially.45 Mid-day trips fwm work for lunch or to run errands can also be influenced by mixed-use strategies- In typical single-use offices parks. only 3-8% of such trips ate currently made by walking. In comparison, in mixed-use areas with good pedestrian accessibility, 20-30% ot' mid-day travel from offices are by walking.46 Recent data on the air quality benefits of mixed-use projects is limited. In 1974, the U.S. EPA and HUD sponsored a study that compared two different types of development. each housing up to 10,000 people. This study concluded that higher density, mixed-use communities could result in 20 to 30% less auwmobile pollution than would be expected from a low-density, single-use subdivision.47 Another study was mcen~y conducted for a proposed suburban "vilhge center-style" development in the San Joaquin Valley. Consultants estimated that this project would produce about one-third less vehicle travel per household, on avenge, than the vehicle travel that would ordinarily occur in a typical single- use, low density suburban housing tract It also projected that such suburban "villages" could reduce the number of automobile trips by about 13% per household, when compared to the typical suburban development patram.4s An ARB-funded research project is currently underway to study travel behavior of residents in different types of neighborhoods. This study will provide additional data on the potential advantages of mixed use and higher density land use patterns. (Results are expected to be available by the end of 1993.~ lntei, rated Street Patterns During the past 20 years, the typical street circulation pauern in developing suburban areas has consisted of a hierarchy of local streets leading to collectors, and then to major artemis that connect different parts of a community to each other and to freeways. Collector and arterial streets, which often provide the only connections between different sections of suburban communities. tend to be quite wide to allow vehicles to travel faster. The typical suburban circulation pattern decreases the number of available routes between trip origin and destination points, and places many vehicles on major streets and at signaled intersections during peak hours. This type of circuhtion pauern often results in much higher levels of traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. Wide streets with fast-moving traffic can be difficult and often dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists to cwss or to share with vehicles. Such thoroughfares can become significant barriers to walking or bicycling and tend to encourage the use of vehicles. even for very short trips. In contrast to the typical suburban street hierarchy, a more integrated street pattern 45 Snohmnish County. 1989. 46 Untmnan. D, vid. 1984. 47 ~ Estat~ ~ Corp.. t974. Pale9 4~F-~hr&Pmn~. 1992. FINAL DR4Ff '-77 provides multiple routes to destinations. reducing the distances between two points. In integrated street patterns, overall vehicle travel times are often comparable to the faster- moving ane~als due to the shorter distnnces between various origin and destination points: A study conducted by thc American Society of Civil Engineers concluded that gridded street patterns can reduce VMT by up to 57% within the ncighborhood or subdivision, primar!.ly due to more direct routing between locauons. Actual travel times for vehicles were projected to be very similar to those found in typical hierarchical circulation patterns-49 Integrated and Isolated Street Patterns Fi~sr~ 12 50 Typically found in many older neighborhoods and small towns, integrated street networks have several advantages over typical suburban-style street patterns. They provide a number of route choices, more direct routes for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as cars, and they help to slow vehicle speeds. Slower vehicle speeds create a much safer and more interesting environment for pedestrians and bicyclists to share, and reduce noise impacts from vehicles. Traditional Neiphborhood Development "Traditional Neighborhood Development" (TND) is a design strategy that emphasizes pedestrian accessibility and the orientation of houses wwards narrower, tree-lined, griddeal streets. A primary goal of TND is to create a land use pattern that makes it easier for residents to walk between their houses, jobs, and commercial services. TND incorporates a small downtown, or "town center." within walking distance of homes. and generally has a higher overall density than in typical suburban neighborhoods. "Most housing. units are located within a five- to ten-minute walk of the town center, where commercial services and offices are concenwated."s l Single-family houses are placed on somewhat smaller lots, with front porches closer to the sidewalk and garages typically placed behind the houses. often along alleyways. "Granny fiats." or second units. axe sometimes built above the garages. A larger number of townhouse and other multi-family units are provided to meet the objective of locating residences within one-quarter mile (walking distance) of the town center. Comparison of Chamcteriatics Traditional Neighbor- h~ Design ITNDI · Gridded Streets · Narrower Streets · OreStreet Parking & Parking Structures * Shallower Setbacka · Shopping on Main SL · Mixture of Uses Suburban Pinned Unit Develemant · Hierarchical Strums · Wide Strm · O!f-mreet Sud~ce Parking Lot~ · Deeper $etbaclm · Strips/ · Single Use 49 ICulam. Waltet. m-aL 1990. 50 Sm:tmnenloCountY, 1991. Pa~ lO 51 Bookout, 1992. 52/bitt FIAMI, D~ - Jtmi~ Another benefit of this type of development can be that "residents feel they are part of a community, not just dwellers in a subdivision." Several "Neo-TraditionnF-style developments have been built during the past several years. A survey of 620 homeowners in four such neighborhoods revealed a high level of satisfaction with their new residences: an overwhelming majority, 84%, said they prefer their neo-traditional community over a more traditional suburb, even ff they could have purchased the same house for the same price elsewhere. Nearly 70% said they like the shallower front yards with houses closer to the street, and more than (}0% favored the narrower sueets, and 80% enjoyed their front porches. People also said they like to walk and leave their cars at home and use mass wansit. when they are given the opportunity to do so.53 Transit-Oriented Development "Transit-Oriented Development" CrOD) is a development strategy that can provide another alternative to typical suburban growth patterns. The TOD concept incorporates an intentional orientation to transit and pedestrian travel clusters services and other uses in a "ton center," and provides a range of housing densities- "TODs" can help minimiz~ the negative effects of new growth such as traffic congestion and air pollution. commercial and service center that is convenient to walking, biking and transit.5s Similar projects have also been proposed in San Diego, the San Francisco Bay Area, and other parts of California.56 CASE STUDIES Portlnnd. Orel~on: The I.UTRAO PrOject The potential benefits of transit-oriented development in new suburban areas is being explored in a major land use and trnns- potration planning project in Portland, Oregon. LUTRAQ stands for "Making the Land Use, Trnnspormtion, Air Quality Connection." The project is being funded primarily by 1,000 Friends of Oregon, a nonprofit land use group, ~'ith sup.port from the Federal Highways Administrauon (FHWA) and other groups and agencies. The tirst step of the study was to assess the available transportation models, and then to upgrade Portland's transportation model Several existing traditional and transit- accessible neighborhoods in Portland were also studied to determine the travel behavior of their residents. This data was also fed inw the City's model so that the potential benefits in terms of reduced VMT, vehicle trips and air quality could be analyzed for four different land use and trnnsportation scenarios. A "TOD" can be described as: A mixed-use community within an average 1/4 mile walking distance of a wansit stop and core commercial area. The design, configuration, and mix of uses emphasize a pedestrian-oriented environment and reinforce the use of office, open space, and public uses within comfortable walking distance, making it convenient for residents and employees to travel by transit, bicycle or foot, as well as by car.54 Transit-Oriented Development is receiving serious attention in California. Plans for a new development south of Sacramento, "Laguna West," include a cluster of higher density housing surrounding a neighborhood 53 San-amsnto Bee, May 7, 1993. 54 Sa:ran~nto County, 1991. Pq~ 11 Projected Transit And Walking Mode She in the yeBr 2010: Four Altemative Scenarios i1% 11% 11% No Freeway LUTIIAC~ TOlls artIon Bylms, (Region Only FIRIw, 1457 5~5 River West Dovelopmenls. 1991. 56 Port~. 1992. 57 Battlmiomew. 1993. · F/NAL DRAPT In the "no action" scenario, a new freeway would not be built to serve new development in a growing suburban. area near Portland. In the "freeway bypass" alternative scenario. a new frccway would be built to serve new growth. and some additional transit service · would be added. Each of these two scenarios was projected to result in equivalent overall mode shams for walking, transit and auto use - about 11% in the year 2010. The "LUTRAQ" alternative is based on more "transit-friendly" land use planning principles of medium density, mixed use development with a commercial core at the center and extensive pedestrian facilities CTODs). Higher levels of light rail and bus service would be provided, but no freeway bypass would be built to serve the new development area. The LUTRAQ alternative was projected to result in an overall, region-wide mode split of about 16% by 2010, about 5% higher region-wide than for the first two scenarios. Analysis of the fourth scenario is limited to the newly-developing suburban area only. and does not include the entire Portland region. The projected benefit of this TOD-oricnted development pattern would total about 21% wallring and transit. Such a land use plan is expected to be able to accommodate 65% of the new households and 78% of the new jobs projected for the newly-developing area. within walking distance of transit service. This study provides evidence that land use patterns can significantly reduce aUwmobile travel when combined with improvements in transit service, as well as transportation ynforicing policies. On the basis of this marion, the Oregon Department of Transportation will include the LUTRAQ alternative as one of the project scenarios to be studied as pan of an environmental impact statement (F. IS). Some results of this study arc also being used in a set of sUite-wide land use guidelines for local governments. Portland is already enjoying the benefits of its previous land use and transit programs: there have been no violations of federal ozone standards in the past three years, compared to a previous violation record of one day out of every three. Although the downtown area has experienced a $0% increase in employment ($0.000 new jobs), there have been no additional automobile commute trips, as 43% of commuters take public transit downown-is Toronto, Canada Over the past 30 to 40 years, the city of Toronw, Canada, has purposely reversed the trend towards increased vehicle nsc, less transit and lower densities found in most North American cities. Toronto is viewed as a good example of how transit and land use can be effectively integrated w create a less automobile-dependent urban environment. Toronto is ranked between the automobile orientation of most North American cities and the wansit, walking and cycling on'entation of many European cities. Urban density and public transit use rates in Toronto are high by North American standards. while personal vehicle use is significantly lower despite a high automobile ownership level: Toronw has one of the best public transit systems in North America. The effective' linking of urban land uses to transit, particularly the rail system, is seen as the primary reason for Toronw's success. The city's denseL mixed-use neighborhoods offer diverse opportunities for residents, with minimum travel time and cost. They provide a quality residential environment with walking or wansit accessibility to a variety of urban amenities, including open space and rexreational facilities- The population of the greater Toronto metropolitan area is about 4 million. and is expected w increase to over 5 million residents by 2011. The expected population increase during the next t5-20 years will be almost entirely accommodated by a vigorous program of infill and redevelopmeat. Most new development will consist of higher density, mixcd-ug projects focused mound existing or proposed rapid ransit facilities. especially within the downtown area. A long-term and vigorous "joint development" program is also providing some of the funding needed to co~ new transit lines.s9 5B U.S. Envin, ru,dmatal Pra¢ :tin Agmab-y. t993. 59 Kenworthy. 1991. F/NALDF,~T · Toronto's Strategies Are Working More than 80% of people attending events at a new sports stadium near downtown Toronto (the Sky Dome) arrive by transit, despite the availability of parking clog to the stadium. Several other statistics illustrate the success of Toronto's re-orientation to transit: · 17% of all travel in the city is by tramit (compared to 4%, on average, in U.S. cities, and less than 1% in Detroit. Michigan, across the-Canadian border); · 31% of all commute travel is by transit (compared to an overall average of 12% of commute trips in U.S. cities); · Over 80% of all trips into downtown Toronto are madc on public transit: · 15% of the people living in the downtown area walk to work; · 75% of the customers at several large retail centers in downtown Toronto arrive by public transit; AIR OUAI,ITY BRNEFITS The California Clean Air Act directs air quality districts to develop indirect source programs addressing land uses as part of their 199 1 air quality manngement plans.~ Most local and regional air plans do include such provisions. Implementation of these commit- ments will requtre the cooperation of local governments and other decision-makers in order to be successful. ARB staff has estimated the potential success of a comprehensive indirect source control program in reducing the use of vehicles. A reduction of from 20 to 50% in personal vehicle use could potentially be realized within specific developments if they successfully incorporate the !and use and transportation strategies listed in this report.61 The example of Toronto's success illustrates the benefits of a more comprehensive appwach w land use and transit planning. Implementing one or two strategies by 60 CaliL Air R~Boatd. 1993. 61C. aliLAirR_L mBoatd, July1990. themselves may not shift a significant number of vehicle trips to alternative travel modes. But. if several measures are combined. such as increased transit service. reurbanization, mixed use development. reduced parking, and' others presented in this report. then much more significant reductions in VMT, vehicle trips. and air quality benefits can be realized. The results of the LUTRAQ study indicate that an increase in the rate of transit use, walking and biking of about 5% overall in a region is eventually possible from an appropriate mix of land use. transit. and other sinlilar StrRtegies.62 Such a shift would signi~can~y reduce the emissions from the. use of vehicles for personal mobility. OTHER BENEFITS Many benefits besides air quality potentially can result from the land use strategies listed in this report. These potentially include: decreased infrastructure costs from new development for local governments, con- sumers and developers; an increased supply of affordable housing and more diverse housing choices; reduced traffic congestion; more convenient accessibility to stores and services; lower energy usage by. buildings and auto- mobiles; the preservauon of open space; and increased mobility and accessibility for children. the disabled, and elderly residents. · Lower Infrastructure Costs Capital costs for building and maintaining roads, water. utilities and sewer facilitie,~ for low density developments in suburban fringe areas are up to 50% higher than for more compact development located closer to existing urban areas. According to a study of infrastructure costs in Florida, the average cost in 1989 of providing typical urban services to a development with an average density of only three dwelling units per acre, located ten miles from central facilities and employment centers, was about $48,000 per house. In contrast. the average cost of providing the same services for a home in a development that averages 12 dwelling 62 Banhem**. 1993. F/NALDRAFr ' · 'luttt zm units per acre and is located closer to an urban center was about one-h:,lf as high, or $24,000. Infrastructure Costs !n Relation To Residential Density MI~iUMDEleSlTY Avertage number of Dwelling units per acre FiKure 15 63 These figures illustrate that lower density development in suburban fringe areas typically requires facilities and services that arc much more expensive to pwvide than in more compact neighborboo(is located closer to existing urban areas. In California, such costs for new development are typically either charged to home purchasers, increasing the price of new housing, or absorbed by developers. Subsequent o.pemting and maintenance costs for services are born by local taxpayers. · Affordable and Diverse Housing "Area Housing Costs Hinder Efforts to Attract Businesses." 64 This newspaper headline illustrates that regions with high housing costs find it more difficult to compete economically with areas that have a lower cost of living. A recent survey of 3,400 U.S. companies concluded that lower real estate costs and the efficiency of local transportation systems are two of the most important consid- erations in corporate relocation decisious-65 California's high housing costs, combined with dramatic changes in household size and other factors, have resulted in a major shift in consumer demand for housing.66 According to the Urban Land InstitUte. as average 63 Kamwdd. 1997. 64 .$ecmmemo Bee. 1992. 65 Urban Land Instia, t Januwj 1993. 66 Msyen. L992. household sizes continue to shrink. housing preferences and needs am affected. The proportion of traditional "nuclear" families (with two adults and one or more children), has significantly shrunk during the past twenty years. Such families accounted for only 26% of all households in the U.S. in 1990. down from 40% in 1970. During the same time period, the percentage of single adult, single parent, and roommate . households increased from 30% of the wtal in 1970. to 44% in 1990.6~ "Unmarried home- owners are much more likely to choose a condominium or attached townhouse instead of a single-family house than are married homeowners.'68 A wider variety of housing styles. densities and prices is needed to address these changing needs. Higher density housing may not bc for everyone. but it has a significant and growing market "niche." These trends also point to increased demand for housing that is more affordable. The. Governor's Growth Management Council Report points out: "the failure of growth in California today is the young worker with a family who must drive two hours to work in order to find affordable housing-"s The Growth Management report also claims that the housing market must work better to respond to actual housing needs. Nearly 1.8 million new housing units will be needed during the next five years just to meet projected increased demand in the state. 700,000 of these need w be affordable by households with lower incomes.~° FirsFtime home buyers in 1992 purchased nearly 50% of all housing units that were sold in California- Some developers have been building single-family housing with average densities of between 7 to 14 dwelling units per acre. many of which have been sold to first- time buyers with limited downpaYments-7t Densities such as these can be high enough to provide the ridership transit districts need to 67 1990 U.S. Census. 68 Urban Land Institus. ~ f./~e in Transitias. 69 Growth Mnn~gen~nt Council Janunry 1993. 70 !ICD. t992. 7t Sacramento ~e,. F'~b. 2t. 1993. FINAL DRAFT support convenient levels of transit service. especially if stations are easily accessible to nearby neighborhoods. The availability of transit and pedestrian facilities near housing and employment centers can potentially reduce a household's transportation costs by decreasing the number of vehicles needed for commuting. An average of about $7,000 per year could be saved for each vehicle that a family doesn't need to purchase, freeing up to $600 per month for other expenditures. ARB-FUNDED RESEARCH The rehtionships between land use, transportation and air quality are. quite complex. The ARB and other groups, such as the national Transportation Research Board. are funding research projects that will expand our understanding of the interrelationships between land uses, transportation, and air quality. One of the goals of this research is to better understand how local land use decisions can affect transportation choices, and to make the data and findings available to local governments and other decision-makers. An ARB-funded project currently in progress will pwvide more information about the quantitative relationships between residents' transportation behavior and the densities, mixtures of land uses, and transit accessibility in six San Francisco Bay Area neighborhoods. This study, conducted by the University of California at Davis, will be completed and available during the latter pan of 1993. Another study investigated travel behavior at five regional-scale shopping centers: two in southern and three in northern California. This study, which is briefly summarized on page 8, is discussed in a report that is available from ARB's Research Division. Another new ARB-funded project will analyze several different combinations of land use scenarios and transportation systems to determine their potential benefits and impacts in terms of VMT and vehicle emissions. The scenarios to be analyzed include typical urban, suburban and rural communities in California. A book entitled Land Use Strategies for More Livable Places. is available at no cost l~om ARB's Publication Office.72 Prepared by the Local Government Commission, it discusses many of the land use and transportation strategies presented in this report. It also introduces a new set of land use guidelines referred to as "The Awhahnee Principles,' which the American Institute of Architects has distributed nationally. These principles have also provided the basis for a series of workshops the Local Government Com- mission has recently conducted for local government elected officials and planners. CONCLUSION Land use and transportation strategies, such as those described in this report, are important for the long-term improvement of California's air quality. The Air Resources Board encourages local governments and other agencies, as well as land use developers, to begin implementing these strategies in new and existing communities. In addition to these swategies, other air quality programs and regulations designed to decrease reliance on vehicles for travel, reduce vehicular emissions, and control stationary sources of air pollution, are also important and nwessary ingredients in the recipe for cleaner air. As the Governor's Growth Management Council report points out: "California cannot support a population growing past thirty million people based on existing housing and transportation patterns without unacceptable economic, social and environmental costs. Such housing and transportation pallems use too much land, are too spread out, require too much infrastructure, create too great traffic congestion, have adverse air impacts and other environmental costs, and simply cost too much. The State cannot afford it, as a financial matter. Most people could not afford it, either, if they bore the full costs of these housing and transportation patterns. What may have been possible with ten or even twenty million people is simply not sustainable t~r a population of twice that much in the same space,"73 72 Local Govmun~nt Commission. 1992. 73 Gmwt~ Managenmnt Coungfi. 1993. paging lt-l~. ' '- F/NAt DRAFt "~" " lmmm199~ C"~ SOURCES AAA of Southern California. Your Driving Costs in Southern California, 1992. Americnn Lung Association of Sacramento-Fanigrant Trails. "Commumty Transportation Plan," Sacramento Transportation Coalition, 1981. Arkins. Diana. Parsons Brincke~u3ff Quatie & Douglas, Inc, Sacramento Office, personal conversation, December 9, 1992. Bartholomew, Keith A., 'A Tale of Two Cities., paper prepared for the Air and Wast~ Management Association conference, 1993. BerniclL Michael, and Munla'es, Jason: "Incentives for Trip Reduction through Location of Housing Near Califomia's Rail Transit Stations." Draft. University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Urban and regional Development/National Transit Access Center. Febna,~. 1992. Bookout. Lloyd, "Neetraditional Town Planning: A New Vision for the Suburbs?' litban Land (Urban Land Institute), January 1992. California Air Resources Board, California's Plan to Reduce Motor Vehicle Pollution, (brochure) 1993. California Air Resources Board, "California Air Pollution Control Laws, 1993 Edition.' California Air Resources Board, Technical Support Document: "California Clean Air Act Guidance for the Development of indirect Source Control" July 1990. California Air Resources Boar, L "TIle Air Pollution- Transportation Linkage - How Vehicle Travel Affects the Air We Breathe," Office of Strategic Planning, 1989. California Air Resources Board, "Emissions Inventory." - 1989. ' C. alifofaia Depatunent of Transponatio~ "California Mowr Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast," 1988. California Department of Transportation, "1991 Statewide Travel Survey., Summary of Findings," November 1992. California Energy Commission, 'Energy Statistics - 1970 to 1990. ' Match 1990. California Energy Commission, 'Energy Aware Platruing Guide, 1993. ~. Harvey and Skabordonis. "Bay Area Travel Statistics from the 1981 Travel Survey." Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), June 1981. Fehr & Pee~ Consultants. "Effea of Stoc'kton's Proposed Suburban Village Center Development" January 1992. Growth Management Council. Strategic Growta.' Talcin gcharge of the Future. A Blueprint for Cabretina,' January 25, 1993. Gruen, Nina J. "Affordable Housing and the Califoraia Economy," Urb~'m I and (by the Urban Land Inslimit:) October 1992. HCD - Housing and Community Development Department. State of Califernia, "Basic New Construction Need.' 1992-1997,' 1992. Highway Users Federation." 1993 Highway Fact Book," with the Automotive Safety Foundation. 1992. Hoitzclaw, John. Ph.D.. for the Sierra Club, 'F..xploining Urban Densin.' and Transit hapacts on Auto Use," a report to the Calif. Energy Commission, January 1990. Impact Sciencea. Inc. 'Air Quality Impact Analysis,' April 14, 1993. Institute of Transportation Engineers (FIE), 'A Toolbox for Alleviating Tra.~ic Congestion," 1989. Jacobs, Jane, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Alfred Knopf and Random House, 1961. JHK and Associates, "Final Report for the Development-Related Ridership Survey. ' for the Washington Metropolitan Anm Transit Authority, Match 1987. JHK and Associates, 'Analysis of Indirect ,Source Trip Activity Study, Presentation of Survey Results to Advisory. Comn~ttee California ARB' November 17, 1992. Kassowski, Kevin, ~rTte Costs of Sprawl, Revisited.' r)evelopmems, September 1992. Kulash, Walter el. aL, Traditional Neighborhood Developtnent - Will the Traffic Work ?' fo~ the American Society of Civil Engineas, ~ 1990. ~, lefftv/R. & Newman. Pelm' G. Cltie.~ and Autumnbill Del~,sde~'y- Gower Teclmit~L 1990. Kenworthy, Jeffrey & Newman, Peter. "Cities and Transport Energy: Lessons from a Global Survey," l-Scistics. FaIL 1990. Local Government Commission. "Land Use Strategies for More Livable Places.' 1992. Newman, Peter. 'The Land Use and Transit Conneaion in Toronto," Australian Planner. September 1991. Newman, Peter. "Urban Villages: A Concept for the 90's" for ECODF.~IGN Conference. Melbourne, October. 1992. Meyets, DowelL Presentation at the Urban Land Institute's Seminar "Designing for Higher Densities." San Francisco, CA. March 1992, the Lusk Center tbr Real Estate Development. University of Southern Porter. Dougias."Mission (Altnost ) hnpossible : Winning Approval for Mission Bay." t Trban Land (Urban Land Institute), January 1992. Puget Sound Council of Governments, "Vision 2020 GrOwth Strategy and Transportation Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region. "Summary. and Comparison Between Alternatives," September 19~. Pushkarev, Boris and Zupan, Jeffrey, public Tran.v;orration and l nnd Use Policy. Indiana University Press. 1977. Real Estate Research Corporation. The Costs Of.~pra,'l. U.S. HUD & EPA. 1974. River West Developments, "Laguna West Honored by Partners for Clean Air." l.auuna West. January 1991. Sacramento Bee, "As Hotne Prices Rise. So Does Densi.ty, ' Sunday, Feb. 21, 1993. Sacramento Bee, "A Skeptic's Conversion: Doubter'$ Own Study Backs Neo-Traditional Development, referenceing a study. conducted b.v John Schlebner, Marker Perspectives, March 7, 1993. Sa:r'an'~nto County, Department of Planning, by Peter Calthorpe & Associates, "Transit-Oriented Design Guidelines," 1991. Seattle MEFRO, "Encouraging Public Transportation Through Effective Land Use Actions." May, 1987. Smith, Steven. 'Considering the Pedestrian. Site. Planning in the Suburbs" TR News. 1992. Snohomish County Transportation Authority, ~A Gu/de to Land Use and Public Transportation for Snohomisk County, Washington," December, 1989. Sullivan. Arthur M. Urban F. conomics. Homewood, Illinois, Richard D. Irwin. Inc., 1990. U.S. Census data, in "Housing Design Bends in Response to the Era," The Sacramento Bee. Sunday, Nov. 22, 1992. U.S. Dept. of Transportation (D.O.T.), "Personal Travel in the U.S., A Report on the Findings of the 1983-84 NPTS.'Tables E-40 & -41, 1986. U.S. Dept. of Transportation (D.O.T.), Personal Travel in the US. VoL !I, A Report on the Findings from 1983- 1984 NPTS, Source Control Programs, 1990. Unterman. David. Accommodatin~ the Pedestrian.: Adaptin ~ Towns and Neighborhoods for Walkin~ and Bicyclin~. 1984. Urban Land Institute, The Costs of Alternative Development Patterns. 1989. Urban Land Institute, I :~nd Use Digest. #l. 'Real Estate Costs Found to Be Most Important Factor in Corporate Relocations," Volume 26, No. 1, January 1993. Urban Land Institute, 1 ~nd U~ Digest. #4. "Report surveys Recent Ho,nebuying Trends." Volume 26. No. 4, April 1993. Urban Land Institute. 1.and Use In Transition. Emert, inf, Force.~ and Issues ShapinT the Real F. state Environment. "Accommodating Land Use and Transportation Planning." April 1993. U.S. Eavimnmental Protection Agency, public presentation by William Schroeer, Policy Planning and Evluation Office, Washingtun D.C., July 29, 1993. .FINALDK(IT ' ,IBM 1993 For additional information or copies of this report, please write w: California Air Resources Board Office of Air Quality and Transportation Planning P.O. Box 28t5 Sacramento. CA 95812 FINAL DgAFT i -' .........; ......,q' ~mmm~ mm~ ~ mmmm ~m~m~ ~m` ~ ~mmmm m~.~ ~mm~m~ m tm ~ mm mm m ~mmm ~ m ~ mmvmm~ mm ~mmm m~ ~ m mmm~m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~