A. Integrate land use and transportation planning
MetroFuture is founded on the principle that growth should be focused in areas where transportation infrastructure already exists, and transportation investments should be similarly focused to support that growth. Meanwhile, slower growth in low-density areas will reduce the demand for roadway expansion projects in those areas. As a result, new growth will have the transportation infrastructure it needs, and there will be less competition between building new infrastructure and maintaining and improving existing facilities. The region will be able to capitalize on past investments, the development community will have more certainty that projects in smart growth locations will have adequate infrastructure, and existing residents will see more benefits as their local transportation system is improved and diversified.
Unfortunately, the region often takes the opposite approach to making transportation investments. Dispersed growth creates a demand for roadway widening projects and new interchanges, which in turn stimulates additional development, especially in low-density areas. Uncontrolled growth, dispersed land use patterns, and the lack of transit accommodations create additional traffic that quickly overtaxes the capacity of the new capacity. The result is that scarce transportation resources were spent on a project that does not reduce congestion or increase mobility. Scarce resources are also inefficiently used when spent on transit extensions into areas where land use controls prohibit the compact transit-oriented development needed to maximize utilization of the new service.
Aligning land use and transportation requires public officials and stakeholders to take a broader view of individual projects. One immediate way that this can be done is to implement comprehensive corridor planning in areas where major investments are planned or will be needed as a result of anticipated major development. Corridor planning coordinates transportation improvements with a plan for development that will use the capacity most efficiently.
Even in the absence of a comprehensive corridor plan, proposed improvements should be rigorously evaluated to ensure that they are coordinated with and supportive of sustainable land use plans. Establishing and enforcing stronger land use criteria for the region’s Transportation Improvement Program will allow resources to be focused on those projects that will use capacity most efficiently. Effective project evaluation demands more comprehensive and robust data analysis and modeling, including better information about travel patterns and development, new computer models, and a set of evaluation measures that measure project performance to create a “feedback loop” that will inform future investment decisions.
In order to conduct coordinated planning, land use and transportation planning organizations should be structured so they are responsive to regional concerns and fully independent of state government. Diversified membership of the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization will support decisions that are responsive to concerns about land use, equity, economic development, and environmental justice. When transportation and land use analysis are both fully integrated with each other and functionally independent of state agencies, the problem-solving capacity of the planning process is increased.
Because not all transportation planning decisions occur at the regional level, there is also a need to build capacity at the local level and to reform state and federal earmarking practices. Local officials and staff need support to evaluate the transportation impacts of land use plans and development proposals and to apply innovative tools to mitigate those impacts through design and enforceable developer commitments. At the state level, an earmark reporting process will be an important first step to eliminating the process of using legislative appropriations to fund transportation projects without regard for sustainable land use plans.
1) Implement a comprehensive corridor planning process
Corridor planning is a process to formally coordinate land use plans, transportation investments, and transportation demand management strategies along key roadway or transit lines. With support from the Commonwealth, the Boston MPO should commit to a full corridor planning process whenever:
- A major public transportation investment is planned for a particular corridor, regardless of mode;
- Significant private or private development is anticipated in a particular corridor; or
- A corridor is acutely failing meeting the transportation needs of the surrounding area.
Corridor planning should be a coordinated effort involving municipalities, MAPC, and state transportation agencies. In order to be most effective, corridor planning should be conducted (or at least begun) before the specifics of any new transportation project are determined. The final product should be a consensus plan that identifies the infrastructure investment (if any) needed to address the needs of the corridor; as well as a binding land use plan that will preserve the capacity added by any such investments. Each plan should be developed consistent with the goals and objectives of MetroFuture, and each plan should provide the affected municipalities with the necessary tools and resources to grow responsibly and to preserve critical resources.
1.a The Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works (EOTPW) should provide funding for Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs) to conduct corridor planning efforts
2) Strengthen Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) evaluation criteria
The Boston MPO should adopt project evaluation criteria that explicitly address the alignment between proposed projects and local zoning, land use plans, and the regional plan. The highest ranking should go to those projects that support a land use plan that will efficiently utilize new capacity to support sustainable growth. Projects that promote unsustainable growth patterns inconsistent with MetroFuture should be given a very low priority, and the MPO should work with those proponents to revise the project design and land use plans to support sustainable growth.
Each year, over a half a billion dollars in state and local transportation funding is programmed through the annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). However, land use impacts are not clearly quantified, and play a small role in the overall project ranking. As a result, the MPO spends millions of dollars on projects that generate unsustainable land use impacts, while deferring other projects needed to support compact growth.
Even those unsuitable projects that are not actually prioritized by the MPO end up costing money. Because projects—even those with very land use scores or transportation benefits—are never outright rejected by the MPO, they may remain on the list for many years. Municipalities invest money and effort designing and advocating for a project that is not likely to be funded.
Stronger land use and economic development criteria will allow the MPO to make determinative decisions about whether proposed projects are consistent with MetroFuture. These criteria will require an assessment of zoning and land use controls, secondary land use impacts, and relationship to other projects. Proponents should be expected to demonstrate that every major investment is preceded by or accompanied by land use, alternative mode, and TDM efforts to reduce single occupancy autos.
The MPO should also adopt a policy to reject proposals that fail to meet a minimum threshold based on these proposals. As a correlate to these stronger criteria and rejection policy, MAPC and CTPS should provide technical assistance to help proponents revise project design and land use plans to improve the potential for funding.
The MPO should also consider a general moratorium on new highway interchanges inconsistent with MetroFuture objectives of focused growth. Creation of new interchanges stimulates more dispersed growth, which causes more congestion on nearby local roadways, which then requires additional transportation investments.
2.a The MPO should strengthen land use and economic development criteria to be aligned with MetroFuture’s principles and best practices
2.b The MPO should make it standard policy to reject (not defer) projects that score below an evaluation threshold
2.c The MPO should strongly discourage TIP consideration for construction of new interchanges on existing limited access highways
3) Improve data modeling and analysis to support transportation decision-making
The region needs a robust analytical infrastructure to support informed and coordinated transportation decision-making. The MPO should invest in comprehensive data and analysis tools that reflect the relationships among transportation, land use, and travel behavior. Better performance evaluation is also needed to assess whether projects achieved their mobility, safety, environmental, or other objectives, creating a “feedback loop” that will inform future investment decisions.
Currently, MPO staff base their analysis on a transportation survey that was conducted in 1991, and on application of a computer model that has difficulty accounting for smart growth land use patterns, secondary land use impacts, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Improvements to the region’s travel demand model are critical for more effective transportation planning. A revised or new model should have the capacity to account for the density, diversity, and design of new development; it should also be able to estimate the potential for “induced demand” that may arise as a result of construction. CTPS and MAPC have long agreed on the need for revisions to the model, and CTPS is now actively planning for an entirely new travel modeling system. Development of this model should be guided by an independent committee that includes MAPC and experts from academic institutions, research centers, and the private sector.
A new transportation survey is fundamental to a revised travel demand model. Thanks to advocacy by MAPC and CTPS, the Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works is currently negotiating with a private sector consultant to conduct a statewide household travel demand survey. This effort should be fully funded and, like the travel demand model, would benefit from an independent committee to provide advice on survey design and analysis.
A comprehensive database of development projects under construction, planned, permitted, or simply envisioned would also help to support proactive transportation investments.
The MPO should also develop a project performance measurement so that each project can be assessed as to whether it had the intended effect on the efficiency, safety, and environmental impacts of the region’s transportation system. This information will provide a mechanism to incorporate lessons learned into future design, construction, and operation.
3.a The Unified Planning Working Program (UPWP) should include support for an independent committee to advise the adoption of a new travel demand model
3.b The EOTPW should maintain full funding for the statewide transportation survey and convene an independent committee to support survey implementation
3.c MAPC should create and maintain a comprehensive development database
3.d The MPO should implement transportation performance measures to assess the effectiveness of transportation investments
4) Ensure that the MPO structure promotes accountability and diversity of opinion
Consistent with MetroFuture’s emphasis on public engagement and communication, the Boston MPO should seek opportunities to broaden diversity of membership and depth of participation. Meeting the region’s complex transportation needs requires consideration of many disparate issues: mobility for underserved and disadvantaged populations, economic growth, environmental resources, and municipal finance. An MPO that draws voting membership from similarly diverse constituencies will be well-equipped to represent and evaluate the region’s multidimensional transportation needs and sometimes divergent interests.
Membership on the MPO is currently limited to state agencies, MAPC, four cities, and three towns. The Regional Transportation Advisory Committee provides a formal mechanism for participation of other interest groups and advocacy organizations, but does have voting rights at the full MPO. Furthermore, the workings of the MPO can seem opaque to many stakeholders, who may not understand how to participate or may feel that such participation is futile.
The MPO should consider expanding its membership to include business, labor, institutional and/or non-profit representatives; state environmental, economic development, and housing officials; as well as the representation of Environmental Justice constituencies. Such an expansion would bring a greater diversity of perspectives to the MPO and would help to demystify the programming process among many important stakeholders.
Substantively, several improvements could assist the MPO process, such as the election of officers and committee chairs by the full MPO, delivery of materials and action items with more lead time, greater clarity about the MPO process to members of the public and local officials
4.a The MPO should establish a commission to investigate expanding and diversifying membership
5) Conduct regional transportation and land use planning as an integrated, regionally-controlled activity
To be effective, Metro Boston’s regional transportation planning and land use planning should be fully integrated activities, conducted independent of state agency control. Such integration would help ensure ensure that sustainable land use plans support efficient transportation investments, and vice versa.
In a 2006 study of 50 large MPOs across the country, the Brookings Institute identified the Boston MPO as one of four that was “state-run” and “largely guided and staffed by the state government.” The Boston MPO (like all MPOs throughout the state), is always chaired by the Secretary of Transportation or his designee.
Unlike the other regions in the states, Metro Boston’s transportation and land use planning are physically and procedurally separated. The Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) is responsible for most vehicle-based and transit analysis and planning, while MAPC undertakes most land use analysis. Both MAPC and CTPS have responsibilities for bicycle and pedestrian planning. Both agencies engage high-quality professional staff who work hard to meet the needs of their members, clients, the region, and the Commonwealth. CTPS is also hired to bring their knowledge and expertise to bear in other parts of Massachusetts.
In all other regions of the state, the Regional Planning Agency – an agency fully independent of state government – provides planning services to the MPO, in regard to both land use and transportation. This allows for a more fully unified perspective in decision making and problem solving for each region.
The state Transportation Reform Act of 2004 makes this responsibility explicit, “…regional planning agencies in the commonwealth …shall serve as the principal source of transportation planning for local and regional transportation projects.” The Reform Act has yet to be implemented in Metro Boston, where the RPA (MAPC) receives neither adequate resources nor primary responsibility for regional transportation planning. Efforts should be made to ensure that organizations serving the MPO are fully and functionally independent of state direction, enabling both the MPO and the Commonwealth to discuss all issues before the body and to negotiate occasional differences, with everyone fully and independently informed.
5.a The members of the Boston MPO should all work together to develop a new Memorandum of Understanding regarding MPO operations and staffing
6) Build local capacity to integrate land use and transportation planning
Greater local planning capacity is necessary to support the creation of sustainable land use plans, the development of efficient transportation projects, and comprehensive review and mitigation of development proposals and their transportation impacts. The land use decisions that drive transportation are, for the most part, made locally, and municipalities are the proponents of many transportation projects, especially roadway projects. Municipal officials and staff must have a better understanding of issues such as cumulative impacts, secondary land use impacts, and transportation demand management; and they need access to a wider variety of tools such as impact fees, a mitigation toolkit, enforceable mitigation agreements, and design standards that support alternative modes.
Currently, many local officials and staff review projects have little capacity to address transportation issues in a comprehensive and coordinated manner. Municipal master plans, where they exist, have a section on “circulation,” but few master plans contain quantitative analysis of factors such as trip generation or mode split. Local boards may require traffic studies for large or complex development proposals, but may be unable to interpret the results (even with the assistance of a consulting engineer) or evaluate the cumulative impacts of multiple developments. Permit approvals may be conditioned on the implementation of mitigation measures such as a transportation demand management program, but lack mechanisms to enforce those agreements or monitor the effectiveness of the mitigation.
Where congestion or safety issues exist, cities and towns may seek project development assistance from the MPO, state agencies, or private consultants. However, the divided structure of state agencies and the roadway-oriented culture of the engineering industry often preclude the creation of solutions that fully integrate land use changes and alternative modes with roadway capacity expansion. As a result, municipalities end up with auto-oriented solutions that fail to creatively meet their needs, do not represent best practices of context-sensitive design, and have little chance of being funded by the MPO.
Comprehensive integration of land use and transportation planning at the local level begins with the application of planning and decision support tools described in the strategies on Coordinated Plans (1) and Compact Growth (5). These tools can estimate the transportation impacts of alternative scenarios and allow for the creation of land use plans designed to maximize use of existing infrastructure and increase the potential for alternative modes such as transit, walking, and biking. These plans, with specific expectations for the density, design, and diversity of development, will establish a capital planning framework for mitigation even before development proposals are made.
Cities and towns also need new tools to evaluate and mitigate the transportation impacts of new development. With the assistance of a “mitigation toolkit,” municipalities could critically assess traffic impacts, establish specific targets for transportation outcomes such as trip generation, and identify the mitigation measures that will most effectively meet those targets. Those measures might include capital improvements and/or transportation demand management techniques, both funded directly by the developer or through impact fees. Legally binding developer agreements and monitoring will be necessary to ensure success and compliance.
6.a MAPC should develop a mitigation tool kit
7) Reform federal and state legislative earmarking systems
Comprehensive integration of land use and transportation planning requires a rationale, predictable, and transparent system for designing and selecting projects. Accomplishing such a system requires elimination of earmarks that fund transportation projects through legislative appropriations. As an interim step, improved transparency in the state legislature’s earmarking process would reduce unanticipated and costly changes and delays.
The ability to accurately plan for and implement transportation improvements is affected by unexpected projects that are funded through earmarks, outside of established planning mechanisms. It is understandable why legislators, on both the state and Congressional level, like earmarking, especially when dollars are scarce and the transportation programming system can seem opaque. Nonetheless, earmarking has few real benefits. On the state level, bond bills are filled with earmarks – but it is the Governor who actually decides how to spend bond money, leaving proponents and municipalities with a feeling of having been tricked or misled.
Transportation investments cannot serve a smart growth agenda if they adopted principally through legislative deal-making. Rather, the legislative branches of government should appropriate money and establish priorities and broad guidelines for choosing projects. Then, they should stand aside and let the executive branch of the Commonwealth along with the MPO decide which projects best serve the region’s land use, mobility, equity, and economic goals,
The country and the Commonwealth need rationale, predictable, and transparent systems for selecting transportation projects – and earmarking should not be a substitute for that system. Until all legislators agree to renounce earmarks, it is difficult – perhaps even imprudent – for a single state or an individual legislator to back away from the earmarking system. In the long run, the region and the nation would best be served by the elimination of both state and federal earmarks.
As an interim and supporting step, the state can bring more transparency to the earmark process by establishing reporting requirements for earmarks, including itemized lists of projects, sponsors, costs, purpose, and benefits.
7.a The Legislature should adopt an earmark reporting system
Post new comment