Newsletter of
The Growth Management Institute
... dedicated to
improving the policy and practice of growth management
Vol. 3 No. 3 (Winter) 1996
Douglas R. Porter, Editor
From the Editor ...
My writing deadlines interfered with
getting this issue out, but here it is. And herewith a promise to
mail the next issue (to complete the quartet of newsletters for a
year) in February.
That Ol' Sprawl Issue
The last newsletter contained a
rather sprawling description of the relative paucity of hard data
and compelling arguments supporting planners' attitudes toward urban
sprawl. A number of responses were fielded. A common reaction
appeared to be a misapprehension that the editorial supported
sprawl. In fact, the editorial was carefully worded to
indicate that, while most city planners hold anti-sprawl, compact
development patterns as an article of faith, the rationales
supporting that position have not been strongly constructed and seem
to be eroding. The editorial was intended as a plea for harder and
stronger data with which to persuade elected officials and their
constituencies that compact development is a worthwhile aim.
Two respondents suggested partial
solutions. Seth Riseman of Boston's Metropolitan Area Planning
Council passed along a brief report the Council prepared on
alternatives to septic tanks for communities that lack technical and
financial resources for installing full-scale sewer systems. The
report describes a number of multi-lot, common septic systems being
used in the Boston area that offer hopes of reducing wastewater
effects on the local environments.
Sam Passmore of the South Carolina
Coastal Conservation League contributed a bulletin that focused on
reducing runoff from urban development to protect coastal resources.
The SCCCL Land Development Bulletin (No. 7) described a
comparative study of the water quality impacts of conventional
sprawl versus "traditional" town development. Conducted by
the Charleston Harbor Project, the study concluded that runoff
volume from sprawl would be 43 percent higher than from a
traditional town scenario. Sediment loads, nitrogen and phosphorus
loadings, and chemical oxygen demand were three times higher for
sprawl development. The report points out that the new "6217
Program" of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, which
calls for an 80 percent reduction in average annual suspended solids
loadings from newly developed sites, promotes sprawl by encouraging
large-lot subdivisions rather than compact development within
watersheds.
For more information, contact Seth
Riseman at 617/451-2770 and Sam Passmore at 803/723-8035.
* * *
Grand Traverse Bay Region
Development Guidebook
Michigan communities are not known to
be at the forefront of growth management innovations. Michigan's
planning and annexation laws encourage a highly fragmented planning
system among cities, towns, villages, townships, and counties that
erect obstacles to regional initiatives to corral development.
Despite these handicaps, however, one regional organization in
Michigan, through public/private cooperation, has made great strides
in guiding regional development.
The Grand Traverse Bay Region is made
up of five counties and numerous smaller jurisdictions centered on
the beautiful Bay and the plentitude of lakes in the northwest
sector of Michigan's lower peninsula. Disturbed by the wave of
development that threatened to transform the peaceful area into yet
another crowded resort locale, the Traverse City Area Chamber of
Commerce commissioned creation of a "Grand Traverse Bay Region
Development Guidebook." The guidebook, prepared in 1995 by the
Planning & Zoning Center, Inc., of Lansing, Michigan, portrays
in words and sketches "common" and "better"
approaches to development compatible with environmental and other
goals.
The project grew out of a request by
the Grand Traverse County Board of Commissioners to identify
guidelines that could be promoted for use by local townships,
cities, and villages as a better way to manage growth. As the
concept was fleshed out, other units of government expressed
interest in participating, leading to a five-county consortium. Many
of the jurisdictions contributed financially to preparation of the
report and representatives of many of them, in addition to
representatives of many private organizations, were members of the
steering committee for the publication.
The guidebook provides guidelines for
conserving the regional landscape and significant corridors;
protection of natural resources, shorelines, and open space; land
subdivision; access, circulation, and parking; lighting and utility
lines; landscaping and building aesthetics; cultural resource
protection; and signs. Several appendices provide additional
suggestions for appropriate plants and special development problems.
A supplemental volume provides sample regulations to implement the
guidelines.
The effectiveness of the guidebook
was enhanced by enthusiastic public and private promotion of its use
by local jurisdictions. The Chamber of Commerce enticed a retired
local business leader to "ride the circuit" of local
planning boards and elected bodies to explain its purposes and
usefulness. As a result of his labors and broad community backing of
the project, nine local jurisdictions have adopted the guidelines by
resolution and seven others have adopted a version of the
guidelines. In addition, the local Rotary organization sponsored
mini-grants to encourage local governments to implement specific
elements of the guidebook and the Grand Traverse planning commission
and chamber of commerce initiated a recognition program to honor
projects that demonstrated principles of the guidebook.
Michigan's local governments, like
most, are leery of a strong regional planning process but appear
receptive to ideas promoted by a broad spectrum of community
interests. The Traverse Bay approach -- encouraging public/private
efforts to establish best management practices that promise lasting
results "on the ground" -- suggests an interesting (and
perhaps kinder and gentler) alternative to controversial regional
governance concepts.
For more information, contact the
Traverse City Area Chamber of Commerce (616/947-5075).
* * *
More Guidelines
Another recent publication contains
pithy descriptions of growth management tools of particular use in
coastal communities. The Blueprint to Protect Coastal Water
Quality prepared for the Neuse River Council of Governments in
North Carolina by The Center for Watershed Protection in Silver
Spring, Maryland explains needs for managing growth in coastal
areas, identifies seven goals for protecting coastal water quality,
provides two-page descriptions of 22 growth management tools (e.g.,
overlay zoning, marina siting and design) applicable in coastal
communities, and incorporates 12 brief case studies of stormwater
and wastewater authorities. The report is clearly written to educate
concerned citizens as much as local and state planners. Although
undated, it appeared on my desk in 1996.
To request a copy, contact The
Center for Watershed Protection at 301/589-1890.
* * *
The Wildlife
Conservation/Economic Development Dialogue
by Lindell Marsh, Siemon, Larsen
& Marsh, Irvine, CA
Beginning in 1994, a small group of
interests involved in wildlife conservation issues began discussing
the need for improving existing planning and financing approaches to
conserving wildlife habitats in the face of advancing urbanization.
During several informal meetings, the group evolved a proposal to
establish a dialogue among the constituency of interests currently
involved in wildlife conservation programs. Its purpose would be to
develop a common understanding of the obstacles and potential
solutions to funding habitat conservation efforts.
The dialogue was not viewed as a
forum to debate the merits of the Endangered Species Act and current
legislative efforts regarding such matters as listing procedures and
private property protection. Instead, the dialogue was to focus on
exploring various options for funding habitat acquisition as a means
for relieving conflicts over conservation needs in urbanizing areas.
In particular, the goal was to formulate a "funding
framework" that would provide a rationale and procedure for
shared funding of wildlife habitat conservation by public and
private sectors.
With initial funding from the
Environmental Protection Agency (through the Environmental Law
Institute), the Growth Management Institute managed a series of five
dialogue discussion. A facilitation team of John DeGrove (Florida
Atlantic University), Michael Bean (Environmental Defense Fund)
Richard Margolies (The Maccoby Group), Douglas Wilson (Wilson
Consulting Group), Douglas Porter (GMI), and myself organized and
facilitated the discussions. The first and last sessions were held
in Washington, D.C. and involved a number of national organizations
and federal representatives. Sessions were also convened in San
Diego, CA; Austin, TX; and Fort Lauderdale, FL with the valuable
assistance of local groups and individuals. Findings from each of
the sessions were summarized in a working paper.
At the final meeting at the
Smithsonian Institution on November 8, 1995, key conclusions from
the dialogues were defined:
• past governmental neglect in
recognizing conservation needs in earlier development and settlement
policies has created a conservation "debt" that now
requires catch-up attention and funding;
• current approaches to
conservation, emphasizing project-by-project mitigation, create
political and economic disruptions that reduce the effectiveness of
conservation and economic development efforts;
• wildlife conservation can be
viewed as an essential element of community infrastructure and a
significant component of future economic growth that should received
shared funding support;
• wildlife conservation is best
addressed through collaborative regionwide efforts that recognize
the significance of conser-vation in globally competitive and
sustainable regional economy;
• a realistic and workable
"funding framework" should provide funding for
conservation planning in advance of confrontations, when development
expectations and related land costs are low rather than high;
• A federal revolving loan program
to provide such advance funds would prevent many of the economic and
political disruptions now experienced in conservation efforts.
Subsequently, representa-tives of a
number of environmental and other organizations endorsed the
report's findings and a several Congressional members and staff
indicated interest in establishing such a loan program as part of
the reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act. In addition, GMI
has continued dialogue discussions in Southern California, with
grants from the Bank of America, the Metropolitan Water District,
and other organizations, to explore establishment of a regional
funding framework in that area.
For a copy of the report, contact
GMI.
* * *
EPA Establishes Cooperative
Agreement with GMI
In September, GMI signed a
cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
for a three-year program to promote antidotes to sprawl. EPA's
Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities is interested in
identifying and encouraging state, regional, and local efforts to
revitalize existing urban areas and promote compact development.
These antidotes to sprawl are viewed as a vital means of protecting
air and water quality, EPA's chief mission. As an essential part of
this effort, EPA wishes to promote more effective collaboration
among its offices, other federal agencies, state, regional, and
local jurisdictions, and nongovernmental organizations.
GMI will be responsible for working
with EPA and various levels of government to define needs for and
assist in managing workshops, focus groups, and other program
activities. Initial efforts are focused on South Florida, where
numerous activities are underway to preserve the Everglades by
concentrating future development, and on organizing a series of
midwestern workshops with EPA's Region 5 office to explore federal
agency contributions to compact development and revitalization.
Establishment of a Web Page is also in the works.
More on this exciting program as
it evolves....
* * *
Tackling Transportation/ Land
Use Relationships in the U.S. 301 Corridor
The five Maryland counties spreading
from Washington, D.C. east to the Chesapeake Bay and south to the
Potomac River comprise a extensive 1,940 square-mile subregion of
the Washington/Baltimore metropolitan area. U.S. 301 runs
northeasterly through this area, linking to I-95 south of the
Potomac river in Virginia and, in Maryland, connecting with, then
following U.S. 50 across the bay bridge before heading north to New
Jersey. The 50-mile stretch of U.S. 301 in the five-county area
attracts commuters bound from the fast-growing outer counties to
jobs inside or along the Washington Beltway. Local residents also
increasingly use the highway for access to shopping and services.
Many sections of the route and several connecting highways are
congested at peak hours; preliminary projections indicate that most
intersections on U.S. 301 and connecting major highways will be
func-tioning at gridlock levels by 2020 if not sooner.
The five-county area's population is
projected to increase by almost 40 percent, from 1.4 million in 1990
to 1.9 million by 2020, when the area will be home to about
one-third of Maryland's residents. However, the five counties have
very different characters, ranging from increasingly urbanized
Prince George's and Anne Arundel counties in the north to rapidly
sub-urbanizing Charles, St. Mary's, and Calvert counties in the
south. The three southern counties, in particular, depend on U.S.
301 as a main commuting route.
Maryland's counties possess broad
authority for planning and zoning. All five counties have adopted
and regularly update comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances, most
levy impact fees, and all have instituted adequate facilities'
requirements as a condition of development.
Even in close-in areas, however,
development is seldom denser than two or three units per acre. Many
new residents are settling on one- to five-acre lots both in and
outside de-signated development areas.
In this arena of rapid suburban and
exurban development, the U.S. 301 transportation study initiated a
comprehensive approach to transportation planning. The study was
initiated after the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) met
strong opposition to a proposed eastern by-pass along the U.S. 301
corridor that might fuel development and lead to widespread
environmental damage, especially involving the Chesapeake Bay, and
to the quality of life in this relatively rural area.
In 1992, with the support of key
interest groups, MDOT initiated a collaborative planning process to
study transportation and related issues for the U.S. 301 corridor.
The mission statement described the study's purpose as developing
"recommendations that integrate land use and open space
planning, local community design issues, and enivironmental
protection into the multi-modal transportation planning process. The
goal is to build consensus on transportation and related growth
management options...(p.3)." MDOT made explicit its
expectations that improved mobility would depend on creating
development patterns supportive of the proposed improvements.
Implicitly, MDOT indicated that commitments to major investments for
improving mobility would go hand-in-hand with local governments'
commitments for developing supportive land use patterns.
The planning process involved a
multi-stakeholder, 76-member task force appointed by the governor.
The task force's charge was to recommend transportation improvements
and programs and related growth management approaches required for
the corridor, including needs for intergovernmental coordination.
Ultimately, seven
"packages" of potential transportation improvements and
services were specified, focusing on various types of highway
improvements, transit improvements, and travel management
improvements. These packages were evaluated with three alternative
land use scenarios:
• A "current plans"
alternative based on land use projections by the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments reflecting local plans;
• "Market-driven"
alternatives that expressed land use changes that might follow
introduction of new transportation options;
• "Policy-driven"
alternatives representing land use changes designed to support
individual transportation packages.
The land use changes for the
market-driven and policy-driven alternatives required that
"current plans" projections of jobs and households be
reallocated among the almost 600 traffic analysis zones (TAZs) in
the study area. In this part of the evaluation, the project team
made a significant departure from the usual approach by assembling
an advisory panel of seven experts in planning, economic analysis,
and development to recommend general patterns of allocations
throughout the study area. The hope was that this multi-disciplinary
process would yield more realistic results than more typical staff
backroom analyses.
In fact, the panel provided an
unexpected dose of reality: it challenged the "current
plans" projections. Most of the 160,000 new jobs predicted to
occur in the District, said the panel, would instead locate outside
the District. Many would gravitate to the study area when
transportation improvements were made. The panel recommended
increases in projected jobs for each county which, after
considerable discussion, the task force wove into seven new land use
scenarios, all variously allocating additional jobs among the
counties.
The results of the model runs proved
interesting:
• a major upgrade of U.S. 301 was
clearly required to serve future travel needs, regardless of
capacity contributions from other modes and shifts in development
patterns;
• proposed transit improvements,
including a light rail line in the principal commuting corridor,
reduced highway travel needs only slightly, even under supportive
land use assumptions;
• land use shifts, indeed, made
relatively little difference in overall results, due to limits on
the degree to which existing low-density patterns of development
realistically could be altered over the next 20 years;
• however, it was also clear that
traffic increases would again threaten highway capacities by 2020,
underscoring needs to make better use of other transportation modes.
The task force finally recommended
major highway improvements on U.S. 301, including a bypass of the
congested Waldorf area. It also recommended preservation of a rail
transit right-of-way and significant bus, HOV, park-and-ride, and
other improvements. But the task force also stressed the need for
concentrating and designing future development to support
multi-modal transportation services. The recommendations included a
major policy to condition future transportation investments on
supportive land use changes and creation of a coordinating group for
subsequent planning and implementation efforts by the state and
local governments.
The final report and technical
supplements may be requested from the State Highway Administration,
410/545-8533. The project also will be described at the American
Planning Association's April conference in San Diego.
* * *
Recent Publications of
Interest (to someone)...
Regional Land Use Planning for the
Capital Region: An Action Plan. Crafted by Patricia Salkin for
the State Commission on the Capital Region in Albany, NY, this
report proposes a series of legislative, organizational, planning,
and funding steps toward a regional planning process for the Capital
Region. An excellent summary of what we know about why and how to
form regional entities. Published by the Nelson A. Rockefeller
Institute of Government, State University of New York, Albany in
October, 1995 (518/443-5844).
Profiles in Growth Management
by yours truly has been published by the Urban Land Institute. It
contains 24 case studies of community experiences with growth
management. Most were drafted in the late 1980s, then rescued from
oblivion and updated, expanded, and supplemented with overview
chapters. Available from ULI (202/624-7073).
The Growth Management Institute
5406 Trent St.
Chevy Chase, Md. 20815
Tel/Fax: 301-656-9560
Copyright (C) 2000, The Growth
Management Institute
Website Designed and Hosted by Bitstream
Technologies, Inc.
|
