# I **MPRO VING**  

# Air QualityThrough Land Use Activities 

# EPA Guidance : United States Air and Radiation EP A420-R-01-001 Environmental Protection Office of T ransportation and January 2001 Agency Air Quality

TRAQ EP

A’ s T ransportation Air Quality Center http://www .epa.go v/otaq/traq

### EPA420-R-01-001 J a nuary 2001



# EPA Guidance: Improv ing A i r Quality Through Land Use A c tiv i ties

Transportation and Reg i onal Prog rams Division Offic e of Tra n sportation a nd Air Qua lity U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency

# T A B L E O F 

# C ONTENTS Chapt er 1 I nt roduct i o n ................................................. - 1 - 1. 1 W h y did EPA dev elop t h is g u idance?

.............................. - 1 - 1. 2 W hat does t h is g u idance do?

..................................... - 1 - 1. 3 W ho w ill use t h is g u idance?

...................................... - 2 - 1. 4 H ow do I k now if t h is g u idance is applicable t o m ycom m unit y ?

........... - 3 - 1. 5 W hat ar e t he k e yconcept s discussed in t h is g u idance?

................ - 4 - Chapt er 2 Land Use Pl anni ng ........................................... - 5 - 2. 1 W hat is land use planning ?

...................................... - 5 - 2. 2 W ho g e t s inv o lv ed in land use decision m a k i ng ?

...................... - 5 - 2. 3 W hat ar e t he som e of t he t ools used in land use planning ?

.............. - 8 - Chapt er 3 A i r Q ual i t y and T r ansport a t i on Pl anni ng ......................... - 1 0 - 3. 1 W hat is t he concer n about airq ualit yand t r anspor t a t i on in t he Unit ed St at es?
- 10 - 3

. 2 H a s a i rp o l l u t i o n f r o m t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s o u r c e s i m p r o v e d ?

............... - 1 1 - 3. 3 W hat is t he airq ualit y planning pr ocess?

........................... - 1 3 - 3. 4 W ho g e t s inv o lv ed in t he airq ualit y planning pr ocess?

................ - 1 4 - 3. 5 W hat is t he t r anspor t a t i on planning pr ocess?

....................... - 1 4 - 3. 6 W ho is inv o lv ed in t he t r anspor t a t i on planning pr ocess?

............... - 1 5 - 3. 7 H ow ar e t he airq ualit yand t r anspor t a t i on planning pr ocesses link ed?

.... - 1 5 - Chapt er 4 L i nki ng Land Use, A i r Q ual i t y , and T r ansport a t i on Pl anni ng ......... - 1 6 - 4. 1 W hat is t he r e lat i onship bet w een land use, t r anspor t a t i on, and airq ualit y ?

.............................................. - 1 6 - 4. 2 I n w hat w a y s does ur ban f o r m im pact t r av el act i v i t y ?

.................. - 1 6 - 4. 3 H ow can ur ban f o r m be chang ed t o im pr ov e airq ualit y ?

............... - 2 0 - 4. 4 W hat k i nds of act i ons ar e needed t o m a k e “ s m a r t g r owt h ” s t r a t e g i e s a c h i e v a b l e ?

......................................... - 2 2 - Chapt er 5 A ccount i ng f o r emi ssi on reduct i ons f r om l and use act i v i t i e s ........ - 2 7 - 5. 1 W hat k i nds of land use act i v i t i es can be account ed f o rin SI Ps and c o n f o r m i t yd e t e r m i n a t i o n s ?

..................................... - 2 7 - 5. 2 H ow ar e land use act i v i t i es incor por at ed int o t he airq ualit yand t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p r o c e s s e s ?

...................................... - 2 7 - 5. 2. 1 W hat ar e land use planning assum p t i ons?

.................... - 2 8 - 5. 2. 2 W hat is t he t r av el dem and f o r e cast ing pr ocess?

............... - 2 9 - 5
. 2

. 3 W h a t i s t h e e m i s s i o n s m o d e l i n g p r o c e s s ?

.................... - 3 0 - 5. 3 H ow ar e land use act i v i t i es incor por at ed int o t he SI P and t he conf or m i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n ?

............................................... - 3 1 - 5. 4 W hat ar e t he w a y s t hat I can account f o rland use act i v i t i es?

........... - 3 1 - Chapt er 6 I ncl udi ng l and use act i v i t i es i n t he i n i t i a l f o recast of f u t u re emi ssi ons i n t h e S I P .................................................. - 3 3 - 6

. 1 W h a t i s t h e i n i t i a l f o r e c a s t o f f u t u r e e m i s s i o n s ?

...................... - 3 3 - 6. 2 W hen is an init ial f o r e cast of f u t u r e em issions m ade?

................. - 3 3 -6. 3 H ow can I account f o r“ s m a r t g r owt h ” act i v i t i es in t he land use assum p t i ons t hat ar e m ade f o rt he SI P?

......................................... - 3 3 - 6. 5 W hat is “ double count ing ? ”

..................................... - 3 7 - 6. 6 W hat else should I considerw hen including land use act i v i t i es in m yinit ial f o r e c a s t o f f u t u r e e m i s s i o n s ?

.................................... - 3 8 - Chapt er 7 I ncl udi ng a l and use act i v i t y as a cont rol st rat egy i n t he SI P ......... - 3 9 - 7
. 1 W h a t i s a c o n t r o l s t r a t e g y ?

..................................... - 3 9 - 7. 2 W hen w ould I include land use act i v i t i es as cont r o l st r a t e g i es in t he SI P?

.......................................................... - 3 9 - 7. 3 H ow can I account f o rland use act i v i t i es as cont r o l st r a t e g i es in m ySI P?

.......................................................... - 3 9 - 7. 4 Land use act i v i t i es as T r adit i onal Cont r o l St r a t e g i es .................. - 3 9 - 7. 4. 1 W hat ar e T r adit i onal Cont r o l St r a t e g i es?

............... - 4 0 - 7. 4. 2 W hat ar e t he ex ist i ng st at ut or y r e q u ir em ent s f o rincluding a land use act i v i t yas a t r adit i onal cont r o l st r a t e g yin a SI P?

. - 40 - 7. 4. 3 W hat happens if I hav e included a land use act i v i t yas a t r adit i onal cont r o l st r a t e g yin a SI P, and now I hav e inf o r m a t i on t hat t he land use act i v i t y is not occur r i ng ?

..... - 4 3 - 7. 4. 4 W hat else should I considerw hen including a land use act i v i t yas a t r adit i onal cont r o l st r a t e g yin a SI P?

.................. - 4 3 - 7. 5 Land use act i v i t i es and t he Volunt ar y M obile Sour ce Em ission Reduct i on P r o g ra m p o l i c y (V M E P p o l i c y )

................................... - 4 4 - 7. 5. 1 W hat is t he Volunt ar yM obile Sour ce Em ission Reduct i on P r o g r a m ( V M E P ) p o l i c y ?

............................ - 4 4 - 7. 5. 2 W hat ar e t he ex ist i ng st at ut or yr e q u ir em ent s f o rincluding a land u s e a c t i v i t ya s a V M E P c o n t r o l s t r a t e g y i n a S I P ?

......... - 4 4 - 7. 5. 3 W hen should I use t he VM EP policyt o include a land use act i v i t y i n a S I P ?

........................................ - 4 5 - 7. 5. 4 W hat happens if I hav e included a land use act i v i t y as a VM EP cont r o l st r a t e g yin t he SI P, and I now hav e inf o r m a t i on t hat it is n o t o c c u r r i n g ?

.................................... - 4 6 - 7. 5. 5 W hat else should I considerw hen including a land use act i v i t yas a V M E P c o n t r o l s t r a t e g yi n a S I P ?

.................... - 4 6 - 7. 6 Land Use Act i v i t i es and t he Econom ic I n cent iv e Pr og r a m s policy( E I P policy )
- 47 - 7. 6. 1 W hat is t he Econom ic I n cent iv e Pr og r a m s ( E I P ) policy ?

. . . - 47 - 7
. 6

. 2 H o w i s t h e E I P p o l i c y r e l a t e d t o t h e V M E P p o l i c y ?

........ - 4 8 - 7. 6. 3 W hen should I use t he EI P Policyt o include a land use act i v i t yin a S I P ?

.......................................... - 4 9 - 7. 7 W hat st eps ar e necessar yf o rq uant if y i ng land use act i v i t i es as t r adit i onal, V M E P , o rE I P c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s ?

................................. - 4 9 - 7
. 8 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o n t r o l M e a s u r e s a s c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s ................ - 5 2 - 7
. 8

. 1 W h a t a r e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o n t r o l M e a s u r e s ?

............ - 5 2 - 7. 8. 2 H ow ar e T r anspor t a t i on Cont r o l M easur es and land use a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d ?

................................. - 5 2 - Chapt er 8 I ncl udi ng l and use pol i c i es or project s i n t he conf ormi t y det ermi nat i o n w i t hout hav i ng t hem i n a SI P .................................. - 5 5 - 8

. 1 W h a t i s a c o n f o r m i t yd e t e r m i n a t i o n ?

.............................. - 5 5 - 8

. 2 H o w i s c o n f o r m i t yd e m o n s t r a t e d ?

................................ - 5 5 -8. 3 D oes t h is g u idance im pose new r e q u ir em ent s f o rincluding land use a c t i v i t i e s i n a c o n f o r m i t yd e t e r m i n a t i o n ?

............................ - 5 6 - 8. 4 I f I hav e included a land use act i v i t yin a SI P, does it hav e t o be included in t he conf or m i t ydet er m i nat ion?

................................. - 5 6 - 8. 5 C an I account f o rt he em issions benef it s of land use act i v i t i es in a conf or m i t ydet er m i nat ion w i t hout hav ing t hem in a SI P?

............... - 5 6 - 8. 6 H ow ar e land use act i v i t i es included in t he conf or m i t ydet er m i nat ion?

.......................................................... - 5 6 - 8. 7 W hat ar e t he t r anspor t a t i on conf or m i t y r u le’s r e q u ir em ent s f o rland use a s s u m p t i o n s ?

................................................ - 5 7 - 8. 8 H ow ar e t he land use assum p t i ons in a conf or m i t ydet er m i nat ion r e v i e w e d ?

.................................................. - 5 9 - 8

. 9 W h a t a r e c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s ?

.................................... - 5 9 - 8

. 1 0 W h a t a r e t h e c o n f o r m i t yr u l e ’ s r e q u i r e m e n t s f o rc o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s ?

...... - 6 0 - 8. 11 How do I det er m i ne w het hera land use act i v i t y is a land use assum p t i on o ra c o n t r o l s t r a t e g y ?

.......................................... - 6 0 - 8. 12 W hat ar e som e ex am ples of land use act i v i t i es t hat f i t in each cat e g o r y ?

.......................................................... - 6 1 - 8. 13 W hat is “ double count ing ? ”

..................................... - 6 2 - 8. 14 W hat if a land use act i v i t y is t oo sm all t o hav e an im pact on t he out com e of t r av el dem and m odeling ?

..................................... - 6 3 - 8. 15 W hat if ourar ea doesn’t use a t r av el dem and m odel f o rt r anspor t a t i on planning ?

................................................... - 6 3 - 8. 16 W hat ar e t he adv ant ag es of account ing f o rland use act i v i t i es in t he conf or m i t y det er m i nat ion w i t hout hav ing t hem in t he SI P?

...................... - 6 3 - Chapt er 9 A ddi t i onal consi derat i ons w hen account i ng f o r l and use act i v i t i es i n t h e SI P or t he conf ormi t y process ................................. - 6 5 - 9. 1 H ow can I det er m i ne w het herornot m yland use act i v i t i es m i g h t hav e airq ualit ybenef it s?

........................................... - 6 5 - 9. 2 H ow w ill t he t i m e f r am e f o rim plem ent ing t he land use act i v i t i es af f e ct w h ich account ing opt ion I choose?

.................................... - 6 6 - 9. 3 W hat ot herim por t ant issues should I be aw ar e of in q uant if y i ng airq ualit y benef it s?

................................................... - 6 7 - 9. 3. 1 A ccount ing f o rint e r a ct ions bet w een land use act i v i t i es . - 67 - 9. 3. 2 Q uant if y i ng land use act i v i t i es indiv i duallyoras a g r oup ......... - 6 7 - 9

. 3

. 3 U s i n g c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e s .............................. - 6 8 - 9. 3. 4 T ak ing int o account t he scale of t he land use act i v i t y ............ - 6 8 - 9. 4 H ow w ill EPA assist m e w i t h q uant if icat ion?

........................ - 6 8 - A ppendi x A Exampl es of Land Use Pol i c i es and St rat egi es ................... A- 1 A ppendi x B Rel a t ed I n t e rnet Web Si t e s .................................... B - 1 A ppendi x C Rel a t ed Work Ef f o rt s ........................................ C - 1 A ppendi x D G l ossary of T e rms ........................................... C - 1 A ppendi x E Li st of A c rony ms ........................................... D - 1A ppendi x F Ref e rences t o Rel e v ant Pol i c i es, G u i dance Document s, and G eneral I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s .......................................... E - 1 A ppendi x G Regi onal and St at e Cont act s .................................. F - 1

# E XECUTIVE 

# S UMMA RY

R ecently states and local comm unities hav e passed hundreds of ballot initiativ es preserv i ng open space, increasing dev e lopm ent around transit, and prov iding for increased brow nfield redev e lopm ent. Each of these places has had different reasons-

- economic, env i ronm ental or comm unity g o als-

- f or pursuing a chosen dev e lopm ent path. E n v i ronm entally , these decisions can help comm unities reduce v e hicular emissions, im prov e w a ter quality , and rem e diate contaminated lands. S t ates and comm unities are interested in accounting for the air quality benefits of their dev e lopm ent choices. T h is g u idance presents the conditions under w h ich the benefits of land use activ ities could be included in air quality and transportation planning processes. T h e U n ited S t ates E n v i ronm ental Protection Ag ency (EPA) intends that this g u idance be an additional tool to encourag e the dev e lopm ent of land use policies and proj ects w h ich im prov e liv ability in g e neral, and air quality in particular. This effort is intended to com p lem e nt the efforts of states and local areas, and to prov ide g u idance, flexibility and technical assistance to areas that w i sh to im plem ent these m easures and use them tow ards m eeting their air quality g o als. T h is g u idance docum ent is a non- reg u latory interpretation and clarification of EPA’s policies and practices relating to treatm e nt of land use activ ities and is consistent w ith Section 131 of the C l ean A i r A c t, w h ich states, “N othing in this A c t constitutes an infring em ent on the existing authority of counties and cities to plan or control land use, and nothing in this Act prov ides or transfers authority ov er such land use.” T h e g o al of this g u idance is to assist air quality and transportation planners in accounting for the air quality im pacts of land use policies and proj ects w h ich state and local g o v e rnme nts voluntarily adopt. E P Ais prov iding this g u idance to g i v e flexibility to state and local g o v e rnme nts by expanding the num ber of strateg i es an area can use to meet its air quality planning requireme nts. P r operly m odeled and quantified land use activ ities hav e the potential to help local areas meet their air quality g o als, and im pact the quality of life of all citiz ens. G u idance on quantify i ng land use strateg i es not discussed in this document m a y be addressed in future documents. I n g e neral, states can account for the air quality benefits of land use activ ities for nonattainme nt and m a intenance areas in one of three w a y s : � I n cluding land use activ ities in the initial forecast of future emissions in the SI P; � I n cluding land use activ ities as control strateg i es in the SI P; and � I n cluding land use activ ities in a conformity determination. without including them in the SI P.



### -i

-T h e g u idance consists of three sections: S ection 1 of the document prov ides an ov erv i ew of the land use, air quality , and transportation planning processes, and discusses the link s betw een these processes. T h is sections is desig n ed prim arily for those w ho do not hav e m u ch experience w ith these processes. � C h apters 2 and 3 prov ide backg r ound inform ation on the air quality and transportation planning processes and the land use planning process. � C h apter 4 conv ey s the connection betw een each of these three processes, and the w a y s that g o v e rnme nts, dev e lopers, and citiz ens can affect these processes to potentially im prov e quality of life in g e neral, and, m o re specifically , transportation options and air quality
. Section 2 of the document describes the appropriate application of existing EPApolicies w h en accounting for land use activ ities in State I m plementation Plans and conformity determinations. T h is section also discusses g e neral quantification g u idelines for land use activ ities and is desig n ed prim arily for air quality and transportation planning professionals. � C h apter 5 discusses how land use is incorporated into the trav el dem a nd m odeling process. � C h apters 6, 7, and 8 discuss three ke y w a y s that the beneficial air quality im pacts of some land use and transportation decisions can be accounted for in the transportation and air quality planning processes. � Chapter 9 discusses special considerations w h en accounting for land use activ ities in these planning processes Section 3 of the document contains appendices containing further inform ation and resources for users of this g u idance. A dditional g u idance m a terials w ill be released ov er time on specific topics, such as me thodolog ies for quantify i ng the im pacts of specific land use policies and proj ects like infill dev e lopment, brow nfields redev e lopment, and transit oriented dev e lopment. For further inform ation, please contact: O ffice of Transportation and A i r Q u ality T R AQ Center I n form ation Request Line 734- 214- 4100 ht tp : / / www.epa.g o v/ om s/tr ansp/tr aqsusd.ht m



### -ii

-

# S ECTION 

# 1: O VERVIEW OF THE LINK BETWEEN LA ND USE 

# , T R AN S P O R T AT I O N 

# , A ND A I R QUA L ITY
S e c t io n 1 i s desi gned to prov ide a primer for readers w ho may not be familiar w i th the concept s and processes t hat are rel a t ed t o a c c o unt i ng f o r ai r qual i t y i m pact s of l and use activ ities. R eaders w ho are more familiar w i th these topics may w i sh to skip to S ection 2, w h i ch cov ers speci f i c pol i c y and t echni cal consi derat i ons 

### . C h a p t e r1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ................................................... - 1 - 1.1 W h ydi d EPA dev el op thi s g u i dance?

.......................... - 1 - 1.2 W hat does thi s g u i dance do?

................................ - 1 - 1.3 W ho w ill use this g u idance?

................................. - 2 - 1.4 H owdo I knowi f thi s g u i dance i s appl i c abl e to mycommuni ty ?

...... - 3 - 1.5 W hat ar e the keyconcepts di scussed i n thi s g u i dance?

............ - 4 - Chapt er 2 Land Use Pl anni ng ........................................... - 5 - 2. 1 W hat is land use planning ?

...................................... - 5 - 2. 2 W ho g e t s inv o lv ed in land use decision m a k i ng ?

...................... - 5 - 2. 3 W hat ar e t he som e of t he t ools used in land use planning ?

.............. - 7 - Chapt er 3 A i r Q ual i t y and T r ansport a t i on Pl anni ng .......................... - 9 - 3. 1 W hat is t he concer n about airq ualit yand t r anspor t a t i on in t he Unit ed St at es?
- 9 - 3

. 2 H a s a i rp o l l u t i o n f r o m t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s o u r c e s i m p r o v e d ?

............... - 1 0 - 3. 3 W hat is t he airq ualit y planning pr ocess?

........................... - 1 2 - 3. 4 W ho g e t s inv o lv ed in t he airq ualit y planning pr ocess?

................ - 1 3 - 3. 5 W hat is t he t r anspor t a t i on planning pr ocess?

....................... - 1 3 - 3. 6 W ho is inv o lv ed in t he t r anspor t a t i on planning pr ocess?

............... - 1 4 - 3. 7 H ow ar e t he airq ualit yand t r anspor t a t i on planning pr ocesses link ed?

.... - 1 4 - Chapt er 4 L i nki ng Land Use, A i r Q ual i t y , and T r ansport a t i on Pl anni ng ......... - 1 5 - 4. 1 W hat is t he r e lat i onship bet w een land use, t r anspor t a t i on, and airq ualit y ?

.............................................. - 1 5 - 4. 2 I n w hat w a y s does ur ban f o r m im pact t r av el act i v i t y ?

.................. - 1 5 - 4. 3 H ow can ur ban f o r m be chang ed t o im pr ov e airq ualit y ?

............... - 1 9 - 4. 4 W hat k i nds of act i ons ar e needed t o m a k e “ s m a r t g r owt h ” s t r a t e g i e s a c h i e v a b l e ?

......................................... - 2 1 -

# C HA PTER 

# 1 I NTRODUCTION 1. 1 W HY DID 

### EPA DEVELOP T H IS GUIDA NCE 

### ? I n recent y ears, m a n y of E P A ’s stakeholders hav e explored using land use activ ities as strateg i es for im prov ing air quality
. T h ese stakeholders, including state and local planning ag encies, hav e sug g ested that E P Aprov ide g u idance on how to recog n iz e land use strateg i es in the air quality planning process that result in im prov ements in local and reg i onal air quality
. I n a surve y conducted by EPAin 1998 1 , staff and m a nag e rs in state air ag encies and reg i onal transportation planning ag encies said that being able to quantify and account for the air quality im pacts of beneficial land use activ ities w ould: � Encourag e funding for research into the im pacts of such activ ities, � Educate state and local g o v e rnme nt officials about land use planning as a tool for achiev i ng clean air, and � A dd support to these k i nds of activ ities in reg i onal and local debates. T h is g u idance document is desig n ed to describe how y ou can use existing EPAreg u lations and policies to account for the air quality bene fits o f la n du s e a c tiv itie s th a te n c o u r a g e tr a v e l p a tte r n s a n dc h o i ces that reduce v e hicle miles of trav el, and consequently reduce emissions from m o tor v e hicles in y our comm unities. T h is document lay s out g e neral g u idance on quantify i ng the potential benefits of land use activ ities that y our area m a y choose to adopt. EPA w ill prov ide additional g u idance on quantify i ng benefits from specific ty pes of land use strateg i es in the future. 

### 1. 2 W HA TDOES T H IS GUIDA NCE DO 

### ? T h e g o als of this g u idance are to: � D escribe the options for accounting for the air quality benefits of land use activ ities in the air quality planning and transportation planning processes (i.e., state im plem entation plans (SI P s), and conformity determinations), � Help you determine w h ich option is appropriate for a chosen land use activ ity , and � Help you mod e l th e air q u a lity imp a cts of land use activ ity
.

1 US EP A , Bac k g round I n for m a tion for Land U s e SI P Polic y , EP A 420- R

- 98- 012, O c tobe r 1998. 

### -1

-This g u idance is not a reg u latory document. T h is g u idance is consistent with Section 131 of the Clean Air A c t, w h ich states: “N othing in this A c t constitutes an infring ement on the existing authority o f

counties and cities to plan or control land use, and nothing in th i s A c t prov ides or transfers authority ov er such land use.” T h is g u idance w ill help air quality and transportation planners account for emission reduction im pacts of beneficial land use activ ities w h ich state and local g o v e rnme nts voluntarily adopt. I tis intended to inform state and local g o v e rnme nts that land use activ ities which can be shown (throug h appropriate m odeling and quantification) to hav e beneficial im pacts on air quality , m a y help them meet their air quality g o als. E P A is prov iding this g u idance to g i v e flexibility to state and local g o v e rnme nts by ex panding the num ber of strateg i es an area can use to meet its air quality planning requireme nts. Another purpose of this document is to emphasiz eth ei m p o r t ance of strong coordination and cooperation am ong the m a ny parties inv o lv ed in land use, transportation, and air quali t y planning . C o mm unities in all parts of the country are g r appling with deciding what k i nds of g r owth patterns best meet their g o als. I n m a ny of these areas, state air ag encies are strug g ling to identify new w a y s to meet their state’s air quality g o als, and state transportation planners are attem p ting to meet comm unity transportation needs w ith proj ects that are consistent w ith existing air quality g o als. L a nd d e v e lopment patterns influence trav el decisions, and therefore hav e a direct im pact on air quality
. Therefore, collaboration and early inv o lv ement of the local, reg i onal, and state g o v e rnme nt ag encies, as w e ll as me m b ers of the public, env i ronmental and comm unity action org a niz a tions, and the dev e lopment comm unity , are v ital to ensuring that the wide array of comm unity g o als are adequately considered. 

### 1. 3 W HO W ILL USE T H IS G U IDA NCE 

### ? B o th the air quality and transportation planning processes inv o lv e consideration and estim ation of the effects of land use on trav el activ ity
. While local g o v e r n m e n t s hav e the prim ary responsibility for decisions reg arding land use, there are three m a in g o v e rnme nt ag encies that are responsible for assessing reg i onal air quality and the effects of transportation on air quality : State and L o cal A i r Quality A g encies – ag encies at the state or local lev e l that prepare air quality plans (k now n as S t ate I m plementatio n Pl a n s , o rS I P s ) w ill use this g u idance for quantify i ng the air quality benefits of land use activ ities in S I P s ; Re g i o n al Transportation P l anning Agencies – these ag encies, w h ich m o st often are f e d e rally

- d esig n ated Metropolitan Planning O r g a niz a tions (MPO s) and C ouncils of Gov e rnme nt (COGs), pre p a r el o n g - t e rm t

r an s p o rt a tion plans and shorter- term transportation im prov ement prog ram s for me tropolitan areas and are responsible fo r show ing that t r ansportation activ ities “conform ” to the g o als of air quality plans. They w ill us e t h i s g u idance for quantify i n g t h e a i rquality benefits of land use activ ities in conformity determinations; and State Departments of Transportation – these ag encies w o rk w ith reg i onal transportation planning and air quality ag encies to dev e lop and ev aluate transportation plans and prog ram s , and are usually responsible for dem onstrating that transportation activ ities in rural areas conform to the g o als of state- w i de air quality plans.


### -2

-T h is g u idance w ill be used prim arily by those ag encies responsible for air q u a lity an d tr a n s p o r t a t i o n planning
. H o w e v e r, other parties that m a y be interested in the ideas, policies and technical issues presented in this g u idance include:� Local g o v e rnme nt ag encies � R e g i onal ag encies � State ag encies � Federal ag encies � Priv ate dev e lopers � A cademia � C itiz ens and comm unity org a niz a tions � F i nancial I n stitutions 

### 1. 4 H OW DO 

### I KNO W IF T H IS G U IDA NCE IS A PPLICA B LE T O M Y CO M M UNIT Y 

### ? T h is g u idance is m o st relev a nt for areas that are desig n ated nonattainme nt or m a intenance areas for the air pollutants oz one, PM- 10, CO, and/or NO 2 . Nonattainment area: a g e og raphic reg i on of the U n ited S tates that the EP A has des i g n ated as not meeting the N ational A m bient A i r Q u ality Standards (NAAQS) f or specif ic air pollutants. M a in ten a n ce areas : an area prev i ous ly des i g n ated nonattainm e nt, w h ich has since m et the national standards and has an EPA approv ed maintenance plan cov e ring at leas t 10 y ears . U nder the C l ean A i r A c t, states are required to submit plans to E P Ashow ing how they w ill meet their air quality g o als. They m u st also show that any planned transportation activ ities a r e in harm ony w ith those g o als. I n addition, w ith the recent release of the EPAReg i onal H a z e rule, states m a y w a nt to consider the im pacts of land use on transportation, as v e hicle emissions are contributors to reg i onal haz e pollution. While this g u idance is desig n ed prim arily to h e l p a r eas achiev e their air quality g o als to meet federal standards, local, reg i onal, and state g o v e rnme nt staff in areas that are not desig n ated as nonattainme nt areas m a y also find this document useful as they explore w a y s to secure their attainme nt status in the future and determine potential C O 2 im pacts of their land use choices.



### -3

-

### 1. 5 W HA TA R E T H E KEY CONCEPT S DISCUSSED IN T H IS GUIDA NCE 

### ? I n this g u idance, w e discuss the link s betw een the land use, transportation, and air quality planning processes. State and local g o v e rnme nts use these processes to m ake choices about comm unity g r ow th, economic d e ve l o p me n t , transportation infrastructure support and dev e l o p me n t , a n dp r o t e c t i o n o f e n vi r o n me n t a l q u a lity
. Sev e ral concepts are discussed throug hout the do c u m e n t ; brief definitions are prov ided below
. T h ese concepts are discussed in g r eater detail later in this document A i r qu ality plan ing � T h e process by w h i c h s t a t e , and in some cases, reg i onal, air quality planning ag encies assess current and future air quality conditions and determine the “control strateg i es”needed to reduce emissions and im prov e ai r q u a lity . T h ese ag encies prepare State I m plementation Plans (SI P s) and submit them to EPAfor approv al. Transport a ti o n pl anni ng � T h e process by w h ich state and local transport a t i o n a g encies, along w ith me tropolitan planning org a niz a tion s , assess needs for future transportation infrastructure such as roads and transit sy stem s. Federal reg u lations require states to dem onstrate that planned transportation activ it i e s a r e consistent with or “conform ” to the air g o als outlined in the S I P
. Land use pl anni ng � T h e process by w h ich local g o v e rnme nts plan for future g r ow th in comm unities and decide where and how dev e lopment should occur within local boundaries. I n some cases, reg i onal planning ag encies w o rk w ith local g o v e rnme nts to coordina te the planning efforts of neig hboring m unicipalities. L

a n d u se activities � Land use activ ities include all of the v arious action s t h a t state and local go v e rnme nts or other entities take w h ich affect the dev e lopment of land use i n a c o m mu nity or reg i on. T h ese land use activ ities result in patterns of land use th a t influence the tr a n s p o r tation choices people m ake . I n this g u idance, land use a c t i vities that reduce reliance on m o tor v e hicles (e.g ., throug h shortening trip leng ths or increasing accessibility of alternativ e m odes of transportation) and that can also be show n to hav e air quality benefits m a y be accounted for in the air quality and transportation planning processes. Land use activ ities include lan d u se policies , defined as specific policies, prog ram s , or reg u lations adopted or operated by g o v e rnme nt ag encies and land use projects defined as specific dev e lopments. A ccou n ting for lan d u se in th e air qu ality an d tran sportation processes � Where pla n n i n g ag encies can dem onstrate ,throug h m odeling , that land use activ ities can be reasonably expected to hav e a positiv e im pact on air quality , they can account for those benefits in the air quality and/or the transportation planning process.



### -4

-

# C HA PTER 

# 2 L A ND 

# U SE 

# P LA NNING 2. 1 W HA TIS LA ND USE PLA NNING 

### ? Land use planning i s a p r o c e ss throug h w h ich g o v e rnme nt ag encies assess current phy sical, social, and economic conditions w ithin an area, proj ect future trends based on this inform ation, and consider strateg i es and alternativ es for dev e loping land that meet the needs of t h e c o m mu n i t y a t larg e. Part of the planning process inv o lv es m aki ng decisions about the phy sical characteristics and lay out o f d e v e lopment in a me tropolitan area, including dev e lopment of transportation infrastructure, and building d e s i gn and orientation. Land use planning some times inv o lv es consideration of a mu ltitude of comm unity concerns, including env i ronmental concerns such as air quality
. 

### 2. 2 W HO GET S INVOLVED IN LA ND USE DECISION MA KING 

### ? Local, reg i onal, and state go ve r n m e n t a g encies all hav e a role in land use decision- m ak i ng . I n addition, indiv i duals, comm unity org a niz a tions, and dev e lopers play im portant roles in the process. T h e roles of these parties in the land use planning process are discussed in the follow i ng sections. Role of local governments I n m o st states, land use decisions are prim arily m a de at the local lev e l. Metropolitan areas are g e og raphic reg i ons that are c o mp rised of a central city of at least 50,000 people, or a U
. S. Census Bureau- d efined urbaniz e d area and a total populatio n of at least 100,000 (75,000 in N e w Eng l and), including suburbs surrounding the central city , edg e cities, and r u r a l fring e areas. 2 T h ese me tropolitan areas are com p rised of a num ber of local g o v e rnme nt bodies, such as counties, m unicipalities, cities, and tow n ships, as w e ll as special serv i ce districts and school districts. Local g o v e rnme nts are g e nerally responsible for, and hav e authority ov er, v arious land use decisions within their borders. T h ey hav e the authority to issue permits for dev e lopment and c o ntrol where and how dev e lopment occurs. Since each of these bodies m a y g o v e rn some aspects of land use decisions, there alw a y s exists the possibility that the g o als of one body m a y conflict w ith those of another.

2 T h is de f i nition w a s pr ov ide d bythe U
. S. B u r e au of the C e ns us . For m o r e inf o r m ation, v i s it the i r w e b a ddr e s s at h t tp : / / www. c e n s u s . g o v/ population/www/ e s t i m at e s / a boutme tr o.html
. 

### -5

-L O C A L G O VERNM ENT BO DI ES T H AT I N FLUENCE LA ND USE T h ere are sev eral different lev e ls of local g o v e rnme nt that each hav e responsibility for m ak i ng separate decisions about land use. � Muni ci pal i t i e s : indiv i dual v illag es, tow n s, cities and boroug hs; usually hav e control ov er land use planning and z oning within their boundaries. � Tow n s h i p s : counties can be com p rised of tow n ships , w h ich in some cases hav e control ov er land use planning , z oning , and roads. � Co u n ties: often g o v e rned by boards called planning commi ssions, which m a y h a ve t h e responsibility for controlling land use planning , z oning , and expansion of city limits; often are also responsible for road and bridg e construction and m a intenance. May hav e decision m ak i ng role, or m a y serv e as adv i sory bodies for m unicipal g o v e rnme nts. � Speci al di s t r i c t s : some serv i ces, such as w a ter and sew ag e treatme nt, are g o v e rned by d i s tricts and authorities that do not necessarily correspond w ith m unicipal bounda r i e s . D ecisions reg arding these serv i ces are often bey ond the control of the m unicipalities. � School districts : the boundaries and g o v e rnance of school districts are often different from m

unicipal boundaries. Role of regional government T h ere are ty pically tw o ty pes of reg i onal planning ag encies that are connected to land use planning issues. T h ese ag encies are k now n as councils of g o v e rnme nts ( COGs ) a n d m e tropolitan planning org a niz a tions (MPO s); in some areas, the MPO and the C O Gare the same ag ency . Councils of G o v e rnme nts (CO G s ) help local g o v e rnme nts and the state by preparing land use forecasts, w ith input from the local g o v e rnme nts, which are used in transportation and air q u a lity p l a n n i n g , a s w e l l a s economic planning
. COGs serv e adv i sory roles, and their decisions are not leg a lly binding
. Metropolitan Planning O r g a niz a tions (MPO s), tog e ther w ith the state, are responsible for c onduct i n g t h e continuing , cooperativ e, and com p rehensiv e reg i onal transportation planning process under t h e F e deral H i gh w a y Admi nistration’s planning rules 3

. MPOs g e nerally are responsible for distribution of fed e r a l transportation funding
. I n its planning activ ities, the MPO m u st consider the relationship betw een planned transportation activ ities and air quality g o als in both the near term and in the long term . T h ese reg i onal planning ag encies play im portant roles by prov iding land use and transportation data and analy ses of the r e gional im pacts of alternativ e land use scenarios, but g e nerally hav e limited influence on land use decisions. T w o notable exceptions can be found in Oreg on and Georg i a. T h e State of Oreg on has created a v o ter- elected reg i onal g o v e rnme nt body k nown as Metro, which has some leg a lly binding planning authority ov er land use decisions in the Portland me tropolitan area. I n 1999, the g o v e rnor of G e org i a created a planning body known as the Georg i a Reg i onal T r ansportation Authority (GRT A), which has the authority to approv e local land use/transportation plans, and can influence the transportation planning process by withholding state funding
.

3 Fe de r a l H i g h w a yA d mi nis tr ation, Fe de r a l T r a n s it A d mi nis tr ation, 23 U
. S.C
. 134 a nd 49 U
. S.C
. 5303 

### . -6

-Role of state government States g e nerally deleg a te land use decision m ak i ng authority to local g o v e rnme nts. While states usually hav e little direct im pact on thos e d e c i s i ons, numerous state prog ram s g o v e rning taxes, infrastructure funding , hig h w a y s , and comm unity inv estme nt indirectly exert a strong influence on land use decisions. Many states are beg i nning to ev aluate state- lev e l policies that pull dev e lopment away from comm unity centers and are looki n g at w a y s to transform those policies into incentiv es for com p act, comm unity

- b ased dev e lopment. Role of f

e deral government Althoug h federal ag encies are not inv o lv ed in local land use decisions, federal statutes such as env i ronmental laws, tax codes, federal m o rtg a g e lending policies, and transportation infrastructure policies can influence local land use planning
. Exam ples of such policies include assess m e n t requireme nts in the N a tional Env i ronmental Policy A c t (NEPA), transportation planning requireme nts found in U.S. Departme nt of T r ansportation reg u lations, and specifications on property use included in the EPA’s Superfund reg u lations. R o le of developers Priv ate dev e lopers can propose a v ariety of dev e lopment strateg i es and proj ects t o l o c a l planning bodies, which can approv e or disapprov e the proposals. D e v e lopers can partner with comm unities to desig n dev e lopments that are in keeping with local economic, social, and env i ronmental g o als. Role of citiz e ns I ndiv i duals and comm unity org a niz a tions can sig n ificantly im pact the direction of p o l i c y dev e lopment throug h comm unity org a niz i ng , ballot initiativ es, creation and support of alternativ e dev e lopment plans and proj ects, and participation in public hearing s and comme n t p e ri o d s related to specific dev e lopment proposals. 

### 2. 3 W HA TA R E T H E SOM E OF T H E T OOLS USED IN LA ND USE PLA NNING 

### ? Local- l ev el land use planning usually inv o lv es the dev e lopment of a g u iding document referred to by m a ny names, including com p rehensive plan , m a ster plan , or general plan
. T h is document is used to dev e lop a “blueprint” for future dev e lopment. I n some states, local g o v e rnme nts are required to create a com p rehensiv e plan, while in others, such planning is optional. T h e com p rehensiv e plan can be a leg a lly binding document for local decision m ak i ng , or it can be an adv i sory tool. Bey ond the com p rehensiv e plan, local g o v e rnme nts also dev e lop specific land use reg u lations that are leg a lly binding
. T h ese include zoni ng ordi nances and subdivisio n r eg u lations
. Z oning ordinances are w r itten specifications as to how and w h ere dev e lopment can occur. C h ar a c t e ristics such as heig ht and siz e of building s , building setback s, lot and y ard siz e , prov isions for sidewalk s and street widths, and mi nim u m or m a xim u m park ing allow a nces are g o v e rned by z oning ordinances. Subdiv i sion reg u lations g o v e rn the desig n principles inv o lv ed in dev e lopment of new subdiv i sions and define how parcels of land w ill be dev e loped. Local g o v e rnme nts can influence site desig n by em ploy ing developm ent standards throug h a desig n rev i ew process. I n this process, new proj ects are broug ht before a desig n rev i ew board for approv al; this rev i ew m a y include addressing air quality issues. Local g o v e rnme nts m a y also dev e lop incentive program s . I n centiv es m a y be m onetary or non- m onetary . For exam ple, local g o v e rnme nts m a y offer rewards to dev e lopers who build in desired locations or who include


### -7

-certain desig n features in new proj ects. Local g o v e rnme nts m a y also establish assessment districts w h ere dev e lopers are required to pay for the cost of needed infrastructure im prov ements. R e g i onal and s t a t e g o v e rnme nt ag encies can also influence dev e lopment patterns. T h ese ag encies can dev e lo p reg i on- w i de com p rehensiv e planning processes to help coordinate planning efforts am ong local g o v e rnme nts. R e g i onal and state g o v e rnme nt ag encies can also create policies and prog ram s to educate and encourag e local g o v e rnme nts to achiev e desirable planning obj ectiv es, and can dev e lop incentiv e prog ram s that attract new dev e lopment to desired areas. I n some areas, reg i onal and state ag encies play a larg er role in the land use planning process, and m a y possess g r eater authority ov er land use decision m aki ng . While the federal g o v e rnme nt does not hav e j u risdiction ov er local land use decision m aki ng , federal statutes and funding policies do influence local land use decisions. G r ant prog ram s that assist states in redev e loping abandoned brow nfields, earm arking federal funding assistance for “em pow erme nt z ones” in older u r b a n areas, and partnerships betw een federal ag encies and state and local g o v e rnme nts to test land use planning tools are some exam ples.



### -8

-

# C HA PTER 

# 3 A IR 

# Q UA LITY A ND 

# T RA NSPORTA T ION 

# P LA NNING 3. 1 W HA TIS T H E CONCERN A B OUT A I R QUA LIT Y A ND T R A N SPORT A T ION IN T H E 

### U NIT E D 

### S TA TE S 

### ? A i r pollution causes harm to hum ans, anim als, plant life, w a ter quality , property , and v i sibility
. T h ere are m a ny different sources of air pollution, including naturally occurring sources (such as w i ndblow n dust, and v o lcanic eruptions), and m a n- m a de sources, such a s s t ationary sources (e.g ., factories, pow er plants) and transportation sources (e.g ., cars, buses, planes, truck s , and trains). T h e 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) 4 , and the subsequent 1977 and 1990 amendments, charg e d EPA with the task of estab l i s h i n g air quality standards based on m a xim u m acceptable atm o spheric concentrations of six air contaminants, known as criteria pollutants. A ll states m u st dev e lop plans that dem onstrate how they w ill attain and m a intain the standards. I n their plans, states m u st address emissions from m o tor v e hicles. T r ansportation sources are sig n ificant contributors to emissions of v o latile org a nic com pounds (VO C s) and oxides of nitrog en (N O x ), t h e t w o m a j o r air pollutants related to sm og . T r ansportation sources also contribute to the other criteria pollutants that EPAreg u lates. T able 1 show s t h e percentag e of the total emissions inv e ntory for each pollutant that is due to on- road and non- road v e hicles and eng i nes. 

### T AB L E 

### 1. T RA NS P O RTAT I O N 

### S O URCE 

### C ON TR IB U T ION TO 

### 1998 N AT I O N AL 

### E M I SSION S 

### I N VEN T O R I ES OF 

### C RI TE RI A 

### P OLLUTA NTS 5 Cri t eri a/ P recursor P o l l u tant % of total i n ventory ( due t o On- r oad and N o n- R oad V e hi cl es and E n g i nes ) C arbon Monox ide ( C O ) 7 9 Oxid es o f Nitro g en (NOx)* 5 3 V o latile O r g a nic Com pounds (V O C s ) * 4 3 P artic ulat e Matte r (P M 10 ) 1 9 L e a d ( P b) 13 Sulf ur

D i ox ide ( S O 2) 7 * N o t e : N O x and V O C s ar eno t crite ri a po l l u tants, but ar epr e c ur so r to thecrite ri a po l l u tant o z o n e( O 3 ). T r ansportation sources are also sig n ificant contributors to emissions of g r eenhouse g ases, w h ich are linke d to g l obal clim ate chang e . T r ansportation sources accounted for approxim a tely 31% of total U
. S. emissions of CO 2 , a g r eenhouse g as, in 1998. 6

4 T h e C l e a n A i r A c t, 42 U
. S. C
. 7401 e ts e q. 5 U S EP A , 2000. Nat i onalAi r Pol l u tant Em i ssi ons Trends 1900-1998
. EP A

- 454/ R-00-002. U S EP AO f f i ceo f A i r Q u ality P l an n i n g an dS t an d ard s, R e se arch T r ian g leP ark , N C . 6 U S EP A2000. I n v e n tor y of G re e nhous e G a s Em is s i ons and Sink s : 1990- 1998. EP A236- R

- 00- 001 U S EP AO f f i c e of A t m o s phe r i c P r og r a m s , W a s h ing t on, D C
. 

### -9

-

### 3. 2 H A S A I R POLLUT I ON FROM T R A N SPORT A T ION SOURCES IM PROVED 

### ? I n g e neral, y es. Much has been done to reduce emissions of air pollutants from cars and truck s ov er the last 25 y ears. T h ese ef f o r t s h a v e focused on the use of technolog y and tailpipe controls, and hav e been quite successful at reducing the emissions of criteria air pollutants from transportation sources. When com p ared to passeng e r cars in 1970, a v e hicle today emits 60 to 90 percent l e s s air pollution ov er its lifetime due to EPA ’s v e hicle emissions standards. 7 Howev e r, althoug h EPA’s emissions standards and the im prov ed emissions control technolog y used to meet them are expected to continue to positiv ely affect air quality , the num ber of miles being driv en are expected to continue to increase. F I G URE 1. T RENDS I N V EHI C LE E M I SSI O N S A ND V EHI C LE M I L ES T RAVELED 8

T h is increase in v e hicle miles trav eled (VMT ) can be attributed to a num ber of chang es in trav el behav i or. Since 1952, the num ber of cars and truck s in the US has m o re than quadrupled while the US population has less than doubled. 9 T h e av erag e total annual mileag e driv en by Americans in 1995 (9,567 miles per y ear) was alm o st twice as hig h as it was in 1970 (4,587 miles per y ear). 10

7 U S EP AO f f i c e of A i r a nd R a diation, Re s ourc e Infor m a tion, O ffic e of Tr ans por tation and Air Q uality
. EP A 420- F- 00- 004, Fe bruar y2000. 8 U S EP AO f f i c e of A i r a nd R a diation. FactShe e tO M S-4 EP A400-F-92-006, January 1993 

### . 9 A meri can Au t o m o b i l e M a n u f actu r ers A sso ci at i o n , Wo rld Mo to r Veh i cles Da ta 1996 Edition, 1998

� 10 O ak R i dg e N ationa l L abor at ory , Tr ans por tation Ene r gy D a ta Book : Edition 19, Se pte m be r 1999. 

### -10

-Furtherm ore, as T able 2 show s, people are taki ng m o re local trips and m o re long distance trips, and the trips are, on av erag e, long er than they w e re 20 y ears ag o . T AB L E 2. P OP U L AT ION A N D P A SSENG E R T RAVEL C HA RA CT ERI S T I CS I N TH E U NI T E D S TATE S , 1977- 1995 11

1977 1995 P ercentag e Increase 1977- 1995 Po p u l a t io n( t h o u s a n d s ) 219,760 262,761 20 Lo ca l Trip s A nnua l loc a l pe r s on tr ips (tra v e l da y ) (millions) 211,778 378,930 79
L o c a l pe r s on tr ips pe r c ap ita , one w ay( p e r day ) 2.4 4 .3 47
L o c a l pe rs on mile s (millions ) 1 ,879,215 3,411,122 82 L o c a l pe r s on mile s pe r c ap ita ( a nnua lly ) 9 ,470 14,115 49 L o cal average tr i p l e n g th (mi l e s) 8
. 9 9
. 0 1 Lo n g Dista n ce Trip s A nnua l long dis t a n c e pe rs on trips (millions ) 521 1,001 92 L o n g d i st an ce tr i p s p e r cap i t a , r ound tr ip ( p e r y e ar ) 2.5 3 .9 56
L ong dis t a n c e pe rs on mile s (millions ) 382,466 826,804 116 L ong dis t a n c e mile s pe r c ap ita ( a nnua lly ) 1 ,796 3,129 74 L ong dis t a n c e a v e r a g e tr ip le ng th ( mile s ) 733 826 13

The m a j o rity of this trav el activ ity occurs in personal autom obiles. I n m a ny comm unities, alternativ e m odes of transportation, such as transit and the infrastructure needed to m ake bik i ng and walk ing safe and conv enient, m a y be scarcely av ailable, thus limiting personal transportation choices. A l so, g i v e n av erag e trip leng ths of nearly 9 miles, w a lking and bik i ng options are, in m a ny cases, not v i able.

11 U.S
. De pa rtm e nt o f T r a n spo r ta tio n. 2000 

### . T h e Changing Fac e of T r ansportation , T able 5.1 P a g e 5- 2. 

### -11

-F I G URE 2. T RA NSPO RT AT I O N C H OIC E B Y M OD E 12

For the m a ny areas of the country that are w o rking hard to im prov e air quality , these trends tow ard m o re cars on the road, people driv ing m o re often, and increased trip leng ths m a y offset the benefits g a ined from cleaner v e hicles. T o com b at these trends, state and local g o v e rnme nt ag encies seek ing to reduce emissions from cars are increasing ly looking n o t j u st at technolog ical solutions, but at strateg i es to reduce driv ing
. O n e such strateg y is to explore w a y s to dev e lop land w ithin comm unities that w ill increase transportation options and prov ide people w ith m o re choices to use of alternativ e m odes of trav el and driv e less. 

### 3. 3 W HA TIS T H E A I R QUA LIT Y PLA NNING PROCESS 

### ? The C l ean A i r A c t directs state air quality ag encies to prepare air quality plans (called State Implementation P l ans, or SIP s ). S I P s include estim ates of future air quality and describes in detail a state’s plans to achiev e air quality g o als. The approv ed S I P serv es as the state’s commitment to actions that w ill reduce air quality problem s. A g e neral description of the process follow s . A state’s air quality ag ency (g enerally a branch of the state’s env i ronm ental protection, natural resources, or public health departm e nt) prepares SI Ps with input from the m e tr opoli t a n p l a n n i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s , industrial pollution sources operating in the state, and me m b ers of the public. States submit SI Ps for their nonattainme nt and m a intenance areas, w h ich can include both larg e me tropolitan cities and/or rural areas. T h ere are sev eral k i nd s o f S I P s t h at are required under different circum stances. T h e ones that are relev a nt to this g u idance are control strateg y SI Ps (15% plans, rate- o f- prog ress plans, and attainme nt plans) and m a intenance plans. T h e control strateg y S I P s m u st include an initial forecast of the area’s future emissions -

- that is, emissions in the y ear(s) addressed by the S I P that w ill result if no additional control strateg i es are im plemented other t h a n wh at is required by law
. T h e SI P also m u st include a description of specific prog ram s (or “control strateg i es”) that w ill be used to achiev e the needed emission reductions in the area, and calculate future emissions that result w h en the control strateg i es are considered. T h e area m u st adopt enoug h control strateg i es to show that it w ill:

12 U
. S. D e part m e nto f Transpo r t a t i o n (U SD O T ), Fe de ral H i g h w a y A d mi ni strat i o n (FH W A ) , 2000. Sum m a ry of Travel Trends: 1995 N a tionw ide Personal Transportation Survey. Wa s h i n gt on , D C
. 

### -12

-� meet the standards in the future attainme nt y ear (k now n as “attainme nt dem onstration” SI Ps) ; -o r - � continue to meet the standard after attainme nt i s r e a c h e d (know n as “m aintenance plan” SI Ps)
. O z one areas hav e additional SI P requireme nts. B e fore attainme nt is reached, an oz one nonattainme nt area mu s t : � m ake prog ress in meeting the oz one standards (show n in SI Ps called “15% plans,” and “rate

of- p rog r ess plans”). T h e total allow able emissions in a control strateg y SI P is the am ount of emissions the area can hav e and still achiev e the air quality g o als of the S I P (prog r ess, attainme nt, or m a intenance of the N a tional A m bient A i r Q u ality St a n d a r d s )
. The portion of the total allow able emissions that is allocated to hig h w a y and transit v e hicle use is called the m o t o r vehi cl e em i ssi ons budget , referred to hereafter as “the budg et.” T h e SI Ps described abov e - - 15% plans, rate- o f- prog ress plans, attainme nt dem onstrations, and m a intenance plans -

- alm o st alw a y s contain these budg ets. Motor v e hicle emissions m u st stay w ithin these budg ets. 

### 3. 4 W HO GET S INVOLVED IN T H E A I R QUA LIT Y PLA NNING PROCESS 

### ? States, an d i n some cases, local air quality planning ag encies, are responsible for creating and m onitoring prog ress of the S t ate I m plementation P l an. S t ate and lo c a l a i r quality planning ag encies, and other org a niz a tions w ho are responsible for dev e loping , submitting , or im plementing prov isions of a SI P consult w ith each other, w ith other state and local ag encies, and w ith the appropriate local or reg i onal offices of EPA and D O T
. A i r quality ag encies and transportation planning ag encies w o rk tog e ther to m odel and assess the transportation netw ork ’ s im pact on emissions from autom obiles. I n addition, citiz ens are allow e d to rev i ew and comme nt on the proposed plan . 

### 3. 5 W HA TIS T H E T R A N SPORT A T ION PLA NNING PROCESS 

### ? T h e U
. S. D e partme nt of T r ansportation planning reg u lations require areas w ith m o re than 50,000 residents to hav e a me tropolitan planning org a niz a tion (MP O ). MP O s are respo n s ible for transportation planning , specifically the creation of the area’s long

- r ang e transportation plan and its shorter- term t r ansportation improvement program(TI P ). T h e transportation plan is a long

- t erm plan for m a intenance and im prov ement of the area’s tra n s p o r tation sy stem . T h e plan m u st address at least a tw enty y ear planning horiz on. The TI P is the reg i on’s spending plan for anticipated transportation im prov ement, containing a m u lti- y ear prioritiz ed list of proj ects (3 y ears at a mi nim u m ) proposed for funding or approv al by the Federal Hig h way A d mi nistrat i on (FH W A ) or the Federal T r ansit A d mi nistration (FT A ). T h e T I P is the means for im plementing the g o als of the long

- r ang e transportation plans. O u tside of me tropolitan areas, planning is done by the state’s departme nt of transportation in concert w ith rural, non- me tropolitan counties.



### -13

-Before a T I P or a plan is adopted, the MPO and, subsequently , the U.S. Departme nt of T r ansportation, are required to show that the area’s planned transportation activ ities are consistent with (or “conform ” to) the purpose of the SI P in nonattainme nt a n d m a i n t e n a n ce areas; this process is k now n as the transportation conformity determination process. T h e transportation conformity determination process lin ks transportation and air quality planning . T h e transportation conformity process is desig n ed to m ake s u r e t h at new inv estme nts in transportation infrastructure do not w o rsen air quality or interfere w ith the “purpose” of the S I P
. T h e transportation plan and TI Pm u st result in emissions consistent w ith those a l l o wed in the S I P
. To dem onstrate that the transportation plan and T I P are in conformity , the MPO m u s t s h o w t h a t the area’s future emissions from hig h w a y and transit transportation activ ities meet the m o tor v e hicle emissions budg ets in the SI P (in cases w h ere an area does not y e t hav e a SI P in place, a different ty pe of test is used). T h e U
. S. D e partme nt o f T r ansportation, including both the Federal Hig h wa y Admi nistration (FHWA) and the Federal T r ansit Admi nistration (FT A ), m u st approv e the MPO’s conformity determination. 

### 3. 6 W HO IS INVOLVED IN T H E T R A N SPORT A T ION PLA NNING PROCESS 

### ? I n dev e loping transportation plans and T I PS, coordination and cooperation am ong m u ltiple ag encies–MPO s , state and local transportation and air quality ag encies, offic e s o f t h e U
. S
. D e partme nt of Transportation (FH W A and FT A ) , and EPA– m u st occur. T h is coordination and consultation process is called interagency c o n s ultation. State and local ag encies establish form al interag e ncy consultation procedures for all of the ag encies inv o lv ed, in accordance w ith the transportation conformity rules (40 C F R93.105). I n addition, pro

activ e efforts to encourag e early and continuing public participation in decision m aki ng are required. 

### 3. 7 H OW A R E T H E A I R QUA LIT Y A ND T R A N SPORT A T ION PLA NNING PROCESSES LINKED 

### ? I n the past, transportation plans w e re dev e loped independently of the state’s air quality planning process and w e re not required to consider the effects of transportation activ ities on air quality
. S i milarly , S I P s dev e loped by air quality planners often failed to consider the feasibility of their plans w ith respect to the dev e lopment of transportation infrastructure. A i r quality specialists cannot g u arantee a con t i n u i n g r e duction in m o tor v e hicle- related pollutants if v e hicle m i l e s trav eled continue to g r ow, and transportation specialists cannot im prov e m obility if t h e emissions budg et for an area is created w ithout reg ard to air quality im pacts. T h e transportat i on conformity process ensures the integ r ation of the air quality and transportation planning processes to ensure consistency betw een the emissions resulting from hig h w a y and transit transportation proj ects and the m o tor v e hicle emissions budg et in the SI P.



### -14

-

# C HA PTER 

# 4 L INKING 

# L A ND 

# U SE 

# , A IR 

# Q UA LITY 

# , AN D 

# T RA NSPORTA T ION 

# P LA NNING 4. 1 W HA TIS T H E RELA T I O N SHIP BET W EEN LA ND USE 

### , T R AN S P O R T AT I O N 

### , A ND A I R Q U A LIT Y 

### ? T h e phy sical characteristics and patterns of land dev e lopment in a reg i on, also k nown as the urban form , can affect a i r quality by influencing the trav el m ode choices citiz ens hav e av ailable to them
. C e rtain ty pes of urban form necessitate the use of personal cars and truck s for trav el. For exam ple, w h en j obs and housing are far aw ay from each other, and m ass transit is not av ailable, people are dependent on cars for daily trav el. U rban form s that m ake autom obile trav el a necessity can contribute to air quality problem s. Howev e r, other options for urban form do exist. For exam ple, dev e lopment patterns that locate j obs, housing and recreation in closer proximity to each other, can mean shorter and few e r car and truck trips, thus reducing v e hicle miles trav eled (VMT ) and likely reducing m o tor v e hicle emissions. O t her dev e lopment patterns hav e the potential to im prov e or mitig ate air quality problem s by prov iding and prom oting alternativ es to v e hicular trav el, such as m ass transit, w a lking , or bik i ng . 

### 4. 2 I N W H A TW A YS DOES URBA N FORM IMPA CTT R A VEL A C T I VIT Y 

### ? Nume rous studies hav e been conducted ov er the y ears to explore the connection between u r b a n f o r m and trav el activ ity , and the w e ig ht of the em pirical ev idence sug g ests that characteristics of urban form can be im portant factors in reducing V M T and emissions. 13 I n a 1998 rev i ew of literature on the link betw een urban f o r m a n d t r a vel behav i or, A pog ee/ H a g l er B a illy concluded that urban form can hav e a discernible effect on trav el behav i or. 14 T h e authors found that, based on both em pirical studies and sim u lation (m odeled) studies conducted prim arily in the early to mi d- 1990' s, ev idence exists to sug g est that chang i ng the current patterns of dev e lopment (g enerally low density , sing le use, and auto- o riented) can reduce v e hicle trav el a n d, hence, air pollutant emissions from v e hicles. A ccording to the aut h o r s , “ e v e n t h oug h chang es in urban form m a y take y ears to occur, the best reg i onal transportation m odels sug g est that altering urban form can affect trav el and emissions measurably w ithin a time frame of 10 to 20 y ears.” 15

13 L ite rature re v i e w s pe rf orme d by : Apog e e/ H a g l e r Ba illy . 1998 The Effe c ts of Ur ban For m on Tr av e land Em is s i ons : A Re v i e w and Sy nthe s i s of the Lite r a ture . P r ep ared f o r U. S
. E n vi ro n men t a l P r ote c tion A g e n c y , U rba n a nd Ec onomic D e v e lopme n t D i v i s i on, W a s h ing t on, D C ; a nd J ohns ton, R
. A ., R odie r , C
. J ., C hoy , M., a nd Ab r aha m , J
. E. 2000. Air Q uality Im pac ts of Re gional Land U s e Polic ie s . P r e p ar e d f o r

U
. S. Env i r onme n ta l P r ote c tion A g e n c y , U rba n a nd Ec onomic D e v e lopme n t D i v i s i on, W a shing t on, DC. 14 Apog e e/ Ha g l e r Ba illy
. The Effe c ts of Ur ban For m on Tr av e land Em is s i ons : A Re v i e w and Sy nthe s i s of the Lite rature . 1998 D r a f t R e port. P r e p ar e d f o r

U
. S. Env i r onme n ta l P r ote c tion A g e n c y , U rba n a n d Ec onomic D e v e lopme n t D i v i s i on. 15 Ib id. pg 56. 

### -15

-I n the report, the authors note that there are a num ber of urban form features that can affect trav el activ ity , the m o st sig n ificant of w h ich are: � Density , � Land use mi x, � T r ansit accessibility , � Pedestrian- e nv ironment/ urban desig n factors, and � Reg i onal patterns of dev e lopment . See T able 4 for a m o re com p lete description. T AB L E 4: F I VE C HA RA CT ERI S T I CS O F U RBA N F OR M TH AT I NFLUENCE T RAVEL A ND A IR Q UA LI T Y D ENSI T Y � Re f e r s to theco mp actne ss o f a ne ig hbo rh o o d , a de v e l o pm e n t, o r a r e g i o n � Can r e ducev e hicl etr av e l byr e ducing thedis t ance s that pe o p l ehav eto driv e , r e ducing thene ce s s ityo f o w ning a v e hicl e , and incr e a sing thev i abil ityo f using o t he r m o de s o f tr av e l such as w a l k ing o r biking � H i g h e r de ns ityde v e l o pm e n t al s o m a ke s m a s s tr ans it m o r ee c o n o m ical l yf e as ibl ef o r

thepubl ic s e cto r L A ND U SE M IX � Re f e r s to inco r p o r ating dif f e r e nt l a nd us e s ( e .g ., r e cr e a tio n, ho us ing , e mpl o y m e nt, s h o pping ) w ithin a de v e l o pm e n t, a n e i g h b o rh ood , or aregi on � Can l e ad to sho rte r trip distance s and g r e a te r useo f w a l k ing , as w e l l as a r e duce d ne e d f o r

v e hicl eo w ne r s hip � Can r e ducer e quir e d co m mu tedis t ance s T RA NSI T A CCESSI BI LI T Y � Re f e r s to l o cating hig h

- d e n s ityco m m e r c ial and r e s i de ntialde v e l o pm e n t ar o und tr ans it s t atio ns ; al s o kno w n as “ tr a ns it o rie nte d de v e l o pm e n t,” o r T O D � Can incr e a sethem ar k e tf o r

such se r v ice s , incr e a seri de r s hip, and de cr e a seauto use � Can l e ad to de cr e a s e d auto o w ne r s hip P EDEST RI A N - ENVI RO NM ENT / URBA N DESI G N FA CT O R S � Re f e r s to f e atur e s that impr o v ethepe de stri an e n v i r o nm e n t such as side w a l k s, cl e ar l ym ark e d cr o ssw al ks, shadetr e e s , be nche s, and l a ndscaping ; al so r e f e r s to f e atur e s that impr o v ethebicy cl ing e n v i r o nm e n t such as bikepaths and de dicate d bikel a ne s, bi ke par k ing and cl e ar s i g n s � Can r e ducedriv ing byincr e a s i ng thede s i r abil ityo f w a l k ing and biking � Can l e ad to de cr e a s e d auto o w ne r s hip R E GION A L P ATTE R N S OF D EVELO P M E NT � Re f e r s to patte rn s o f dis p e r s i o n , ce ntr a l i z a tio n o r cl us te ri ng o f activ itie s w ithin a m e tr o p o l itan ar e a, as w e l l as to ther e l a tio ns hip o f

de v e l o pm e n t to hig h w a yand tr ans it s y s t e m s ; inv o l v e s theinte r r e l a tio ns hips be tw e e n e mpl o y m e nt and r e s i de ntialde v e l o pm e n t and thetr ans p o rtatio n co nne ctio n be tw e e n s e ts o f o rig in and de s tinatio n po ints � Can r e ducedriv ing byl o cating trip o rig ins and de s tinatio ns cl o s e r to g e the r � Can e n co ur ag etr ans it us eand r e ducev e hicl etrip m a king byco nce n tr ating de v e l o pm e n t ar o und tr ans it ne tw o rks and cl us te ri ng de v e l o pm e n t



### -16

-A m ong other finding s, A pog ee/H a g l er B a illy concluded that the w e ig ht of the ev idence sug g ests that: � T r ip leng ths can be reduced when com p act dev e lopment and integ r ation of land uses occurs, ev en w h ere autom obiles are the dominant m ode of transportation; � I n creased accessibility to m u ltiple uses reduce av erag e trip leng ths; � U rban form can hav e a measurable im pact on the desirability of using different m odes of transportation; � R a tes of v e hicle ow nership are low e r in places w h ere personal v e hicles are not required for personal m obility , ev en w h en income /economic factors are considered; � A ccessibility to a v ariety of trip purposes, as in mi xed use dev e lopments, m a y induce additional trips; how ev er, these trips are shorter and are m o re likely to be m a de by w a lking than trips in areas w h ere mi xed land uses are not av ailable; and � Sy nerg ies between different land use factors can be im portant in influencing trav el behav i or, and chang i ng one sing le factor m a y not be enoug h to chang e trav el behav i or. A ll of these considerations sug g est that decisions about urban form hav e the potential to influence such problem s as traffic cong estion, spraw l , air pollution, and other env i ronmental and social conditions that are im portant to comm unities. Nume rous studies hav e attem p ted to quantify the im pacts of urban form on V M T and emissions. T able 5 prov ides some exam ples of estim ated im pact; how ev er, it is im portant to note that due to the m a ny v ariations betw een comm unities, locations, and proj ect characteristics, it is not possible to prov ide a sim p lified table of emissions reductions. Each land use activ ity should be examined indiv i dually to assess the im pact it m a y hav e on V M T and emissions.



### -17

-

### T AB L E 

### 5: E ST IM AT IN G T H E IM PA C T S OF L A N D U SE A C T I VIT I ES ON 

### VM T A N D EM ISSION S 

### – A

SA M P L E OF ST U D I ES The air qualityim pacts of land us e activ ities on trans portation depend on numerous f actors , including dens ityand location o f d e ve l opment, amount of dev elopment, m i x of us es , and acces s to trans portation alternativ es . The interaction of thes e f actors is c o m p l e x, and, due to the v ariations f rom one dev elopment proj ect to another, each dev elopment s hould be analy zed indiv i dually
. H o w e v e r, the res u lts of the f o llow i ng analy s e s g i v e s o m e indication of

the potential f or V M T and em is s i on reductions f rom land us e activ ities
. � In Portlan d , Oregon , modif ied trav el dema nd models, dev eloped as part of the Mak i ng the L a nd Use, Trans portation, A i r Q u alityConnection (LU T RA Q ) demons tration proj ect, w e re us ed to com p are a bas e cas e s cenario of extending hig h wayand road capacityto a s cenario which em phas ized trans it- oriented dev elopments as w ell as pedes t rian/bicy cle im prov em ents and trans portation policies (the LU TRA Q alternativ e). D ailyV M T w a s s how n to decreas e by8% f or the LU TRA Q alternativ e, and, althoug h cong es tion w a s expected to increas e in this s cenario, ov erall air qualityw a s expected to im prov e, w ith N O x em is s i ons expected to decreas e by6% and CO em is s i ons decreas e by3%. 16 � Res earchers at the U n iv ers ityof Calif ornia and the U n iv ers ityof Calg aryperf ormed s i m u lation s tudies to es tim ate the reg i onal im pacts of land us e activ ities
. 17 The authors conclude, based on an studythey conducted in Sacramento, Calif ornia , that land us e and trans it policies m a yreduce V M T and v e hicle em is s i ons byapproxim ately4- 7% ov er a 20 y ear time horizon. � A 1994 s tudyconducted byCam bridg e S y s tem atics w h ich analy zed the mode of com m

u te f or w orkers in 330 com p anies in the Los A n g eles , C a lif orn i areg i on sug g e sts that the presence of m i xed land use can increas e com m

u ter trips us ing trans it by1.9%, w h ile als o encourag i ng bicy cle trips
. 18 The authors als o f ound that the com b ination of m i xed land us es and incentiv es f or us ing trans it res u lted in a 3.5% increas e in com m

u te trips bytrans it. � In Baltimore, M a ry land, s i m u lation s tudies s u g g e s t that a centralized dev elopment pattern would g e nerate 0.9 % les s dailyV M T and 1.7% les s s e v e relycong es ted V M T than the current dev elopment pattern ov er a period of 20 y ears . A decentralized dev elopm ent pattern was es tim ated to incr eas e VMT by1.8% dailyand 1.6% in s e v e relycong es ted areas
. 19 � In Washington, DC , modeling of a j obs /hous ing balance s cenario in the reg i on predicted that trans i t us e w ould increas e and av erag e trip leng th w ould decreas e, due to g r eater proxim ityof hous ing to j obs , and v e hicle trips per hous ehold w ould decreas e by 5%. When com b ined w ith additional trans i t acces s i bility , a V M T reduction of 9.2% w a s predicted. 20

16 C a m b r i dg e Sy s t e m atic s , I n c . a nd P ar s ons , B r i nc k e rhof f , Q u a d e & D oug la s . 1996a
. M a k i ng the Land U s e Tr ans portation Air Q uality Conne c tion: Analy s is of Alte r nativ e s . Vol. 5. P r e p ar e d f o r

T hous a nd Fr ie nds of Ore g on. 17 J ohns ton, R
. A ., R odie r , C
. J ., C hoy , M., a nd Ab r aha m , J
. E. 2000. Air Q uality Im pac ts of Re gional Land U s e Polic ie s . P r e p ar e d f o r

U
. S. Env i r onme n ta l P r ote c tion A g e n c y , U rba n a nd Ec onomic Develo p men t Divisio n , W a sh in gto n , DC. 18 C a m b r i dg e Sy s t e m atic s . 1994. The Effe c ts of Land U s e and Tr av e lD e m and Str a te gie s on Co m m u ting Be hav ior. P r e p ar e d f o r

the U
. S. D e part me nt of T r a n s portation, Fe de r a l H i g h w a yA d mi nis tr ation, W a shing t on, DC. 19 D e C o r l a - Souz a , P
. 1992. “ T he I m pa c t s of A lte r n ativ e U rba n D e v e lopme n t P atte r n s of H i g h w a ySy s t e m P e rf o r m a n ce. ” P r esen t e d atIT E co n f eren ce o n T r an sp o rt at i o n E n gi n eeri n g i n a New E r a. 

### -18

-

### 4. 3 H OW CA N URBA N FORM BE CHA NGED T O IMPROVE A I R QUA LIT Y 

### ? C o mm unities m ake decisions about h o w best to direct future g r ow th as part of their land use planning process. A c ross the country , an increasing num ber of comm unities are spreading further and further aw ay f r o m u rb a n c o r e s i n t o l o w - d e n s i t y , c ar - d e p e n d e n tc o mm u n i t i e s w i th housin g , e m p l o y me n t , s hopping and recreation in separate locations. T h is suburbaniz a tion dev e lopment pattern, some times referred to as sprawl, h a s b een linke d to a v ariety of comm unity concerns, such as loss of open space, air and w a ter polluti o n , fractured neig hborhoods and traffic cong estion. Some comm unities are beg i nning to consider w a y s to accomm odate future g r ow th that take i n t o consideration not j u st economic concerns, but env i ronmental and quality of life c o n c e r n s a s w e l l
. A s described in the prev ious section, strateg i es for land dev e lopment that encourag e hig h er densities, a mi xture of land uses, g r eater accessibility to transit, dev e lopment of pedestrian/bicy c le infrastr u c t ure, and consideration of broader reg i onal dev e lopment patterns can slow or curb the potentially adv e rse effect that spraw l can hav e on air quality
. S o me exam ples of land use strateg i es include: � T r an sit-orien ted d e velop m en t (T OD ): encourag ing transit trav el by dev e loping m oderate- to hi g h

density housing , shopping , and em ploy m e nt centers along a reg i onal transit sy stem , with pedestrian access. � In f ill d e velop m en t: encourag ing pedestrian and transit trav el by locating new dev e lopm ent in already dev e loped areas, so that activ ities are closer tog e ther. � Brow nf ield redevelopment: reme diation and redev e lopment of under- utiliz ed or abandoned lands, usually in already dev e loped areas, that hav e been contaminated during prev ious use. � Mix e d-use develo p m e n t : dev e lopment that locates com p leme ntary land uses such as housing , retai l , office, serv i ces, and public facilities w ithin w a lking distance of each other. � N e otradit i o nal design/pedestrian-oriented development: creating a com b ination of land dev e lopment and urban d e s i gn elements with the purpose of creating pedestrian oriented neig hborhoods. � D e veloping concentrated activity cente r s : encourag ing pedestrian and transit trav el by creating “nodes” of hig h density mi xed dev e lopment, that can be m o re easily linke d by a transit netw ork
. � St rengt heni ng dow n t o w n s: encourag ing pedestrian and transit trav el by m ak i ng central business districts concentrated activ ity centers that can be the focal point for a reg i onal transit sy stem . � Jobs/housi n g bal a nce: reducing the disparity betw een the num ber of residences and the num ber of em ploy me nt opportunities av ailable w ithin a sub- reg i on by directing em ploy me nt dev e lopments to areas w ith housing , and v i ce v e rsa. No t e t h a t t h is is not an exhaustiv e list; other possible strateg i es exist and are being considered in v arious comm unities around the country
. 21

20 D e C o r l a - Souz a , P
. 1992.” T he I m pa c t s of A lte r n ativ e U rba n D e v e lopme n t P atte r n s of H i g h w a ySy s t e m P e rf o r m a n ce. ” P r esen t e d atIT E co n f eren ce o n T r an sp o rt at i o n E n gi n eeri n g i n a New E r a. 21 Se e Appe ndix Af o r

a dditiona l e x a m ple s of la nd us e s tr ate g i e s a nd polic ie s . 

### -19

-

### L A ND 

### U SE 

### S T R AT EGIES IN 

### A C T ION 

### : T WO 

### C A SE 

### S TUDI E S Portland, Oregon The P ortland area is well k nown f or its com m

itment to “ s m art g rowth” s trateg ies which are des i g n ed to curb s praw l and encourag e us e of w alk ing , bik i ng and trans it. P earl Court A p artments and O r enco S tation of f e r tw o exam ples
. The P earl Court A p artment Com plex is a f u ll- block hous ing dev elopment in P ortland’s g row ing Riv e r D i s trict. The dev elopment, cov e ring 0.74 acres , w a s built on a reme diated brow nf ield s ite w h ich had been contam inated w ith petroleum , lead, and other toxic residues f rom y ears of use as a railroad y ard. Due to the hig h lev el of contam ination, the dev eloper w a s able to buythe 40- acre parcel in 1991 f or w ell below m arket v alue. The s ale of this land w a s m a de f eas ible under a policyk now n a P ros pectiv e P urchas e r A g reement, w h ich protects the buy er and s ubs equent owners f rom liabilityf or contam ination f rom pas t activ ities
. The redev elopment ef f orts w e re com p leted in 1998, prov iding 199 hig h

- d ens ity , energ yef f icient and af f ordable urban hous ing units w ith pedes t rian acces s to bus and rail lines
. In addition, the dev elopment has a bicy cle s t orag e room that can hold 144 bike s . F u ture plans include dev elopment of a trolley
. D u e to all of thes e f eatures , the cityreduced the required num ber of park ing s p aces the dev eloper had to prov ide. O r enco S tation is a 190- acre m a s ter- p lanned com m

unitylocated in H ills boro, O r eg on, a s uburb of P ortland. The com m

unityincludes 1,834 res i dential units , including apartments , s i ng le f a m ilyhous es , liv e/w ork tow nhous es , and condom inium s in a w i de rang e of s izes and cos t s . In addition, the plan includes a m i xed us e tow n center w ith g round lev el retail s hopping and hous ing units abov e, and m a nypedes trian and trans it- oriented f eatures . The dev elopment is located w ithin w alk ing dis tance of the O r enco S tation s t op, w h ich is on a lig ht rail line that connects P ortland to its s uburbs
. The proj ect w a s s p ecif icallydes i g n ed to encourag e w alk ing and com m

unity interaction throug h the tow n center. Chattanooga, Tennessee In 1969, Chattanoog a, Tennes s ee w a s ranked as hav i ng the w ors t air qualityin the U n ited S tates . By1988, the cityw a s meeting f e deral air qualitys tandards
. This achiev ement came about in part due to planning and policy decis ions that beg a n with v i s i on planning and ended with s p ecif ic, achiev able g o als
. In the 1970' s , bus ines s leaders , local g o v e rnment of f icials , and civ ic g roups collaborated to create a v i s i on plan to rev italize the com m

unityof Chattanoog a, Tennes s ee and create a s u s tainable f u ture . F rom this proces s , they identif ied 40 g o als and dev eloped hundreds of proj ects to achiev e their g o als
. To date, more than 85% of the g o als hav e been reached
. A mong the g o als w a s the dev elopment of a s u s tainable trans portation s y s tem , w h ich included the creation of a m i xed- us e, pedes t rian oriented downtown; renov ation of an old automobile bridg e into a pedes t rian w alkw a yov er a riv e r; re- d irection of f

e deral trans portation f unding f rom hig h w a ybuilding to m aintenance of exis ting roads and trans it s y s tem s , and im plementation of a s y s tem of hybrid electric- and g a s o line- pow ered bus es in the dow ntow n area to reduce s hort automobile trips
. The cityof Chattanoog a, like m a nyU
. S
. cities , w a s f aced w ith the increas ing l yprev alent trend of retail dev elopment locating in outer- r ing s uburbs and in rural areas , res u lting in the decline of their dow ntow n area. Chattanoog a prov ides an exam ple of the k i nds of dev elopment proj ects that can rev italize econom ic activ ityin dow ntow n areas and encourag e pedes t rian activ itythat m a ycurb automobile trips f or s hopping and recreation. O n e exam ple of Chattanoog a’s innov ativ e rev italization proj ects is Warehous e Row , a 322,965 s quare f oot proj ect w h ere eig ht his t oricallys i g n if icant but v acant old w arehous es w e re conv erted into a com p lex that m i xes retail s hopping s p ace w ith prime of f ice s p ace. F unding f or the proj ect came f rom a com b ination of his t oric pres e rv ation tax credits , urban dev elopment action g r ants , and indus trial rev e nue bonds
. In addition, cityand countyf unding res u lted in the creation of a one- acre public park
. Thes e f unding incentiv es , along w ith appropriate zoning , hav e m a de the creation of a v iable, m i xed us e dow ntow n area pos s i ble.



### -20

-T h ese k i nds of land dev e lopment strateg i es are often characteriz ed as “sm art g r ow th” strateg i es. T h e term “sm art g r owth” has been used by a v ariety of g r oups, and m a ny people interpret its m eaning in different w a y s . H o w e v e r, in publications by g r oups as div e rse as the EPA , the U rban Land I n stitute, and the N a tional A s s o c i a t i o n o f H o me B u i l d e r s , t h e r e h a s b e e n a g r e e me n tt h a tc e r t a i n l a n du s e s tr a t e g i e s , s u ch as infill dev e lopment, mi xed use dev e lopment, tra n sit- oriented dev e lopment, and hig h er density dev e lopment are aspects of sm art g r ow th. 22 I n some states and m unicipalities, existing policies and reg u lations m ake sm art g r ow th strateg i es im possible to achiev e , or discourag e their im plementation. Chang es to existing policies or creation of new policies m a y be necessary to m ake sm art g r ow th possible. 

### 4. 4 W HA TKINDS OF A C T I ONS A R E NEEDED T O MA KE 

### “ SMA R TGROW T H 

### ” ST RA TE G I E S A CHIEVA BLE 

### ? T h ere are m a ny actions that all lev e ls of g o v e rnme nt can take to encourag e land use strateg i es that prom ote alternativ es to sing le occupancy v e hicle trav el. Some of these are discussed below
. L OC A L GOV E R N M E N T A C TION S At the local lev e l, actions g e nerally fall into three c a t eg ories: reg u lations such as z oning and subdiv i sion reg u lations, m onetary incentiv es, and non- m onetary incentiv es. Z o ni ng Z oning can be used to allow or require mi xed use dev e lopment. Special districts can be desig n ated where dev e lopment m u st meet specific requireme nts for mi xing of housing , em ploy me nt, shopping and public serv i ces. Local g o v e rnme nts can also use z oning to increase density lev e ls in dow ntow n areas or in areas surrounding transit stations. O t her z oning p o l i c i e s such as fine g r ain z oning (replacing larg e sing le use areas w ith sm aller z ones that can accomm odate a mi x of uses) and ov er l a y zoning (adding a second use to an already

- z oned area), as well as standards for street de s i gn (requiring narrower, better connected streets with sidewalk s, bicy cle lanes, and bus stops) prov ide local g o v e rnme nts w ith the reg u latory means to redirect urban form in their comm unities.

22 Rum a, Charles
. 1999. “ S m art G row th: Building Better P laces to L i v e , Work and P lay .” N ational H o me Builders Association (NAHB), Washing ton, DC. Visit NAHB on the w e b at w w w .nahb.com
.

. D a v i d O ’ N eill. 1999. “ S m art G row th: M y th and F act.” IS BN 0- 87420- 835- 1. U L I- the U rban L a nd Ins titute, Was hing ton, D C. V i s it U L I on the w e b at w w w .uli.org
. EP A ’ s S m art G rowth N etwork document on S m art G rowth P r inciples : http://www.s m artg rowth.org/inf orm ation/principles .htm l
.



### -21

-Monetary incentives A nother w a y that local g o v e rnme nts can im plement sm art g r ow th strateg i es is to g i v e tax break s to dev e lopers w ho build in desired locations. For exam ple, local g o v e rnm e n t s can encourag e em ploy ers to locate near existing housing areas and near transit routes by offering tax incentiv es. I n cities and counties w h ere dev e lopers are required to pay im pact fees (fees to pay for additional infrastructure needs that the new dev e lopm ent g e nerates), local g o v e rnm e nts can set those fees hig h er in outly ing areas than in existing urban cores, thus potentially m a ki ng urban dev e lopm ent m o re economically feasible for the dev e loper. L o cal and state g o v e rnm e nts can also partner w ith financial institutions to prov ide financial incentiv es to hom e buy ers (such as reduced rate m o rtg a g es or financial credits tow ard hom e purchases), to encourag e them to liv e closer to their em ploy ers or closer to transit. N o n -mon e tary in cen tives Local g o v e rnm e nts can also prov ide non- m onetary incentiv es, such as accelerated permit processing or reduced parking requirem e nts to encourag e dev e lopers to use sm art g r owth principles. T h e com b ination of sev eral local reg u latory

- and incentiv e- based prog ram s m a y increase the likelihood that dev e lopm ent w ill occur in desired areas.



### -22

-

### E XA M P LES OF 

### L OCA L 

### A CT IONS T O 

### P ROMOT E 

### S MA RT 

### G ROW T H Austin, Texas The city of A u s tin, Texas has dev eloped a tool called “ S mart G rowth Criteria M atrix,”a s c oring s y s tem to help city planner s determ i ne if a propos ed dev elopm ent des e rv es f i nancial s upport f rom the city
. The matrix is us ed to ev aluate criteria s u ch as 1) the location of dev elopm ent; 2) proxim ity to ma s s trans it; 3) pedes t rian- f riendly urban des i g n characteris tics ; 4) c o m p l iance w ith nearby neig hborhood plans ; 5) increas es in tax bas e; and other policy priorities
. The tool allow s a dev elopm ent to accrue as ma ny as 635 points in 14 categ ories , w ith hig h er s c ores being allocated f or proj ects that incorporate s mart g row th principles s u ch as m i xed res i dential, retail and of f ice us es , human s cale detailing , and hig h er dens ity dev elopm ent. D e v elopm ent proj ects that s c ore w ithin certain rang es , thus demons trating that they s upport the g o als of the city , ma y r eceiv e e c onom i c i n c e n ti v e s suc h a s w a i v e r of dev elopments f ees , cov e rag e of utilitycharg e s , and inv e s tme nts in inf r as tructure cons truction. The cityals o of f e rs S m art G rowth Zone S p ecif ic Incentiv es , which ref e r to reductions in f ees the City charg e s f o r zoning , s ubdiv i s i on, and s ite plan applications , and f or w ater and w a s tew ater capital recov e ryf ees f or dev elopment that occurs in s p ecif ic areas des i g n ated bythe cityas priorityg rowth areas
. Wilm ington, Delaware D uring the d e v elopment of their1996 long

- r ang e trans portation plan, the Wilm ing t on A r ea P lanning Council (WILMAPCO), the area’s m etropolitan planning orga n ization , r e c o g n ized the need to addres s the relations hip betw een land use and transportation. As a pilot study , WILMAPCO w orked w ith com m

unityleaders in Middletow n , D elaw are, and the D elaw are D e partme nt of Trans portation (D elD O T ) to explore alternativ e s trateg ies f or g row th. While currentlya s m all rural com m

unity , M i ddletow n expects its population of 4,200 to triple in the next 20 y ears . Exis ting zoning codes in the town were des tined to lead to a pattern of cul- de- s acs an d s treet link a g e s that were u n f r i e n d l y t o pedes trians and bike s . A s the com m

unityg rows , s u ch a dev elopm ent pattern would likelylea d M i ddletow n res i dents to driv e more and f urther than theycurrentlydo. In an ef f ort to pre ve n t t h i s type of g row th pattern, local g o v e rnment of f icials in M i ddletow n w orked w ith WILMAPCO to dev elop a new zoning code that allow s m i xing of neig hborhood- scale com m

e rcial serv ice s w ith res i dential areas
. The code, which em ploy s m a nyof the principles em phas ized in neotraditional des i g n, s p ecif ies s m aller building s etback s to place building s clos e r to the s treets , thus encourag i ng pedes trian traf f ic in retail areas
. A s p ects of the old code s u ch as res t rictions on alley s w e re remo v e d, and the code encourag e s dev elopers to locate g arag e s behind building s . WILMAPCO also w orked w ith DelDOT and the Middletow n Tow n Council to dev elop and adopt new street desig n standards that reduce speeds of cars, thus mak i ng pedestrian trav el saf e r. The coordination of the local g o v e rnment, the metropolitan pl a n n i ng org anization, and the D e partme nt of Trans portation has res u lted in a s et of local policies that will help this town retain its s m all- town character.



### -23

-S TATE GOV E R N M E N T A C TION S Arecent report published by the N a tional G o v e rnors’ A ssociation identified three core areas w h ere states can positiv ely im pact land use planning decisions 23

. T h ese are throug h state activ ities such as : � Leadership and public education strategies
• S tate- w ide v i sion planning

• P roduction and dissemination of cost/benefit inform ation to the public

• P lanning tool dev e lopment

• F ostering public/priv a te partnerships � Economic investment and f i nancial incentive strategies • T arg e ting state funds to support statewide dev e lopment g o als
• S upporting and prom oting brownfields redev e lopment efforts
• U sing tax policy to encourag e redev e lopment of older cities � Governm e ntcol l a borat i on and pl anni ng st rat e gi es • D ev eloping statute and laws that foster state and local collaboration on land use planning

• R educing barriers to dev e lopment in targ eted areas While these state- lev e l activ ities do not directly alter local planning and decision m ak i ng processes, they can indirectly encourag e urban form patterns that decrease autom obile use. I n addition to these strateg i es, w h ich encourag e dev e lopment in urban cores and discourag e dev e lopment at the urban fring e, m a ny states and local comm unities are reexamining existing policies and funding practices to m ake sure that they aren’t inadv e rtently encourag ing dev e lopment in untarg e ted areas. Exam ples include limiting access to new hig h w a y s and by passes, and limiting state funding for infrastructure im prov ements outside of desig n ated g r ow th areas. Some states hav e desig n ated g r ow th boundaries, outside of w h ich the state w ill not fund infrastructure im prov ements needed to support dev e lopment. O t he r s t a t e s hav e im plemented policies such as purchasing d e ve l o p m ent rig h ts on rural lands to ensure that they rem a in undev e loped.

23 H i r s c hhor n, J o e l S. 2000. G ro wing Pains : Q uality of Life in the Ne w Ec onom y . N ationa l G o v e r nor s ’ A s s o c i ation, W a shing t on, DC. For m o re inf o rm ation, v i sit the Nationa l G o v e rnors’ A ssoc i ation w e b site at h t tp : / / www. n g a . o r g / C e n t e r . 

### -24

-

### E XA M P L ES OF 

### S TA TE 

### -L EVEL 

### A C T ION S TO 

### P RO MO TE 

### S MA RT 

### G RO W T H Mi ssouri In urban areas acros s the country , old, contam inated plots of land lie underutilized or abandoned. Redev elopment of

thes e “ brow nf ields ” into res i denti al and/or com me rcial us es could, ov er time, rev italize old urban cores , and reduce trans portation related em is s i ons f rom com m

u ting becaus e people can l i v e c l o s e r to where theywork
. H o w e v e r, the cos t of cleaning thes e s ites and liabilityconcerns f rom buy ers of ten prohibit ef f orts to reclaim them
. In M i s s ouri, as in other s tates , policies are now being adopted to m ake redev elopment f eas ible and des i rable. The s tate of M i s s ouri has dev eloped a brow nf ield redev elopm ent prog ram throu gh i t s D e partme nt of N atural Resources and its Departm e nt of Econom ic Dev elopm ent. The Departm e nt of Natural Resources ov ersees ow ner dev elopment and s ite reme diati o n throug h its V o luntaryCleanup P rog ram . The prog ram ’ s core g o al is to reduce reme diation cos t s . The D e partm e n t of Econom ic D e v elopment, in concert w ith this prog ram , has dev eloped a Brow nf ield Redev elopm ent F i nancial Incentiv e P rog ram , w h ich prov ides tax credits , loan g u a r a n tees or g r ants to dev elopers w illing to reclaim , clean up, and redev elop contam inated, abandoned properties
. A nother pair of M i s s ouri policies des i g n ed to encourag e r e d e velopment is the H i s t oric P r es erv ation P rog ram and th e H i s t o r i c T a x C r e d i t P r o g r a m . T h e s e prog r a m s prov ide pres e rv ationis t s and dev elopers w ith incentiv es to rehabilitate old s t ructures and m ake them av ailable f or reus e as res i dential or com me rcial properties
. Thes e s tate- lev el policies prov ide incentiv es f or v o luntaryef f orts to reclaim and rebuild older cities in the s tate.
Pen n s ylvan i a S e v e ral recent initiativ es are underw ay to inf l uence the w a yland is dev eloped in the S tate of P e nns y l v a nia. In 1998, the G o v e rnor s i g n ed leg is lation that creates g e og raphic areas k now n as K e y s tone O pportunityZones
. Thes e zones are “ no tax” zones , where s tate and local g o v e rnments ag ree to elim inate all s tate and local taxes f or em ploy ers and res i dents
. In addition, des i g n ated zones receiv e a one- time f unding g r ant f or planning activ ities neces s ary to prepare f or new dev elopment, and other aid in the f orm of reduced- r ate loans and acces s to other gr a n t s . T h e policyis des i g n ed to ins p ire econom ic dev elopment and j ob creation in areas that had prev i ous ly been neg lected, prim arily urban core areas
. S u ch redev elopment of hous ing and j obs can reduce the need f or v e hicle trav el to other locations to meet thos e needs
. In late 1999, the G o v e rnor s i g n ed into law the G row ing G r eener initiativ e, w h ich prov ides nearly$650 m illion in f unding f or a v arietyof local land- us e proj ects . In another leg is lativ e action, the G row ing S m arter initiativ e, the S tate has com m

itted to prov iding new land us e planning tools f or local g o v e rnments .



### -25

-F EDERA L G O VERNM ENT A C T I O N S I n early 2000, the White House issued a report defining the Federal g o v e rnme nt’s role in prom oting liv able comm unities. 24 T h e report focuses on four w a y s that the Federal g o v e rnme nt can support comm unity g r ow th and dev e lopment:1) prov iding financial or reg u latory incentiv es, 2) prov iding inform ation, tools, and technical assistance to enhance local decision- m aki ng , 3) ensuring that Federal policies for land dev e lopment and building use are consistent w ith comm unity g o als, and 4) build i n g p a r t n e r ships w ith comm unities, reg i ons, the p r i v a t e sector, non- profits, and academic institutions in places across the country
. Some examp l e s o f F e deral actions include dev e lopment of m odels and tools, such as the Sm art Growth I ndex m odel, which a i d l o c a l decision m ake rs in weig hing different dev e lopment options; creation of g r ant prog ram s to fund local planning efforts; and dev e lopment of partnerships and pilot prog ram s with state and local g o v e rnme nts to explore the im pacts of sm art g r ow th policies. 

### E XA M P LES OF 

### F EDERA L 

### G OVERNM ENT 

### P ROGRA M S T O 

### H ELP 

### S TA TE S A N D 

### L OCA L 

### G OVERNM ENT S 

### P ROMOT E 

### S MA RT 

### G ROW T H Tr

an s por tation fu n d in g The F Y 2000 F e deral s p ending budg et included $9.1 billion dollars f or trans portation related meas ur es . Throug h prog ram s like the Cong estion Mit i g ation and Air QualityIm prov em ent (CMAQ) Prog ram and the Transportation Enhancements P rog ram , the F e deral g o v e rnm ent can prov ide s upport f or s tate and local ef f orts to eas e cong es tion and reduce air pollution by f unding prog ram s s u ch as incentiv e prog ram s f or rides h aring , im prov ed trans it f acilities , and creation of bicy cle and pedes t rian paths
. Throug h the Trans portation and Com m

unityand S y s tem s P r es erv ation P ilot ( T CS P ) prog ram , g r ants are prov ided f or s tate and local planning ag encies and g o v e rnments to encourag e coordination of trans portation and land us e planning w h ile cons idering econom ic dev elopment and env i ronmental concerns . A dditional f unding w a s allocated in the Trans portation Equity A ct f or the 21 st Century(TEA- 21) f or the N e w S tarts prog ram , w h ich is des i g n ed to prov ide f i nancial s upport to locallyplanned, im plemented and operated rail trans it s y s tem s . Brown field re developm en t The Brow nf ields Econom ic Redev elopment Initiativ e is an um brella prog ram f

or a num ber of s upport and f unding prog ram s . The Brow nf ields N ational P artners hip, one of thes e prog ram s , is a collaborativ e ef f ort bymore than 20 F e deral ag encies to prov ide f i na n cial and technical s upport f or brow nf ield cleanup. The Brow nf ields Cleanup Rev o lv ing L o an F unds is another prog ram w h ich prov ides g r ants f or s tate, tribal and local cleanup ef f orts . The Clean A i r Brow nf ields P ilot prog ram r e pres e nts a partners hip among the U
. S
. EP A , the Econom ic D e v elopment A d m i nis t ration, and the U
. S
. Conf erence of M a y ors to te s t m e thods of quantif y i ng the air qualityand econom ic benef its of redev eloping brow nf ields in D allas , Chicag o, and Baltimore. For g o v e rnme nt actions such as those described here to be effectiv e, cooperation and coordination at all lev e ls of g o v e rnme nt is essential. A doption of reg u latory policies can be a leng thy process, and for nonreg u latory policies such as reg i onal or state- lev e l planning g u idelines, m u ch effort is often necessary to encourag e local g o v e rnme nts, dev e lopers, and citiz ens to im plement them
. T h erefore, these actions should be part of long

- t erm strateg i es, and m a y take some time (as m u ch as 10 to 20 y ears) before they produce broad- scale chang es in dev e lopment patterns and urban form
.

24 AR e port Fr om the C linton- G o r e A d mi nis tr ation: Building Liv able Communitie s: Sustaining Prospe rity, Improv ing Quality of Life , Building a Se nse of Community
. J une , 2000. 

### -26

-

# S ECTION 

# 2: P OLICY A ND TECHNICA L CONSIDERA T IONS 

# A CCOUNTING FOR THE A I R QUA L ITY BENEFITS OF LA ND USE A C TIVITIES

Sect i on 2 prov i des general pol i c y and t echni cal gui dance t o ai r qual i t y and t r ansport a t i on pl anners on how emi ssi ons reduct i ons f r om l and use act i v i t i es can be i ncorporat ed i n t o t he ai r qual i t y and t r ansport a t i on pl anni ng processes. Chapt er 5 A ccount i ng f o r emi ssi on reduct i ons f r om l and use act i v i t i e s ........ - 2 7 - 5. 1 W hat k i nds of land use act i v i t i es can be account ed f o rin SI Ps and c o n f o r m i t yd e t e r m i n a t i o n s ?

..................................... - 2 7 - 5. 2 H ow ar e land use act i v i t i es incor por at ed int o t he airq ualit yand t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p r o c e s s e s ?

...................................... - 2 7 - 5. 2. 1 W hat ar e land use planning assum p t i ons?

.................... - 2 8 - 5. 2. 2 W hat is t he t r av el dem and f o r e cast ing pr ocess?

............... - 2 9 - 5
. 2

. 3 W h a t i s t h e e m i s s i o n s m o d e l i n g p r o c e s s ?

.................... - 3 0 - 5. 3 H ow ar e land use act i v i t i es incor por at ed int o t he SI P and t he conf or m i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n ?

............................................... - 3 1 - 5. 4 W hat ar e t he w a y s t hat I can account f o rland use act i v i t i es?

........... - 3 1 - Chapt er 6 I ncl udi ng l and use act i v i t i es i n t he i n i t i a l f o recast of f u t u re emi ssi ons i n t h e S I P .................................................. - 3 3 - 6

. 1 W h a t i s t h e i n i t i a l f o r e c a s t o f f u t u r e e m i s s i o n s ?

...................... - 3 3 - 6. 2 W hen is an init ial f o r e cast of f u t u r e em issions m ade?

................. - 3 3 - 6. 3 H ow can I account f o r“ s m a r t g r owt h ” act i v i t i es in t he land use assum p t i ons t hat ar e m ade f o rt he SI P?

......................................... - 3 3 - 6. 5 W hat is “ double count ing ? ”

..................................... - 3 7 - 6. 6 W hat else should I considerw hen including land use act i v i t i es in m yinit ial f o r e c a s t o f f u t u r e e m i s s i o n s ?

.................................... - 3 8 - Chapt er 7 I ncl udi ng a l and use act i v i t y as a cont rol st rat egy i n t he SI P ......... - 3 9 - 7
. 1 W h a t i s a c o n t r o l s t r a t e g y ?

..................................... - 3 9 - 7. 2 W hen w ould I include land use act i v i t i es as cont r o l st r a t e g i es in t he SI P?

.......................................................... - 3 9 - 7. 3 H ow can I account f o rland use act i v i t i es as cont r o l st r a t e g i es in m ySI P?

.......................................................... - 3 9 - 7. 4 Land use act i v i t i es as T r adit i onal Cont r o l St r a t e g i es .................. - 3 9 - 7. 4. 1 W hat ar e T r adit i onal Cont r o l St r a t e g i es?

............... - 4 0 - 7. 4. 2 W hat ar e t he ex ist i ng st at ut or yr e q u ir em ent s f o rincluding a land use act i v i t y as a t r adit i onal cont r o l st r a t e g yin a SI P?

. - 40 - 7. 4. 3 W hat happens if I hav e included a land use act i v i t yas a t r adit i onal cont r o l st r a t e g yin a SI P, and now I hav e inf o r m a t i on t hat t he land use act i v i t yis not occur r i ng ?

..... - 4 3 - 7. 4. 4 W hat else should I considerw hen including a land use act i v i t y as a t r adit i onal cont r o l st r a t e g yin a SI P?

.................. - 4 3 - 7. 5 Land use act i v i t i es and t he Volunt ar yM obile Sour ce Em ission Reduct i on P r o g ra m p o l i c y(V M E P p o l i c y )

................................... - 4 4 -7. 5. 1 W hat is t he Volunt ar y M obile Sour ce Em ission Reduct i on P r o g r a m ( V M E P ) p o l i c y ?

............................ - 4 4 - 7. 5. 2 W hat ar e t he ex ist i ng st at ut or yr e q u ir em ent s f o rincluding a land u s e a c t i v i t y a s a V M E P c o n t r o l s t r a t e g yi n a S I P ?

......... - 4 4 - 7. 5. 3 W hen should I use t he VM EP policyt o include a land use act i v i t y i n a S I P ?

........................................ - 4 5 - 7. 5. 4 W hat happens if I hav e included a land use act i v i t yas a VM EP cont r o l st r a t e g yin t he SI P, and I now hav e inf o r m a t i on t hat it is n o t o c c u r r i n g ?

.................................... - 4 6 - 7. 5. 5 W hat else should I considerw hen including a land use act i v i t yas a V M E P c o n t r o l s t r a t e g yi n a S I P ?

.................... - 4 6 - 7. 6 Land Use Act i v i t i es and t he Econom ic I n cent iv e Pr og r a m s policy( E I P policy )
- 47 - 7. 6. 1 W hat is t he Econom ic I n cent iv e Pr og r a m s ( E I P ) policy ?

. . . - 47 - 7
. 6

. 2 H o w i s t h e E I P p o l i c yr e l a t e d t o t h e V M E P p o l i c y ?

........ - 4 8 - 7. 6. 3 W hen should I use t he EI P Policyt o include a land use act i v i t yin a S I P ?

.......................................... - 4 9 - 7. 7 W hat st eps ar e necessar y f o rq uant if y i ng land use act i v i t i es as t r adit i onal, V M E P , o rE I P c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s ?

................................. - 4 9 - 7
. 8 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o n t r o l M e a s u r e s a s c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s ................ - 5 2 - 7
. 8

. 1 W h a t a r e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o n t r o l M e a s u r e s ?

............ - 5 2 - 7. 8. 2 H ow ar e T r anspor t a t i on Cont r o l M easur es and land use a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d ?

................................. - 5 2 - Chapt er 8 I ncl udi ng l and use pol i c i es or project s i n t he conf ormi t y det ermi nat i o n w i t hout hav i ng t hem i n a SI P .................................. - 5 5 - 8

. 1 W h a t i s a c o n f o r m i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n ?

.............................. - 5 5 - 8

. 2 H o w i s c o n f o r m i t yd e m o n s t r a t e d ?

................................ - 5 5 - 8. 3 D oes t h is g u idance im pose new r e q u ir em ent s f o rincluding land use a c t i v i t i e s i n a c o n f o r m i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n ?

............................ - 5 6 - 8. 4 I f I hav e included a land use act i v i t y in a SI P, does it hav e t o be included in t he conf or m i t ydet er m i nat ion?

................................. - 5 6 - 8. 5 C an I account f o rt he em issions benef it s of land use act i v i t i es in a conf or m i t ydet er m i nat ion w i t hout hav ing t hem in a SI P?

............... - 5 6 - 8. 6 H ow ar e land use act i v i t i es included in t he conf or m i t ydet er m i nat ion?

.......................................................... - 5 6 - 8. 7 W hat ar e t he t r anspor t a t i on conf or m i t y r u le’s r e q u ir em ent s f o rland use a s s u m p t i o n s ?

................................................ - 5 7 - 8. 8 H ow ar e t he land use assum p t i ons in a conf or m i t ydet er m i nat ion r e v i e w e d ?

.................................................. - 5 9 - 8

. 9 W h a t a r e c o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s ?

.................................... - 5 9 - 8

. 1 0 W h a t a r e t h e c o n f o r m i t yr u l e ’ s r e q u i r e m e n t s f o rc o n t r o l s t r a t e g i e s ?

...... - 6 0 - 8. 11 How do I det er m i ne w het hera land use act i v i t y is a land use assum p t i on o ra c o n t r o l s t r a t e g y ?

.......................................... - 6 0 - 8. 12 W hat ar e som e ex am ples of land use act i v i t i es t hat f i t in each cat e g o r y ?

.......................................................... - 6 1 - 8. 13 W hat is “ double count ing ? ”

..................................... - 6 2 - 8. 14 W hat if a land use act i v i t y is t oo sm all t o hav e an im pact on t he out com e of t r av el dem and m odeling ?

..................................... - 6 3 - 8. 15 W hat if ourar ea doesn’t use a t r av el dem and m odel f o rt r anspor t a t i on planning ?

................................................... - 6 3 - 8. 16 W hat ar e t he adv ant ag es of account ing f o rland use act i v i t i es in t he conf or m i t y det er m i nat ion w i t hout hav ing t hem in t he SI P?

...................... - 6 3 -Chapt er 9 A ddi t i onal consi derat i ons w hen account i ng f o r l and use act i v i t i es i n t h e SI P or t he conf ormi t y process ................................. - 6 5 - 9. 1 H ow can I det er m i ne w het herornot m yland use act i v i t i es m i g h t hav e airq ualit ybenef it s?

........................................... - 6 5 - 9. 2 H ow w ill t he t i m e f r am e f o rim plem ent ing t he land use act i v i t i es af f e ct w h ich account ing opt ion I choose?

.................................... - 6 6 - 9. 3 W hat ot herim por t ant issues should I be aw ar e of in q uant if y i ng airq ualit y benef it s?

................................................... - 6 7 - 9. 3. 1 A ccount ing f o rint e r a ct ions bet w een land use act i v i t i es . - 67 - 9. 3. 2 Q uant if y i ng land use act i v i t i es indiv i duallyoras a g r oup ......... - 6 7 - 9

. 3

. 3 U s i n g c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e s .............................. - 6 8 - 9. 3. 4 T ak ing int o account t he scale of t he land use act i v i t y ............ - 6 8 - 9. 4 H ow w ill EPA assist m e w i t h q uant if icat ion?

........................ - 6 8 -

# C HA PTER 

# 5 A CCOUNTING FOR EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM LA ND USE A C TIVITIES 5. 1 W HA TKINDS OF LA ND USE A C T I VIT I ES CA N BE A CCOUNT ED FOR IN 

### SI P S A N D CONFORMIT Y DET E RMINA T IONS 

### ? L a nd use activ ities, in the context of this g u idance, are actions initiated by local, regi o n a l o r s t a t e g o v e rnme nts, indiv i duals, org a niz a tions, and dev e lopers that chang e urban form in w a y s that m a y decrease te use of m o tor v e hicles and encourag e alternativ e m odes of transportation. Where these land use activ ities can be show n to reduce em issions from m o tor v e hicles, they m a y be accounted for in the air quality and transportation planning processes. L a nd use activities may be policies or projects. Specif i c policies that do hav e the force of law and therefore could be considered for air quality accounting include z oning ordinances, subdiv i sion reg u lations, park ing codes, and dev e lopment standards. T h ese policie s a r e ge n e r a lly adopted by local g o v e rnme nts. Other specific policies m a y be incentiv e prog ram s , w h ich require v o luntary participation by dev e lopers or citiz ens. Specif i c P r ojects are g e nerally site- s pecific, and usually occur on a relativ ely sm all scale, althoug h larg escale dev e lopments, such as m aster planned comm unities, do occur. U s ually , land use proj ects are initiated by priv ate sector actions; how ev er, partnerships and initiativ es betw een g o v e rnme nt ag encies, public adv o cacy org a niz a tions, and dev e lopers are often the cataly s t for such dev e lopment proj ects. Some p r o j e c t s can be accounted for in air quality and transportation planning processes if their emission benefits can be quantified. Note that supporting transportation elements of land use dev e lopments, such as the addition of transit lines and stops in the area, m a y be accounted for as transportation control measures. 

### 5. 2 H OW A R E LA ND USE A C T I VIT I ES INCORPORA T ED INT O T H E A I R QUA LIT Y A N D T R A N SPORT A T ION PROCESSES 

### ? L a n d u s e a c tiv ities are incorporated into the air quality and transportation processes by m odeling the emission reduction im pacts of land use activ ities. A i r quality planners m u st estim ate future pollution lev e ls from m o tor v e hicles in their air quality planning process. T r ansportation planners are also required to estim ate future m o tor v e hicle emissions of the hig h w a y and transit proj ects in nonattainme nt and m a intenance areas to meet the requireme nts of the transportation conformity process. T h e w a y land is dev e loped– h o w residences, j obs, shopping , recreation, and other destinations are situated w ithin an a r ea–can im pact the leng th and num ber of v e hicle trips, as w e ll as the speed at w h ich they occur. T h erefore, land use patterns can hav e an effect on trav el activ ity and emissions. T o calculate the am ount of pollution from m o tor v e hicles, planners consider the w a y s that land w ill be used in the future and how the future transportation netw ork w ill support those uses. I n g e neral, there are three steps to this process:
� Establish land use planning assum p tions,


### -27

-� Conduct trav el dem a nd forecasting , and � Perform emissions m odeling
. T h ese three steps are described in sections 5.2.1 throug h 5.2.3. 

### 5. 2. 1 W hat ar e l and use pl anni ng assumpt i ons? B e fore a transportation planner can forecasts future trav el and emissions, the p l anner m u st m ake some assum p tions about the num ber of people that w ill liv e in each part the reg i on, and the num ber and location of em ploy me nt and other activ ities. T o es t ablish these land use assum p tions, transportation planners m ake forecasts about population, the economy , and land use: 25 P o pulation f o recasts : T o forecasts future population g r o w t h , p l a n ners examine current inform ation about birth and death rates, and the rates of mi g r ation to and from the reg i on. E c onomic f o recasts : For e c a s t i n g econom ic activ ity requires consideration of the population trends, the reg i on’s abili ty to attract and retain em ploy ers, and expectations about how these trends w ill chang e in the future. L a nd use f o recasts : T r a n s p o r t a t i o n p l a n n e r s look at a local areas’ land use plans as th ey predict w h ere new population and em ploy me nt w ill locate w ithin the reg i on. T h ese plans ty pically reflect the im pact of policies and specific proj ects that are desig n ed to direct expected g r ow th into desired locations. Land u s e plans can sim p ly incorporate cu r r e nt trends, or they can include policies and prog ram s desig n ed to chang e those trends. Exa mp l e s include policies and proj ects that encourag e redev e lopment of urban cores, increase density , or protect open spaces from dev e lopment. T h ese population, economic, and land use forecasts m a y be m a de by the transportation planning ag ency , or by the local g o v e rnme nts or other planning ag encies. T h e inform ation on population and em ploy me nt m a y be g e nerated using land use m odels, and/or determined b y expert j udg ement. Some land use m odels include factors such as location of industrial an d s e r vi c e em ploy me nt, location of em ploy ee households, and com p arativ e costs for land. Land use forecasts are usually performed at the district lev e l, and are then sub- allocated to transportation a n aly s is z ones. T h e land use forecast are then used as inputs into the transportation m odeli n g , o r “ t r a ve l dem a nd forecasting , ” process.

25 Be im born, E. A
. “ AT r a n sportation Mode ling P r ime r .” Chap te r in In si de th e B l a ck B o x: Ma ki n g Transportation M ode ls W o rk for Liv able Communitie s . Env i ronme n ta l De f e nse a nd Citiz e n s f o r a Be tte r Env i r onme n t. 1996. 

### -28

-

### 5. 2. 2 W hat i s t he t r av el demand f o r ecast i ng pr ocess? T r av el dem a nd forecasting is a process w h ere transportation planners predict expected trav el activ ity throug hout a reg i on. T r av el dem a nd m odels are comm only used to m ake these predictions throug h the “4

- step m odeling ” process. T h is process is described briefly below
. 26 F i rst, an area is div i ded up into trav el analy s is zo n e s , f r om w h ich trips orig inate and to w h ich trips are destined. T h e am ount of population, households and em ploy me nt forecasted for a z one w ill affect how m u ch trav el w ill occur in and betw een z ones. E m ploy me nt is used to represent not only w o rk activ ities, but also shopping , lunch and other ty pes of trips. T h en, the m odel perform s the following 4 steps: 1. Trip G e neration: T h e trip g e neration step uses the land use assum p tions to estim ate the num ber of trip ends (productions and attractions) for each z one. T h e trips are g e nerated by trip ty pe, such as “home- based w o rk ,” “home- based other” or “non- home based.” 2. Tri p Di st ri but i o n: T h e trip distribution step link s the productions with the attractions. Dem a nd for trav el between two z ones is related to the num ber of trips in and out of the z one, and the am ount of im pedance (i.e., the effect of time, distance, and/or cost on trav el activ ity ). 3. Modal C h oice: I n some areas, the trav el dem a nd m odel also produces estim ates of trips by m ode (e.g ., hig h way , transit , o r other m odes). Mode choice m odels m a y t a ke into consideration factors such as dem o g r aphic g r oup, cost, trip purpose, and relativ e trav el times. 4. Trip Assignment: T r ip ass i g n m e n t inv o lv es assig n ing v e hicle trips to specific link s of the trav el netw ork
. T r av el dem a nd m odel s also estim ate the speeds t h a t vehicles trav el, based on how cong ested the road network is. T h is process g e nerates VMT and speed data that is directly used to estim ate m o tor v e hicle emissions.

26 U
. S. EP A
. 1997. Ev aluation of M ode ling Tools for As s e s s i ng Land U s e Polic ie s and Str a te gie s . EP A R e port EP A 420- R

- 97- 007. U S EP AO f f i c e of A i r a nd R a diation, O f f i c e of Mobile Sour c e s , A nn Arbor, MI. 

### -29

-

### 5. 2. 3 W hat i s t he emi ssi ons model i ng pr ocess? T h e last step in the process is to m odel the emissions produced. Emission rate m odels are used to estim ate emissions for the area, tak i ng into consideration factors such as the mi x of v e hicles ty pes, tem p erature, etc. T h ese rates are then applied to the VMT and speed estim ates from the trav el dem a nd m o d e l to calculate m o tor v e hicle emissions rates. 

### 5. 3 H OW A R E LA ND USE A C T I VIT I ES INCORPORA T ED INT O T H E 

### SI P A ND T H E CONFORMIT Y DET E RMINA T ION 

### ? U s ing the three steps described in sections 5.2.1 throug h 5.2.3, air quality and transportation planners can m odel the emissions reduction im pacts of land use activ ities. T h e output for each step is the input for the next step. Fig u re 3 show s the relationship betw een the land use inputs, trav el dem a nd forecasting , and the emissions m odeling
. F I G URE 3. R ELAT I O N SHI P BET W EEN LA ND USE M O DELI NG , T R A N SPO RT AT I O N PLA NNI NG , AN D EM I SSI O N S M O DELI NG . L a nd U se Modeling (or ex pert judgement) Travel dem a nd f o recasting E m issions mod e lin g Ou tp u t: L o cation of popul at i o n and

employment Ou tp u t: V e h i cle miles traveled and

speed of traf f i c Output: Regional emissions rates f o r motor vehicles emissions When air quality planners prepare S I P s , they first perform an initial analy s is of future emissions to assess w h at emissions are expected to look like g i v e n w h at land use and transportation activ ities are planned at the time of the analy s is. T o create this “initial forecast of future emissions,” land use assumptions are m a de, which are fed into transportation m odels, and the results of this m odeling are input into an emissions factor m odel. An analy s is of t h e i mp a c t o f control strategies desig n ed to reduce emissions ov er time is then performed. C ontrol strateg i es m a y include land use activ ities that can reduce emissions from transportation. When transportation planners perform a reg i onal emissions analy s is for a conformity determin a t i on, they m

u st dem onstrate that the im pacts of new transportation activ ities do not create air quality problem s for nonattainme nt and m a intenance areas. I n this analy s is, the emissions from the future transportation activ ities are com p ared to either the SI P’s emissions budg ets, or when budg ets aren’t av ailable, either emissions from the “no- build” scenario, and/or emissions from a prior y ear (thespecific requireme nts depend on the pollutant and the area’s classification). For the reg i onal emissions analy s is, transportation planners also use land use assumptions to create the forecasts, and, the conformity determination m a y include new control strategies not found in the SI P, w h ich m a y be used to offset the emissions im pacts of new transportation activ ities. I n summ ary , land use activ ities are incorporated into SI Ps or conformity determinations as either land use assum p tions or control strateg i es.



### -30

-

### 5. 4 W HA TA R E T H E W A YS T H A T 

### I CA N A CCOUNTFOR LA ND USE A C T I VIT I ES 

### ? T h ere are three g e neral w a y s that y ou can account for land use activ ities. T h ese are: � I n cluding land use activ ities in the initial forecast of future emissions in the S I P
. � I n cluding land use activ ities as control strateg i es in the SI P. � I n cluding land use activ ities in the conformity determination without including them in t h e SI P. T h ere are some similarities w h en accounting for land use activ ities in either the SI P process or in the conformity process. H o w e v e r, existing reg u latory specifications for SI Ps and conformity determinations w ill determine exactly how y ou m u st account for these activ ities in each process. T h ese specifications, and their applicability to land use activ ities, are discussed in chapters 6, 7, and 8.



### -31

-

### -32

-

# C HA PTER 

# 6 I NCLUDING LA ND USE A C TIVITIES IN THE INITIA L FORECA ST OF FUTURE EMISSIONS IN THE 

# SIP 6. 1 W HA TIS T H E INIT IA L FO RECA STO F FUT URE EM ISSIO N S 

### ? All control strateg y SI Ps and m a intenance plan SI Ps m u st hav e an inv e ntory of current emissions, and a forecast of future emissions. T h e initial forecast of future emissions is the lev e l of emissions in the future targ et y ear that w ill result if no additional control strateg i es are im plemented. T h e initial forecast includes effects of existing F e deral reg u lations or prog ram s that w ill come into effect by the forecast y ear (for exam ple, Federal reg u lations such as new emissions standards), but does not include effects of any additional explicit control strateg i es that are included in the S I P to im prov e air quality
. T h e m o tor v e hicle portion of the initial forecast is based on m odeling the transportation netw ork that w ill exist by the forecast y ear. T h e first step in m odeling the transportation netw ork is to m ake l a nd use assum p tions for y our area. When creating land use assum p tions for y our area, y ou should m ake sure that y ou take into account the effects that “sm art g r ow th” policies and proj ects w ill hav e on those assum p tions. 

### 6. 2 W HEN IS A N INIT IA L FO RECA ST O F FUT URE EM ISSIO N S M A DE 

### ? T h e initial forecast of future emissions is m a de w h en an area prepares a S I P for the first time, or perform s a SI P rev i sion. T h erefore, if y our area is not in the process of dev e loping or rev i sing a SI P, y ou w ould not hav e this option av ailable to account for y our area’s land use activ ities. I n stead, y ou m a y w i sh to consider accounting for y our land use activ ities in y our next conformity determination. 

### 6. 3 H OW CA N 

### I A CCOUNTFOR 

### “ SMA R TGROW T H 

### ” A C T I VIT I ES IN T H E LA ND USE A SSUM P T I ONS T H A TA R E M A DE FOR T H E 

### SI P? Land use assum p tions – the location of households and em ploy m e nt – are the beg i nning of the air quality m odeling process. S o m e areas em ploy land use m odels to estim ate w h at future land use w ill be, w h ile other areas use the best j udg m e nt of planners. A lthoug h it is not possible to predict exactly w h at w ill happen in term s of future land use, the land use assum p tions m a de in the SI P m u stbe based on t h e b e s t a vai l a bl e in f o rmation and must be realistic about w h at w ill happen in the future. E P A e x amines the assum p tions m a de for the initial forecast of future emissions to ensure that they are reasonable. I n particular, EPAcom p ares the SI P’s forecasting assump tions t o t h o s e m a d e i n t h e p a s t . T y pically , i f a S I P is submitted w ith land use assum p tions that are based on past trends, E P Ais likely to believ e these assum p tions are reasonable. H o w e v e r, if EPAreceiv es a SI P w ith land use assum p tions that are radically different from prev ious assum p tions, E P A w ill closely scrutiniz e these assum p tions and look for a j u stification of w h y the assum p tions are the best av ailable and reasonable. T h erefore, w h en submitting a SI P w h ich includes land use assum p tions b a s e d o n g e n eral land use trends , it is im portant for y ou to carefully consider the basis for y our land use assum p tions and ensure that they are reasonable. A dditional d o c um entation from state and local ag encies m a y be necessary in som e cases. I n itial forecasts ba s e d o n inappropriate assum p tions m a y not ultim ately be approv ed.



### -33

-T o determine w h ether or not the land use assum p tions are reasonable, EPAconsiders the follow i ng questions: � A r e the future land use trends plausible? � A r e the land use assum p tions m a de v e ry different from the land use assum p tions used in prev ious SI Ps or the last conformity determination? � I f so, are there reasons for the chang e? � I s the chang e of a reasonable m a g n itude? � H o w realistic are the future assum p tions, g i v e n w h at k i nds of dev e lopment are currently happening ? � I f dram atic chang es are predicted, are there leg a l mechanism s in place to ensure the proj ected assum p tions w ill in fact occur?



### -34

-

### I LLUST RA T I O N 

### : T HE 

### C HICA GO 

### A REA 

### T RA NSPORT A T ION 

### P LA N
I n C h icag o, land use forecasting is done by the N o rtheastern I llinois Planning C o mmi ssion (N I P C ) , w ho g i v e forecasts to the C h icag o MP O and I llinois air quality planning ag ency . C h icag o’s m o st recent SI P and transportation plan conformity determination included assum p tions that “past trends of decentraliz ed land use w ould be m oderated” – that is, there w ould be increased infill in the central part of C h icag o. N I P C m a de these assum p tions based on their j udg ement that the actions already underway or likely to be im plemented will contribute to substantial reinv estme nt in existing comm unities and increased redev e lopment w ill continue to occur. NI PC documented the ki nds of policy tools that they expected would become widespread during the forecast period, w h ich include policies to prov ide funding for infrastructure that w ould m ake infill and brow nfield redev e lopment m o re feasible; increased focus at the state and federal lev e ls on funding efforts to prom ote economic dev e lopment in older comm unities; tax credits for rehabilitation of older and historic building s ; and priority funding to m a intain the existing transportation sy stem . NI PC also g a thered inform ation about local g o v e rnme nt policies, and included the im pacts of these policies in the forecasts. Using expert j udg ement, NI PC concluded that “actions already underw ay or likely to be im plemented w ill contribute to (1) substantial inv estme nt w ithin existing comm unities, (2) increased redev e lopment in comm unities which hav e experienced disinv estme nt, and (3) hig h standards of new dev e lopment in areas w h ere it can be accom p lished in a cost- e ffectiv e m a nner.” T h ese land use assum p tions w e re used to prepare the reg i on’s SI P. When the documentation on the planning assum p tions w as submitted to E P AR e g i on 5, the reg i on ev aluated the assum p tions, and determined the assum p tions to be reasonable. T h e basis of this finding w a s that, althoug h the assum p tions w e re different from past trends, sufficient supporting ev idence, including the current im plementation of policies and the lev e l of infill dev e lopment already underway , indicated that a new trend was beg i nning and state and local policy and planning g o als could realistically lead to the population, housing , and em ploy me nt assum p tions m a de in the plan. I n contrast to the discussion abov e, which is relev a nt to general land use trends , E P Abeliev es thatspecif i c pol i c i es and proj ect s should be i n c l u d e d in an initial forecast of future emissions of a SI P under certain conditions, described below
. EPA believ es that it would be appropriate to include a specific l a nd use policy in the land use assum p tions m a de for the initial forecast only if: A. T h e policy meets one of the following conditions: • it has already been adopted by an appropriate j u risdiction, or • t he policy is planned and there is an enforcing mechanism to ensure it w ill happen;

- a ndB. T h e effects of the policy hav e n’t already been accounted for in the land use assum p tions – that is, y ou are not double counting (this point is discussed further in section 6.5). 

### -35

-For exam ple, suppose an area has passed a planning statute that requires local g o v e rnme nts to establish an urban g r ow th boundary
. Because this is an adopted law , the effects of the urban g r ow th boundary could be included in the initial forecast of future emissions. H o w e v e r, if an area is currently discussing w h ether to adopt an urban g r owth boundary , or one has been proposed but it is not y e t adopted by an enforcing ag ency , it w ould not be appropriate to include its effects in the initial forecast. T h e urban g r ow th boundary should be adopted before it is included. 

### I LLUS T RATION 

### : T HE 

### M AR Y L AN D 

### S MA RT 

### G RO W T H 

### P OLIC IES I n 1998, the Gov e rnor of Mary l and sig n ed an executiv e order establishing the Sm art Growth and N e ig hborhood Conserv a tion Policy , w h ich im plements the 1997 Sm art G r ow th A r eas A c t. T h e cornerstone of this A c t is the desig n ation of “priority funding areas,” or PFA s. T h ese PFA s are areas where state and local g o v e rnme nts hav e ag reed that future g r owth and dev e lopment should occur. T h e Act prohibits state ag encies from funding or supporting infrastructure, economic dev e lopment, housing and other prog ramm a tic inv estme nts outside of these desig n ated areas. O t her com ponents direct state ag encies to a) g i v e priority to central business districts, dow ntow n cores, and em pow erme nt z ones w h en funding infrastructure proj ects or locating new facilities; b) locate w o rk shops, conferences and other meeting s in these z ones; and c) w o rk w ith rural local g o v e rnme nts to retain the rural character of their comm unities. Mary l and has four other com p leme ntary policies and prog ram s . T h e V o luntary Clean Up and B r ow nfields prog ram limits liability for dev e lopers of brow nfield sites; The L i v e N ear Y our Work prog ram , which prov ides home buy ers with a mi nim u m of $3,000 towards the home buy ing cost; the J ob C r eation T a x credits, w h ich prov ides income tax credits to businesses that prov ide a mi nim u m of 25 j obs w ithin PFA s; and the R u ral Leg acy A r eas prog ram , w h ich aim s to preserv e ag ricultural, forest and natural resource lands and protect them from dev e lopment. T h e purpose of these incentiv es and prog ram s is to com p leme nt the reg u latory PFA policy by encourag ing dev e lopers, em ploy ers, and home buy ers to locate w ithin the PFA s. T h ese policies are adopted at the State lev e l, and State and local g o v e rnme nts hav e w o rked tog e ther to desig n ate PFA s. T h erefore, it w ould be reasonable for Mary l and to estim ate the im pacts of the PFA policy and the com p leme ntary incentiv e prog ram s on the location of future population and em ploy me nt and fold them into the land use assum p tions in their initial forecast of future emissions.



### -36

-EPA believ es that it would be appropriate to include a specific l a n d u s e projec t in the initial forecast of future emissions ov er and abov e the g e neral assum p tions only if: A. T h e proj ect m eets one of the following conditions:
• it is already built,
• it is currently under construction, or • it is planned, local z oning necessary for the proj ect is already in place, and there is an enforceable mechanism to ensure that it w ill actually occur;

- a ndB. T h e effects of the proj ect hav e n’t already been accounted for in the g e neral land use assum p tions

– that is, y ou’re not double counting
. For exam ple, suppose a larg e brownfield site near a transit line is currently being redev e loped as a mi xed use, transit- oriented dev e lopment t h a t i s d e s i gn ed to house and em ploy thousands of people. I f the new population and new em ploy me nt hav e n’t already been accounted for, then this proj ect can be included in the initial forecast of future emissions. 

### I LLUS T RATION 

### : W A S HI NG TO N 

### ’ S 

### L A NDI NG 

### , P I TTS BURG H 

### , P EN N SYL VA N I A Washing t on’s L a nding is a brow nfield rev italiz ation proj ect in P ittsburg h, P A
. T h e redev e lopment proj ect is located on an island in the A lleg h eny R i v e r on a site that w as once a stock y ard and slaug h terhouse. A two y ear env i ronmental clean- up effort was required. T h e dev e loper, Montg o me ry and R u st, its builder/ partner, the R ubinoff C o m p any , and P ittsburg h ’s U rban R e dev e lopment A u thority w o rked tog e ther to turn this underutiliz ed site into a thriv i ng comm unity w ith tow nhomes close to downtown, a walk /bike path and a public park
. T h e dev e lopment is prim arily built, w ith 65 tow nhomes already sold and plans to build 23 m o re. A s long as the population and housing g r ow th has not been assume d already in some other w a y in the initial forecast of future emissions, the State of Pennsy l v a nia could account for the emissions reduction im pact of locating new g r ow th in this infill/ brow nfield location in their land use assum p tions. 

### 6. 4 W HA TIS 

### “ DOUBLE COUNT ING 

### ?”
EPAw a nts to ensure that effects of land use activ ities are not counted tw ice. A r eas m u st be sure that w h at they are including in the initial forecast has not already been included in some other w a y . A n area should include either the effects of a land use policy , or the effects of indiv i dual proj ects that happen as a result of that policy , but shouldn’t count the effects twice. For exam ple, suppose a me tropolitan reg i on adopt s a policy to g i v e incentiv es to dev e lopers for building i n fill dev e lopm e n td o w n t o w n . F o r ecasts could be m a de on the am ount and location of population and em ploy me nt in the z ones that would be affected by the policy
. T h e state could then account for the im pact o f t h i s p o l i c y in the land use assum p tions for the SI P. H o w e v e r, once that is done, it w ould no t b e appr o p ri at et o a l so assume that new population and em ploy me nt w ould occur for the indiv i dual dev e lopments that occur as a result of t h a t p o l i c y. T h at w ould be doubling counting , because the new population and em ploy me nt that result from the indiv i dual proj ects would hav e already been accounted for when the policy w as included in the initial forecast of future emissions. 

### -37

-Like w i se, if y ou hav e a l r eady accounted for the im pacts of a larg e- scale new infill dev e lopment on population and em ploy me nt in the land use assum p tions, it w ould not be appropriate to also account for the im pacts of the infill incentiv e policy that caused the specific dev e lopment to occur. E ither the effects of the dev e lopment or the effects of the policy should be counted, but not both. 

### 6. 5 W HA TELSE SHOULD 

### I CONSIDER W H EN INCLUDING LA ND USE A C T I VIT I ES IN MY INIT IA L FO RECA ST O F FUT URE EM ISSIO N S 

### ?
T h is option allows y ou to account for all of the sm art g r owth policies, prog ra m s and proj ects that y ou are already doing
. T h e com posite im pact of these sm art g r ow th activ ities m a y reduce y our forecasted emissions lev e l in the future, thereby reducing the a m o unt of additional emissions reductions needed from control strateg i es. A l so, by associating air quality benefits w ith y our sm art g r ow th prog ram s on air quality , this analy s is m a y be useful in y our efforts to prom ote these prog ram s m o re broadly
. H o w e v e r, since this analy s is is desig n ed to set a baseline lev e l of emissions, specific im pacts of indiv i dual activ ities are not reflected in this analy s is. S t a t e s m a y w a nt to dem onstrate specific reductions associated w ith certain activ ities, and m a y w i sh t o com pute these im pacts separately
. A l so, because of the nature of the trav el dem a nd forecasting process, the effects of mi croscale desig n features are not w e ll represent e d i n t h is m odeling process. A d j u stme nts to the reg i onal scale trav el dem a nd forecasting process m a y be necessary to capture the effects of mi croscale activ ities. T h is topic is discussed in g r eater detail in chapter 10. Finally , it is im portant to note that inclusion of land use policies, prog ram s and proj ects that differ g r eatly from past trends w ill be scrutiniz ed for reasonableness, and m a y not be accepte d a s l a n d use assum p tions w ithout additional j u stification (e.g ., adopted commitments by im plementing parties in place). T h erefore, it is to y our benefit that y our analy s is include support for y our assum p tions about the effects y our land use policies and prog ram s w ill hav e on future dev e lopment patterns.



### -38

-

# C HA PTER 

# 7 I NCLUDING ALA ND USE A C TIVITY A S A CONTROL STRA TEGY IN THE 

# SIP 7. 1 W HA TIS A CONT ROL ST RA T E GY 

### ? A control strateg y is a policy , prog ram , o r p r o j ect used by a nonattainme nt or m a intenance area to reduce am bient air pollution lev e ls in order to satisfy C l ean A i r A c t requireme nts, such as attaining the standards, dem onstrating reasonable prog ress tow ards attainme nt, or m a intaining the standards. C ontrol strateg i es are listed and described in the State I m plementation Plan (SI P ). C o llectiv ely , all of the control strateg i es in the SI P m u st reduce emissions enoug h to show attainme nt, m a intenance, or further prog ress, depending on the ty pe of SI P. 27 Some examp l e s o f control strateg i es include use of clean fuels or adv a nced control technolog y to reduce emissions. 

### 7. 2 W HEN W O ULD 

### I INCLUDE LA ND USE A C T I VIT I ES A S CONT ROL ST RA T E GIES IN T H E 

### SI P? T h ere are tw o situations w h ere y ou can include land use activ ities as control strateg i es in y our SI P. � I f y ou are in the initial stag es of preparing y our S I P , y ou can include specific land use activ ities with all of y our other control strateg i es which reduce emissions, or � I f y ou hav e already submitted a S I P , but discov e r that y ou need additional reductions, y ou can do a SI P r e v i si on. Since it takes some time to dev e lop a SI P, and there are v e ry specific requireme nts that m u st be me t, y o u should coordinate w ith y our local me tropolitan planning org a niz a tion, state or local air quality ag ency , and EPA reg i onal office as soon as y ou determine that y ou want to consider a land use activ ity as a control strateg y in the S I P
. E arly coordination w ill help to m ake y our land use control strateg y successful. 

### 7. 3 H OW CA N 

### I A CCOUNTFOR LA ND USE A C T I VIT I ES A S CONT ROL ST RA T E GIES IN MY 

### SI P? T h ere are three way s that land use activ ities can be accounted for as control strateg i es in the SI P. A specific land use activ ity that can be show n to hav e air quality benefits can be considered a control strateg y in a S I P if certain requirem e nts, outlined in the C l ean A i r A c t, are m e t. F o r the purposes of this g u idance, w e w ill call these control strateg i es “ traditional control strategies. ”

27 See 40 CFR Part 52. 

### -39

-I n a d d i t i on, EPA ha s d e ve l o p e dt w o s p e c i f i c S I P p o l i c i e s t h a ta d d r ess innov ativ e, v o luntary control measures, w h ich m a y also be applicable w h en accounting for land use activ ities as control strateg i es in a SI P. T h ey are: � V o luntary Mobile Source E m ission R e duction P r ogram policy (V ME P policy),

- a nd - � Economic Incentive P r ograms policy (EIP policy). Sections 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 prov ide m o re details on these policies and w ill help y ou determine w h ich control s t r a t e gy option is best for y ou. Section 7.7 discusses quantification considerations. Lastly , transportation c ont ro ls measu res (TC Ms) an dth eir relatio n s h i p to lan du se activ ities are d i scu ssedin sectio n 7.8. 

### 7. 4 L A ND USE A C T I VIT I ES A S 

### T RA DIT I ONA L 

### C ONT R OL 

### S T R A T EGIES 

### 7. 4. 1 W HA TA R E 

### T RA DIT I ONA L 

### C ONT R OL 

### S T R A T EGIES 

### ? T r aditional control strateg i es, in the context of this g u idance, are control strateg i es that can be show n to hav e air quality benefits and meet certain requireme nts outlined in the C l ean A i r A c t. L a nd use activ ities that meet the existing statutory requireme nts of the C l ean A i r A c t can be accounted for as traditional control strateg i es. 

### 7. 4. 2 W hat ar e t he exi st i ng st at ut or y r equi r e ment s f o r i ncl udi ng a land use activ ity as a traditional control strategy in a SIP? U nder the C l ean A i r A c t, traditional control strateg i es m u st a) be consistent w ith the purpose of the SI P and b) m u st not interfere with other requireme nts of the Clean Air Act. I n addition, in order to be approv ed by EPA in a SI P, the emission reduction m u st be:

• Q uant i f i a bl e 2. Surpl us 3. E n f o rceable 4. P ermanent 5. Adequat e l y Support ed T o include a land use activ ity as a traditional control strateg y in a SI P, these fiv e requireme nts m u st be me t. T h ese fiv e requireme nts are described in further detail below
. Quantif i able T h e emission reductions from the control strateg y m u st be reliably calculated. Your emission reduction calculation me thodolog y should be log i cal, supportable, and as thoroug h as reasonably possible. T o dem onstrate that this requireme nt has been me t, y o u should prov ide: � Acom p lete narrativ e description of the land use activ ity , including the im plementation schedule; 

### -40

-� Adescription of the applied emission calculation me thodolog y and reasons for selection of that me thodolog y ; � An estim ate of anticipated emission reduction benefits, with documentation of assum p tions and calculations; � A discussion of quantification uncertainties; � T h e data set used, and a description of the data collection me thodolog y ; and � O t her inform ation, as applicable, that supports the reasonableness of the estim ate. Surpl us Em i ssio n red u c tio n s asso ciatedw ith th e lan du se activ ity m u st n o tb e reliedu pon i n a n y other air quality prog ram included in y our SI P. I n other words, y ou can not “double- count” y our emissions. T o dem onstrate that this requireme nt has been me t, y ou should prov ide: � Astatement that the appropriate ag ency has rev i ew ed the control strateg y and it is not accounted for in other parts of the SI P; and � Astatement describing the potential areas of ov erlap, if any , and steps to ensure that emission reductions are surplus and that there is no double- counting E n f o rceable Under the Clean Air Act, for any prog ram to be considered a control strateg y in a SI P, the actions required to achiev e emissions reductions m u st be independently v e rifiable. Further, in the ev ent that prog ram v i olations occur (i.e., the im plementation of the control strateg y does not occur in the m a nner stated in the SI P submission), the state m

u st identify those v i olations and the parties liable for the v i olations, and enforce the action and apply penalties where applicable. To meet this requireme nt, the state m u st hav e the ability to enforce the control strateg y . To dem onstrate that this requireme nt has been me t, y ou should prov ide: � Ev idence that a com p lete schedule to im plement, and enforce the land use activ ity has been adopted by the im plementing ag ency or ag encies; � Adescription of the m onitoring prog ram to assess the land use control strateg y ’ s effectiv eness; � Ev idence that the land use activ ity was properly adopted by a j u risdiction with leg a l authority to commit to and execute the activ ity ; and � E v idence that the state has the ability to enforce the control strateg y if v i olations occur. T h is last item presents a special concern w h en considering land use activ ities as control strateg i es in SI Ps. According to Section 110 (a)(2)(E) of the Clean Air Act, the state m u st prov ide “necessary assurances that the State (or, except w h ere the A d mi nistrator deem s inappropriate, the g e neral purpose local g o v e rnme nt or g o v e rnme nts, or a reg i onal ag ency 

### -41

-desig n ated by the S t ate or g e neral purpose local g o v e rnme nts for such purpose) w ill hav e adequate personnel, funding , and authority under State (and, as appropriate, local) law” to carry out the im plementation of control strateg i es included in the SI P. I n the case of land use, states usually do not hav e enforcement authority ov er local land use decisions. T o include a land use activ ity in a SI P as a traditional control strateg y , the state m u st either hav e direct authority to enforce the activ ity , or the local g o v e rnme nt m u st hav e authority to enforce the activ ity
. T h erefore, if a state wishes to account for a particular land use activ ity as a control strateg y , and the control strateg y inv o lv es an action being take n by the state itself, then the state can, of course, enforce the action. I f, howev er, the control strateg y inv o lv es an action which the state does not hav e direct enforcement authority ov er, such as a land use action take n by a local g o v e rnme nt or dev e loper, the state can only account f o r this land use action as a traditional control strategy IF there is an enf o rceable agreement in place
. T h is ag reement m a y be in the form of: 1. A n enforceable policy by a local g o v e rnme nt ag ency ; 2. A commitment by a leg a l body(such as a reg i onal ag ency ) w h ich can influence local decision m aki ng to ensure im plementation; or 3. A me m o randum of understanding am ong the appropriate parties (e.g ., the state and the dev e loper or the local g o v e rnme nt and the dev e loper). Without such a mechanism , the state cannot , under CAA rules, include a land use activ ity in a SI P as a traditional control strateg y . Howev e r, there are two other SI P policies under which the land use activ ity m a y be considered a control strateg y ; these are discussed in section 7.5 and 7.6. P ermanent T o include control strateg i es in the SI P, the emission reductions associated w ith them m u st occur throug hout the life of the control strateg y , and for as long as it is relied upon in the SI P. T o dem onstrate that this requireme nt has been me t, y ou should prov ide: � D o cume ntation show ing that the control strateg y w ill be im plemented in a m a nner that ensures that the emission reductions w ill occur throug hout the life of the SI P. Adequat e l y Support ed T h e state or responsible party m u st dem onstrate that adequate personnel and prog ram resources are committed to im plement and enforce the prog ram . To dem onstrate that this requireme nt has been me t, y ou should prov ide: � Ev idence that funding has been (or w ill be) oblig ated to im plement the land use activ ity ; � Ev idence that all necessary approv als hav e been obtained from all appropriate g o v e rnme nt entities (including state hig h w a y departme nts if applicable); � Ev idence of inclusion of the land use activ ity in a city/township/county dev e lopment plan; and


### -42

-� Other inform ation, as applicable, that dem onstrates adequate support. 

### 7. 4. 3 W hat happens i fI hav e i ncl uded a l and use act i v i t y as a t r adi t i onal cont r o l st r a t egy i n a SI P, and now I hav e i n f o r m at i o n t hat t he l and use act i v i t y i s not occur r i ng?
I f

y ou hav e already included a land use activ ity in a SI P, bu t n o w kn o w t h a t it is not occurring , or is not occurring in the w a y it w as ex p e c t e d to w h en it w as put in the SI P, y ou m a y not meet the g o al of the SI P (further prog ress, attainme nt, or m a intenance of the standard). D u e to the enforceability requireme nts, the state m a y hav e to initiate enforcement procedures ag ainst the party responsible for im plementing the control strateg y . Also, in the next conformity de t e r m i n a t i o n yo u m u st be sure that y ou account for the land use activ ity as it is actually being im plemented, rather than how it is described in the SI P. 

### 7. 4. 4 W hat el se shoul d I consi derw hen i ncl udi ng a l and use act i v i t y as a t r adi t i onal cont r o l st r a t egy i n a SI P? I n cluding a la n d u s e activ ity as a control strateg y in a S I P can help y ou meet y our air quality g o als by allow i ng y ou to account for emission reductions that y ou need to show attainm e nt, prog ress, or m a intenance. T h is m a y be an especially appealing option to areas that are hav i ng difficulty attaining , and are seeking all v i able options for emissions reductions. A s a traditional control strateg y , the activ ity w ill need to meet the criteria outlined in section7.4.2 for EPA to a p p r o v e it in the SI P. H a v i ng to m eet these criteria can be an adv a ntag e or disadv a ntag e depending on one’s p o i n t o f v i ew . For exam ple, the requirem e nt that control strateg i es m u st be enforceable prov ides a g u arantee that they w ill actually happen. H o w e v e r, a land use activ ity that is included as a traditional control strateg y m u st be enforceable ag ainst the im plem enting party . For exam ple, a local g o v e rnm e nt m a y adopt a policy of hig h

- d ensity z oning in v arious areas in its j u risdiction. I n m a ny cities, w h ile such a z oning policy is enforceable, the local g o v e rnm e nt reserv es the rig h t to w a iv e z oning requirem e nts, in response to citiz en com p laints or dev e loper requests. T h e need for e n forceability , and/or funding at the local lev e l to include such a z oning policy in a SI P could be a disincentiv e for som e local g o v e rnm e nts to include their land use activ ities in the state’s SI P, a s it would, in effect, bind the local g o v e rnm e nt to enforcing the action. T h e answ er to this balance of incentiv e and disincentiv e m u st be addressed at the state and local lev e l. I n cases w h ere the state does not hav e reg u latory authority to im plem ent and enfor c e a land use activ ity ag ainst the source of the emissions, or w h ere such an enforceable commitm ent from the im plem enting party cannot be obtained, the state m a y w i sh to account for the im pacts of the land use activ ity under one of the tw o special EPApolicies discussed in sections 7.5 and 7.6.



### -43

-

### 7. 5 L A ND USE A C T I VIT I ES A ND T H E 

### V OLUNT A R Y 

### M O B ILE 

### S OURCE 

### E M I SSION 

### R EDUCT ION 

### P RO G R A M PO LICY 

### (V ME P PO LICY 

### ) 7. 5. 1 W hat i s t he Vol unt ar y Mobi l e Sour ce Emi ssi on Reduct i o n Pr ogr am ( V MEP) pol i c y ? T h e V o luntary Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Prog ram s policy , also known as the V M EP g u idance or the “v oluntary measures policy ” , w as sig n ed O c tober 27, 1997 28

. T h is policy was dev e loped to allow states to account for the benefits of v o luntary m obile source measures in their SI Ps. T h ese are measures that rely o n the v o luntary actions of businesses or indiv i duals to achiev e emissions reductions. A ccordi n g t o t h e policy , “Voluntary m obile source measures hav e the potential to contrib u te, in a cost- e ffectiv e m a nner, emissions reductions needed for prog ress tow ard att ai n me nt and m a intenance of the National Am bient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA believ es that SI P credit is appropriate for v o luntary m obile source measu r e s w h en w e hav e confidence that the measures can achiev e emission reductions.” Some exam ples of v o luntary measures, or VMEPs, include economic and m arket- b ased incentiv e prog ram s , trip reduction prog ram s , and g r owth m a nag e me nt strateg i es. 

### 7. 5. 2 W hat ar e t he exi st i ng st at ut or y r equi r e ment s f o r i ncl udi ng a l and use act i v i t y as a VMEP cont r o l st r a t egy i n a SI P? VMEP control strateg i es m u st meet the C l ean A i r A c t’s requireme nts that control strateg i es be quantifiable, surp l u s , p e r m anent and adequately supported, as described in section 7.4.2. H o w e v e r, the VMEP policy defines the “enforceability ” requireme nt differently than it is defined for traditional control strateg i es. T h e comm on thread am ong all VMEPs is that, for these m easures to be successful, v o luntary participation o f

b u s in esses an dcitiz en s is n eces s a r y . I n o t h e r w o rd s, VME P s are n o treq u i red , an dstate an dlo cal g o v e rnme nts do not hav e the authority to m ake participants take action. T h erefore, under the VMEP policy , the definition of enforceable for v o luntary measures is different than for traditional control strateg i es. Voluntary measures that are included in SI Ps are not enforceable ag ainst the source; rather, the state is responsible for ensuring that the emission reductions accounted for in the SI P do indeed occur. T h e state m u st m ake an enforceable commitment to m onitor, assess and report on the emission reductions resulting from the vo luntary measures and to reme dy any shortfalls from forecasted emission reductions in a timely m a nner. I n g e neral, for EPAto approv e v o luntary measures, a state m u st submit a SI P to EPAw h ich: � I d entifies and describes the v o luntary prog ram ; � Contains proj ections of emission reductions attributable to the prog ram , along with relev a nt technical support documentation;

28 Me m o r a ndum to EP AR e g i ona l A d mi nis tr ator s 1- 10, f r om EP AO f f i c e of Mobile Sour c e s : “ Guida nc e on I n c o rpor ating Voluntar yMobile Sour c e Emis s i on R e duc tion P r og r a m s in Stat e I m ple me n tation P l a n s ( S I P s ) O c tobe r 24, 1998. V i s it the V o luntaryMe a s ure w e b a ddre s s at: http:// www. e p a . g o v/ o m s /tr a n s p /tr a q v o l m . h t m .


### -44

-� C o mmits to m onitor, ev aluate, and report the resulting emissions effect of the v o luntary measure; � Commits to reme dy in a timely m a nner any SI P shortfall if the v o luntary prog ram does not achiev e proj ected emission reductions; and � Meets all other C l ean A i r A c t requireme nts for SI P rev i sions. D u e to the innov ativ e nature of v o luntary measures, EPA ’s lack of experience in quantify i ng them , and the inability to enforce these measures ag ainst indiv i dual sources, EPA has set a limit on the am ount of emission r e d u c t i o n s a l l o w e d under t h e V M E P p o l i c y i n aS I P
. Th i s l i mi ti s s e ta t three percent (3% ) of the total emission reductions needed to reach attainme nt. For some land use activ ities, as y ou g a in m o re knowledg e about their im pacts and are better able to quantify them , the three percent cap on VME P s m a y ev entually be limiting
. E P Aplans to rev i ew the three percent cap in 2002.



### C REDIT I NG 

### I NNOVA T I ON A ND 

### E XPERIM ENT A T I ON 

### : A ccount i ng f o r Land Use A c t i v i t i es usi ng t he Vol unt ary M obi l e Sources Emi ssi on Reduct i on Programs Pol i c y T h e V M EP policy was desig n ed to encourag e innov ation and creativ ity , and to g i v e states a wider rang e of prog ramm a tic options to consider when dev e loping strateg i es for reducing emissions from cars and other m obile sources. T h e ty pes of prog ram s being created under the VMEP policy attem p t to g a in additional emissions reductions bey ond m a ndatory Clear Air Act prog ram s by eng a g i ng the public to m ake chang es in activ ities that w ill result in reducing m obile source emissions. T h e prog ram s rely on the voluntary actions of indiv i duals or businesses to achiev e emissions reductions; therefore, if these prog ram s are included as VMEPs in a SI P, these actions are not directly enforceable ag ainst the party tak i ng the action. I n other w o rds, the party being encourag ed to take the action is not held responsible if they fail to take the action. T h e state m u st commit to reme dy any emissions reduction shortfall in a timely m a nner if the V M EP policy does not achiev e proj ected emission reductions.


### 7. 5. 3 W hen shoul d I use t he VMEP pol i c y t o i ncl ude a l and use a c tivity in a S I P ? For land use activ ities w h ere the state or local g o v e rnme nt does not hav e the authority to enforce the activ ity , a state could not include a land use activ ity as a traditional control strategy because they w ould not be able to meet the enforceability requireme nts stipulated in the C l ean A i r A c t. I n the s e c ases, y ou m a y w i s h t o account for the air quality benefits of the activ ity under the VMEP policy
. T h e V M EP policy allows f o r m o r e i n nov ation than m o st other EPA SI P prog ram s . I tis the appropriate policy to use for m a ny newer prog ram s that do not hav e well established quantification me thodolog ies. I n addition, by not requiring that the state directly enforce ag ainst a party im plementing a measure, businesses and indiv i duals m a y be m o re w illing to try new e r policies and prog ram s .



### -45

-

### A CCOUNT ING FOR 

### L A ND 

### U SE 

### A CT IVIT IES A S 

### C ONT R OL 

### S T R A T EGIES UNDER T H E 

### VMEP Civ a no, Ariz ona, is an 820- acre planned comm unity located in T u cson, Ariz ona. T h e comm unity ev olv e d from a partnership between the priv ate dev e lopers and comm unity g r oups (Comm unity of Civ a no, LLC, T rust for Sustainable D e v e lopment and Case Enterprises) and state and local g o v e rnme nt ag encies (the City of T u cson, the State of Ariz ona, the Ariz ona Energ y Office, the Metropolitan Energ y C o mmi ssion, the State Land T rust). T h e g o als of the proj ect w e re to sav e energ y , sav e water, reduce solid waste production and reduce air pollution. A core com ponent of this comm unity ’s dev e lopment strateg y w as to desig n the comm unity to mi nimi z e reliance on autom obiles and encourag e walk ing and bik i ng . Desig n features include tree- lined biki ng and walk ing paths, narrow streets, lot lay outs to encourag e social interaction and to conserv e open spaces, and a mi x of housing , em ploy me nt, and recreation within the dev e lopment. T h e proj ect estim ates that, due to these desig n features, v e hicle miles trav eled w ithin the dev e lopment w ill be reduced 40% com p ared to traditional dev e lopments. T h e dev e lopers are voluntarily desig n ing the site to decrease the need for driv ing , and the residents w ill voluntarily reduce their driv ing because of these features. D u e to the fact that emission reductions are the result of voluntary actions of the dev e loper and the residents, the State of A r iz ona could consider this dev e lopment proj ect a control strateg y under the V M EP policy
. Under this policy , the dev e loper would be protected from any leg a l action in the ev ent that the emissions reductions do not occur in the m a nner expected. I n the ev ent of a shortfall, it would be the State that is responsible for im plementing other measures that m ake up the emissions shortfall.


### 7. 5. 4 W hat happens i fI hav e i ncl uded a l and use act i v i t y as a VMEP cont r o l st r a t egy i n t he SI P, and I now hav e i n f o r m at i on t hat i t i s not occur r i ng?
A s w ith traditional control strateg i es, if y ou hav e already include a land use activ ity in a S I P , but now know that it is not g o ing to occur, or is not occurring in the w a y it w as expected to w h en it w as put in the S I P , y o u m a y not meet the g o al of the SI P (further prog ress, attainme nt, or m a intenance of the standard). A l so, in the next con f o r m i t y determination y ou m u st be sure that y ou account for the land use activ ity as it is actually being im plemented, rather than how it is described in the SI P. T h e big g est distinction betw een traditional control strateg i es and VMEPs is that, in the ev ent a prog ram does not achiev e the emissions reductions predicted, the state , not the im plementing party , is required to m ake up the shortfall. 

### 7. 5. 5 W hat el se shoul d I consi derw hen i ncl udi ng a l and use act i v i t y as a VMEP cont r o l st r a t egy i n a SI P? Some actions take n by g o v e rnme nt ag encies, such as reg i onal policies to coordinate land use planning , and larg e- scale dev e lopment proj ects, m a y require ten to tw enty y ears before hav i ng any sig n ificant im pact on emissions from m o tor v e hicle sources. Since attainme nt SI Ps are g e nerally im plemented ov er a shorter time frame t h a n t h a t , the air quality benefits of these land use activ ities m a y not be realiz ed in the time frame cov e red by the applicable SI P. Howev e r, with careful planning , the benefits of land use activ ities adopted during the attainme nt planning period m a y be included in one (or both) of the two fut u r e m a intenance planning periods, w h ich last ten y ears each. For exam ple, in a state w h ere an oz one SI P m u st show attainme nt 

### -46

-of t h e NAAQS i n 2007, a l o cal or st at e g o v e r n me nti n cent i v e pr og r a m t o encour ag e dev e l opmentt o l o cat e in existing urban areas m a y not show emissions reductions in that time frame ; how ev er, the state could still benefit from the potential long

- t erm benefits of this incentiv e pro g ram by accounting for im pacts of the prog ram in the subsequent m a intenance periods. I n some cases, sm aller scale dev e lopment proj ects and policies, such as reduced fare transit passes or special m o rtg a g e prog ram s for people purchasing homes in transit oriented comm unities, m a y hav e dem onstrable benefits w ithin the time frame of the attainme nt S I P and therefore m a y be suitable for inclusion in the S I P as VMEPs. 

### 7. 6 L A ND 

### U SE 

### A CT IVIT IES A ND T H E 

### E CONOMIC 

### I NCENT IVE 

### P ROGRA M S POLICY 

### (E IP PO LICY 

### ) 7. 6. 1 W hat i s t he Economi c I ncent i v e Pr ogr ams ( E I P ) pol i c y ?
T h e Economic I n centiv e Prog ram s (EI P ) policy is a re gu l a t o r y prog ram desig n ed to encourag e the use of m a r k e t
- b ased incentiv es or inform ation to reduce emissions. T h e purpose of the EI P policy is to prov ide flexibility in how sources meet their emission reductions targ ets, and em pow ers s o u r c e s t o find the m o st suitable and cost- e ffectiv e means of meeting the g o als of attainme nt or m a intenance. T h e policy cov e rs stationary , area, and m obile source emissions. T h e EI P g u idance document, “G uidance on Economic I n centiv e Prog ram s for A i r Q u ality ,”prov ides specific details on how to ensure that i n c e ntiv e prog ram s meet the basic C l ean A i r A c t criteria of quantifiable, enforceable, surplus, perm anent, and a d e q u a tely supported as listed in the traditional control strateg y discussion 29

. I n particular, the EI P g u idance prov ides specific instruction on � C r eating and im plementing an EI P; � I n cluding features to measure and track the results of the prog ram ; � Ev aluating results of the prog ram ; � I n cluding reconciliation procedures in the ev ent that the E I P does not meet its predicted emission reduction g o als; � E n suring the prog ram meets S I P requireme nts for com p leteness and approv ability ; and � Ensuring public participation. T h e g u idance describes four categ ories of EI Ps: financial mechanism s , public inform ation prog ram s , clean air inv estme nt funds , and trading prog ram s . A tthis time, financial mechanism s and public inform ation prog ram s are m o st applicable to including land use activ ities as EI Ps in a SI P. A n exam ple of a land use activ ity that could be an financial mechanism EI P mi g h t be a prog ram that offers some ty pe of m onetary reward or incentiv e to dev e lopers. T h is incentiv e could be in m a ny form s, including

29 A tpr e s s time , this g u ida n c e doc ume n t w a s be ing r e dr a f te d a nd w a s not public lya v a ilable
. T h e f i na l v e r s ion of the g u ida n c e is s l at e d f o r re le a s e in J a nuary , 2001. T h e doc ume n t w ill be pos te d on the w e b at h ttp ://www. ep a. g o v/ttn/o arp g/n ew. h tm l and h ttp ://www. ep a. g o v/ttn/ecas / 

### . -47

-tax break s, g r ants for brownfield redev e lopment, o r a f l e xible dev e lopment fee structure. Alternativ ely , incentiv es could al s o b e offered to home buy ers or com p anies m o v i ng into areas w h ere dev e lopment is de s i r e d
. T h ese m onetary incentiv es could be offered by local, state, reg i onal, or federal g o v e rnme nt ag encies, or perhaps ev en by non- g o v e rnme ntal ag encies. A public inform ation prog ram, such as a labeling prog ram to desig n ate env i ronmentally sound or “sm art g r owth” dev e lopments as being supported by the state could also be a land use EI P. Generally , land use activ ities accounted for under the EI P policy would fall under the categ ory of financial mechanism s . D u e to the com p lexities inv o lv ed in im plementing b o t h land use activ ities and emissions trading prog ram s , EPAis not prepared to present specific g u idance on how to incorporate land use policies into emissions t r a d i n g p r og ram s at this time; how ev er, w e are continuing to ev aluate the feasibility of incorporating land use activ ities into emissions trading prog ram s , and seek comme nt on this issue. E XA M P LES O F S TATE F I N A NCI A L I NCENT I VE P R OGR A M S TO E NCO URA G E S MA R T G RO W T H
Kentuck y : A warded $8 m illion in g r ant moneyto 21 Kentuck ycities to rev italize dow ntow n areas ; requires 20% m atch bythe cities M ichig an: Created the Clean M ichig an Initiativ e, w h ich includes $335 m

illion in f unds to clean up of brow nf ields M i s s ouri: P rov ides tax credits f or home ow ners to encourag e rehabilitation of

older hom es and construction of new hom es in urban cores and established suburbs


### 7. 6. 2 H ow i s t he EI P pol i c y r e l a t ed t o t he VMEP pol i c y ? Economic incentiv e prog ram s differ from v o luntary measures in that under a state’s EI P, emission reductions (or actions leading to emission reductions) must either be identif i able and enf o rceable against a specif i c sou rce or th e state mu st u se on e of th e f o llow i n g th ree meth od s to meet th e en f o rceab ility req u i remen t: � T h e EI P submittal includes fully adopted conting e ncy measures and contains a state commitment to autom a tically im plement conting e ncy measures, if necessary ; � T h e state w ill only count emission reductions on a retrospectiv e basis; or � T h e state has used the control strateg y in a similar situation, has achiev e d positiv e results, and g e ts preliminary approv al from EPA to use the prov ision. Some strateg i es mi g h t be orig inally approv ed under the v o luntary measures policy and later, after prog ram ev aluations hav e been com p leted, could be approv ed as a reg u lar EI P. I f an emission reduction strateg y can meet the EI P requireme nts, a state should striv e for the strateg y to be approv ed as an EI P rather than as a v o luntary measure because EI P measures hav e a g r eater deg r ee of certainty since they are m o re quantifiable than v o luntary measures and are e n f o r c eable ag ainst the source. A l so, EI P measures are not subj ect to a limitation, w h ile v o luntary measures are subj ect to a 3% cap. T h e EI P g u idance on dev e loping and quantify i ng prog ram s m a y also prov ide useful inform ation for those w i shing to account for land use activ ities w ith strong economic inc e n t i v e com ponents under the VMEP policy , due to the similarities of the policies. 

### -48

-

### 7. 6. 3 W hen shoul d I use t he EI P Pol i c y t o i ncl ude a l and use act i v i t y i n a SI P? I f yo u r land use activ ity has a strong economic incentiv e com ponent, such as including a fee structure for new dev e lopment, and y ou want to include it in y our area’s SI P, y ou could include it as an EI P. I f y ou wish to use the EI P g u idance to account for a land use activ ity , y ou should contact y our EPA Reg i onal O ffice. Since the EI P g u idanc e i s c u r r ently being redrafted, y our reg i onal EPAcontact can assist y ou in determining w h ether y our prog ram w ill be consistent w ith the E I P policy
. 

### 7. 7 W HA TST EPS A R E NECESSA RY FOR QUA N T IFYING LA ND USE A C T I VIT I ES A S T R A D IT IO NA L 

### , VMEP, OR 

### EI P CONT ROL ST RA T E GIES 

### ? T h ere are fiv e g e neral steps y ou should follow to quantify land use activ ities in a SI P. T h ey are: 1. C o m p letely describe the land use activ ity
. 2. D escribe how em ploy me nt and housing and other infrastructure are affected by the activ ity
. 3. D escribe how y ou determined the trav el activ ity effects arising from the land use activ ity
. 4. D e termine the emissions reduction associated w ith the trav el activ ity effects. 5. D e m onstrate that the emissions reductions are surplus. Step 1: C o mpletely describe the land use activity Y ou should describe the land use activ ity as com p letely as possible. Y ou should describe w h at the activ ity is, the actual phy sical chang es that w ill result, population effects, z oning , density , the g o als of the land use activ ity , trav el activ ity effects and emission reduction potential. I f y ou are including the land use activ ity as a traditional, VME P or E I P control strateg y , y ou w ill need to meet all of the specific documentation requireme nts specified for that policy
. Step 2: D escribe how employment and housing and other inf r astructure are af f ected by the activity Y ou should include in y our analy s is, an economic forecast, em ploy me nt location, and household location, as w e ll as any other pertinent infrastructure inform ation. Y ou should use accepted land use m odels. C h eck w ith y our R e g i onal EPAor D O T office for assistance in determining a m odel a ppropriate to y our area. Many areas use expert j udg ement to estim ate future land use a n d / o r t o determine the assum p tions that underlay m odeling
. EPAw ill accept the use of expert j udg ement for land use assum p tions, how ev er y ou m a y w a nt to adj u st y our estim ates to reflect the confidence y o u hav e in the assum p tions.



### -49

-Step 3: D escribe how you determined the travel activity ef f ects arising f r om the land use activity You should de scribe y our me thodolog y as com p letely as possible. I n form ation norm a lly used in transportation planning analy s is or conformity analy s is should be utiliz ed w h ere it exists so that all assum p tions are consistent. A tthis time, E P Ag e nerally recomme nds that y ou use existing trav el dem a nd m odels to analy z e the im pacts of y our land use activ ities. Howev e r, it m a y be possible to m odify y our trav el d e m a nd m odels to better capture the effects of land use activ ities. I n the study , Ma k i n g the Land Use T

r

ansportation A i r Q uality Conn e c t i o n ( L U T R A Q ) , researchers m odified existing land use and trav el dem a nd m odels to im prov e their ability to forecast the effects of dev e lo p m e n t d e n s i t y and pedestrian- o riented desig n on trav el behav i or. 30 You should consult y our local reg i onal EPA or DOT office to determine w h ich m odels are comm only used or applicable to y our circum stances, and to obtain technical assistance w h en considering m odel m odifications for y our area.. Step 4: D e termine the emissions reductions associated w i th the travel activity ef f ects You should alway s use the latest emissions m odel approv ed by EPA (the latest EMFAC m odeling in C a lifornia, and the latest MO B I LE m odel for all other states). 31 You should alway s use the best data av aila b l e when running the MOBI LE or EMFAC m odel. Local data should be used when av ailable. For v e hicles and/or equipment (e.g . alternativ e fueled v e hicles) not represented in these emission m odels y ou should use reputable data from actual testing prog ram s . Step 5: D e monstrate that the emission reductions are surplus You m u st m ake sure that y our quantification me thodolog y only counts reductions that are surplus. You cannot account for actions or plans that already are included in y our forecast of future emissions for y our SI P or conformity analy s is. T o do so would be double- counting
. E mission reductions used to meet air quality r e q u i r e m e nts are surplus as long as they are not otherwise relied on in y our SI P or other actions already required and accounted for under Federal rules that focus on reducing criteria pollutants or their precursors. Y ou w ill need to coordinate closely w ith other prog ram offices in y our air quality planning section to ensure ag ainst inadv e rtent double- counting (i.e. accounting for land use act i v i t i es that hav e already been accounted for in some other w a y . ) Fo r l a n d u se activ ities, y ou need to pay special attention to the transportation planning and SI P land use assum p tions to ensure that the reductions are abov e and bey ond the existing land use assum p tions. Many factors can influence the accuracy and/or quality of y our predictions of trav el activ ity effects. S o me factors influencing the confidence y ou hav e in y our estim ate include: � A n aly s is z one siz e T h e sm aller the z one, the better able the m odel can predict interactions.

30 For m o r e inf o r m ation on the L U T R A Q s tudya nd m ode l m odif i c ations , v i s it the 1000 Fr ie nds of O r e g on w e b s ite at h t tp : / / www. fr i e n d s . o r g / r e s o u r c e s / l u t

_ r e p o rt s . h t ml
. 31 For m o re inf o rm ation on the MOBIL E m ode l v i sit EP A ’ s Of f i c e of T r a n sportation a nd A i r Qua lityw e b a ddre s s at : h t tp : / / www. e p a . g o v/ o t a q /m o d e l s . h t m . . For m o re inf o rm ation on the EMFA C m ode l, v i sit the Ca lif ornia A i r R e s our c e B o ar d’ s w e b a ddr e s s at: h t tp : / / www. arb
. c a . g o v/ms e i /m s e i
. h t m . 

### -50

-� Socioeconomic and T h e m o re detailed y our data, the m o re accurately y ou can trav el data quality characteriz e the im pacts of y our policy/proj ect. � T h e ag e of y our data. T h e older the data, the less confidence y ou should hav e in y our results. � Mid- course corrections I f there is a mechanism for check ing on the prog ress tow ard com p letion of land use activ ities, y ou m a y hav e better confidence the reductions w ill occur. � Stated enforcement actions I f there are discreet enforcement actions or reme dies to address the likelihood of a proj ect actually occurring , this w ill im pact y our confidence. � Conting e ncy reme dy plans I f y ou hav e a plan to reme dy any shortfalls that m a y occur, this w ill increase the confidence y ou hav e in y our emission estim ates. EPArecomme nds that y ou consider the confidence y ou hav e in y our estim ates w h en accounting for a land use activ ity in the SI P, and that y ou use reasonably conserv a tiv e estim ates of the benefits unless there is a com p rehensiv e prog ram including mi d- course corrections, enforcement, and conting e ncy reme dies. T h e V M E P p o licy w as crafted in part to allow new and innov ativ e prog ram s w ith less establis h e d quantification me thodolog ies to be included in a SI P. Most initial attem p ts to include land use activ ities as control strateg i es in S I P s w ill fall into this categ ory . T h e VMEP policy does not eliminate the need to use the m o st adv a nced quantification techniques w h ere they exist. I f y ou can use existing land use m odels and trav el dem a n d m o d e ls, i.e. the four- s tep process, y o u should do so. For measures that do not lend them selv es to quantification by the four- s tep process y ou can use other reasonable me thodolog ies to quantify the emission benefits. T h ere m a y be cases w h ere a land use activ ity has air quality benefits, but the scale of the activ ity is too sm all to be picked up by a trav el dem a nd m odel. For exam ple, a local g o v e rnme nt m a y adopt a policy requiring mi croscale desig n elements to m ake neig hborhoods m o re bike - and pedestria n - friend l y . W h i l e t h i s p o l i c y m a y hav e air quality benefits (because m o re people could choose to w a lk or bike instead of driv ing a car to m ake short trips), the im pacts of this policy are too sm all to capture in the trav el analy s is z ones analy z ed in the trav el dem a nd m odeling process. I n cas e s w h ere it is not possible to m odel the effects of land use policies and proj ects at a reg i onal lev e l, the emission reductions could be quantified in y our SI P using an offm o d e l t e chnique. Forecasting procedures hav e been dev e loped by some urban areas to account for trav el dem a nd chang es based on mi cro- scale desig n . 32 Howev e r, dev e loping or adopting such procedures m a y not be feasible for all urban areas. O ff- m odel analy ses could be used to estim ate the trav el and emissions im pacts of mi cro- scale desig n, but should be ev aluated and ag reed upon throug h consultation w ith y our EPA reg i onal office.

32 For m o r e inf o r m ation, r e f e r

to the D O Tdr a f t r e port, “ D at a C o lle c tion a nd Mode ling R e quir e me nts f o r

A s s e s s i ng Tr an sp o rt at i o n Im p act s o f M i cro - S cal e Desi gn , ” p r ep ared b yP arso n Bri n k erh o f f Qu ad e & Do u g l a s, Decem b e r 1999 ( D T F H 61- 95- C

- 00168)
. 

### -51

-

### 7. 8 T RA NSPORT A T ION 

### C ONT R OL 

### M EA SURES A S CONT ROL ST RA T E GIES 

### 7. 8. 1 W hat ar e T r anspor t a t i on Cont r o l Measur es? T r ansportation control measures (T C Ms) are measures that are specifically identified and committed to in a S t ate I m plementation P l an(S I P ). Alist of sixteen TC Ms is prov ided in S ection 108(f)(1)(A ) of the C l ean A i r A c t. I n addition, any other measures adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions or concentration of air pollutants from transportation sources by reducing ve h i cle use, chang i ng traffic flow , or mitig ating cong estion conditions m a y be considered T C Ms. T C Ms m a y be v o luntary prog ram s , incentiv es, reg u latory prog ram s , and/or m arket based/pricing prog ram s . N o te that, for t h e purposes of conformity , v e hicle technolog y - based or fuel- b ased measures are not T C Ms. T C Ms m a y be i n cl uded i n a SI P t o dem onstr at e at t a i n me ntof t h e NAAQS. I n ar eas wher e T C Ms ar e included in the SI P, the state or the MPO m u st m ake sure that all T C Ms are funded in a m a nner consistent w ith the SI P’s im plementation schedule. T h e transportation conformity process is desig n ed to ensure timely im plementation of T C Ms, thus reinforcing the link betw een SI Ps and the transportation planning process. I f the im plementation of a T C M is delay e d or if the T C M is only partially im plemented, areas are required to m ake up the shortfall by either substituting a new T C M or other control measures. 

### 7.8.2 H ow are T r ansportation Control Measures and land use activ ities re la te d ? A land use proj ect, such as a site- s pecific land use dev e lopment, g e nerally should not be considered a T C M. H o w e v e r, transportation aspects of specific land use proj ects such as transit stations or bike facilities can be considered T C Ms. 

### E XA M P L ES OF 

### TCM S T H AT SU PPOR T L A N D U SE A C T I VIT I ES 

### : � Parking m a nag e me nt prog ram s � Area- wide ride- s hare incentiv es � I m prov ed public transit � B i cy cle and pedestrian measures � Park

- a nd- ride prog ram s B y desig n ating transportation com ponents of a land use activ ity as T C Ms, the local area prov ides additional ev idence that the ov erall land use activ ity w ill actually occur. T C Ms are supportiv e and com p leme ntary to land use activ ities. T r ansportation proj ects or T C Ms that support land use pr o j e c t s m a y be elig ible for funding under the C ong estion Mitig ation and A i r Q u ality I m prov ement (C MA Q ) prog ram if they meet the funding elig ibility criteria listed in the C M A Q prog ra m gu i d a n ce 33 . T h e CMAQ prog ram was created to prov ide funding for

33 FHWA/FTA, The Cong estion Mitig ation and Air QualityIm prov em ent (CMAQ) Prog ram under the Trans portation EquityA ct f or the 21 st Century(TEA- 21) Prog ram g u idance, April 28, 1999. 

### -52

-transportation proje c t s th at r e du c ee m i s sions in nonattainme nt and m a intenance areas. C ong estion mitig ation i s a n o t h e r g o al of the C M A Q prog ram . C ong estion relief can contribute to air quality im prov emen t s b y reducing trav el delay s , eng i ne idle time, and unproductiv e fuel consum ption. CMAQ funds hav e been used for transportation proj ects that im prov e traffic flow , proj ects that enhance transit, and proj ects that encourag e alternativ es to driv ing alone. The Transportation E quity A c t for the 21 st C e ntury has authoriz ed $8.1 billion for the CMAQ prog ram from 1998 to 2003. T r ansportation proj ects that are included in the SI P as T C Ms and meet the CMAQ criteria are elig ible for CMAQ funding
. Additional inform ation on T C Ms can be found in the following two EPA documents: � “T ransportation Contr o l Measure: State I m plementation Plan G u idance,” EPA450/2- 89

- 020, Septem ber, 1990; and � “T ransportation Control Measure I n form ation D o cume nts, ” EPA400- R- 92- 006, March 1992.



### -53

-

### -54

-

# C HA PTER 

# 8 I NCLUDING LA ND USE POLICIES OR PROJ ECTS IN THE CONFORMITY DETERMINA T ION WITHOUT HA VING THEM IN A 

# SIP 8. 1 W HA TIS A CONFORMIT Y DET E RMINA T ION 

### ?
Aconformity determination is a finding m a de by the me tropolitan planning org a niz a tion (MP O ) or the state departme nt of transportation and then subsequently by th e U.S. DOT (FHWA/FT A) on the transportation plan, T I P, and proj ects in nonattainme nt and m a intenance areas. T h e purpose of a conformity determination is to ensure that future transportation activ ities w ill not: � C r eate a new air quality v i olation; � I n crease the frequency or sev erity of an existing air quality v i olation; or � D e lay timely attainme nt. T r ansportation plans, T I Ps, and proj ects in nonattainme nt and m a intenance areas that are funded or approv ed by the FH WAand FT Am u st be found in conformity w ith the SI P in accordance w ith the requireme nts of the transportation c onformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93). (See section 3.5 for an explanation of plans and T I Ps.) 

### 8. 2 H OW IS CONFORMIT Y DEMONST R A T ED 

### ? Conformity on plans, T I Ps, and proj ects is dem onstrated when the criteria and procedures established in the transportation conformity rule are satisfied. T h e transportation conformity rule requires a reg i onal emissions analy s is be conducted for all non- exem pt proj ects included in the transportation plan and T I P. I n the reg i onal emissions analy s is, the emissions from future transportation activ ities are estim ated or m odeled, j u st as they are w h en creating or rev i sing a S I P ’ s m o tor v e hicle emission budg et(s). T h ese estim ated emissions are com p ared to one of the following : � I f an area has a SI P that est a b l i shes a m o tor v e hicle emissions budg et(s), the estim ated emissions produced by transportation activ ities m u st be s h o w n t o be less than or equal to the budg et(s). � W h e n budg ets aren’t av ailable, the estim ated emissions are com p ared to either emiss i o n s from the “no- build” scenario, and/or emissions from a prior y ear (the specific requireme nts depend on the pollutant and the area’s classification). I n CO and PM- 10 nonattainme nt and m a intenance areas , p r o j e c t lev e l hot- s pot analy s is of localiz ed air quality im pacts are required before the proj ect can be funded or approv ed by FH WAand FT A
.



### -55

-

### 8. 3 D OES T H IS GUI D A N C E I M POSE NEW REQUIREMENT S FOR INCLUDING LA ND USE A C TI V I TI E S I N A C O N F O R M I TY D E TE R M I N A T I O N 

### ? N o, there a r e n o n e w conformity requireme nts created by this g u idance. The intent of this chapter is to g e nerally cap t u r e how land use activ ities are currently being included w ithin conformity determinations. A r eas should use this g u idance as a reference as new land use activ ities are introduced and existing land use activ ities are being im plemented. T h e interag e ncy consultation process should be used to ensure that this g u idance is followed for new conformity determinations. 

### 8. 4 I F 

### I HA VE INCLUDED A LA ND USE A C T I VIT Y IN A 

### SI P, DOES ITHA VE T O BE INCLUDED IN T H E CONFORMIT Y DET E RMINA T ION 

### ? Y es. A n y land use activ ity that w as included in the SI P w ith associated air quality benefits should also be accounted for in subsequent conformity determinations, to the extent that it is being im plemented according to the schedule in the S I P or still scheduled to occur. 

### 8. 5 C AN 

### I A C C O U N TFOR T H E EM ISSIONS BENEFIT S OF LA ND USE A C T I VIT I ES IN A CONFORMIT Y DET E RMINA T ION W I T H OUTHA VING T H EM IN A 

### SI P? Yes. Land use activ ities do not hav e to be included in a SI P. You can account for the emission reductions of a land use activ ity in a c onformity determination, without hav i ng included it in any way in a SI P (see section 93.122(b)(1) of the transportation conformity rule). S e c tion 8.16 of this chapter discusses the adv a ntag es of doing so. 

### 8. 6 H OW ARE LAND USE ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN THE CONFORM ITY DETERM INATION

### ? N o te that this section, as w e ll as sections 8.7 and 8.8, applies to areas that use netw ork

- based trav el m odels for their conformity determinations. See section 8.15 if y our area does not use a network m odel. Land use activ ities can be included in a conformity determination either as land use assumptions or control strategies , depending on the case. B o th land use assum p tions and land use control strateg i es can affect the location o f p opulation and em ploy me nt; their effects on population and em ploy me nt should be integ r ated tog e ther before running the transportation m odel for the reg i onal analy s is. 34 � Land use assumptions: T h e reg i onal emissions analy s is includes land use assum p t i o n s . T h ese land use assum p tions are m a de in the same w a y as those in the initial forecast of the SI P, discussed in chapter 6. Land use assum p tions hav e to be reasonable, based on the best av ailable inform ation, and be consistent with the planned trans portation sy stem , pursuant to sections 93.110 and 93.122 of the conformity rule. � C o ntrol strategies: T h e reg i onal emissions analy s is als o i n c l udes the effects of adopted “control strateg i es.” C ontrol strateg i es are specific strateg i es for reducing emissions. C ontrol strateg i es that ar e included in the conformity determination m u st meet certain requireme nts, discussed below
.

34 T h e c onf or mityru le s t at e s thats e r i ous , s e v e r e , a nd e x tr e me oz one nonatta inme nt ar e a s a nd s e r i ous C O nona tta inme nt ar e a s w ith a n urba niz e d ar e a population ov e r 200,000 m u s tus e a tr a v e l de m a nd m ode l f o r

the i r regi o n a l emi ssi o n s an al y s i s . In ad d i t i o n , an yarea al read yu s i n g a tr avel d e m a n d m o d e l m u stal so u s e i tf o r c onf or mity
. Ar e a s w ithout ne tw ork

- ba s e d tr a v e l m ode ls us e othe r appr opr iate me thods f o r

e s tim ating VMT
. 

### -56

-R e g ardless of w h ether land use activ iti e s a r e c o nsidered land use assum p tions or control strateg i es, there needs to be some ty pe of assurance that the y w ill occur b e f o r e y o u i n c l u d e t h e m i n t h e c o n f o r mi t y determination, and y ou can only include them to the extent that they are being im plemented. T h e ty pe of assurance that is necessary is discussed in the rest of this chapter. 

### 8. 7 W HA TA R E T H E T R A N SPORT A T ION CONFORMIT Y RULE 

### ’ S REQUIREM ENT S FOR LA ND USE A SSUM P T I ONS 

### ? S o me of the land use activ ities hig h lig hted in this g u idance could fall into the catego r y of land use assum p tions. Land use assum p tions are the assum p tions about w h ere future population and em ploy me nt w ill be located w ithin a reg i on. A ccording to the conformity rule, assum p tions m u st be: Reasonable : A r eas hav e to m ake reasonable assum p tions reg ardin g t h e distribution of em ploy me nt and residences in the area (40 CF R93.122(b)(1)(iii)). EPAand D O T believ e that historical trends and recent data should be considered prim ary sources of inform ation from w h ich land use assum p tions should be based and ev aluated. 

### I LLUS T RATION 

### : I S T H ER E A R E A S ON A B L E EXPL A N AT ION F O R T H E A SSU M E D LA ND US E CHA NG E 

### ? � In Chicag o, land us e f orecas ting is done bythe N ortheas tern Illinois P lanning Com m

i s s i on (N IP C), w h o g i v e f orecasts to the Chicag o MPO and air qualityplanning ag encyf or the State of Illinois. Chicag o’s mo s t recent S I P and trans portation plan conf orm itydeterm i nation included as s u m p tions that “ the pas t trends of decentralized land us e would be moderated” -

- that is , there would be increas ed inf ill in the central part of Chicag o. N I P C m a de thes e as s u m p tions bas e d on their j udg ement that the actions alreadyunderw ayand actions likelyto be im plemented w ould contribute to s ubs tantial reinv e s tme nt in exis ting com m

unities and increas ed redev elopment w ould continue to occur. Thoug h thes e as s u m p tions w e re s o me w h at dif f e rent f rom prev i ous as s u m p tions , N I P C prov ided adequate explanation and documentation f or the chang e . In addition, the current land us e plan g e nerallys upported this type of dev elopment and a s ubs tantial amount of inf ill dev elopment w a s alreadyunderw ay . Both EP A and D O T believ ed the as s u m p tions to be reas onable, s o theywere included in the reg i onal em is s i ons analy s i s f or the conf orm itydeterm i nation. � (H ypothetical exam ple)The local g o v e rnm ents of an area are currentlydis c us s i ng w h ether theyw a nt to es tablis h an urban g row th boundary
. M a nyof the local g o v e rnments are w illing to adopt it f or a v ariety of

reas ons , s u ch as s a v i ng f arm land and natural areas
. H o wev e r, s o me of the local g o v e rnments are opposed because theydo not w a nt to lim it additional g row th. The MPO includes the boundaryin the area’s conf orm ityanaly s i s with a com m

itment to its im plementation in the documentation f or the conf orm itydeterm i nation. How e v e r, the MPO’s com m

itm ent isn’t suf f icient f or the assum p tion to be considered reasonable, because ultimatelythe MPO does not hav e authorityov er land use and cannot im plement the boundary
. The urban g row th boundaryhas n’t been adopted byall of the local g o v e rnments ; theref ore, it cannot be included as a com p lete boundaryin the conf orm itydeterm i nation. It could onlybe applied in the s p ecif ic g e og raphic areas that adopted it.



### -57

-“Best and latest available:” A r eas need to use the best, m o st up to date inform ation they hav e about future land use assum p tions. T h e conformity rule states “land use, population, em p l o y m e nt, and other netw ork

based trav el m odel assum p tions m u st be based on the best av ailable inform ation” (40 CFR 93.122(b)(1)(ii)). Conformity determinations “m ust be based upon the m o st recent planning assum p tions in force at the time of the conformity d e t e r m i n a t i o n ” (40 CFR 93.110(a)). Estim ates of current and future population and em ploy me nt are dev e loped by the MPO or other ag encies authoriz ed to m ake such estim ates, and approv ed by the MPO (40 CFR 93.110(b)). 

### I LLUS T RATION 

### : A R E T H E A SSU M P T ION S T H E B EST AV A I L A B L E 

### ? � A rapidlyg row ing area has had a population g row th rate of betw een 2.5 and 4% per y ear ov er the las t ten y ears , and a corres ponding increas e in the num ber of j obs
. The urbanized area has increas ed 80% ov er this sam e period. The MPO assum e s that land w ill be consum ed more slow lyin the f u ture, and f orecas ts that the land cons um ption rate f or the next ten y ears will onlybe half of what it was , reas oning that the current building boom w on’t last f orev e r. This chang e in f u ture land cons um ption rate w ould not be the bes t av ailable as s u m p tion. U n les s there w e re s o me com p elling ev idence f or as s u m i ng that land cons um ption w ill drop (e.g ., the area has adopted an urban g row th boundary ), the bes t av ailable as s u m p tions w ould be bas e d on the mo s t recent trends
. In the s ituation des c ribed here, there is ins u f f icient ev idence to s upport an as s u m p tion that the current trends w on’t continue.
C o n s isten tw i th p l an n e d tran sp ortation system: T h e conformity rule also states that scenarios of land dev e lopment and use m u st be consistent with the future transportation sy stem planned. T h e distribution of em ploy me nt and residences throug hout the area m u st be reasonable g i v e n the transportation netw ork planned (40 C F R93.122(b)(1)(iii)). 

### I LLUS T RATION 

### : I S THE FO RE CA S T E D LA ND US E CO NS I S TE NT W I TH 

### P LA NNE D 

### T RA NS P O RTAT I O N 

### ? � A n area plans to build a new hig h w a ybeltw ay . Theyf orecas t additional population and em ploy me nt to locate around the beltw ayaf ter it is com p leted. Thes e as s u m p tions are cons is tent w ith the trans portation sy stem planned. � A n area plans to build a new trans it line with a s e ries of new trans it s t ops . Theyf orecas t increas ed population and em ploy m e nt around the trans it s t ops . Thes e as s u m p tions w ould be cons is tent w ith the new trans portation proj ect planned, particularly if

other actions , s u ch as policies to f acilitate trans itoriented dev elopm ent, are adopted to encourag e dev elopm ent around transit. � In the exam ple abov e, the transit stops w ill not be com p leted f or 10 y ears, but the MPO f orecasts increas ed population and em ploy me nt around the trans it s t ops in f i v e y ears . Thes e as s u m p tions could not be us ed becaus e theyare incons is tent w ith the planned trans portation s y s tem , unles s there w e re other adopted policies to encourag e dev elopment in thes e areas bef ore the trans it s t ops are built.



### -58

-

### 8. 8 H O W A R E T H E LA ND USE A SSUM P T I ONS IN A CONFORM I T Y DET E RM INA T ION REVIEW ED 

### ? T h e interag e ncy consultation process should be used to ev aluate and choose the assum p tions to be used in the reg i onal emissions analy s is for conformity
. 35 R e g ardless of w h ether land use m odeling or best j udg me nt of planners is used to arriv e at w h at future land use w ill be, the interagency consultation partners should a g ree th a tth e a ssu mp tio n s a re rea so n a b l e, b est avai l a ble, a n d co n s isten tw i th th e tra n sp o r ta tio n system planned
. See the abov e exam ples for determining appropriateness of assum p tions. A s stated prev iou s ly , land use assum p tions hav e to be based on the latest and best av ailable inform ation. K eeping this requireme nt in mi nd, w e w ould expect that land use assum p tions m a de for a conf o r m i t y determination w ould be g e nerally consistent w ith the trends assume d in the pr e v i o u s conformity determination or those included in a recently submitted S I P
. T h is expectation is a result of the fact that land use trends can chang e slow ly
. I f the trends are similar to those from the prev ious conformity determination or a recently submitted SI P, no additional assurance about assum p tions is probably necessary . T h e fact that the trends are similar is, in effect, assurance that the assum p tions m a de are reasonable, and likely to occur. H o w e v e r, if land use assum p tions are radically diffe r e n t f r o m historical trends reflected in prev ious assum p tions, the consultation process should be used to determine w h y these assum p tions are appropriate. T h e conformity determination w ould hav e to document and explain w h y the assum p tions are appropriate. T h e documentation should be m a de av ailable for public comme nt during t h e conformity determination process. I f t h e c o n f o r m ity documentation doesn’t prov ide a reasonable explanation, then the conformity determination w ill be closely scrutiniz ed, and m a y not be approv ed. I n subsequent conformity determi n a tions, land use assum p tions should be reev aluated throug h the interag e ncy consultation process. I f a conformity determination’s land use assum p tions differ sig n ificantly from past trends, the interag e ncy consultation parties should pay cl o s e attention to land use assum p tions m a de in subsequent conformity determinations. Assum p tions can only continue to be used to the extent they are being im plemented or still on schedule as planned. 

### 8. 9 W HA TA R E CONT ROL ST RA T E GIES 

### ? A control strateg y is a proj ect, prog ram , or activ ity undertaken for the purpose of reducing the am ount or the concentration of emissions. F o r exam ple, some cities use reform ulated g asoline as a strateg y for controlling m o tor v e hicle emissions
. O t her exam ples of control strateg i es are retrofitting heav y duty diesel truck s to produce less emissions, increased prov ision of transit, and comm u ter choice prog ram s . L a nd use activ ities can also be control strateg i es. (T he term “control strateg i es” is not sy nony m ous w ith the term “transportation control measures.” See section 7.8 for m o re about transportation control measures.)

35 I n te r a g e nc yc ons ultation is r e quir e d bythe c onf or mityru le ( 40 C F R93.105)
. For m o r e inf o r m ation on inte r a g e nc yc ons ultation, v i s it the FH W Adoc ume n t, “ T r a ns portation C onf or mity : AB a s i c Gu ide f o r

Stat e a n d L o cal Of f i ci al s” at h t tp : / / www. fh wa . d o t . g o v/ e n v i r o n me n t / c o n f o r mi t y / b a s i c

_ g d
. h t m .


### -59

-

### 8. 10 W HA TA R E T H E CONFORMIT Y RULE 

### ’ S REQUIREMENT S FOR CONT ROL ST RA T E GIES 

### ? B asically , control strateg i es m u st be committed to by the appropriate j u risdiction before they can be included in the reg i onal analy s is for a conformity determination. I n 40 CFR 93.122(a)(3) and (4), the rule states that: � I f the control strateg y requires reg u latory action to be im plemented or undertaken, it can be included in a conformity determination if:
• t he reg u latory action is already adopted by the enforcing j u risdiction;
• t he strateg y has been included in an approv ed SI P; or
• t here is a w r itten commitment to im plement the strateg y in the submitted S I P
. � I f the control strateg y is not included in the transportation plan and T I P o r t h e S I P , and it does not need a reg u latory a c t i on to be im plemented, then it can be included in the conformity determination’s r e gi o n al emissions analy s is if the conformity determination contains a w r itten commitment to im plement it from the appropriate entities. A s is the case w ith land use assum p tions, the conformity analy s is can only account for approv ed control strateg i es to the extent that they are being im plemented. 

### 8. 11 H OW DO 

### I DET E RMINE W H ET HER A LA ND USE A C T I VIT Y IS A LA ND USE A SSUMPT I ON OR A CONT ROL ST RA T E GY 

### ? We realiz e that it m a y be difficult to d e t e r m i n e wh e t h e r a land use activ ity is a land use assum p tion or a control strateg y . I n g e neral, if a land use activ ity is adopted and im plem ented abov e and bey ond what has already been included in the land use assum p tions, and emissions benefits hav e been identified for the s p e c i f i c activ ities, itc a n b e r e g ar d e da s ac o n tr o l s tr a t e g y . A n o t h e rc o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a tm a y h e l p c l ar i f y w h ether a land use activ ity is a land use assum p tion or a control strateg y is its purpose: � I s the prim ary purpose of the land use activ ity to im prov e air quality ? I f so, it likely falls into the categ ory of control strateg y . � I s the prim ary purpose of the land use activ ity to reduce emissions for conformity analy ses? I f so, it likely falls into the categ ory of control strateg y . T h ese questions are only intended to be g u idelines. Y ou should discuss the decisi o n wi t h the other participants in the interag e ncy consultation process if y ou hav e doubt about w h ich categ ory fits a particular proj ect or policy best. R e g ardless of w h ether y ou call a land use activ ity an assum p tion or a control strateg y , it has to be based in reality – if y our land use forecast differs sig n ificantly from the pas t t r e n d s , there m u st be adequate j u stification for the chang e .



### -60

-

### 8. 12 W HA TA R E SOM E EXA M P LES OF LA ND USE A C T I V I T I E S T H A TFITIN EA CH CA T E GORY 

### ? I tis not alw a y s easy to determine into w h ich categ ory a land use activ ity w ould fit. Either categ ory could be appropriate, depending on the circum stances. B e low are some exam ples to illustrate this point. E x amples of L a nd U se A ssumptions: Urban Grow t h B o undary: � I n recent y ears, the local g o v e rn m e nts that m ake up the D e nv er reg i on hav e ag reed to an urban g r owth boundary
. Approxim a tely 85% of the local g o v e rnme nts hav e sig n ed form al ag reements to adhere to this boundary
. T h e others hav e v e rbally ag reed to com p ly
. I n this case, the com b ination of w r itten and v e rbal ag reements satisfies the requireme nt that the urban g r ow th boundary is a “best av ailable” land use assum p tion. A lthoug h this assum p tion w as new , there w as sufficient ev idence to document that all of the local g o ve r n m e nts are im plementing the boundary , and therefore we consider it an appropriate assum p tion to m ake . T h e consultation process w ill be used to rev i ew the im plementation of the boundary for future conformity determinations. T r ansit Oriented D e velopment (Hypothetical ex ample) � A n area decides to accomm odate future g r ow th along a particular corridor, currently ag ricult u r al land, and they include funding to build a lig ht rail line and stations in their transportation plan and T I P. T h roug h the consultation process, the area decides to concentrate hig h er density dev e lopment around these stations. T h ey include an explanation and appropriate documentation in the conformity determination that the local go ve r n m e n t s hav e ag reed to the approach and hav e committed to a sc h e d u l e for chang i ng their z oning to m ake it occur on the timeline assume d in the conformity analy s is. T h e explanation is supported with details from the local g o v e rnme nts’ economic g r owth and incentiv e plans. I n this hy pothetical exam ple, the transit oriented dev e lopment could be a land use planning assum p tion: it is based on reason a b l e inform ation and the land use scenario is consistent w ith the planned transportation infrastructure. B ecause the plan to focus dev e lopment w as discussed and ag reed to throug h the consultation process and documented i n t h e c o n f o r mity determination, the assum p tion could be included in the emissions analy s is for conformity
.



### -61

-E x amples of L a nd U se C o ntrol Strategies: Urban Grow t h B o undary: � I n 1973, the State of O r eg on passed a planning statute that requires local g o v e rnme nts to establish an urban g r ow th boundary
. Because of this law and its im plementation, Portland’s MPO can include t h e u r b a n gr o w th boundary as a control strateg y in the emissions analy s is done for their SI Ps and conformity determinations, because the statute is in place and is being im plemented. P a rking R e quirements � A n area decides they w a nt to set a m a xim u m on the am ount of park ing that can be built for new residential or comme rcial dev e lopment . B e f o r e t h e effects of the park ing requireme nt could be included in an emissions analy s is for a conformity determination, it would hav e to be adopted by the j u risdiction that has the pow er to enforce it. T r ansit Oriented D e velopment (Hypothetical ex amples): � (1) A n area decides to acc o m m o d a te future g r ow th along a particular corridor, currently a low density comme rcial one, and the transportation plan and T I P includes the funding to build a lig ht rail line and stations along this corridor. Howev e r, the local g o v e rnme nts hav e not y e t take n any actions to im plement transit- oriented dev e lopment along this corridor. � (2) A n area decides to accomm odate future g r ow th along a particular corridor. C u rrently , a lig ht rail line already exists in this corridor but because there is low density dev e lopment surrounding it, the lig ht rail line i s underutiliz ed. H o w e v e r, the local g o v e rnme nts hav e not y e t take n any actions to im plement transit- oriented dev e lopment along this corridor. I n these tw o hy pothetical exam ples, rather than conv erting undev e loped l a n d to hig h density dev e lopment, the area w oul d b e r e d e v e loping an existing corridor. I n these cases, w e m a y not consider transit- oriented dev e lopment to be a planning assum p tion. Ag r eater am ount of political w ill w ould be needed for the planned chang es to take place, and therefore w e w ould w a nt a g r eater deg r ee of commitment to ensure that the dev e lopment occurs. I n these ty pes of cases, EPAw ould reg ard transit- oriented dev e lopment a s a c o n t r o l strateg y that would need to be adopted by the e n f o r c i n g j u risdictions -

- the local g o v e rnme nts -
- before it could be included in an emissions analy s is for a conformity determination. 

### 8. 13 W HA TIS 

### “ DOUBLE COUNT ING 

### ?” EPAw a nts to ensure that areas do not count the effects of a land use activ ity tw ice. A r eas m u st be sure that what they are including in the conformity determination has not already been included in some other way . Aparticular land use activ ity could be included either as an assum p tion or as a control strateg y , but not as bothan assum p tion and as a control strateg y since that w ould be counting it tw ice. Similarly , an area should include either the effects of a land use policy , or the effects of the indiv i dual proj ects that happen as a result of that policy
. I tshould not count both the policy and its resulting proj ects since that w ould be counting the effects tw ice. For exam ple, suppose a me tropolitan reg i on adopts a p o licy to g i v e incentiv es to dev e lopers for building infill dev e lopment in dow ntow n. The area can then include the likely results of that policy into the land use assum p tions for the conformity determination, such as increased population and em ploy me nt in the z ones that w o u l d be affected by the policy
. Once that is done, howev er, it would not be appropriate to add new population and em ploy me nt for the indiv i dual dev e lopments that occur as a result of that policy
. T h at would be double counting , because the new population and em ploy me nt that result from the indiv i dual proj ects hav e already been accounted for in the conformity determination when the policy was included.


### -62

-Like w i se, if instead yo u h a ve a l ready included the effects of an enorm ous new dev e lopment into the conformity determination, it w o uld not be appropriate to also include the effects of the policy that caused the specific dev e lopment to occur. Either the effects of one or the other should be counted, but not both. 

### 8. 14 W HA TIF A LA ND USE A C T I VIT Y IS T OO SM A LL T O HA VE A N IM PA CTON T H E OUT C OM E OF T R A VEL DEMA ND MODELING 

### ? There m a y be some land use activ ities that hav e an air quality benefit, but their effects are too sm all to be picked up by a trav el dem a nd m odel. I n cases w h e r e i t i s n o t p o s s i ble to m odel the effects of land use policies and proj ects at a reg i onal lev e l, the emissions reductions could be quantified in y our con f o r m i t y determination using an off- m odel technique. Forecasting procedures hav e been dev e loped by some urban areas to account for trav el dem a nd chang es based on mi cro- scale desig n 36

. Howev e r, dev e loping or adopting such procedures m a y not be feasible for all urban areas. O ff- m odel analy ses could be used to estim ate the trav el and emissions im pacts of mi cro- scale desig n, but should be ev al u a t e d a n d a g reed upon throug h interag e ncy consultation of the MP O , state and local air quality planning ag enc i e s , s t a t e and local transportation ag encies, EPA, and DOT
. 

### 8. 15 W HA TIF OUR A R EA DOESN 

### ’ TUSE A T R A VEL DEMA ND MODEL FOR T R A N SPORT A T ION PLA NNING 

### ? T h ere are some a r e as that are not required to use trav el dem a nd forecasting m odels. I n these areas, the emission reductions associated w ith land use activ ities could be quantified in y our conformity determination using a nother technique, consistent with 40 CFR 93.122(c), and be chosen throug h the interag e ncy consultation process. H o w e v e r, land use assum p tions m u st still be reasonable, based on the best av ailable inform ation, a n d c o n s istent with planned transportation. Land use control strateg i es m u st meet the requireme nts outlined abov e. 

### 8. 16 W HA TA R E T H E A D VA NT A G ES OF A CCOUNT ING F O R LA ND USE A C T I VIT I ES IN T H E CONFORMIT Y DET E RMINA T ION W I T H OUTHA VING T H EM IN T H E 

### SI P? First, conformity determinations offer m o re opportunities to account for land use activ ities as they happen. C onformity m u st b e r e d e t e rmined at least ev ery three y ears. I n contrast, SI Ps are g e nerally prepared at a sing le tim e. (Rev isions can be m a de to a SI P at a later date, and y ou m a y be required to m onitor and ev aluate prog ram s and m a ke corrections.) Second, a conformity determination look s at the effects of the land use and transportation sy stem m a ny m o re y ears into the future, because it m u st examine the life of the transportation plan. 37 This is in contrast to S I P s : attainm e nt dem onstrations o n l y l o o k a s far as the attainm e nt date, w h ich is at m o st 7 y ears in the future; m a intenance plans require m a intenance of the standards for tw o consecutiv e tim e periods of 10 y ears each. I tm a y take m o re than 10 y ears f o r l a n d u s e policies or proj ects to hav e an im pact on trav el decisions and therefore air quality ; the conformity determination look s at a time frame in w h ich y ou can see their effects. T h ird, an MPO mi g h t prefer to hav e effects of land use activ ities in a conformity determination that hav e n’t

36 For m o r e inf o r m ation, r e f e r

to the D O Tdr a f t r e port, “ D at a C o lle c tion a nd Mode ling R e quir e me nts f o r

A s s e s s i ng Tr an sp o rt at i o n Im p act s o f M i cro - S cal e Desi gn , ” p r ep ared b yP arso n Bri n k erh o f f Qu ad e & Do u g l a s, Decem b e r 1999 ( D T F H 61- 95- C

- 00168)
. 37 DOT ’s me tropolita n pla nning re g u lations re quire pla n s to ha v e atle a s t a 20 y e ar pla nning horiz on. Some ar e a s a dopt tr a n s portation pla n s thatc o v e r m o r e tha n 20 y e ar s . T h e pla n s m u s tbe update d e v e r y th ree y ears. 

### -63

-been accounted for in the SI P. T h ese reductions are then “surplus” to the SI P and could be used to offset the emission- creating effects of other proj ects in the transportation plan. Finally , another adv a ntag e of including land use activ ities in conformity rather than in a SI P is the ease of accomm odating chang es in the land use activ ity
. I f the features of the land use activ ity p r o duce few e r emissions than orig inally expected, or if the activ ity becomes delay e d, the chang e w ould sim p ly need to be reflected in the next conformity determination. You wouldn’t hav e the problem of hav i ng to m ake up a SI P “shortfall”-

- that is, y ou would not hav e to rev i sit y our SI P to m ake up the emissions reductions. Howev e r, y ou would hav e to rev i sit and rev i se y our transportation plan and T I P and m ake up the reductions from these prog ram s unless other ag reements are reached w ith the state air ag ency . Y ou w ould also need to be sure that the activ ity is correctly reflected in the next conformity determination.



### -64

-

# C HA PTER 

# 9 A DDITIONA L CONSIDERA T IONS WHEN A CCOUNTING FOR LA ND USE A C TIVITIES IN THE 

# SIP OR THE CONFORMITY PROCESS 9. 1 H OW CA N 

### I DET E RMINE W H ET HER OR NOTMY LA ND USE A C T I VIT I ES MIGHT HA VE A I R Q U A LIT Y BENEFIT S 

### ? S ke t c h p l a n n i n g te c h n i q u e s c a n b e v e r y u s e f u l in h e lp in g y o u id e n tify the land us e a c tiv itie s y o u w a n tto im plement. Sketch planning tools m a y allow y ou to determine the relativ e m a g n itude of emission reductions. T h ese techniques are likely to require few e r resources and less time th a n a S I Pquality estim ate for each policy or proj ect. T h is lev e l of quantification can be particularly useful if y ou are com p aring two or m o re policies or proj ects to determine the appropriate one(s) to im plement. 

### EPA ’ S 

### S MA RT 

### G ROW T H 

### I NDEX EP A ’ s S m art G row th Index (S G I) is a s ketch model that ev aluates trans portation and land us e alternativ es and as s e s s e s their im pact on trav el dem a nd, land cons um ption, hous ing and em ploy m e nt density , and pollution em issions using g e og raphic inf ormation sy stem (GIS) technolog y . S G I g e nerates predictions that can help localities unders tand the env i ronmental im plications of dif f e rent dev elopment plans
. It is intended as a planning s upport tool. In particular, S G I has been dev eloped in res pons e to expres s i ons of need f or s i m p lif ied s cenario- tes ting tools that can be applied rapidlyand inexpens iv elyin areas that do not hav e acces s to s ophis ticated land us e or trans portation planning models s u ch as ITLU P or TRANUS, or that w i sh to perf orm quick sketches prior to apply i ng such models. A s a s ketch tool, S G I has lim itations that need to be clearlyunders tood bypros pectiv e us ers . It is not: � A hig h lytechnical model, such as TRANUS or ITLUP, that attem pts to sim u late integ rated land us e/trans portation dy nam ics w ith a hig h deg r ee of m athem atical precis ion, es peciallyf or reg u latorycom p liance or m a j or inv e s tme nt ev aluation purposes. � A land econom ics model that cons iders land price ef f ects on g row th patterns
. � A calibrated trans portation planning model s u itable f or ev aluating m a j o r trans portation s y s tem im prov ement alternativ es . � A traf f ic eng i neering or hig h waydes i g n model.
S G I does borrow or adapt certain elements and methods f rom thes e and other place- m ak i ng tools , but its lim itations need to be recog n ized. Ideally , the us e of S G I as a prelim inary ev aluation tool w ill lead to j u s tif ication and res ources f or adv a nced analy s i s w ith the types of tools described abov e. Howev e r, the results of sketch planning are g e nerally not rig o rous eno u g h f o r u s e a s SI P or conformity quantification tools. Y ou do not necessarily need to perform “S I P quality ” quantification for the quantification to be useful. Y o u 

### -65

-m a y determine for some reason that y ou do not w a n t o r n e ed to explicitly include a land use activ ity as a control strateg y in the air quality planning process, or sim p ly , y ou m a y be try i ng some thing new , w h ich y o u cannot quantify with relativ e certainty
. I f y ou determine that a land use activ ity is directionally beneficial, y ou m a y decide it is w o rth im plementing
. Y ou m a y find that y ou are able to m o re accurately quantify the benefits of the land use activ ity after y ou hav e had some experience im plementing it. Many areas hav e included control strateg i es in their SI P, w i t hout explicitly accounting for emissions benefits from them , as measures that w ill assist in meeting or m a intaining air quality standards. For m o re inform ation on av ailable sketch m odeling tools that can be used at the state and local lev e ls, and an analy s is of the ease or difficulty of their use, see EPA 600/R- 00/098, “Proj ecting Land U se Chang e : A Summ ary of Models for A ssessing the Effects of C o mm unity G r ow th and C h ang e on Land use Patterns.” 

### 9. 2 H O W W ILL T H E T I M E FRA M E FO R IM PLEM ENT I NG T H E LA ND USE A C T I VIT I ES A FFECT W H ICH A CCOUNT ING OPT I ON 

### I CHOOSE 

### ? A r eas that are desig n ated nonattainme nt hav e a defined period of time to reach their air qua lity g o a l s . Depending on the land use activ ity y ou are im plementing , y ou m a y find that the benefits won’t occur until after y ou are required to attain. For exam ple, in a reg i on that has been experiencing considerable spraw l

- t y p e dev e lopment ov er m a ny y ears, land use policy actions to encourag e hig h density , mi xed use dev e lopment in existing urban cores m a y take ten to 20 y ears to hav e an sig n ificant im pact on dev e lopment trends and emissions from m o tor v e hicle trav el. T h erefore, if y our attainme nt date w as less than ten y ears from now , it m a y not be beneficial to include these land use activ ities as control strateg i es in y our attainme nt SI P. H o w e v e r, y ou m a y w i sh to include these land use activ ities in the SI P without quantify i ng emissions reductions for th e m . M a n y a r e as hav e included control strateg i es in their SI P, w ithout explicitly accounting for emissions benefits from them , as measures that w ill assist in meeting or m a intaining air quality standards. T o do so m a y allow y ou to hig h li gh t y our land use activ ities and help ensure that the control strateg i es are supported by all lev e ls of g o v e rnme nt. I n cases w h ere land use activ ities are not expected to achiev e emissions reduct i ons w ithin the attainme nt S I P ’ s time frame , but are expected to achiev e emissions reductions in the future, these land use activ ities could be included in a future m a intenance plan SI P. T h e m a intenance period is 20 y ears, cov e red by two teny ear m a intenance plans (the second is submitted eig h t y ears after the first). A lternativ ely , y ou m a y choose to take account of the land use activ ity in a conformity determination, which inv o lv es a planning horiz on of at least 20 y ears. While m a ny policy decisions t ake long periods of time to y i eld emission reductions, specific proj ects initiated by priv ate dev e lopers and financial institutions m a y occur m o re rapidly
. F o r exam ple, numerous dev e lopers are building housing comm unities, office com p lexes, and shopping centers w h ich build in principles such as hig h density , orientation near public transit, reducing the num ber of park ing spaces, and desig n ing streets and buildings t o e n c o u r ag e w a lk ing
. T h ese specific proj ects m a y y i eld localiz ed emission benefits in a shorter time frame than reg i onal policies. Proj ects that are larg e scale or that are constructed in phases w ould take a long er time to show benefits. Acom b ination of sh o r t
- term localiz ed proj ects and long er- t erm , reg i onal policy , incentiv e, and education strateg i es is the best approach to creating sig n ificant benefits.



### -66

-

### 9. 3 W HA TOT HER IM PORT A N TISSUES SHOULD 

### I B E AW AR E O F I N Q U AN T I F Y I N G AI R Q U A LIT Y BENEFIT S 

### ? T h ere are a num ber of additional issues y ou should consider w h en quantify i ng the air quality benefits of land use policies and proj ects. T h ese include: � T h e sy nerg istic or antag onistic interactions between policies and proj ects; � Deciding whether to quantify the benefits of policies and proj ects indiv i dually , or with other policies and proj ects; � Ensuring that y our estim ates are conserv a tiv e enoug h, and the potential consequences of not being conserv a tiv e; and � T h e effect of the scale of y our proj ect on the uncertainty associated w ith y our estim ate of emissions reductions. 

### 9.3.1 A ccounting for interactions betw een land use activ ities R e lationships betw een land use and trav el are com p lex. Land use activ ities m a y interact w ith each other, either enhancing the emissions reductions they achiev e , or in s o m e c a ses dimi nishing the beneficial effects. For exam pl e, mi croscale chang es such as adding sidew a lk s and bike paths m a y not be enoug h by them selv e s to alter v e hicle ownership or m ode choice if the reg i on is larg ely v e hicle- oriented. A com b ination of actions, such as mi xed- use dev e lopment, increased access to transit, and pedestrian im prov ements, m a y y i eld m o re success in shifting trav el activ ity from v e hicles to other m odes. I n addition, in areas w h ere cong estion is a current problem , increased density of dev e lopment m a y y i eld increases in localiz ed emissions. I t is im portant to consider the potential interactions of certain land use activ ities w ith other control strateg i es, or with current conditions when y ou are quantify i ng the emission effects. 

### 9.3.2 Q uantify ing land use activ ities indiv i dually or as a group C a lculating the emission benefits of land use control strateg i es tog e ther can result in few e r m odeling steps. I f y ou m odel sev eral strateg i es tog e ther, y ou w ill need to calculate an initial forecast of future emissions w ithout the land use activ ities, and com p are that to a calculation of the emissions w ith all of the land use activ ities included. Q u antify i ng the effects of land use activ ities tog e ther w ill likely better capture the interactions and sy nerg ies produced by sev eral land use policies or proj ects. I f

y o u m o d e l l a n du s e a c t i v i t i e s i n d i v i d u a l l y , y ou w ill need t o ru n as e p ar a t e c a l c u l a t i o n f o r each activ ity
. I n order to take into account the interactiv e effects described abov e, w h enev er feasible, y o u should run the m odel accounting for prev iously m odeled land use activ ities in y our baseline. T h at is , y ou shoul de s tim a t e th e b e n e fits o f la n du s e a c tiv itie s in as e r ie s , c o n ti nuously building on prev ious land use activ ities. By determining the explicit a m ount of emissions reduced by a sing le land use activ ity , y ou can determine the air quality benefits of that control strateg y and the cost effectiv eness of pursuing it. This w ill allow y ou to com p are sev eral land use c o n trol strateg y options in term s of emission reductions and cost effectiv eness. I n add i t i on, by g o in g th ro u g h th e p r o cess o f calcu latin g th e benefits of the control strateg y , y ou are l i k e l y t o ga in m o re insig h t into how the land use control strateg y is w o rk ing
. C a lculating a specific benefit for the control strateg y can also help explain the 

### -67

-effectiv eness of the control strateg y to the public. This can be particularly im portant if quantify i ng the control strateg y ’ s effectiv eness is needed for it to be adopted. 

### 9. 3. 3 U si ng conser v a t i v e est i m at es Modeling the air quality im pacts of land use activ ities is an inherently uncertain process, and it is im portant that y ou are confident in the emissions benefits that y ou account for in a SI P or conformity d e termination. I f y ou ov erestim ate the emission reductions for land use activ ities, y ou ultim ate l y m a y not meet the air quality standards. I f a land use activ ity does not result in the expected emission benefits, y ou w ill hav e to find new reductions to m ake up the shortfall. 

### 9. 3. 4 T aki ng i n t o account t he scal e oft he l and use act i v i t y Land use and transportation m odels are likely to m o re accurately predict the benefits of a land use proj ect or land use policy w h en its im pact is larg e i n s c a l e. For larg er- scale proj ects, the law of av erag es w ill tend to ev en out outly ing discrepancies, w h ereas sm aller- scale proj ects w ill be m o re affected by indiv i dual v ariation. You need to be aware that for v e ry sm all proj ects and policies, the inherent errors in the m o d e l i n g c a n ev en be g r eater than the m odeled emission benefits of the proj ect. T h e scale of the proj ect can therefore g r eatly im pact the confidence lev e ls of the m odeling , and thus the am ount of emissions reductions y ou claim
. 

### 9. 4 H O W W ILL 

### EPA A SSIST M E W I T H Q U A N T IFICA T IO N 

### ? S t aff in y our E P A reg i onal office w ill w o rk w ith y ou to ensure t h a t t h e quantification of y our land use a c t iv ities w ill meet all the applicable statutory and reg u latory requireme nts for inclusion in the SI P o r conformity determination. B e y ond the g e neral g u idelines contained wi t h i n t h is g u idance docum ent, EPA is dev e loping additional g u id a n c e d o c u me n ts o u tlin in g q u a n tific a tio n me t hodolo g ie s fo r in d i v i d u a l ty p e s o f la n du s e a c tiv itie s to assist y ou in addressing quantifica t i o n i s s u e s specific to those policies and proj ects. T h e first of these g u idanc e documents, “C om paring Methodolog ies to A ssess T r ansportation and A i r Q u ality I m pacts of B r ow nfields and I n fill D e v e lopment” (EPA231- R

- 01- 001) focuses on quantify i ng the benefits of infill dev e lopment and brow nfield redev e lopment for S I P purposes. E P A w ill continue to dev e lop quantification me thodolog ies, and w ill release other policy

- specific g u idance documents ov er time, and these m a terials w ill be m a de av ailable v i a the follow i ng w e b address: ht tp : / / www.epa.g o v/ om s/tr ansp/tr aqsusd.ht m I n addition, y ou m a y find the follow i ng resources useful: � U
. S. EPA , 1997. Ev aluation of Modeling T ools for A ssessing Land U se Policies a n d Strateg i es, EPA420- R- 97- 007. U
. S. Env i ronmental Protection A g ency , O ffice of Mobile Sources, A nn A rbor, MI
. � U
. S. EPA , 2000. Proj ecting Land- U se Chang e : ASumm ary of Models for A ssessing the Effects of Comm unity Growth and Chang e on Land- Use Patterns. EPA 600- R- 00- 098. U.S. Env i ronmental Protection A g ency , O ffice of R esearch and D e v e lopment, C i ncinnati, O H
. � U
. S. D O T , 2000. D a ta Collection and Modeling Requireme nts for A ssessin gTr an s p o r tation I m pacts of Microscale D esig n. Parsons, B r inke rhoff, Q u ade & D oug las, I n c. for U S D e partme nt of T r ansportation, Washing t on, D C
. � N a tional Cooperativ e H i g h wa y R esearch Prog ram , 1999. N C H R P 423 Land U se I m pacts of T r ansportation: AG u idebook
. N a tional A cadem y Press. 

### -68

-� T r ansit Coope r a t i v e R esearch Prog ram , 1999. Report 48-

- T CRP Web D o cume nt 9: I n teg r ated U rb an Models for S i m u lation of Transit and L a nd- U se P o licies: F i nal R e port by E r ic J
. Miller, D a v i d S
. Kr ig er, and J ohn Doug las Hunt; Univ ersity of T o ront o J o i n t P r og ram in T r ansportation and DELCAN Corporation, Sponsored by the Federal T r ansit Admi nistration (FT A ). Nationa l Academy Press. � U.S. DOT , February 1995. T r av el Model I m prov ement Prog ram - Urban Desig n, T e lecomm u ting , and T r av el Forecasting

- Conference Proceeding s , Final report D O T

- T

- 96- 09, Final Report. � U.S. DOT , J u ly 1998. T r av el Model I m prov ement Prog ram - Land Use Com p endium
. DOT

- T

- 99

- 03. Eng e lke, L. T e xas T r ansportation I n stitute. � U
. S. D O T , J u n e 2000. T r av el Model I m prov ement Prog ram - Land U se Forecasting Studies. Parsons, B r inke rhoff, Q u ade & D oug las, I n c. for U
. S. D O T , Washing t on D
. C
. � U
. S. EPA , 2000. A i r Q u ality I m pacts of reg i onal Land U se Policies. R obert A
. J ohnson, U n iv ersity o f

California; J ohn E. Abraham , Univ ersity of Calg ary , for the US Env i ronmental Prote c t i o n A g ency .



### -69

-

# S ECTION 

# 3 : A PPENDICES Sect i on 3 prov i des a v a ri et y of addi t i onal resources t o support users of t h i s gui dance.
A ppendi x A Exampl es of Land Use Pol i c i es and St rat egi es ................... A- 1 A ppendi x B Rel a t ed I n t e rnet Web Si t e s .................................... B - 1 A ppendi x C Rel a t ed Work Ef f o rt s ........................................ C - 1 A ppendi x D G l ossary of T e rms ........................................... C - 1 A ppendi x E Li st of A c rony ms ........................................... D - 1 A ppendi x F Ref e rences t o Rel e v ant Pol i c i es, G u i dance Document s, and G eneral I n f o r m a t i o n S o u r c e s ......................................... E - 1 A ppendi x G Regi onal and St at e Cont act s .................................. F - 1

# A PPENDIX 

# A E XA M P LES OF LA ND USE POLICIES A N D STRA TEGIES T h is list of exam ples of land use strateg i es and policies has been borrowed from a J une, 1995 report by J H K & A ssociates for the C a lifornia A i r R esources B o ard entitled, “T ransportation- R e lated L a nd U s e Strateg i es to Minimi z e Mobile Source Emissions: A n I ndirect Source R esearch Study .” T h is report is av ailable on the U.S. Departme nt of Energ y ’ s “Sustainable Dev e lopments website at ht tp : / / www.sust ai nabl e.doe.g ov/pdf / arb

- r epor t / arb

- o v e r v i e w.ht m Some ex amples of L a nd U se Strategies include: � C oncentrated activ ity centers: E ncourag e pedestrian and transit trav el by creating “nodes” of hig h density mi xed dev e lopment, that can be m o re easily linke d by a transit netw ork
. � Strong downtowns: E ncourag e pedestrian and transit trav el by m ak i ng the central business district a special ki nd of concentrated activ ity center, that can be the focal point for a reg i onal transit sy stem . � Mixed- use dev e lopment: Encourag e pedestrian and transit trav el by locating a v ariety of com p atible land uses w ithin w a lking distance of each other. � I n fill and densification: E n courag e pedestrian and transit trav el by locating new dev e lopment in already dev e loped areas, so that activ ities are closer tog e ther. � I n creased density near transit stations: E ncourag e transit trav el by increasing dev e lopment density w ithin w a lk ing distance (0.25 to 0.50 miles) of hig h capacity transit stations, and incorporate direct pedestrian access. � I n creased density near transit corridors: Encourag e transit trav el by increasing dev e lopment density w ithin w a lk ing distance (0.25 to 0.50 miles) of a hig h capacity transit corridor. � P e destrian and bicy cle facilities: E n courag e pedestrian and bicy cle trav el by increasing sidew a lk s, paths, crossw alk s , protection from fast v e hicular traffic, pedestrian- activ ated traffic sig n als, and shading
.



### A-1� I n terconnected street netw ork : Encourag e pedestrian and bicy cle trav el by prov iding m o re direct routes between locations. Also, allev i ate traffic cong estion by prov iding m

u ltiple routes betw een orig ins and destinations. � Strateg i c park ing facilities: Encourag e non- autom obile m odes of transit by limiting the park ing supply , and encourag e carpooling by reserv i ng parking close to building s for carpools and v a npools. Some ex amples of L a nd U se P o lices include: Encourag e focused hig h er density by : � A llow i ng transfer of unused dev e lopment density capacity in outly ing areas to permit dev e lopment density abov e m a xim u m limits near central areas and transit (z oning/reg ulations and non- m onetary incentiv es); � A llow i ng increased density for residential, retail, and em ploy me nt g e nerating uses in central areas and around transit (z oning /reg ulations and non- m onetary incentiv es); � S e tting mi nim u m densities for residential, retail, and em ploy me nt g e nerating uses in central areas and around transit (z oning /reg ulations); � R e quiring no net decrease in residential density for redev e lopment (z oning /reg ulations); � S t ating densities in term s of square feet of land per dw elling unit, rather than mi nim u m lot siz e , to encourag e clustering (z oning /reg ulations); � G r anting incentiv es (e.g ., reduced park ing requireme nts, accelerated permit processing , infrastructure upg rades) for dev e lopment that focuses on existing urban areas and infill (non

m onetary incentiv es); � A d j u sting dev e lopment im pact fee structures or g i v i ng tax break s to encourag e infill and increased density dev e lopment near transit and activ ity centers, and to discourag e outly ing dev e lopment (m onetary incentiv es). Encourag e mi xed- use z ones by : � A llow i ng mi xed use, w h ich is now prohibited in m a ny places (z oning /reg ulations); � Requiring mi xed uses, w ith certain percentag es of residential, public, and comme rcial uses in targ et areas (z oning/reg ulations); � Using fine- g rained z oning to achiev e mi xed use while ensuring residential z ones are buffered from heav y industrial z ones with lig ht industrial and comme rcial z ones (z oning/reg ulations);



### A-2� Using mi xed- use ov erlay z oning , to add a second use to an area that is prim arily in another use, e.g ., comme rcial corridors along m a j o r arterials in a prim arily residential area (z oning/reg ulations); � G r anting incentiv es (e.g ., reduced park ing requireme nts, accelerated permit processing , infrastructure upg rades) for dev e lopment that locates transit- or pedestrian- o riented amenities, like housing or child care near comme rcial uses and pedestrian- o riented desig n (non- m onetary incentiv es); � Adj u sting dev e lopment im pact fee structures or g i v i ng tax break s to encourag e mi xed use (m onetary incentiv es). Encourag e pedestrian, bicy cle, transit, and carpooling activ ity by : � R e quiring connected, narrow e r streets w ith trees and sidew a lk s in new dev e lopment (z oning/reg ulations); � Requiring bicy cle lanes and transit stops on larg er streets in new dev e lopment (z oning/reg ulations); � R e quiring traffic- calmi ng dev i ces in new dev e lopment; e.g ., textured pav i ng at crossing s, frequent intersections w ith pedestrian- activ ated traffic sig n als, and traffic circles (z oning/reg ulations); � R e ducing requireme nts for setback s and mi nim u m lot siz es to create a strong er connection between building s and sidewalk s (z oning/reg ulations and non- m onetary incentiv es); � R e quiring pedestrian scale sig n s in pedestrian- and transit- oriented areas (z oning/reg ulations); � Reducing mi nim u m park ing requireme nts near transit hubs and for proj ects prov iding features that encourag e pedestrian, bicy cle, and transit activ ity (z oning/reg ulations and non- m onetary incentiv es); � S e tting park ing m a xim u m s in transit- and pedestrian- o riented areas (z oning/reg ulations); � Requiring preferential park ing for carpools (z oning /reg ulations).



### A-3For more examp les of ap p lication s of lan d u s e activ i ties th at may red u ce relian ce on au tomob iles an d th u s th e air q u a lity imp a cts of d riv in g, s ee th e f o llow i n g s o u rces : Smart Grow th Netw ork ’s Case Studies pag e http://www.s martg rowth.org/cas es tudies /cas es tudy_index.htm l S ierra Club’s “ S mart Choices or S praw ling G row th: A 50 S tate S urv ey of D e v elopm ent” http://www.s ierraclub.org/s prawl/50s tates urv ey /intro.as p Center of Excellence f or S u s tainable D e v elopm ent L a nd U s e P lanning S u cces s S t ories http://www.s u s tainable.doe.g ov/landus e/lus s t oc.s htm l U rban L a nd Ins titute’s S mart G rowth: N e ws , Tools and H o t Li nk s http://w w w .uli.org/indexJ S.htm S praw l Watch Clearing hous e Bes t P r actices pag e http://www.s prawlwatch.org/bes tpractices .htm l White H ous e L i v able Com m

unities web s ite h ttp ://www. liv ab leco m m

u n ities
. g o v U S E P A O f f ice of S o lid Was te and Emerg e ncyRes pons e Brow nf ields w e bs ite http://www.epa.g o v/ brownf ields



### A-4

# A PPENDIX 

# B R ELA T ED 

# I NTERNET 

# W EB 

# S ITES Local, Regional and State G overnment Organiz ations The C o uncil of State Go vernm e nts , h t t p : / / www. s t a t e s n e w s . o r g Founded on the premise that the states are the best sources of insig h t and innov ation, CSG prov ides a netw ork for identify i ng and sharing ideas w ith state leaders. En vironm ental C o uncil of the States , h t t p : / / www. s s o.org/ecos ECO S is a national non- profit, non- partisan association of state and territorial env i ronmental commi ssioners. International C ity/C ounty Managem e nt A ssociation , h t t p : / / www. i c m a.org I C MAis a professional and educational association for m o re than 8,000 appointed admi nistrators and assistant admi nistrators serv i ng cities, counties, other local g o v e rnme nts, and reg i onal entities around the w o rld. T h roug h the Sm art G r ow th N e tw ork , it assists its me m b ers in identify i ng strateg i es and tools to protect the health and welfare of their comm unities throug h the integ r ation of env i ronmentally sound decision m aki ng and economic g r owth. Local Go vernm e nt C o m m ission , h t t p : / / www. i g c . o r g T h e LGC is a nonprofit me m b ership org a niz a tion that offers education, training , and technical assistance to local areas seek ing to im plement innov ativ e long

- t erm solutions that further economically and env i ronmentally sustainable land use patterns. N

a tion a l A ssociation of C o u n ties , h t t p : / / www. n a c o.org N A C o is a full- serv i ce org a niz a tion that prov ides leg i slativ e, research, technical, and public affairs assistance to its me m b ers. N A C o acts as a liaison w ith other lev e ls of g o v e rnme nt, w o rk s to im prov e public understanding of counties, serv es as a national adv o cate for counties and prov ides resources to counties. N

a tional A ssociation of Local Go vernm e nt En vironm ental Professionals , h t t p : / / www. n a l g e p . o r g N A L G EP is a nonprofit association representing local g o v e rnme nt officials w ho are responsible for ensuring env i ronmental com p liance and im plementing env i ronmental prog ram s . National Association of Regional Councils , h t t p : / / www. n a r c . o r g/ a b o u t . h t m l Fostering reg i onal cooperation and building reg i onal comm unities, N A R C is a nonprofit me m b ership org a niz a tion serv i ng the interests of reg i onal councils nationwide. N

a tional Go vernors A ssociation , h t t p : / / www. n ga.org NGA i s abi par t i s a n na t i ona l or g a ni za t i on of, by , a nd f o rt h e na t i ons ' Gov e r nor s . T h r oug h NGA, the G o v e rnors identify priority issues and deal collectiv ely w ith issues of public policy and g o v e rnance at both the national and state lev e ls. The State and Territorial A ir Pollution Program A d m i nistrators/ A ssociation of Local A ir Pollution C

o ntrol O fficials , http://w w w .4cleanair.org/about.html ST A PPAand A L A P C O are the tw o national associations representing air pollution control ag encies in the U
. S. T h e associations serv e to encourag e the exchang e of inform ation am ong air pollution control officials, to enhance comm unication and cooperation am ong federal, state and local reg u latory ag encies, and to prom ote g ood m a nag e me nt of our air resources. U

. S. C o nference of Mayors , h t t p : / / www. u s m ayors.org/uscm 

### B-1U S C M is the official nonpartisan org a niz a tion of cities w ith populations of 30,000 or m o re, collectiv ely speak ing on m a tters pertaining to org a niz a tional policies and g o als. Miscellaneous L o cal/State G overnment Sites C ity of A u stin, S m art G r ow th I n itiativ e ht tp : / / www.ci .aust i n.t x.us/ door st ep/ 98/ 10/ sm ar t g r o w.ht m # anchor 1055467 N e w J e rsey Pinelands C o m p rehensiv e Manag ement Plan ht tp : / / www.st at e.nj .us/p i n el ands/ c m p.ht m Oreg on T r ansportation and Growth Manag ement Prog ram http://www.lcd.state.or.us/issues/tg mw eb/about/index.htm Sm art G r ow th in Mary l and http;//www.op.state.m d.us/sm artg r owth
F e deral G overnment Organiz ations and Initiatives C

l ean C ities Program , h t t p : / / www. l i v a b l e c o m m u n i t i e s .gov/toolsandresources/tr_clean_cities.htm Sponsored by D O E , this prog ram is a v o luntary , locally

- b ased g o v e rnme nt/industry partnership, that m obiliz es local stakeholders in the effort to expand the use of alternativ es to g asoline and diesel fuel by accelerating the deploy me nt of alternativ e fuel v e hicles (A FVs), and building a local A F V refueling infrastructure. C

o ng estion Mitigation an d A ir Q u ality Im provem en t P r

ogram , h t t p : / / www. l i v a b l e c o m m u n i t i e s .gov/toolsandresources/tr_cmaq.htm Sponsored by FWH A , CMA Q funds proj ects in areas that do not meet the N a tional A m bient A i r Q u ality Standards (non- attainme nt areas) and former non- attainme nt areas that are now in com p liance (m aintenance areas) for oz one, carbon m onoxide, and sm all particulate m a tter. Departm ent of Transportation , h t t p : / / www. d o t .gov/index . htm D O T w as established by C ong ress to serv e the U
. S. by ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible and conv enient transportation sy stem that meets the nation’s v ital interests and enhances the quality of life of the A merican people, today and into the future. D O T ’s B u reau of T r

an sportation S t atistics , h t t p : / / www. b t s .gov BT S was established for data collection, analy s is, and reporting and to ensure the m o st cost- e ffectiv e use of transportation- m onitoring resources. E

P

A C o m m unity-B ased En vironm ental Protection , h t t p : / / www. e p a.gov/ecocommunity C B EP iteg r ates env i ronmental m a nag e me nt w ith hum an needs, considers long

- t erm ecosy stem health and hig h lig hts the positiv e correlations betw een economic prosperity and env i ronmental w e ll- being
. E

P

A O ffice of A i r Q u ality P l an n i ng an d S t an dards , h t t p : / / www. e p a.gov/oar/oaqps/cleanair.html EPA ' s O A P Q directs national efforts to meet air quality g o als and is responsible for im plementing other m a j o r prov isions of the C l ean A i r A c t, including those related to v i sibility , permitting , and emission standards for a w i de v ariety of industrial facilities. Fe deral High w ay A d m i n istration , h t t p : / / www. fh wa . d o t .gov/environment T h e FH WAPlanning and Env i ronment C o re B u siness U n it (H EP) prov ides policy direction and 

### B-2g u idance in three m a j o r areas including statew ide and me tropolitan transportation planning , hum an and natural env i ronment, and real estate serv i ces. F T A ’ s N a tion a l T r

an sit L ibrary , h t t p : / / www. ft a . d o t .gov/ntl/index . html The F e deral Transit A d mi nistration prov ides a collection of transit and transportation related articles dev e loped by the FT A, DOT , and partners in the transit industry
. L i vable C o m m u n ities , h t t p : / / www. l i v a b l e c o m m u n i t i e s .gov/toolsandresources/tr_lc.htm Sponsored by FT A , this prog ram helps comm unities g e t inv o lv ed in planning and desig n ing transit sy stem s that are customer- friendly , comm unity

- o riented and w e ll desig n ed. Transportation Analysis and Sim u lation System in Washington, DC , h t t p : / / www. l i v a b l e c o m m u n i t i e s .gov/toolsandresources/tr_transims.htm Sponsored by DOT , EPA, and DOE, T R ANSI M S is an adv a nced software pack ag e that would allow local planning ag encies to sim u late the m o v e me nt of indiv i duals and v e hicles for an entire me tropolitan reg i on. Nonprof it Organiz ations Am eri can Farm l a nd Trust , h t t p : / / www. fa r m l a n d . o r g A F T w as founded to protect the nation' s ag ricultural resources and does so by stopping the loss of productiv e farmland and by prom oting farming practices that lead to a healthy env i ronment. A m erican Planning A ssociation , h t t p : / / www. p l a n n i n g.org A P Ais a nonprofit, public interest org a niz a tion representing 30,000 practicing planners, elected and appointed officials, and citiz ens inv o lv ed in urban and rural planning issues. B i cycle Fe deral of A m erica , h t t p : / / www. b i k e fe d . o r g BFA is a national, nonprofit corporation work ing to create bicy cle- friendly and walk able comm unities. B rookings Institution C e nter on U r

ban and Metropolitan Policy , h t t p : / / www. b r o o k . e d u/u r b a n T h e C e nter has special expertise on reg i onal g o v e rnance issues and seek s to shape a new g e neration of urban policies that w ill help build strong cities and me tropolitan reg i ons. I n collaboration w ith leading scholars and practitioners nationw ide, the B r ook ing s C e nter is launching a series of orig inal research and policy proj ects to help inform national debates and prov ide practical policy options for ke y decision m ake rs. Center for Neighborhood Technology , h t t p : / / www. c n t . o r g CNT inv e nts and dev e lops tools and me thods for sustainable dev e lopment. C

o m m u n ity T r

an sportation A ssociation of A m erica , http://63.111.177.36 C T A Ais an association of org a niz a tions and indiv i duals committed to im prov ing m obility for all people. C

o ngress for the N e w U r

banism , h t t p : / / www. c n u . o r g C N U is a collaboration of professionals w o rk ing to reform N o rth A merica' s urban g r ow th patterns. G

r

ow th Man agem e n tIn stitu te , http://w w w .gmionline.org T h e G r ow th Manag ement I n stitute is a sm all nonprofit org a niz a tion established to encourag e effectiv e and equitable m a nag e me nt of g r ow th and chang e in hum an habitats. The I n stitute 

### B-3prom otes strateg i es and practices to achiev e sustainable urban dev e lopment and redev e lopment in harm ony w ith conserv a tion of env i ronmental qualities and features. N

a tional Trust for Historic Preservation , h t t p : / / www. n t h p . o r g T h e N a tional T rust prov ides inform ation, technical assistance and adv i ce to org a niz a tions and indiv i duals w o rk ing to preserv e their comm unities and av oid urban spraw l . C oncerned w ith the comm unity disinv estme nt N T H P has conducted a w i de v ariety of activ ities that include prom otion of federal transportation and tax policies that encourag e comm unity rev italiz ation and the rehabilitation of historic houses. N

a tional N e ighborhood C oalition , h t t p : / / www. n e i g h b o r h o o d c o a l i t i o n . o r g NNC prom otes a neig hborhood focus at all lev e ls of g o v e rnme nt and throug hout society by adv o cating for prog ram s and policies that foster partnerships between neig hborhood org a niz a tions, priv ate sector institutions, and g o v e rnme nt ag encies. N

a tural R esources D e fense C o uncil , h t t p : / / www. n r d c . o r g NRDC is a nonprofit org a niz a tion with m o re than 400,000 me m b ers nationwide; its mi ssion is to preserv e the env i ronment, protect the public health, and ensure the conserv a tion of w ilderness and natural resources. T

h e N o rth e ast-Midw est In stitu te , h t t p : / / www. n e m w . o r g The I n stitute' s U rban E n v i ronment P r og ram explores the im pacts of federal prog ram s and policies at the local lev e l, and educates ke y constituencies in its states and throug h the N o rtheast- M idw est C ong ressional and S e nate C o alitions. P r og ram staff hav e published a num ber of reports, case studies, and leg i slativ e summ aries and m a trices on the subj ects of brownfields and sm art g r owth. Sm art Growth Network, h t t p : / / www. s m a r t g r o wt h . o r g SGN encourag es dev e lopment that is env i ronmentally , fiscally , and economically sm art and helps create national, reg i onal, and local coalitions to support sm art g r ow th. S u s tain able C o m m u n ities N e tw ork , h t t p : / / www. s u s t a i n a b l e . o r g T h e mi ssion of SC Nis to connect indiv i duals and org a niz a tions nationw ide to the resources they need to help m ake their comm unities env i ronmentally sound, socially equitable, and economically prosperous. Tools for a Sustainable Com m unity , h t t p : / / www. i c l e i . o r g/l a21/onestop.htm I n ternational C ouncil for Local Env i ronmental I n itiativ es (I C LEI ) is the international env i ronmental ag ency for local g o v e rnme nts. I t s mi ssion is to build and serv e a w o rldw ide m o v e me nt of local g o v e rnme nts to achiev e tang ible im prov ements in g l obal env i ronmental and sustainable dev e lopment conditions throug h cum u lativ e local actions.
TransA ct , h t t p : / / www. t r a n s a c t . o r g T h e T r ansportation A c tion N e tw ork has prov ided T h e Surface T r ansportation Policy Proj ect (ST PP), the g o al of which is to ensure that transportation policy and inv estme nts help conserv e energ y , protect env i ronmental and aesthetic quality , streng then the econom y , prom ote social equity , and m ake comm unities m o re liv able. T

r

an sportation for L i vable C o m m u n ities , h t t p : / / www. t l c n e t wo r k . o r g T L C N et is a resource for people w o rking to create m o re liv able comm unities by im prov ing transportation, and is intended to serv e people work ing in city neig hborhoods, suburbs, and rural 

### B-4areas. The Transportation R esearch B oard , h t t p : / / www. n a s . e d u/t r b T R B is a unit of the N a tional R esearch C ouncil, a priv ate, nonprofit institution that is the principal operating ag ency of the N a tional A cadem y of Sciences and the N a tional A cademy of Eng i neering
. I t s mi ssion is to prom ote innov ation and prog ress in transportation by stim ulating and conducting research, facilitating the dissemination of inform ation, and encourag ing the im plementation of research results. T

R B T r

an sportation an d A i r Q u ality C o m m ittee , http://transaq.ce.gatech.edu T h e T r ansportation R esearch B o ard C o mmittee on T r ansportation and A i r Q u ality has a w e bsite that prov ides inform ation about the committee' s activ ities, research, and me m b ership. I t s w o rk includes examining the full rang e of relationships betw een transportation and air quality including reg u latory and policy considerations, m odeling practices, health effects, new technolog ies and transportation m a nag e me nt strateg i es. Trustf o r Publ i c Land , h t t p : / / www. t p l . o r g T PL helps ag encies and comm unities protect land for park s, open space, and other public purposes by bring i ng real estate expertise, transaction sk ills, and innov ativ e public financing tools to federal, state, local, and priv ate partners.. TP Lw o rk s in collaboration w ith comm unities and org a niz a tions around the country to bring priv ate land into public ownership and to help create park s, g r eenw a y s , riv e rw ay s and to protect those traditional landscapes that define the character of w h ere w e liv e. T PL helps comm unities acquire endang ered open space, create urban park s and prom ote bond issues to purchase open spaces. U

r

ban L a n d In stitu te , h t t p : / / www. u l i . o r g U L Iis a nonprofit research and educational institute w hose mi ssion is to prov ide responsible leadership in the use of land in order to enhance the total env i ronment. Other sites of interest G

reen B u dget R e form C a se Studies , http://iisd1.iisd.ca/greenbud/makingb.htm T h is w e bsite consists of tw enty
- t hree case studies from Europe and N o rth A merica, prov iding lessons on measures that hav e been im plemented to reduce env i ronmental im pacts and increase sustainability
. N

a tional Personal Transportation Survey , h t t p : / / www- c t a.ornl.gov/npts/1995/Doc/index . shtml T h e N P T S and the A merican T r av el Surv ey (A T S ) are household- based trav el surv ey s conducted ev ery fiv e y ears by the D O T
. T h e em phasis of the N P T S is on daily , local trips w h ile the em phasis of the A T S is on long

- d istance trav el in the U n ited States. Urbanized Area Form ula Grants Program , h t t p : / / www. l i v a b l e c o m m u n i t i e s .gov/toolsandresources/tr_grants.htm Sponsored by FT A , this prog ram prov ides funding for transit capital proj ects, such as buses, and assistance for operating expenses to urbaniz e d areas w ith a population of 50,000 or m o re.



### B-5

# A PPENDIX 

# C R ELA T ED 

# W ORK 

# E FFORTS Compar i ng M ethodol ogi es to A ssess Tr anspor tati on and A i r Qual i t y Imp acts o f B r o w n f ield s an d In fill D e v e lo p men t T h is w o rk , performed by I C F C onsulting under contract w ith the EPAO ffice of Policy , describes four possible me thodolog ies for including the emissions reductions produced by brownfields redev e lopment and infill dev e lopment in State I m plementation Plans (SI P s). Each me thodolog y examined here prov ides a different answ er to the question: if the infill dev e lopment for w h ich emissions credit is being claime d had not been built, w h ere w ould the dev e lopment —the “g row t h increment”—hav e g one instead? Methodolog y 1: Growth would hav e g one to a sing le “ty p ical” g r eenfield site Methodolog y 2: Growth would hav e g one to the fastest- g rowing parts of the reg i on Methodolog y 3: Growth would hav e been distributed throug hout the reg i on, in am ounts determined by the local land use m odel Methodolog y 4: Growth would hav e been distributed throug hout the reg i on, in am ounts proportional to the distribution of all other g r owth. EPA is also currently inv estig ating similar me thodolog ies for quantify i ng T r ansit Oriented Dev e lopment under an ong oing contract with I C F. T h is document is av ailable at the follow i ng w e b address: ht tp : / / www.epa.g o v/ om s/tr ansp/tr aqsusd.ht m under EPA report num ber EPA 231- R- 01- 001. 

## A

M ethodology to Establish SIP Creditability of Infill Dev e lopment T h is w o rk w as conducted by A pog ee/H a g l er B a illy and C r iterion under EPA ' s O ffice of Policy (O P), w h ich preceded the w o rk by I C F me ntioned abov e. Preliminary w o rk performed is described in a draft report entitled The Transportation and Environm ental Im pacts of Infill versus G reenfield D evelopm ent: A Comparative Case Study Analysis. T h is study uses reg i onal trav el dem a nd m odeling to com p are the trav el and emissions im pacts of a hy pothetical dev e lopment located on an infill site v e rsus a g r eenfield site. Models w e re run for three case studies, in San D i eg o, California; Montg o me ry County , Mary l and; and West Palm Beach, Florida. Each case study consisted of m odeling a hy pothetical larg e dev e lopment as if it w e re located on an actual infill site, and then m odeling the same dev e lopment as if it w e re on an actual g r eenfield site. The dev e lopment siz e rem a ins the same in both locations, but the density and street patterns are consistent w ith the surrounding urban form at each location. I n each case, the MPO trav el dem a nd m odel w as used to sim u late the trav el im pacts of the dev e lopment. Env i ronmental im pacts (including NOx and CO 2 emissions) and energ y use w e re estim ated using a G I S- based m odel called I N D E X. A ll three case studies show that locating the dev e lopment on the infill site results in low e r v e hicle use and low e r v e hicle emissions. VMT per capita at the infill sites w as roug hly half that at the g r eenfield sites. N O x emissions w e re 27 percent to 42 percent low e r at the infill sites, ev en thoug h cong estion at one infill site w as hig h er than the g r eenfield site. I tshould be noted that the IN D E X m odel uses sim p lified per- mile and per- trip emissions factors, not the standard v e hicle emissions m odels. 

### C- 1

## T r an sp o rtatio n Imp acts o f Micro - S cale U r b a n D esig n E l emen ts: Da t a Colle c t ion a nd Mode ling Ne e d s T h is 1998 j o int DOT (FHWA)/EPA (OT AQ and OP) funded proj ect bring s tog e ther current knowledg e and recent research concerning the ability to appropriately reflect the transportation im pacts of v arious mi cro- scale urban desig n elements (e.g ., sidew a lk w i dth, building setback , street g r id ty pe, etc.). T h e report explains procedures to estim ate how land use dev e lopment strateg i es and site desig n elements affect trav el behav i or and g i v es exam ples from selected MPO experience. Particularly useful for MPO s is a product that w ill relate specific urban desig n chang es to auto ow nership, trip g e neration (or tour or activ ity g e neration), and m ode choice for use in current trav el dem a nd m odels. For copies contact the Federal Hig h way Admi nistration and reference report num ber DT FH61- 95- C- 00168. 

## A i r Qua lit y Impa c t s of Re giona l La nd Us e Polic ie s Published in February 2000, this document, dev e loped for the US EPA by Robert J ohnson of the U n iv ersity of C a lifornia, and J ohn E. A b raham of the U n iv ersity of C a lg ary illustrates the air quality benefits or deficits of reg i onal policy scenarios that affect land use dev e lopm ent patterns. T h e obj ectiv e of this study w as to ev aluate urban transportation scenarios in a mi d- siz e reg i on, (Sacram ento, CA ) that w ould sig n ificantly reduce v e hicle emissions. A set of policies that include transit dev e lopm ent, transit oriented desig n, and auto pricing were identified as particularly promising for the reduction of reg i onal emissions ov er a 10- to 20- y ear tim e horiz on. K e y conclusions are that it m a y be im portant to m odel the land use effects of transportation scenarios; integ r ated land use and transportation m odels can prov ide im portant policy insig h ts; land use intensification m easures accom p anied by supportiv e transit and/or pricing can produce com p arativ ely larg e reductions in V M T and auto emissions; and that HOV and HOT lanes m a y increase v e hicle emissions. 

## T h e Ef f e c t s of Ur ba n For m on T r a v e l a nd Emis s i ons : A Re v i e w a nd Sy nt he s i s of t h e Lit e r a t u r e T h is is an ong oing contract w ith A pog ee/H a g l er B a illy under EPA ' s O ffice of Policy (O P). T h e draft report offers a thoroug h summ ary of recent research on the effect of land use on trav el behav i or. Studies fall into tw o g e neral categ ories. Em pirical studies com p are data collected from actual comm unities and try to disting u ish how v arious land use factors lead to different trav el patterns. Sim u lation studies use com puter m odels to examine the im pact of hy pothetical land use patterns on trav el and emissions. T h e report concludes that chang es in land use can reduce reg i on- w i de v e hicle use and emissions ov er a period of sev eral decades. U s ing sim u lation m odels, sev eral studies hav e conv incing ly show n that m odify ing future dev e lopment patterns in w a y s that m ake them less dependent on autom obile use w ill reduce V M T and emissions. T h e reduction in emissions comes from shorter trip leng ths and shifts to transit, bicy cling , and w a lking m odes. While com puter m odeling has im prov ed g r eatly in recent y ears, it is still subj ect to some serious limitations. Z onal siz e g e nerally precludes m odeling the im pact of mi croscale desig n features, for exam ple. T h e report documents how numerous em pirical studies hav e shown relationships between specific land use factors and com ponents of trav el dem a nd. For exam ple, com p act clusters of mi xed- use dev e lopment are correlated with reduced trip leng ths. Similarly , hig h er density comm unities of mi xed land use are associated w ith hig h er shares of trav el by transit, bicy cling and w a lk ing
. T h e report ack now ledg es the me thodolog ical flaws that limit the conclusions that can be drawn from em pirical studies. Some , for exam ple, do not control for factors like income when com p aring neig hborhoods. A m o re fundame ntal flaw is the fact that cross- sectional studies, by nature, cannot establish causality
. 

### C- 2

## E v alu a tio n o f Mo d e lin g T o o l s fo r Assessin g L a n d U se P o licies a nd St r a t e gie s T h is com p leme ntary effort was done for the EPA T r ansportation and Marke t I n centiv es Group by Sy stem s Application I n ternational (SAI ). I t s final report was issued in Aug u st 1997. T h e work was intended to assess how reg i onal land use forecasting m odels are able to incorporate specific land use policies. T h e report ev aluates three comme rcial land use m odels: D R A M /EMPA L , MEPLA N , and T R ANUS. Each m odel was ev al uat e d i n t e r m s of how wel l i tcoul d accountf o rpol i c i es desi g n ed t o ( 1 ) increase dev e lopment densities, (2) increase land use mi xing , and (3) m odify desig n elements and infrastructure to encourag e alternativ e trav el m odes. T h e specific policies used to achiev e these g o als were summ ariz e d as z oning , m onetary incentiv es (such as subsidies to dev e lopers to build in targ eted areas), and non- m onetary incentiv es (such as reduced park ing requireme nts). T h e study concludes that D R A M /EMPA L , because it does not easily represent costs, cannot m odel the i m pactof any of t h e t h r ee t y pes of pol i c i es. MEPLAN and T R ANUS do i n cl ude r e pr esent a t i ons of dev e lopment costs, and therefore can at least partially m odel z oning policies as w e ll as m onetary and non- m onetary incentiv es. T h e report points out that all the m odels are seriously constrained by z onal siz e , how ev er. T h ey are usually run using z ones the siz e of sev eral census tracts, or a sing le census tract at the sm allest. A s a ty pical urban census tract is roug hly one square mile, a m odel built on z ones of this siz e could possibly detect an increase in density w ithin a half- mile of a transit station or transit corridor; it could not detect sm aller- scale land use chang es. I f the z onal sy stem uses ag g r eg ations of census tracts, ev en transit station- area densities could not be resolv ed. (EPAR e port num ber EPA420- R

- 97- 007. C opies of the document can be obtained by calling 1- 800- 490

- 9198 and citing the EPAreference num ber.) 

## G r een Deve l opment w i th the Nati onal A ssoci ati on of Home Bui l d ers Research Center Past research has dem onstrated that the location of new dev e lopment has a strong correlation w ith its env i ronmental im pact. For exam ple, far- flung residential subdiv i sions w ill g e nerate m o re air pollution than "close- in" mi xed use comm unities. Bey ond the location of dev e lopment (far- flung v e rsus close- in), research dem onstrates that apply i ng v arious dev e lopment practices and techniques to the dev e lopment site can mitig ate env i ronmental im pacts. For exam ple, proximity to transit, reduction in street width, g r id lay

- out for streets, construction of sidew a lk s and pathw a y s , and co- l ocation of div e rse land uses (e.g ., residential and comme rcial) w ill all im prov e comm unity w a lk ability and help reduce reliance on car use. The E P ATransportation and Marke t I n centiv es Group’s cooperativ e ag reement with the NAHB Research Center will g e nerate a com p endium of v arious dev e lopment practices and techniques that create a rang e of env i ronmental benefits. T h e "g uidebook " w ill prov ide inform ation on v arious g r een dev e lopment techniques and w ill describe the steps for dev e loping local, comm unity

- b ased g r een dev e lopment prog ram s . T h e dev e lopment g u ide is being refined throug h a partnership with the Denv er Home Builders Association, which is currently creating a "G reen D e v e lopers’ Prog ram " for local builders. NAHB can be contacted at http://www.nahb.com / or National Association of Home Builders, 1201 15th street, N W Washing t on, D C 20005, phone: 800- 368- 5242 or 202- 822- 0200 in theWashing t on, D
. C. area.



### C- 3

## Projecting Land-Use Change: ASummaryof Models for A ssessi ng the E ffects of Communi tyG r ow th and Change on Land-Use Patterns Many potential clients for land- use chang e m odels, such as city and county planners, comm unity g r oups, and env i ronmental ag encies, need better inform ation on the features, streng ths, and limitations of v arious m odel pack ag es. B ecause of this g r ow ing need, EPAhas dev e loped a selectiv e inv e ntory and ev aluation of 25 leading land- use chang e m odels currently in use or under dev e lopment. Partners in scoping this effort included the U
. S. D e partme nt of T r ansportation, the D e partme nt of I n terior, the academic and consulting comm unities, and m u ltiple prog ram offices across E P A
. E P A ’s O ffice of R esearch and D e v e lopment (O R D ) initiated the land- use chang e m odels ev aluation in order to im prov e its ability to assess and mitig ate future risk to ecolog i cal sy stem s, hum an health, and quality of life. L a nd- use chang e is perhaps the m o st sig n ificant source of adv e rse im pacts to aquatic and terrestrial env i ronments today
. T h roug h its R e g i onal Vulnerability A ssessment and other initiativ es, O R D is considering land- use chang e m odels at nested spatial scales in order to targ et ecolog i cal resources and socioeconomic issues for comm unity

- b ased protection efforts. T h e strateg i c ev aluation of leading m odels achiev es the follow i ng O R D obj ectiv es: � I d entify m odels that are imme diately av ailable for application at m u lti- county and w a tershed scales in rural and urban areas; � Ev aluate m odel frame w o rk s for their ability to support alternativ e alg o rithm s currently under dev e lopm ent w ithin O R D ; and � A ssess the suite of inv e ntoried m odels for g aps and w eaknesses that O R D m a y seek to address throug h in- house research and external research g r ants. T arg et user g r oups for the land- use chang e m odels ev aluation are: � C o mm unity planners and citiz ens w ho are seek ing tools to analy z e future land- use scenarios; � EPAprog ram office and reg i onal staff w ho support comm unities w ith sm art- g r ow th planning tools and inform ation; and � O R D m odelers and research planners w ho are currently assessing land- use m odels and g aps in the state of the science. T h e document reference inform ation is: U.S. EPA, 2000. Proj ecting Land- Use Chang e : A Summ ary of Models for A ssessing the Effects of Comm unity G r ow th and Chang e on Land- U se Patterns. EPA600- R

00- 098. U
. S. EPA , O ffice of Research and D e v e lopment, Cincinnati, O H
. 260 pp. Copies of the document can be obtained by calling 1- 800- 490- 9198 and citing the EPAreference num ber. For m o re inform ation, please contact Laura J ack son at j ack son.laura@ e pa.g ov or (919) 541- 3088.



### C- 4

# A PPENDIX 

# D G LOSSA RY OF 

# T ERM S A ccounting f o r air quality impacts of land use activities T h e documented reductions in m obile source emissions due to land use activ ities that nonattainme nt and m a intenance areas can use in their State I m plementation Plans (SI P s) or conformity determinations. A ttain men tarea A n area considered to hav e air quality that meets or exceeds the U
. S
. E n v i ronmental P r otection A g ency ’s health standards used in the Clean Air Act. An area m a y be an attainme nt area for one pollutant and a non- attainme nt area for others. Brow n f ield s A b andoned, idled or under- used industrial and comme rcial facilities w h ere expansion or redev e lopment is com p licated by real or perceiv e d env i ronmental contamination. C o n f ormity P r ocess to assess the com p liance of any transportation plan, prog ram or proj ect w ith air quality control plans. C onformity process is required by the C l ean A i r A c t (C A A )
. C o ntrol strategy T h ese are specific strateg i es for controlling the emissions, and reducing am bient lev e ls, of pollutants in order to satisfy C A Arequireme nts for dem onstrations of reasonable further prog ress and attainme nt. C r iteria p o llu tan t s Criteria pollutants are carbon m onoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrog en dioxide (NO 2 ), oz one (O 3 ), particulate m a tter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). Economic Incentive P r ogram (EIP ) Strateg i es that encourag e emissions reductions throug h m arket based incentiv es and inform ational tools. In f ill d e velop m en t Aty pe of land use strateg y . S p ecifically any ty pe of new dev e lopment that occurs w ithin existing builtup areas (m ay be urban or suburban); includes brow nfield dev e lopment. Initial f o recast of f

u ture emissions T h e lev e l of emissions in the future that w ill result if no additional control measures are im plemented other than what is required by law.



### D-1Jobs/housi n g bal a nce Aty pe of land use strateg y . C h ang es that reduce the disparity betw een the num ber of residences and the num ber of em ploy me nt opportunities av ailable w ithin a sub- reg i on. Land use act i vi t y L a nd use activ ities include all of the v arious actions that state and local g o v e rnme nts or other entities take w h ich affect the patterns of land use in a comm unity or reg i on. T h ese activ ities result in patterns of land use that im pact people’s ability to trav el. I n this g u idance, land use activities that reduce reliance on m o tor v e hicles and increase accessibility of alternativ e m odes of transportation and can be show n to hav e air quality benefits (e.g ., throug h shortening trip leng ths or increasing accessibility of alternativ e m odes of transportation) can be accounted for in the air quality and transportation planning processes. Land use activ ities include lan d u se policies , defined as specific policies, prog ram s , or reg u lations adopted or admi nistered by g o v e rnme nt ag encies to allow and/or to encourag e land uses that m a y result in decreased v e hicle miles trav eled and emissions of air pollutants and land use projects defined as specific dev e lopments that m a y be show n to reduce v e hicle trav el and emissions. Maintenance area Any g e og raphic reg i on of the United States prev iously desig n ated nonattainme nt pursuant to the CAA Amendments of 1990 and subsequently redesig n ated to attainme nt subj ect to the requireme nt to dev e lop a m a intenance plan. Mi x e d- use devel o pm ent Aty pe of land use strateg y . D e v e lopment that locates com p leme ntary land uses such as housing , retail, office, serv i ces and public facilities w ithin w a lk ing distance of each other . Mobile sources Acateg ory of emission sources. T h is categ ory includes m o tor v e hicles, such as cars, lig ht truck s , heav y duty truck s , and buses; locom o tiv es; aircraft; construction equipment; law n and g arden equipment; boats and personal watercraft, etc. Nat i onal Am bi e n tAi r Q u al i t y St andar d s ( NAAQ S) St a ndar d s f o rpol l u t a nt s c ons i d e r e dhar mf u l t o publ i c he a l t h a nd t h e e n v i r onme n t . NAAQS ha v e be e n s e t for the six criteria pollutants (carbon m onoxide, lead, nitrog en dioxide, oz one, particulate m a tter less than or equal to 10 mi crons in siz e , and sulfur dioxide).



### D-2Neotraditional development A ty pe of land use strateg y . Specifically a set of land dev e lopment and urban desig n elements intended to encourag e and create pedestrian- o riented neig hborhoods. N e w Source R e view A i r pollution permits are required for businesses that build new pollution sources or m ake sig n ificant chang es to existing pollution sources. T h ese are some times referred to as "preconstruction" or "new source rev i ew " permits. T h ese permits are required to ensure that larg e new emissions do not cause sig n ificant health or env i ronmental threats and that new pollution sources are w e ll- controlled. N o n a ttain men tarea Any g e og raphic reg i on of the United States that has been desig n ated as nonattainme nt for any pollutant for w h ich a national am bient air quality standard exists. Regionally signif icant A term which has been defined in federal transportation planning reg u lations as apply i ng to a transportation proj ect that is on a facility that serv es reg i onal transportation needs (such as access to and from the area outside of the reg i on, m a j o r activ ity centers in the reg i on, m a j o r planned dev e lopments such as new retail m a lls, sports com p lexes, etc. or transportation terminals as w e ll as m o st terminals them selv es) and w ould norm a lly be included in the m odeling of a me tropolitan area’s transportation netw ork , including at a mi nim u m all principal arterial hig h w a y s and all fixed g u idew ay transit facilities that offer an alternativ e to reg i onal hig h w a y trav el. State Implementation P l an (S IP) State air quality plans required by the C l ean A i r A c t for nonattainme nt and m a intenance areas. T h e plans are prepared by state air quality ag encies and include estim ates of future air quality and control strateg i es to attain appropriate air quality standards. Transit oriented development (TOD) A ty pe of land use strateg y . T h is dev e lopment encourag es m oderate to hig h density dev e lopment along a reg i onal transit sy stem . Transportation control measure (TCM) Encom p asses elements of both transportation sy stem m a nag e me nt (T SM) and transportation dem a nd m a nag e me nt (T DM). T r ansportation sy stem m a nag e me nt g e nerally refers to the use of low capital intensiv e transportation im prov ements to increase the efficiency of transportation facilities and serv i ces. T h ese can include carpool prog ram s , park ing m a nag e me nt, traffic flow im prov ements, hig h occupancy v e hicle lanes, and park and ride lots. T D M g e nerally refers to policies, prog ram s , and actions that are directed tow ards decreasing the use of sing le occupant v e hicles. T D M also can include activ ities to encourag e shifting or spreading peak trav el periods. I n practice, there is considerable ov erlap am ong these concepts and T C M, T S M and T D M are often used interchang eably
.



### D-3Travel analysis z o ne (TAZ ) Lev e l of g e og raphic detail used in m o st transportation planning applications to summ ariz e socioeconomic characteristics and trav el data. T A Z s v ary in siz e depending on density and hom og eneity of land uses, and are defined by local ag encies. Travel dem a nd m o del I n the field of transportation there is a standard set of planning me thods and m odels that are called the four- s tep process or the U rban T r ansportation Planning Sy stem (U T PS for short). T h is set of m odels and procedures is used to forecast trav el dem a nd for future transportation sy stem s, and it play s a central role in the ev aluation of alternativ e transportation plans and policies. V e hicle miles traveled (V MT ) T h e num ber of miles driv en in a certain area ov er a period of time. V M T can be reported as a per capita av erag e, or as an ag g r eg ate num ber to reflect the total trav el in an area ov er some time period. V o luntary Mobile Source E m ission R e duction P r ograms (V ME P ) V o luntary emission reduction prog ram s that rely on the actions of indiv i duals or other parties for achiev i ng emissions reductions. T h e V M EP Policy is intended to prov ide an incentiv e for states, localities, and the public to v o luntarily reduce air pollution in their comm unities.



### D-4

# Appendix E List of Acrony ms

CMAQ Cong es tion M itig ation and A i r Q u alityIm prov ement P rog ram CO Carbon Monoxide CO G Council of G o v e rnm ents EIP Econom ic Incentiv e Prog ram EPA Env i ronmental P rotection A g ency MP O M etropolitan P lanning O r g a nization NAAQ S N ational A m bient A i r Q u alityS tandards NO 2 Nitrog en Dioxide NO x O x ides of N itrog en PM -10 P articulate M atter (10 m icrometers or les s ) SIP S tate Im plem entation P lan TCM Trans portation Control M eas ure TOD Trans it- oriented dev elopment VMEP V o luntaryM obile S ource Em is s i ons Reduction P rog ram s VMT V e hicle M iles Trav eled



### E-1

# Appendix F References to Relev a nt Policies, Guidance Documents, and General Information Sources
G r anting Air quality credit Land U se Measures: Policy O p tions, 1999 (EPA 420-P-99-028) ht tp : / / www.epa.g o v/ om s/tr ansp/tr aqsusd.ht m Background Inf o rmat i on f o r Land Use SIP Pol i cy, 1998 (EPA 420-R-98-012) ht tp : / / www.epa.g o v/ om s/tr ansp/tr aqsusd.ht m Evaluation of Modeling Tools for Assessing Land Use Policies and Strategies, 1997 (EPA 420-R-97-007) ht tp : / / www.epa.g o v/ om s/tr ansp/tr aqsusd.ht m
V o luntary Emission Reduction Prog ram s Guidance, 1997 (Mem orandum ) ht tp : / / www.e p a . g o v/ om s /tr a n s p / v mw e b / v m pol doc .ht m
Economi c Incent i ve Program Gui dance, 2001 (EPA 451/ R-01-001) h ttp ://www. ep a. g o v/ttn/o arp g/n ew. h tm l or h ttp ://www. ep a. g o v/ttn/ecas / Conformity Rule and supplemental documentation ht tp : / / www.e p a . g o v/ om s /tr a n s p /tr a q c onf .ht m



### F-1

# Appendix G Regional and State Contacts
Below is a lis ting of org anizations that m a ybe contacted in order to f i nd out w h at ag encies are res pons ible f or the conf orm ityand/or S tate Im plementation P lanning proces s in anyg i v e n g e og raphic area.

ForS t ate orLocal AirAgen cies State and Territorial Air Pollution Prog ram Adm i nistrators/Association of L o cal A i r P o llution Control O f f icials 444 North Capitol St. N. W. Washing ton, D. C. 20001 Telephone: 202- 624- 7864
ForM etropolitan Plan n in g O r gan ization s orCou n cils of G o ver n m en t National Association of Reg i onal Councils 1700 K St. N. W. Washing ton, D. C. 20006 Telephone: 202- 457- 0710
ForTr an s it Agen cies

American Public Transportation Association 1201 New York Av enue, N. W. Washing ton, D. C. 20005 Telephone: 202- 898- 4000 For State Departm ents of Transportation Am erican Association of State Hig h w a yand Transportation Of f icials 444 N. Capitol St. N. W. Washing ton, D.C. 20001 Telephone: 202- 624- 5800
ForEn viron m e n t al Protection Agen cy Con tacts Q u es tions on trans portation conf orm ityor a current lis ting of non- attainme nt and m aintenance areas s hould be directed to: EP A O f f ice of Trans portation and A i r Q u ality 2000 Trav erw ood Driv e Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Telephone: 734- 214- 4441 www. ep a. go v/o m s /tr an s p /tr aq co n f
. h tm



### G-1ForEPA Region al O ffices - Tr an s por tation Plan n in g Con tact * Region I: Boston, M A 617- 918- 1665 (RI, CT) 617- 918- 1668 (MA, ME, VT, NH) Re gi on II: Ne w Yor k , NY 212- 637- 3901 ( NJ , Puerto Rico, U.S. Virg in Island) 212- 637- 3804 (NY) Re gi on III: P h i l a de l phi a, P A 215- 814- 2183 (DC, MD, VA) 215- 814- 2184 (DE, PA, WV) Region IV: Atlanta, GA 404- 562- 9026 (AL , FL , GA, K Y , MS, NC, SC, TN) Region V: Chicago, IL 312- 353- 8656 (Il, OH) 312- 353- 4366 (IN) 312- 353- 6680 (MI, MN, WI) Re gi on VI: Dal l a s, TX 214- 665- 7247 (AR, L A , NM, OK , TX) Re gi on VII: K a nsas Ci ty , K S 913- 551- 7651 (IA, K S , MO, NE) Re gi on VIII: De nv e r , CO 303- 312- 6446 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY) Re gi on IX : San F r a nc i s c o, CA 415- 744- 1247 (AZ, NV, CA) 415- 744- 1231 (CA) 415- 744- 1153 (CA) Region X : Seattle, WA 206- 553- 1463 (AK , ID, OR, WA)
*Pleas e n ote: This lis t is current as of publication date. F or the mo s t current lis t, v i s it EP A ’ s w e b s ite at: www.epa.g o v/epahome/locate2.htm or the TRA Q web s ite at: www. ep a. g o v/ o m s /tr an s p /co n f o r m /co n tacts . h tm .



### G-2