EPA420-R-98-012

BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

FOR LAND USE SIP POLICY

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Mobile Sources

Transportation and Market Incentives Group

Contract Number 68-C7-0051

Work Assignment Number 0-09

September 30, 1998
EPA420-R-98-012

BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

FOR LAND USE SIP POLICY

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Mobile Sources

Transportation and Market Incentives Group

Prepared by:

Jack Faucett Associates

under subcontract to

Sierra Research

Contract Number 68-C7-0051

Work Assignment Number 0-09

September 30, 1998

NOTICE - This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or positions. It is intended to

present technical analysis using data which are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is to

facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of technical developments which may

form the basis for a final EPA decision, position, or regulatory action.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. i

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................1

1.1 Purpose .............................................................1

1.2 Related Developments ..................................................2

1.3 Report Organization ...................................................2

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................4

2.1 Complementary EPA Work Efforts ........................................4

2.2 Identification of Sustainable Land Use Policies ...............................9

2.3 Other Relevant Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3 SURVEY METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4 SURVEY FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4.1 Examples of Land Use Measures in Air Quality Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4.2 Related Land Use Measures That Are Not Included in Air Quality Plans . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.3 Land Use Policies Incorporated Into Transportation Demand Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

5 SUGGESTIONS FOR EPA'S ROLE FROM INTERVIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

5.1 Air Agency Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

5.2 MPO/COG Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

6 ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

6.1 Barriers to Effective Land Use Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

6.2 Barriers to Forecasting Air Quality Impacts of Land Use Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

7 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE EFFORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

7.1 Helping Metropolitan Areas Take Credit for Existing Land Use Policies . . . . . . . . . . . 42

7.2 Promoting Adoption of Sustainable Land Use Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

APPENDIX A: List of Survey Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

APPENDIX B: Interview Discussion Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
i

(;(&87,9( 6800$5<

Purpose

This report summarizes work done in support of the U.S. EPA Office of Mobile Sources

Transportation and Market Incentive Group’s efforts to reduce mobile source air pollution by

providing tools to quantify, recognize, and where appropriate, credit sustainable land use and

transportation practices. A number of recent and ongoing research projects have been exploring

the land use/air quality linkages, focusing on topics such as the true impact of land use on air

quality and improving analytical techniques for modeling these linkages. The purpose of this

study was to determine whether or not air quality agencies are taking credit for land use control

measures in their state implementation plans (SIP) and to determine what activities EPA might

undertake to both quantify the air quality benefits of sustainable land use policies and to enable

air quality agencies to take credit for these measures in SIPs.

Methodology

The primary methodology for conducting the study was to survey air quality agencies at the state

and regional level and to survey metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) responsible for

developing regional transportation plans and conducting conformity determinations. Prior to

conducting the survey, a literature review was conducted. The purpose of the literature review

was to identify the types of land use policies that are believed to have beneficial air quality

impacts, the analytical issues that have arisen when considering the air quality (or emissions)

benefits of these policies, and the communities around the country that are adopting and

evaluating the impacts of these policies. 

Twenty-seven metropolitan areas that are classified as non-attainment or maintenance areas for

either ozone or carbon monoxide were surveyed. The areas are listed in Table ES-1. The survey

methodology used a prescribed set of interview guidelines to engage participants in a discussion

of the major issues. Interviews were conducted with EPA regional office contacts, state air

quality officials, regional air quality officials, MPO staff, and several state and municipal

planning officials. Air agency personnel were asked questions about land use control measures

in air quality plans and about barriers to the adoption of such measures. MPO personnel were

asked questions about how land use policies are taken into account in the travel demand

modeling and transportation planning process. All interviewees were asked to suggest local,

regional, or state land use policies that might have an effect on vehicle use and emissions. All

were also asked to give their opinion as to what, if anything, EPA could do to better promote 

sustainable land use practices.

Key Findings

The key findings of the study fall into five major categories: 1) current state of practice of land

use and air quality planning, 2) analytical methods issues and barriers, 3) barriers to adopting
ii

Table ES-1: Metropolitan Areas Selected for Interviews

(3$ 5HJLRQ 6WDWH 0HWURSROLWDQ $UHD 1RQ$WWDLQPHQW0DLQWHQDQFH 6WDWXV

2]RQH &2

 0( 3RUWODQG 0RGHUDWH

 0$ %RVWRQ 6HULRXV 1RW &ODVVLILHG 3

 1+ 3RUWVPRXWK 6HULRXV

 5, 3URYLGHQFH DOO 5, 6HULRXV

 1< $OEDQ\ 0DUJLQDO

 1<1-&1 1HZ <RUN &LW\ 6HYHUH 0RGHUDWH

 '& :DVKLQJWRQ '& 6HULRXV

 0' %DOWLPRUH 6HYHUH

 3$ 3KLODGHOSKLD 6HYHUH

 1& 5DOHLJK'XUKDP 0DLQWHQDQFH

 *$ $WODQWD 6HULRXV

 ,/ &KLFDJR 6HYHUH

 7; +RXVWRQ 0RGHUDWH

 7; 'DOODV 6HYHUH

 &2 'HQYHU 7UDQVLWLRQDO 6HULRXV

 &2 )RUW &ROOLQV 0RGHUDWH 

 87 6DOW /DNH &LW\ 0DLQWHQDQFH 1RW &ODVVLILHG

 $= 3KRHQL[ 6HULRXV 6HULRXV

 &$ 6RXWK &RDVW /$ $UHD ([WUHPH 6HULRXV

 &$ 6DFUDPHQWR 6HYHUH 0RGHUDWH 

 &$ 6DQ 'LHJR 6HULRXV 0RGHUDWH 

 &$ 6DQ -RDTXLQ 9DOOH\ 6HULRXV 0RGHUDWH  	  3

 &$ 6DQ )UDQFLVFR %D\ 1RQDWWDLQPHQW 0RGHUDWH 

 &$ 0RQWHUH\ %D\ 0DLQWHQDQFH

 &$ 9HQWXUD &RXQW\ 6HYHUH

 25 3RUWODQG 0DLQWHQDQFH

 :$ 6HDWWOH 0DLQWHQDQFH

(P): a portion of the ozone non-attainment area is in non-attainment for CO.

Ozone and CO non-attainment area may not be contiguous.

This list does not reflect the May 27, 1998 revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard for some counties
iii

land use measures in SIPs, 4) region-wide land use planning issues and barriers, and 5) issues

and barriers affecting local implementation of sustainable land use measures.

State of Practice

Table ES-2 provides a summary listing of the metropolitan areas that were surveyed that have

identified land use related control measures in an air quality plan (either a federal SIP submittal

or a state required plan). Table ES-3 provides a summary listing of areas that have programs to

encourage alternative land use policies but who are not incorporating these programs into their

SIPs. The following key findings were observed with respect to the state of current practice in

land use and air quality planning.

 Nine of the metropolitan areas surveyed for this study have identified land use related

control measures in an air quality plan. One of these has quantified emission reduction

benefits in a federally required SIP.

 There are generally two ways that metropolitan areas may include sustainable land use

policies in their air quality plans: 1) by incorporating these measures into the land use

forecasts reflected in their travel demand models for regional transportation planning

purposes and thus implicitly considering impacts in their SIP emission baseline, or 2)

identifying an alternative land use strategy as compared to what is reflected in the

regional transportation plan and conducting an independent evaluation of the emission

reduction benefits of the alternative strategy as an explicit control measure.

 All metropolitan areas consider future land uses as part of their travel demand modeling

process. This usually consists of allocating region-wide population and employment

growth forecasts to the local (city) and traffic analysis zone (zone) level and then

reflecting this allocation in the travel demand model inputs in terms of socioeconomic/demographic data. More sophisticated travel demand models include other

land use variables (such as access to transit or pedestrian environment factors) in their

mode choice components. The Clean Air Act Amendments require SIPs to use the travel

forecasts produced by these travel demand models, incorporating reasonable assumptions

about future land use, population, and employment growth, although the specific impacts

of these assumptions on travel behavior are often poorly characterized with existing

models.

& EPA is supporting efforts to enable more sustainable land use practices in several ways. 

EPA is working with US DOT as part of the new Transportation and Community and

System Preservation Pilot Program. The core goal of this program is to create a funding

source for states, MPOs or local governments that want to do a better job coordinating

their land use and transportation planning. Another way is WKURXJK WKH SLORW $LU

%URZQILHOGV SURJUDP LQ %DOWLPRUH &KLFDJR DQG 'DOODV 7KLV SURJUDP LV ZRUNLQJ WR

LGHQWLI\ D PHWKRG WR TXDQWLI\ WKH HPLVVLRQ EHQHILWV RI EURZQILHOGV UHGHYHORSPHQW WKDW

ZRXOG HQDEOH (3$ WR HYHQWXDOO\ RIIHU OLPLWHG 6,3 FUHGLW IRU WKHVH DFWLYLWLHV
iv

7DEOH (6 /DQG 8VH 0HDVXUHV LQ $LU 4XDOLW\ 3ODQV

0HWUR $UHD

/DQG 8VH 0HDVXUH LQ

4XDQWLILH

G

3URJUDPV

)HGHUDO 6,3 6WDWH $4 3ODQ

6DQ )UDQFLVFR 1R <HV <HV 3URPRWH 7UDQVLW2ULHQWHG

'HYHORSPHQW

3URPRWH /RFDO 3HGHVWULDQ

3ROLFLHV

6DFUDPHQWR <HV <HV <HV &RPELQDWLRQ WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ DQG

ODQG XVH 7&0

0RQWHUH\ %D\ 1R <HV 1R /LYDEOH &RPPXQLWLHV

6RXWK &RDVW /$ 1R <HV 
 1R 1HZ DQG ([LVWLQJ 'HYHORSPHQW

6WDQGDUGV

9HQWXUD &RXQW\ <HV <HV 1R &RQJHVWLRQ 0DQDJHPHQW

3URJUDP

 MREVKRXVLQJ EDODQFH

 LPSDFW RI ODQG XVH GHFLVLRQV

3RUWODQG 25 <HV QD 1R 8UEDQ *URZWK %RXQGDU\

5HJLRQDO )XQFWLRQDO 3ODQ

 ORFDO DFFRPPRGDWLRQ RI

KRXVLQJ DQG HPSOR\PHQW

 UHJLRQDO SDUNLQJ SROLF\

 QR ODUJH UHWDLO LQ LQGXVWULDO

DUHDV SROLF\

%DOWLPRUH <HV QD 1R 6PDUW *URZWK ,QLWLDWLYHV

6DQ 'LHJR 1R <HV 1R ,QGLUHFW 6RXUFH 3URJUDP

1HZ -HUVH\ <HV QD 1R 6WDWH JURZWK PDQDJHPHQW


 0HDVXUH ZDV LQFOXGHG LQ  3ODQ WKHQ UHPRYHG IURP  3ODQ
v

Table ES-3: Land Use Measures Not in Air Quality Plans

Metro Area Program

Ventura County Livable Communities -- encourage local gov'ts to revise plans to promote compact,

mixed use development, ped-friendly design, transit-oriented design, etc.

San Diego Regional Growth Management Strategy -- focus new development around rail

stations

Denver Vision 2020 -- more compact growth, preservation of open space, etc.

Fort Collins City Plan -- comprehensive plan requires UGB, contiguous new development, etc.

Seattle State Growth Management Act -- local governments must identify growth areas

South Coast (LA) Clean Air Communities -- revise state environmental review to encourage design

factors that reduce emissions

Analytical Methods Issues and Barriers

If metropolitan areas were to incorporate land use measures into SIPs, there are some serious

analytical issues and barriers that need to be addressed given the capabilities of current travel

demand and emissions models. There are no simple methodologies to quantify the emissions

impacts of land use policies.

 Given that the emissions impacts of land use measures can be expressed in SIPs either

implicitly (through the emission baseline) or explicitly, it is critical that the potential

benefits of these measures not be double counted. The Clean Air Act states that the

preparation of the SIP and subsequent revisions must be coordinated with a continuing,

cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process as required under

Section 134 Title 23 U.S.C. This planning process requires the transportation plan to

take into account and be consistent with land use plans in the metropolitan area. To the

extent that the provisions of these plans can be expressed as inputs to prescribed travel

demand models, land use policies should already be accounted for in the SIP emission

baseline. However, the impacts of some land use policies may not be captured in the

prescribed travel demand models and these may be identified as control measures and

their emission impacts quantified with off-model analyses

 Modeling of land use measures is an emerging area, with few standard protocols. Stateof-the-art forecasting practices are being developed that can account for coarse, largescale land use policies designed to discourage sprawl and protect open space -- policies

like urban growth boundaries, adequate public facilities ordinances, transfer of

development rights, etc. Some models attempt to account for smaller-scale or microscale land use policies designed to encourage alternative travel modes, policies like

requirements for pedestrian- and bike-friendly design elements, higher density zoning

around transit facilities, fine-grained mixed-use zoning, etc.
vi

 EPA is supporting improvements to these analytical methods by funding efforts to better

incorporate both regional and micro-scale land use factors in regional travel demand

models.

Barriers to SIP Adoption

 Two-thirds of the survey respondents felt that EPA guidance on the expected emission

reduction benefits of land use measures would be helpful, but few feel that this alone

would be sufficient to motivate them to take credit for these policies in their SIP. Many

respondents believe that the potential emission reduction benefits are small, that they are

difficult to commit to in SIPs, and that their benefits are too far in the future for the

attainment schedules required in SIPs. Nonetheless, many areas support these measures

for reasons other than air quality benefits. Planners in the areas considering land use

measures feel that air quality benefits provide additional justification for the adoption of

these measures.

 In areas where regional agencies have no jurisdiction over local land use decisions, the

regional agencies are concerned about committing to emission reductions from policies

that must be adopted through local government action.

 A number of respondents, particularly MPO planners, believe that it may not be possible

to credibly quantify the benefits of sustainable land use policies using existing travel

demand models.

Region-Wide Land Use Planning Coordination Issues and Barriers

Land use policies that get adopted by isolated local governments may have little or no impact on

regional vehicle use or emissions. Regional growth is often fixed so that growth controls in one

part of the region may simply force growth to occur in other parts of the region that have not

adopted growth management policies. In such instances there may be no regional emissions

reductions. Therefore, regional coordination of land use planning is important if air quality

benefits are to be realized.

 Jurisdiction over land use policy is granted to cities and counties by state governments. 

Regional land use planning is the exception and not the rule throughout the U.S. This

tradition of local control over land use decisions is deeply ingrained in our political and

legal system.

 State or metropolitan growth management programs are likely to be more successful in

rapidly growing areas concerned about the effects of future growth on quality of life. In

slow growing communities, competition among cities for growth (and associated tax

revenues) is often too great to make regional growth management politically feasible.

 There may be conflicting objectives in the encouragement of regional sustainable land

use policies. For example, regional policies to preserve open space or protect certain

natural resources may preclude the development of shopping and employment centers

near existing residential areas. These policies may actually contribute to increased VMT

and emissions.
vii

 Many of the cumulative impacts of uncontrolled sprawl development are felt most

intensely by inner-ring suburbs and urban core areas, yet controls must be put in place in

the outermost suburbs where unmanaged growth is occurring. While development may

have locally beneficial impacts for these outer suburbs, their actions may have negative

impacts on the region as a whole.

 There are relatively few areas that have voluntary regional land use policies where we

can assess the impact of encouraging local adoption of land use controls and how

effective these controls are at shaping local development practices.

Issues and Barriers Affecting Local Implementation of Sustainable Land Use Measures

 Areas generally lack an understanding of the positive fiscal benefits of compact,

contiguous development. Local government land use policies are often shaped by fiscal

concerns. Commercial development and low density (high value) residential

development is often seen as a mechanism to increase the local tax base

Directions for Future Efforts

In exploring ways that EPA can be effective in enabling sustainable land use planning as part of

the air quality planning process, it is useful to classify metropolitan areas into two types: those

that have adopted some sustainable land use policies but need help taking credit for them, and

those that have not yet adopted any meaningful land use policies.

Helping Metropolitan Areas Take Credit for Existing Land Use Policies

More research is needed to determine how effective state, regional, and local land use policies

are, and methods are needed to predict the development impacts of different land use policies

based on the characteristics of communities that adopt these policies.

 Current travel demand models need to be improved so that they can better account for the

travel behavior impacts of region-wide land use policies. This will allow for more

reliable accounting of sustainable land use policies in emission baselines and the regional

transportation planning process.

 New analytical techniques are needed to account for the travel behavior impacts of

micro-scale changes in land use and design features.

 More research is needed to understand the nature of actual emissions impacts resulting

from different land use policies and urban form. This will provide regions that pursue

alternative land use strategies greater confidence that these measures actually result in

cleaner air.

Promoting Adoption of Sustainable Land Use Policies

 The potential benefits of sustainable land use policies seem to be acknowledged by many

planners for a variety of reasons beyond their air quality benefits. These planners believe

that EPA can be helpful in promoting the policies by identifying and publicizing relevant
viii

examples of sustainable land use practices that could serve as models for other

communities that are investigating these options.

 Since jurisdiction for land use control lies at the local level, regional and state air quality

and transportation planners need to be able to gain consensus of local governments in

order to implement regional land use programs. EPA could play a useful role by

identifying or developing model processes for achieving consensus among local

governments on regional land use policies and priorities.

 EPA and FHWA should investigate ways to use the existing metropolitan growth

forecasting process as a forum for pursuing regional land use goals and strategies. In the

current process, local governments are already involved in dialogue and negotiation with

the regional planning agencies (MPOs and COGs) with respect to how best to allocate

regional growth forecasts in consideration of local land use policies. This process could

be taken a step further by engaging local governments in a collective process to achieve

consensus on regional land use policies.

 In order to overcome local resistance to growth management, EPA could provide

information to local governments about the fiscal benefits of compact, sustainable

development.

 EPA should investigate the possibility of allowing local governments to offer adoption of

sustainable land use policies as an alternative to project deletion in cases of nonconforming TIPs. 

 EPA could promote efforts to modify and streamline existing environmental review

processes (e.g., NEPA environmental impact statements) in ways that could recognize

the adoption of sustainable development practices.
1

 ,1752'8&7,21

 3XUSRVH

This report summarizes work done in support of the U.S. EPA Office of Mobile Sources

Transportation and Market Incentive Group's efforts to reduce mobile source air pollution by

providing tools to quantify, recognize, and where appropriate, credit sustainable land use and

transportation practices. The work focuses on the ways that land use policies and patterns are

accounted for in State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and in regional transportation planning

analyses (e.g. regional transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and

conformity determinations). The study also identifies analytical and institutional barriers that

impede air quality agencies from more explicitly accounting for air quality benefits of alternative

land use patterns and policies in air quality plans. Information was collected primarily through

interviews with air quality agencies, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and councils

of government (COGs), and through a review of various plans and reports produced by these

agencies. Additional information was collected through interviews with selected state and local

government officials, and through other literature.

EPA has traditionally sought to reduce mobile source emissions through technology and tailpipe

controls, and these efforts have produced significant benefits. As automobile use continues to

rise, however, it is becoming recognized that technological improvements may not be enough. 

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has been increasing well ahead of population growth. A number

of factors have contributed to this rise, including more women entering the workforce, rising

incomes and vehicle ownership rates, as well as recent development practices. Suburban growth

patterns that segregate residential, shopping and employment centers force people to make

longer and more frequent automobile trips. These segregated land uses are usually developed at

densities that do not support transit service. New developments are designed in ways that make

travel by walking, bicycle or transit unpleasant or impossible. Many local governments have

taken steps to promote more sustainable development practices. EPA has recognized that one of

the potential benefits of these policies is a reduction in vehicle use and vehicle emissions. 

Where they can be shown to be reducing mobile source emissions, EPA wishes to grant SIP

credit for sustainable land use policies. This requires a better understanding of how land use is

currently incorporated into transportation and air quality plans.

Land use policies could be accounted for in air quality plans in two general ways. A policy or

set of policies could be identified explicitly as a transportation control measure (TCM) in a SIP

or other air quality plan. The air agency commits to implement the policy, and calculates the

resulting reduction in mobile source emissions. A policy could also be incorporated into the

land use forecasting process that underlies travel demand forecasts. A SIP begins with a

baseline forecast of emissions, from which control measure reductions are subtracted. This

baseline is developed by forecasting future land use and travel patterns. If these forecasts fully

account for the land use policies, then vehicle emissions in the baseline have already been

reduced 
2

accordingly. This could be considered implicit SIP credit. This study will explore both of these

methods for incorporating land use policies.

 5HODWHG 'HYHORSPHQWV

Three recent developments have highlighted the need for a better understanding of the ways that

transportation and air quality planning is accounting for land use policies.

EPA Voluntary Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Programs

In October 1997, EPA issued a new policy designed to allow SIP credit for Voluntary Mobile

Source Emissions Reduction Programs (VMEPs). A number of states and local agencies have

adopted innovative measures to reduce mobile source emissions by encouraging voluntary

actions by the public. These measures include economic and market-based incentive programs,

transportation control measures, trip reduction programs, ozone action programs, and targeted

public outreach. These types of measures can also include state and regional growth

management strategies that encourage local governments to adopt land use policies that reduce

automobile use.

Growing body of literature documenting the impact of land use patterns on travel behavior

There is a rich and growing body of literature on the land use / transportation relationship. Land

use patterns affect travel behavior, and transportation investments affect development patterns. 

These relationships are complex, and it is often difficult to isolate the effect of specific variables. 

But a number of careful empirical studies have shown that factors such as density, land use

mixing, design elements, and transit access are related to vehicle use. At the same time, more

powerful computers are making it possible to simulate the travel and emissions impacts of

different land use scenarios for an entire region. These advances suggest that we may now be

able to estimate the impacts of particular land use policies on travel and vehicle emissions.

Growing interest in regional and state growth management

There is a growing interest at all levels of government in examining and addressing the

consequences of unconstrained urban growth. As people look to the future and see increasing

congestion, worsening air quality, and the continuing loss of open space and agricultural lands, a

number of states and regions have taken action. Many metropolitan areas are in the process of

developing a long-range vision for themselves, and trying to put policies in place to reach that

vision. Several states have adopted growth management or "smart growth" policies intended to

limit unwanted sprawl development. These policies, when they take effect, may give urban

areas a better tool to reduce the environmental impacts of automobile use. 

 5HSRUW 2UJDQL]DWLRQ

This report is organized into seven chapters. After this Introduction, Chapter 2 describes the

literature review performed for the study, including reviews of several complementary EPA

work efforts. Chapter 3 describes the methodology behind the survey process. Chapter 4

presents the main findings from the survey. Chapter 5 contains suggestions given in the
3

interviews for ways that EPA could help to promote sustainable land use practices. Chapter 6 is

a synthesis and analysis of the survey findings. And Chapter 7 discusses some possible next

steps. A full list of survey contacts is included as Appendix A and an outline of the interview

questions is included as Appendix B.
1 The Effects of Urban Form on Travel and Emissions: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature, Draft

Report, prepared by Apogee/Hagler Bailly for the EPA Urban and Economic Development Division, April 17,

1998.

4

 /,7(5$785( 5(9,(:

Although literature review was not the primary purpose of this work, a number of on-going and

recent work efforts are closely related to the study. Documents from these efforts were reviewed

in order to gain a better understanding of the work context and to make the most efficient use of

the interview phase. 

 &RPSOHPHQWDU\ (3$ :RUN (IIRUWV

There are several other recent and on-going EPA research efforts that complement this study. 

They are briefly described below.

The Effects of Urban Form on Travel and Emissions: A Review and Synthesis of the

Literature.

This is an ongoing contract with Apogee/Hagler Bailly under EPA's Office of Policy (OP). The

draft report offers a thorough summary of recent research on the effect of land use on travel

behavior.1

 Studies fall into two general categories. Empirical studies compare data collected

from actual communities and try to distinguish how various land use factors lead to different

travel patterns. Simulation studies use computer models to examine the impact of hypothetical

land use patterns on travel and emissions. 

The report concludes that changes in land use can reduce region-wide vehicle use and emissions

over a period of several decades. Using simulation models, several studies have convincingly

shown that modifying future development patterns in ways that make them less dependent on

automobile use will reduce VMT and emissions. The reduction in emissions comes from shorter

trip lengths and shifts to transit, bicycling and walking modes. While computer modeling has

improved greatly in recent years, it is still subject to some serious limitations. Zonal size

generally precludes modeling the impact of micro-scale design features, for example. 

The report documents how numerous empirical studies have shown relationships between

specific land use factors and components of travel demand. For example, compact clusters of

mixed-use development are correlated with reduced trip lengths. Similarly, higher density

communities of mixed land use are associated with higher shares of travel by transit, bicycling

and walking. The report acknowledges the methodological flaws that limit the conclusions that

can be drawn from empirical studies Some, for example, do not control for factors like income

when comparing neighborhoods. A more fundamental flaw is the fact that cross-sectional

studies, by nature, cannot establish causality. Cross-sectional studies are those that compare two

or more different places at the same point in time. They can show a correlation between certain

land use factors and lower automobile use, but they cannot say that these same factors will cause
2 The Transportation and Environmental Impacts of Infill versus Greenfield Development: A Comparative

Case Study Analysis, Review Draft, Criterion, Inc. and Apogee Research, December 17, 1997.

3 Evaluation of Modeling Tools for Assessing Land Use Policies and Strategies, prepared by Arlene S.

Rosenbaum and Brett E. Koenig of Systems Applications International, for the EPA Office of Mobile Sources,

August 1997.

5

lower auto use in new communities. Nonetheless, most experts in the field accept that there is at

least some causal relationship between land use patterns and travel behavior.

A Methodology to Establish SIP Creditability of Infill Development

This is an ongoing contract with Apogee/Hagler Bailly and Criterion under EPA's Office of

Policy (OP). Preliminary work performed is described in a draft report.2

 This study uses

regional travel demand modeling to compare the travel and emissions impacts between a

hypothetical development located on an infill site and on a greenfield site. Models were run for

three case studies, in San Diego, California, Montgomery County, Maryland, and West Palm

Beach, Florida. Each case study consisted of modeling a hypothetical large development as if it

were located on an actual infill site, and then modeling the same development as if it were on an

actual greenfield site. The development size remains the same in both locations, but the density

and street patterns are consistent with the surrounding urban form at each location. In each case,

the MPO travel demand model was used to simulate the travel impacts of the development. 

Environmental impacts (including NOx and CO2 emissions) and energy use were estimated

using a GIS-based model called INDEX. 

All three case studies show that locating the development on the infill site results in lower

vehicle use and lower vehicle emissions. VMT per capita at the infill sites was roughly half that

at the greenfield sites. NOx emissions were 27 percent to 42 percent lower at the infill sites,

even though congestion at one infill site was higher than the greenfield site. It should be noted

that the INDEX model uses simplified per-mile and per-trip emissions factors, not the standard

vehicle emissions models. Further work is continuing under this contract. The same simulation

methodology will be used in different cities to determine how emissions reductions vary with

development size and composition.

Evaluation of Modeling Tools for Assessing Land Use Policies and Strategies

This complementary effort was done for the EPA Transportation and Market Incentives Group

by Systems Application International (SAI).3

 Their final report was issued in August 1997. The

work was intended to assess how regional land use forecasting models are able to incorporate

specific land use policies. The report evaluates three commercial land use models:

DRAM/EMPAL, MEPLAN and TRANUS. Each model was evaluated in terms of how well it

could account for policies designed to 1) increase development densities, 2) increase land use

mixing, and 3) modify design elements and infrastructure to encourage alternative travel modes. 

The specific policies used to achieve these goals were summarized as zoning, monetary

incentives (such as subsidies to developers to build in targeted areas), and non-monetary

incentives (such as reduced parking requirements).
6

The study concludes that DRAM/EMPAL, because it does not easily represent costs, cannot

model the impact of any of the three types of policies. MEPLAN and TRANUS do include

representations of development costs, and therefore can at least partially model zoning policies

as well as monetary and non-monetary incentives. The report points out that all the models are

seriously constrained by zonal size, however. They are usually run using zones the size of

several census tracts, or a single census tract at the smallest. As a typical urban census tract is

roughly one square mile, a model built on zones of this size could possibly detect an increase in

density within a half-mile of a transit station or transit corridor. It could not detect smaller-scale

land use changes. If the zonal system uses aggregations of census tracts, even transit station-area

densities could not be resolved.

Transportation Impacts of Micro Scale Urban Design Elements: Data Collection and

Modeling Needs

This 1998 joint DOT (FHWA)/EPA (OMS and OP) funded project will bring together current

knowledge and recent research concerning the ability to appropriately reflect the transportation

impacts of various micro-scale urban design elements (e.g., sidewalk width, building setback,

street grid type, etc.). The schedule calls for a final report by January 1, 1999 from the

contractor conducting the study, Parsons Brinckerhoff. The report will explain procedures to

estimate how land use development strategies and site design elements affect travel behavior and

will give examples from selected MPO experience. Particularly useful for MPOs will be a

product which will relate specific urban design changes to auto ownership, trip generation (or

tour or activity generation), and mode choice for use in current travel demand models.

Air Quality Impacts of Regional Land Use Policies

This 1998 joint OP/OMS-funded grant to Robert Johnston at the University of California, Davis

will produce a document for policy makers at the national, state, and metropolitan levels that

illustrates the air quality benefits or deficits of regional policy scenarios that affect land use

development patterns. Policies that affect land use directly, such as removing density caps on

zoning around rail stations, and indirectly, such as travel pricing or transit investment will be

simulated. A suite of models is under development which utilizes earlier work done in the

Sacramento metropolitan area. Numerous scenarios will be evaluated and compared to the

expected baseline out to the year 2015. Scenarios having strong effects on region wide

accessability and affecting demand for travel or land significantly (e.g., new road capacity,

major region wide transit capacity expansion, or strong travel and parking pricing policies) will

be evaluated. In addition, plans call for evaluation of scenarios that include land market pricing

corrections, such as incentives for infill development, and land development fees for raw land

projects at the urban edge and beyond.

The simulations of land use, transit, and travel pricing scenarios for the Sacramento region using

the regional MPO's travel demand model are complete. Part two of the project is underway. This

will evaluate the best two or three scenarios, using two urban models that represent land

development and travel, Meplan and an improved Tranus. A final report is expected in late 1998.

These results will give differences that take into account land use pricing and give indications of
7

the magnitude of land use price differentials for the various outcomes. Results will be compared

to the less resource intensive modeling technique previously used.

Other Existing Federal Programs

A number of other federal government programs also support the efforts to promote sustainable

land use practices. Several of these are described below.

EPA facilitates the Smart Growth Network, a broad coalition of developers, planners,

educational institutions, public agencies, community activists and environmentalists. The aim is

to promote metropolitan development that minimizes air and water pollution, strengthens local

economies, preserves community character, and protects open space. The network provides

practitioners a way to share examples of successful development and the lessons learned in

implementing smart growth policies or techniques. The Smart Growth Network website

provides examples of many smart growth practices and tools to aid smart growth advocates

(www.smartgrowth.org).

Transportation Partners is a cooperative program of the EPA. The program works with citizen

groups, local governments, businesses and associations to develop transportation choices and

practical solutions to improve mobility, efficiency, quality of life and the environment, while

reducing vehicle miles traveled. EPA teams with nongovernmental organizations who provide

technical and strategic expertise for innovative community actions. 

 Section 1221 of the recently reauthorized federal surface transportation funding program

(TEA21) provides USDOT with $120 million over 6 years that can be granted to state, local and

regional agencies that partner with non-profits, private sector interests and each other to bring

together transportation and land use decisions. This new program is known as The

Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program. 

US DOT is in the early stages of designing an implementation strategy for this program. The

core goal is to create a funding source for states, MPOs or local governments that want to do a

better job coordinating their land use and transportation planning. Federal funds could pay to

develop, assess and implement alternative investment and growth scenarios. In addition to funds

for planning, US DOT is authorized to make "implementation grants" where plans have

advanced far enough, and to fund cross cutting research. 

The U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development's (HUD) coordinates the National Partners in

Home Ownership Program. Numerous organizations are involved in carrying out HUD's

National Home Ownership Strategy, which calls attention to Sustainable Development. Home

Ownership Zones support rebuilding and revitalizing old neighborhoods with New Urbanism

principles. Included in this program is support of location efficient mortgages, which would

reward purchasers of homes in areas that are less dependent on automobile travel.

The Location Efficient Mortgage (LEM) is an innovative mortgage product that will be offered

in Chicago to low-and moderate-income borrowers who are interested in living in urban areas
8

served by public transportation systems. The Federal National Mortgage Corporation ("Fannie

Mae") has agreed to initiate a $100 million market test of the LEM in Chicago. The current time

schedule calls for a roll-out of the product by four Chicago mortgage lenders in 1998. A

working team from Fannie Mae and the LEM Partnership is now developing underwriting

standards and a marketing plan for the test of the LEM in Chicago. EPA is funding the

evaluation of the air quality impacts through a cooperative agreement with the Center for

Neighborhood Technology. The EPA funding will be used to develop a methodology to

quantify air quality impacts and explore SIP credit via the new voluntary measures policy.

The EPA Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots provide money to states, cities, towns,

counties, and tribes to facilitate cleaning up sites contaminated with hazardous substances and

returning them to productive use. Pilot funding is used to test redevelopment models, direct

special efforts toward removing regulatory barriers, and facilitate coordinated site assessment,

environmental cleanup and redevelopment efforts at the federal, state, and local levels.

EPA (OAR, OSWER, and OP) is also working with the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM)

and the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Agency (EDA) on a pilot Air

Brownfields program in Baltimore, Chicago, and Dallas to identify a method to quantify the

emission benefits of brownfields redevelopment that would enable EPA to eventually offer

limited SIP credit for these activities.

EPA's Transportation Air Quality (TRAQ) Center provides state and local air quality regulators

and transportation planners with access to critical information regarding opportunities, grant

funding sources, useful contact names, and technical assistance. More information about the

Center’s activities can be obtained on the World Wide Web

(http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp.htm).

 

The Center of Excellence for Sustainable Development helps communities design and implement

innovative strategies that enhance the local economy as well as the local environment and 

quality of life. Created by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, the Center of Excellence can:

 Define what sustainable development is and how it can apply to you; 

 Show how sustainable development is being practiced by other urban and rural

communities across the nation; 

 Provide communities with a "tool kit" of sustainable information including manuals, 

workbooks, data bases, case studies and model codes and ordinances; 

 Help communities identify public and private sources of technical and financial

assistance to carry out their programs; 

 Provide communities with information about the public participation processes other

communities have found work best in planning and implementing sustainable

development; and 

 Develop a menu of energy efficiency and renewable energy programs that fit the unique

needs of each community. 
9

More information about the Center can be obtained from their web site

(http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/).

The Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP) is a multi-year, multi-agency program to

develop new travel demand modeling procedures that accurately and reliably forecast travel for a

broad range of modes, policy actions and operational conditions. To remedy current model

deficiencies, the Department of Transportation (including the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the Office of the Assistant Secretary

for Transportation Policy) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) have

initiated the Travel Model Improvement Program to enhance current models and develop new

procedures. Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), under contract to FHWA, is responsible for

overall program support and outreach efforts.

The objectives of the Program are: 1) To increase the policy sensitivity of existing travel

forecasting procedures and their ability to respond to emerging issues including environmental

concerns, growth management, and changes in personal and household activity patterns, along

with the traditional transportation issues; 2) To redesign the travel forecasting process to reflect

today's traveler behavior, to respond to greater information needs placed on the forecasting

process, and to take advantage of changes in data collection technology; and 3) To make travel

forecasting model results more useful for decision makers. The models developed in this

program will determine the effects of transportation improvements on congestion, air quality,

and land development.

 ,GHQWLILFDWLRQ RI 6XVWDLQDEOH /DQG 8VH 3ROLFLHV

Literature was also reviewed in order to identify all the land use policies that might be relevant

to this study. Knowing and understanding these policies was useful in helping to identify them

during interviews. There are several recent documents that provide useful summaries of regional

and local land use policies. These documents include the following: Evaluation of Modeling

Tools for Assessing Land Use Policies and Strategies, Systems Applications International, 1997;

Transportation-Related Land Use Strategies to Minimize Motor Vehicle Emissions: An Indirect

Source Research Study, California Air Resources Board, 1995; Improving Air Quality Through

Local Plans and Programs: A Guidebook for City and County Governments, Association of Bay

Area Governments, 1994; and A Manual of Regional Transportation Modeling Practice for Air

Quality Analysis, Greig Harvey and Elizabeth Deakin, July 1993. The list of policies below was

developed largely from these documents.

Regional sustainable land use policies

The following are examples of land use policies that would typically be adopted at a regional or

sub-regional level. They generally work to promote orderly, contiguous development at the

urban edge. They discourage "leap-frog" development -- isolated residential sub-divisions

located beyond the urban edge and beyond existing service areas, bypassing undeveloped lands. 
10

While they still require local implementation, they often must be coordinated at the regional or

state level to be effective. These policies include:

& Urban limit lines and development reserves.

& Mandatory consistency between local land use plans and local and regional transportation

plans.

& Requirements for the provision of adequate public facilities concurrent with

development.

& Mandatory city, county and regional balancing of job growth with the housing

development, priced and located to match the need and incomes of the work force.

& Regional tax and expenditure policies that promote infill development.

Local sustainable land use policies

Most land use policies are local government policies, since that is the level at which most land

use decisions are made. These policies can be grouped as supporting three main objectives:

increase density, increase land use mixing, and incorporate design elements that encourage

alternative modes.

Objective: Focused higher density development

Policies:

& Allow transfer of unused development density capacity in outlying areas to permit

development density above maximum limits near central areas and transit.

& Allowing increased density for residential, retail, and employment generated uses in

central areas and around transit.

& Setting minimum densities for residential, retail, and employment generating uses in

central areas and around transit.

& Requiring no net decrease in residential density for redevelopment.

& Stating densities in terms of square feet of land use per dwelling unit, rather than

minimum lot size, to encourage clustering.

& Granting incentives (e.g., reduced parking requirements, accelerated permit processing,

infrastructure upgrades) for development that focuses on existing urban areas and infill.

& Adjusting development impact fee structures or giving tax breaks to encourage infill and

increased density development near transit and activity centers, and to discourage

outlying development.

Objective: Mixed-use zones

Policies:

& Allowing mixed use in places now prohibited.
4 A Technical Review of Urban Land Use -- Transportation Models as Tools for Evaluating Vehicle

Travel Reduction Strategies, July 1995, by Frank Southworth, Center for Transportation Analysis, Energy

Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Land Use and Travel Survey Data: A Survey of the Metropolitan

Planning Organizations of the 35 Largest U.S. Metropolitan Areas, October 1995, Chris Porter, Laura Melendy,

And Elizabeth Deakin, Institute of Urban And Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley.

11

& Requiring mixed uses, with specified percentages of residential, public and commercial

uses in target areas.

& Using fine-grained zoning to achieve mixed use while insuring residential zones are

buffered from heavy industrial zones with light industrial and commercial zones.

& Using mixed-use overlay zoning to add a second use to an area that is primarily in

another use, e.g., commercial corridors along major arterials in a primarily residential

area.

& Granting incentives (e.g., reduced parking requirements, accelerated permit processing,

infrastructure upgrades) for development that locates transit- or pedestrian-oriented

amenities, like housing or child care, near commercial uses.

& Adjusting development impact fee structures or giving tax breaks to encourage mixed

use.

Objective: Design elements that encourage pedestrian, bicycle, transit and ridesharing activity.

Policies:

& Requiring connected, narrower streets with trees and sidewalks in new development.

& Requiring bicycle lanes and transit stops on larger streets in new development.

& Requiring traffic-calming devices in new development.

& Reducing requirements for setbacks and minimum lot sizes to create a stronger

connection between buildings and sidewalks.

& Requiring signs, lighting, landscaping, etc that is oriented toward pedestrians in target

areas.

& Reducing minimum parking requirements near transit hubs and for projects providing

features that encourage pedestrian, bicycle, and transit activity.

& Setting parking maximums in transit- and pedestrian-oriented areas.

& Requiring preferential parking for carpools.

 2WKHU 5HOHYDQW /LWHUDWXUH

Literature was reviewed to gain a better understanding of current land use and transportation

demand modeling techniques. A compendium of several recent studies of land use modeling

was recently released as part of the Travel Model Improvement Program.4

 Two good summaries

of transportation modeling practice are A Manual of Regional Transportation Modeling Practice

for Air Quality Analysis, Greig Harvey and Elizabeth Deakin, July 1993, and Inside the Black

Box: Making Transportation Models Work For Livable Communities, Edward Beimborn and

Rob Kennedy, 1996. 
12

Other documents were reviewed to gain a better understanding of the SIP development and

RTP/TIP conformity processes, and how land use considerations can affect them. The flowchart

in Figure 2-1 provides an overview of these processes.
13

Baseline SIP

Land Use

 Emissions Budget

Consider TCMs

Land Use

 State Conformity Procedures

 Consider

 Land Use

 Yes

TRANSPORTATION No

PLAN SIP Revision Needed

Most Recent

Land Use

Projections Perform Regional Analysis for PLAN

No

 PLAN Conformity Consider

 Land Use

 Yes

 Yes

 No

 TIP Plan Revision Needed

 

Most Recent

Land Use

Projections Perform Regional Analysis for TIP

No Consider

 TIP Conformity Land Use

 Yes

 Yes

 No

 PROJECT TIP Revision Needed

 Perform CO or PM10 Hot Spot Analysis

 Revise

 Project

 No OR

 Project Conformity

 

 Yes

 

 Project Approval

Figure 2-1: Potential Land Use Considerations in the SIP and Conformity Process
14

 6859(< 0(7+2'2/2*<

7KH SULPDU\ LQWHQW RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR LQWHUYLHZ VWDWH DQG UHJLRQDO DJHQFLHV WKDW DUH LQYROYHG

LQ ODQG XVH WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ DQG DLU TXDOLW\ SODQQLQJ ,QWHUYLHZV ZHUH IRFXVHG RQ WKUHH W\SHV RI

DJHQFLHV DLU TXDOLW\ DJHQFLHV PHWURSROLWDQ SODQQLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQV DQG FRXQFLOV RI

JRYHUQPHQW $LU TXDOLW\ DJHQFLHV DUH UHVSRQVLEOH IRU GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH 6,3 ,Q PRVW VWDWHV

WKLV DJHQF\ LV D GLYLVLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH VWDWH HQYLURQPHQWDO GHSDUWPHQW WKRXJK D IHZ VWDWHV VXFK

DV &DOLIRUQLD DQG :DVKLQJWRQ KDYH UHJLRQDO DLU DJHQFLHV 032V DUH UHTXLUHG XQGHU IHGHUDO

ODZ WR SUHSDUH ERWK D \HDU 5HJLRQDO 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ 3ODQ 573 DQG 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ

,PSURYHPHQW 3URJUDP 7,3 7KH 573 LV D ORQJUDQJH SODQQLQJ GRFXPHQW WKDW HVWDEOLVKHV

JRDOV DQG SULRULWLHV IRU WKH UHJLRQ
V WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ V\VWHP ZKLOH WKH 7,3 LV JHQHUDOO\ D WKUHH

WR ILYH\HDU SURJUDPPLQJ GRFXPHQW WKDW LGHQWLILHV SUHFLVHO\ KRZ IXQGV ZLOO EH VSHQW RQ

WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ SURMHFWV &2*V VHUYH DV D UHJLRQDO IRUXP IRU ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV DQG SHUIRUP

GHPRJUDSKLF HPSOR\PHQW DQG ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJ IRU WKH UHJLRQ 2IWHQ WKH &2* DQG WKH

032 DUH WKH VDPH DJHQF\

7KH LQWHUYLHZV ZHUH OLPLWHG WR DJHQFLHV LQ PHWURSROLWDQ DUHDV WKDW DUH FODVVLILHG DV QRQ

DWWDLQPHQW RU PDLQWHQDQFH DUHDV IRU HLWKHU R]RQH RU FDUERQ PRQR[LGH 7ZHQW\VHYHQ

PHWURSROLWDQ DUHDV ZHUH VHOHFWHG IRU LQWHUYLHZV 7KHVH DUHDV DUH OLVWHG LQ 7DEOH  DORQJ ZLWK

WKHLU QRQDWWDLQPHQW RU PDLQWHQDQFH VWDWXV 7KH VWXG\ IRFXVHG SULPDULO\ RQ PHWURSROLWDQ DUHDV

LQ (3$ 5HJLRQV     DQG  DOWKRXJK VHYHUDO PHWUR DUHDV LQ 5HJLRQV    DQG  ZHUH

DGGHG WR WKH LQWHUYLHZ OLVW 7KXV WKH LQWHUYLHZV ZHUH QRW FRQGXFWHG DFURVV D IXOO FURVVVHFWLRQ

RI 86 PHWURSROLWDQ DUHDV EXW UDWKHU IRFXVHG RQ WKH (DVW &RDVW DQG :HVWHUQ VWDWHV $OVR E\

OLPLWLQJ WKH LQWHUYLHZV WR QRQDWWDLQPHQW DQG PDLQWHQDQFH DUHDV VHYHUDO PHWURSROLWDQ DUHDV

NQRZQ WR KDYH LQQRYDWLYH ODQG XVH SROLFLHV ZHUH QRW LQFOXGHG

0DQ\ RI WKH PHWURSROLWDQ DUHDV FKRVHQ IRU LQWHUYLHZV DUH ORFDWHG LQ &DOLIRUQLD 7KLV ZDV GRQH

LQ SDUW EHFDXVH PDQ\ FLWLHV LQ &DOLIRUQLD KDYH SRRU DLU TXDOLW\ EXW DOVR EHFDXVH VWDWH DLU

TXDOLW\ ODZV DOORZ PRUH IOH[LELOLW\ LQ WKH DGRSWLRQ RI WKH VRUWV RI ODQG XVH PHDVXUHV UHOHYDQW WR

WKLV VWXG\ 7KH &DOLIRUQLD &OHDQ $LU $FW RI  HVWDEOLVKHG VWDWH DPELHQW DLU TXDOLW\

VWDQGDUGV WKDW DUH PRUH VWULFW WKDQ IHGHUDO VWDQGDUGV 5HJLRQV WKDW FDQQRW FRPSO\ ZLWK WKH

VWDQGDUGV DUH UHTXLUHG WR UHGXFH SROOXWDQW HPLVVLRQV E\ ILYH SHUFHQW SHU \HDU RU WDNH DOO

IHDVLEOH PHDVXUHV WR DFKLHYH HPLVVLRQ UHGXFWLRQV 7KLV UHTXLUHPHQW KDV OHG VHYHUDO UHJLRQV WR

FRQVLGHU ODQG XVH UHODWHG FRQWURO PHDVXUHV DW OHDVW LQ WKHLU VWDWHPDQGDWHG DLU TXDOLW\

PDQDJHPHQW SODQV

$ WRWDO RI  LQWHUYLHZV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG IRU WKH VWXG\ 7KLV LQFOXGHG  DLU DJHQF\ SHUVRQQHO

 032 RU &2* SHUVRQQHO DQG IRXU RWKHUV ZRUNLQJ IRU D VWDWH RU ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW $ IXOO

OLVW RI LQWHUYLHZHHV DQG WKHLU SRVLWLRQ DQG DJHQF\ LV LQFOXGHG DV $SSHQGL[ $ 2I WKH DLU

DJHQF\ SHUVRQQHO QLQH ZHUH LQ PDQDJHPHQW SRVLWLRQV DQG  ZHUH VWDII SODQQHUV VFLHQWLVWV RU

DQDO\VWV 2I WKH 032&2* SHUVRQQHO HOHYHQ ZHUH LQ PDQDJHPHQW SRVLWLRQV DQG  ZHUH

VWDII SODQQHUV
15
16
17

Table 3-1: Metropolitan Areas Selected for Interviews

(3$ 5HJLRQ 6WDWH 0HWURSROLWDQ $UHD 1RQ$WWDLQPHQW0DLQWHQDQFH 6WDWXV

2]RQH &2

 0( 3RUWODQG 0RGHUDWH

 0$ %RVWRQ 6HULRXV 1RW &ODVVLILHG 3

 1+ 3RUWVPRXWK 6HULRXV

 5, 3URYLGHQFH DOO 5, 6HULRXV

 1< $OEDQ\ 0DUJLQDO

 1<1-&1 1HZ <RUN &LW\ 6HYHUH 0RGHUDWH

 '& :DVKLQJWRQ '& 6HULRXV

 0' %DOWLPRUH 6HYHUH

 3$ 3KLODGHOSKLD 6HYHUH

 1& 5DOHLJK'XUKDP 0DLQWHQDQFH

 *$ $WODQWD 6HULRXV

 ,/ &KLFDJR 6HYHUH

 7; +RXVWRQ 0RGHUDWH

 7; 'DOODV 6HYHUH

 &2 'HQYHU 7UDQVLWLRQDO 6HULRXV

 &2 )RUW &ROOLQV 0RGHUDWH 

 87 6DOW /DNH &LW\ 0DLQWHQDQFH 1RW &ODVVLILHG

 $= 3KRHQL[ 6HULRXV 6HULRXV

 &$ 6RXWK &RDVW /$ $UHD ([WUHPH 6HULRXV

 &$ 6DFUDPHQWR 6HYHUH 0RGHUDWH 

 &$ 6DQ 'LHJR 6HULRXV 0RGHUDWH 

 &$ 6DQ -RDTXLQ 9DOOH\ 6HULRXV 0RGHUDWH  	  3

 &$ 6DQ )UDQFLVFR %D\ 1RQDWWDLQPHQW 0RGHUDWH 

 &$ 0RQWHUH\ %D\ 0DLQWHQDQFH

 &$ 9HQWXUD &RXQW\ 6HYHUH

 25 3RUWODQG 0DLQWHQDQFH

 :$ 6HDWWOH 0DLQWHQDQFH

(P): a portion of the ozone non-attainment area is in non-attainment for CO. 

Ozone and CO non-attainment area may not be contiguous. 

This list does not reflect the May 27, 1998 revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard for some counties
18

$OO LQWHUYLHZV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG E\ WHOHSKRQH $ OLVW RI GLVFXVVLRQ SRLQWV ZDV XVHG WR JXLGH

HDFK LQWHUYLHZ DQG WKHVH DUH LQFOXGHG DV $SSHQGL[ % 4XHVWLRQV GLIIHUHG VRPHZKDW

GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH DJHQF\ DQG WKH UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV RI WKH LQWHUYLHZHH $LU DJHQF\ SHUVRQQHO

ZHUH DVNHG

TXHVWLRQV DERXW ODQG XVH FRQWURO PHDVXUHV LQ DLU TXDOLW\ SODQV DQG EDUULHUV WR WKH DGRSWLRQ RI

VXFK PHDVXUHV 032 DQG &2* SHUVRQQHO ZHUH DVNHG TXHVWLRQV DERXW SRSXODWLRQ DQG

HPSOR\PHQW JURZWK IRUHFDVWLQJ PHWKRGV WUDYHO GHPDQG PRGHOLQJ PHWKRGV DQG KRZ ODQG XVH

SROLFLHV DIIHFW WKHVH SURFHGXUHV $OO LQWHUYLHZHHV ZHUH DVNHG WR VXJJHVW ORFDO UHJLRQDO RU

VWDWH ODQG XVH SROLFLHV WKDW PLJKW KDYH DQ HIIHFW RQ YHKLFOH XVH DQG HPLVVLRQV $QG DOO ZHUH

DVNHG WR JLYH WKHLU RSLQLRQ DV WR ZKDW LI DQ\WKLQJ (3$ FRXOG GR WR EHWWHU HQFRXUDJH

VXVWDLQDEOH ODQG XVH SUDFWLFHV
19

 6859(< ),1',1*6

7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH VXUYH\ DUH SUHVHQWHG EHORZ )LUVW H[DPSOHV RI ODQG XVH PHDVXUHV WKDW DUH

LQFOXGHG LQ DLU TXDOLW\ SODQV DUH SUHVHQWHG 7KHVH LQFOXGH PHDVXUHV LQ 6,3V DV ZHOO DV

PHDVXUHV WKDW RQO\ DSSHDU LQ VWDWH PDQGDWHG SODQV 7KLV VHFWLRQ LV IROORZHG E\ D GLVFXVVLRQ RI

UHODWHG ODQG XVH PHDVXUHV WKDW DUH QRW LQFOXGHG LQ DLU TXDOLW\ SODQV )LQDOO\ WKH FKDSWHU

FRQFOXGHV ZLWK D GLVFXVVLRQ RI KRZ ODQG XVH SROLFLHV DUH EHLQJ LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ

GHPDQG IRUHFDVWV

7KH VXUYH\ UHVXOWV UHYHDO FHUWDLQ SDWWHUQV WKDW UHIOHFW WKH GLIIHUHQW W\SHV RI ODQG XVH

UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV WKDW HDFK OHYHO RI JRYHUQPHQW KDV 6WDWH JRYHUQPHQWV WHQG WR LQIOXHQFH ODQG

XVH GHFLVLRQV WKURXJK WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI SODQQLQJ JXLGHOLQHV HQDEOLQJ UHJLRQDO JURZWK

PDQDJHPHQW SODQQLQJ SURFHVVHV DQG SURYLGLQJ IXQGLQJ IRU LQQRYDWLYH SODQQLQJ 7KH 6WDWH RI

0DU\ODQG·V 6PDUW *URZWK LQLWLDWLYH LV RQH RI WKH PRVW FRPSUHKHQVLYH H[DPSOHV RI D VWDWH

SURJUDP 6WDWH LQIUDVWUXFWXUH IXQGLQJ DQG HFRQRPLF GHYHORSPHQW KRXVLQJ DQG RWKHU

FRPPXQLW\ GHYHORSPHQW IXQGLQJ LV OLPLWHG WR GHVLJQDWHG JURZWK DUHDV ,Q :DVKLQJWRQ D

VWDWH JURZWK PDQDJHPHQW DFW ZDV SDVVHG WKDW UHTXLUHV FLWLHV DQG FRXQWLHV WR GHVLJQDWH XUEDQ

JURZWK ERXQGDULHV 5HJLRQDO JRYHUQPHQW DJHQFLHV VXFK DV 032V FRXQFLOV RI JRYHUQPHQW

&2*V DQG UHJLRQDO DLU TXDOLW\ DJHQFLHV JHQHUDOO\ KDYH QR GLUHFW FRQWURO RU MXULVGLFWLRQ ZLWK

UHVSHFW WR ODQG XVH SROLF\ 5HJLRQDO SURJUDPV LQ PRVW FDVHV DUH IRFXVHG RQ LVVXLQJ SODQQLQJ

JXLGDQFH HVWDEOLVKLQJ UHJLRQDO JRDOV WKURXJK FRQVHQVXV SURFHVVHV DQG FRQGXFWLQJ RXWUHDFK

DQG HGXFDWLRQ SURJUDPV DLPHG DW LQIOXHQFLQJ ORFDO ODQG XVH SODQQLQJ /RFDO JRYHUQPHQWV KDYH

WKH JUHDWHVW GLUHFW FRQWURO RYHU ODQG XVH GHFLVLRQV DQG WKH ZLGHVW YDULHW\ RI SURJUDPV DQG

SROLFLHV FDQ EH IRXQG DW WKLV OHYHO RI JRYHUQPHQW $FWLRQV LQFOXGH JURZWK PDQDJHPHQW

SURJUDPV DV SDUW RI FLW\ JHQHUDO SODQ HOHPHQWV DGRSWLRQ RI ]RQLQJ RUGLQDQFHV GHYHORSPHQW

UHYLHZ SURFHVVHV DQG RWKHU ORFDO RUGLQDQFHV ([DPSOHV RI HDFK RI WKHVH W\SHV RI SROLFLHV DQG

WKH UROHV WKDW GLIIHUHQW OHYHOV RI JRYHUQPHQW SOD\ LQ LPSOHPHQWLQJ WKHP DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ WKH

IROORZLQJ VHFWLRQV

 ([DPSOHV RI /DQG 8VH 0HDVXUHV LQ $LU 4XDOLW\ 3ODQV

1LQH RI WKH  PHWURSROLWDQ DUHDV VXUYH\HG KDYH LGHQWLILHG ODQG XVH UHODWHG FRQWURO PHDVXUHV

LQ DQ DLU TXDOLW\ SODQ  WZR LQ D IHGHUDO 6,3 VXEPLWWDO ILYH LQ D VWDWHUHTXLUHG SODQ DQG WZR LQ

ERWK 7DEOH  VXPPDUL]HV WKHVH PHDVXUHV 7ZR RI WKHVH PHWURSROLWDQ DUHDV KDYH TXDQWLILHG

WKH HPLVVLRQV UHGXFWLRQ EHQHILWV IURP D ODQG XVH FRQWURO PHDVXUH DQG WDNH FUHGLW IRU WKHVH

EHQHILWV H[SOLFLWO\  WKH 6DQ )UDQFLVFR %D\ $UHD DQG WKH 6DFUDPHQWR 0HWURSROLWDQ $UHD

7KH UHPDLQLQJ VHYHQ GR QRW TXDQWLI\ DQ\ HPLVVLRQV UHGXFWLRQ In interviews with air agencies,

several reasons were cited for not quantifying any reduction. Some agencies felt confident that

the measure was reducing emissions, but did not take SIP credit because they did not need the

credit. Others felt that they did not have the technical ability to quantify a reduction. Still others

indicated that the measures were included in a SIP or air quality plan more to highlight the

policies, and that the measures were not necessarily having any impact. 
5 Bay Area '97 Clean Air Plan, Volume 1 and Appendix E, Bay Area Air Quality Management District,

December 17, 1997.

20

7DEOH  /DQG 8VH 0HDVXUHV LQ $LU 4XDOLW\ 3ODQV

0HWUR $UHD

/DQG 8VH 0HDVXUH LQ

4XDQWLILH

G

3URJUDPV

)HGHUDO 6,3 6WDWH $4 3ODQ

6DQ )UDQFLVFR 1R <HV <HV 3URPRWH 7UDQVLW2ULHQWHG

'HYHORSPHQW

3URPRWH /RFDO 3HGHVWULDQ

3ROLFLHV

6DFUDPHQWR <HV <HV <HV &RPELQDWLRQ WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ DQG

ODQG XVH 7&0

0RQWHUH\ %D\ 1R <HV 1R /LYDEOH &RPPXQLWLHV

6RXWK &RDVW

/$

1R <HV 
 1R 1HZ DQG ([LVWLQJ 'HYHORSPHQW

6WDQGDUGV

9HQWXUD &RXQW\ <HV <HV 1R &RQJHVWLRQ 0DQDJHPHQW

3URJUDP

 MREVKRXVLQJ EDODQFH

 LPSDFW RI ODQG XVH GHFLVLRQV

3RUWODQG 25 <HV QD 1R 8UEDQ *URZWK %RXQGDU\

5HJLRQDO )XQFWLRQDO 3ODQ

 ORFDO DFFRPPRGDWLRQ RI

KRXVLQJ DQG HPSOR\PHQW

 UHJLRQDO SDUNLQJ SROLF\

 QR ODUJH UHWDLO LQ LQGXVWULDO

DUHDV SROLF\

%DOWLPRUH <HV QD 1R 6PDUW *URZWK ,QLWLDWLYHV

6DQ 'LHJR 1R <HV 1R ,QGLUHFW 6RXUFH 3URJUDP

1HZ -HUVH\ <HV QD 1R 6WDWH JURZWK PDQDJHPHQW


 0HDVXUH ZDV LQFOXGHG LQ  3ODQ WKHQ UHPRYHG IURP  3ODQ

San Francisco Bay Area

The Bay Area's 1997 Clean Air Plan includes two Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)

related to land use, and another related to traffic calming.5

 Because the area was in attainment

both for ozone and carbon monoxide in 1997, it was not required to develop a SIP. (The area

was redesignated to ozone non-attainment earlier this year.) The area was in ozone nonattainment by California state air quality standards, and therefore required to submit an air

quality plan to the state. The specific control measures are described below.
6 Harvey, Greig and Elizabeth Deakin, Transportation Control Measures for the San Francisco Bay

Area: Analyses of Effectiveness and Costs, prepared for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, July 1991.

21

TCM #15: "Local Clean Air Plans, Policies and Programs" 

This measure will "Encourage cities and counties to incorporate air quality beneficial policies

and programs into local planning and development activities, with a particular focus on

subdivision, zoning and site design measures that reduce the number and length of

single-occupant automobile trips." It also commits to "Develop subregional planning pilot

projects", "Provide technical assistance to local government agencies", and "Publicize

noteworthy examples of local clear air plans, policies and programs, as well as endorse

noteworthy development projects." This measure was first included in an earlier Clean Air Plan. 

The benefits of the measure were calculated by assuming that a greater portion of housing

growth in the region would occur near rail transit stations. The specific quantification of

emissions reduction was based on a 1991 study by Greig Harvey and Elizabeth Deakin.6 The

following assumptions were made:

& Each of 75 rail stations in the region will receive 200 additional dwelling units.

& Each additional unit will shift 0.5 trips per day to transit mode (based on 1981 household

survey data for households within 0.5 miles of BART, the regional rail system).

& The result is 7,500 fewer auto trips (75*200*0.5) per weekday.

& This trip reduction translates to a 0.05% reduction in VMT, reactive organic gases

(ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx).

As a conservative estimate of the emissions reduction, the Air District then took credit for only

20% of this reduction in the Clean Air Plan. The resulting emissions reduction is a follows:

& 0.02 tons per day (tpd) ROG and 0.01 tpd NOx by 2005

& 0.01 tpd ROG and 0.01 tpd NOx by 2015

TCM #19: "Pedestrian Travel"

This measure calls for cities and counties to "Review/revise general/specific plan policies to

promote development patterns that encourage walking, and circulation policies that emphasize

pedestrian travel, and modify zoning ordinances to include pedestrian-friendly design standards",

to "Include pedestrian improvements in capital improvements programs", and to "Designate a

staff person as a Pedestrian Program Manager." The Air District and the MPO and COG in the

area will emphasize pedestrian improvements in outreach to local governments (in part through

TCM 15) and will emphasize use of flexible transportation funding under ISTEA to promote

pedestrian-related projects.

This measure was added to the 1997 Clean Air Plan, and did not appear in earlier plans. 

Quantification for the emissions reduction was based on the USDOT 1994 National Bicycling

and Walking Study and on the California Energy Commission's 1996 Energy Aware Planning

Guide. The following assumptions were made:

& 10% of vehicle trips under 0.5 mile would shift to non-motorized modes by 2015.
7 While traffic calming is not a land use measure, it is often considered with other livable communities

programs as a tool to discourage automobile use.

8 Sacramento Area Regional Ozone Attainment Plan, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management

District, November 15, 1994.

22

& 1% of vehicle trips between 0.5 and 1 mile would shift to non-motorized modes by 2015.

The resulting decrease in vehicle trips would produce the following emissions reduction:

& 0.71 tpd ROG and 0.84 tpd NOx by 2005

& 0.72 tpd ROG and 1.59 tpd NOx by 2015

TCM #20: "Promote Traffic Calming Measures"

A third TCM included in the 1997 Clean Air Plan takes credit for promoting traffic calming

measures.7

 This measure calls for cities and counties to "Include traffic calming strategies in the

transportation and land use elements of general and specific plans," and "Include traffic calming

strategies in capital improvement programs."

Quantification of the emission reduction was based on professional judgement by Air District

staff, as there is little research on the emission impact of traffic calming. The following

assumptions were made:

& Streets are repaved every 20 years, and calming is implemented on one in five streets

upon repaving. So in a single year, 1% of streets receive traffic calming.

& Traffic calming only affects speeds under 48 mph.

& Thus, traffic calming is implemented on 1% of VMT under 48 mph annually.

& Traffic calming reduces emissions by 10%.

The emissions reduction was calculated to be:

& 0.54 tpd ROG and 0.84 tpd NOx by 2005

& 0.54 tpd ROG and 1.59 tpd NOx by 2015

Sacramento Area

The 1994 Sacramento Area Ozone SIP includes general land use-related TCMs, along with

traditional TCMs.8 The land use measures are included to take credit for policies in the

Sacramento County General Plan that are intended to reduce vehicle emissions. One of these

county policies, AQ-15, requires that new developments include mitigation measures to achieve

a 15% reduction in vehicle emissions.
9 Indirect Source Review Program, Implementation Guidelines, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality

Management District, February 1995.

10 1997 $LU 4XDOLW\ 0DQDJHPHQW 3ODQ, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, December

1997.

11 1994 Air Quality Management Plan, Appendix IV-H: Contingency Measures, South Coast Air Quality

Management District, September 1994.

23

The Sacramento Air District has written a draft model ordinance to provide guidance to the

county and cities that are implementing such an indirect source review program.9 The ordinance

would use a point system to ensure that new developments achieve the 15% reduction. To date,

they have not been successful in getting local governments to adopt this ordinance. The county

has take some other steps to reduce the emissions impacts associated with new development,

including modified zoning ordinances to promote greater mixed use development around transit

stations.

The ozone SIP identifies a 1 ton per day reduction in both NOx and ROG from the full set of

TCMs, including the land use measures. This amount was based on professional judgement by

the Air District. They are monitoring the emissions reductions resulting from these TCMs, and

feels their reduction estimate continues to be accurate. 

Monterey Bay Area

The 1997 Air Quality Management Plan for the Monterey Bay Area includes a TCM entitled

"Livable Communities."10 The plan satisfies the California Clean Air Act; the Federal

Maintenance Plan does not include this TCM. The TCM recognizes the adoption in 1995 of a

Livable Communities Initiative by the region's MPO. The Initiative establishes regional policies

to promote mixed land uses, promote transit-supportive density and zoning for new

development, provide pedestrian/bike circulation and access, provide transit access, and promote

pedestrian friendly design. 

Air agency staff did not feel that the benefits of the measure were quantifiable. The measure

was included in the plan for two reasons. First, it helps to establish the Livable Communities

program as a long range planning goal for local governments. Second, inclusion of the program

makes bicycle and pedestrian projects eligible for a particular state funding source that is

dedicated to air quality beneficial transportation projects.

South Coast (Los Angeles Metropolitan Area)

The South Coast Air District's 1994 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) included two

contingency control measures that would have required standards for new and existing

development in an effort to reduce vehicle emissions.11 The measures were not quantified and

were never implemented, and were dropped from the 1997 Plan. Both control measures, CTY08 "New Development" and CTY-09 "Existing Development", list examples of standards that

should be considered by developers, including pedestrian-friendly design, interior walkways and

bike paths, locating child care facilities in close proximity to transit facilities, and reduced
12 Draft Ventura County 1995 Air Quality Management Plan Revision, Ventura County Air Pollution

Control District, July 1995 and Ventura County 1994 Air Quality Management Plan, Appendix R-94:

Transportation Control Measure Documentation.

13 Portland Area Ozone Redesignation Request/Maintenance Plan, Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality, July 12, 1996.

24

parking requirements. According to the Air District, intense opposition from the building

industry precluded any implementation of the measures and led to their later removal.

The draft 1997 AQMP contained a control measure entitled "Clean Air Communities Program." 

This program was dropped from the final AQMP, and is described in the next section of this 

report.

Ventura County

The Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan contains a TCM entitled "Land Use

Strategy."12 The Plan serves as the SIP for the region as well as satisfying California Clean Air

Act requirements. The Land Use Strategy TCM is based on the state-required Congestion

Management Program. Counties are required to adopt such a program, and to include in it a

number of elements. One of these is a transportation demand element that requires

improvements in the jobs/housing balance in new large developments. Another element of the

program is a procedure to analyze the impacts of local land use decisions on the regional

transportation system, and to estimate the costs of mitigating these impacts. Because this

program could reduce vehicle emissions through land use controls, the Air District has included

it in their air quality plan. However, the Congestion Management Program does not give the

county any new land use authority; rather, it is intended to highlight the impacts of land use on

transportation and relies on local government participation for enforcement. The Air District felt

that it was too difficult to quantify the benefits of this program. 

Portland, Oregon Metropolitan Area

The Maintenance Plan SIP for the Portland, Oregon region identifies several land use TCMs.13

These measures were developed as part of the Portland Metro Council's (Metro) long range plan,

called the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. The Metro Council is unique in the U.S. in that it has

some legal authority over local government land use planning. The implementing mechanisms

for the 2040 Growth Concept place several land use requirements on local governments, and it is

these requirements that are identified in the SIP. They are as follows:

 Requirements for Housing and Employment Accommodation (Title 1 of the Regional

Functional Plan Requirements). The requirement sets minimum densities for various

land use categories, and requires that cities and counties accommodate the target

household and employment growth determined by METRO, the regional government. It

is intended to increase densities in areas well-served by transit, accommodating regional

growth without the need for Urban Growth Boundary expansion.
14 The studies are summarized in The Effects of Urban Form on Travel and Emissions: A Review and

Synthesis of the Literature, Draft Report, 1998.

15 Phase II Attainment Plan for the Baltimore Region and Cecil County, Maryland Department of

Environment, 1998.

25

 Regional Parking Policy (Title 2 of the Regional Functional Plan Requirements). This

requires cities and counties to reduce their minimum parking requirements to established

ratios, and sets maximum allowable parking ratios.

 Retail in Employment and Industrial Areas (Title 4 of the Regional Functional Plan

Requirements). This policy prohibits large retail facilities (over 60,000 sq. ft.) in

designated Industrial Areas. It is intended to limit new "big box" retail in areas that are

not well-served by non-auto modes.

 Urban Growth Boundary. The regional Urban Growth Boundary establishes a 20-year

limit for new development and must be incorporated into local general plans.

The state has included these measures in the Ozone Maintenance Plan because they felt that the

conformity process requires their identification to ensure that they are funded and implemented

in a timely manner. They did not attempt to quantify an emissions reduction from the measures

in the Maintenance Plan in part because no further reductions were needed. The air agency also

felt that quantifying each measure individually would not capture some of the synergistic

benefits of all the measures.

In part because it does have some regional land use authority, several highly-regarded studies

have been conducted in the Portland area that analyze the effects of urban form on transportation

and vehicle emissions.14 The LUTRAQ (Making the Land Use, Transportation, Air Quality

Connection) project, led by a statewide non-profit group, used advanced modeling techniques to

analyze alternatives to a proposed highway bypass project. The LUTRAQ alternative consisted

of more compact development, more pedestrian- and bike-friendly site design, and greater access

to transit, without highway expansion. The alternative was shown to reduce future VMT,

emissions and congestion in Washington County, as compared to the highway alternative. Metro

has also simulated the impacts of alternative development scenarios for the entire region as part

of the Metro 2040 Growth Concept development. More compact land use scenarios were shown

to result in lower VMT and vehicle emissions than the unconstrained base case.

Baltimore Metropolitan Area

The Phase II Attainment Plan for the Baltimore Region identifies several "non-traditional

approaches to ozone control."15 One of these is the State of Maryland’s Smart Growth

initiatives. The Smart Growth legislation, adopted by the state in 1997, limits most state

infrastructure funding and economic development, housing and other program monies to those

places local governments determine as growth areas. The law is intended to ensure that the state

will not facilitate development in areas where it is not desired by local governments. While

growth areas are determined by local governments, they must be areas with existing water and

sewer systems. The Smart Growth initiatives are not quantified in the Attainment Plan because 
16 Conformity Determination of the 1994 Baltimore Region Transportation Plan and 1999-2003

Transportation Improvement Program, Baltimore Metropolitan Council, July 1998.

17 1998 Triennial Regional Air Quality Strategy Revision for the San Diego Air Basin, San Diego Air

Pollution Control District, June 1998.

18 Tools for Reducing Vehicle Trips Through Land Use Design: Increasing Bicycling, Walking, and

Transit Use in the San Diego Region, San Diego Air Pollution Control District, January 1998.

19 Phase II Ozone SIP Submittal, State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, June 30,

1998.

26

the Smart Growth programs have not yet had any significant impact and, therefore, it was not

considered possible to quantify travel and emissions reductions.

Part of the Smart Growth legislative package is a program called "Live Near Your Work."

The program, run by the State Office of Planning, provides monetary incentives for people to

buy a house near their workplace. The state will contribute $1000 toward the closing costs of

such a home purchase, to be matched by $1000 from the employer and $1000 from the city. 

Anyone buying a home that is walk- or transit-accessible to their workplace can apply for the

grant, provided that their employer has agreed to participate. The state recruits employers to

participate; as of early 1998, there were 24 employers enrolled, mostly large ones. The initial

state budget for the program was $300,000. The program is listed in the 1998 conformity

determination document of the Baltimore region MPO.16 The emissions impacts of the program

were not considered to be large enough to quantify at this time.

San Diego Metropolitan Area

The San Diego air quality plan identifies an Indirect Source Program as a control measure.17

The measure is not included in the region’s SIP submittal, and its emission benefits are not

quantified. The measure calls for the regional air agency to "help municipalities reduce vehicle

trips through land use and transportation infrastructure design." The agency has issued a

comprehensive guidance document that provides land use strategies for reducing auto use.18

Intended for local governments, developers and citizens groups, the document identifies 37

design strategies, discusses their impacts, and provides numerous examples of their

implementation.

New Jersey

The Ozone SIP for Northern New Jersey identifies state land use initiatives as a transportation

control measure.19 The State Planning Office is implementing a set of programs promoted by

the governor intended to preserve open space and reduce sprawl development patterns. The state

anticipates that the initiative will reduce vehicle emissions due to reduced trip lengths or shifts to

non-motorized modes of travel. They did not quantify the emissions benefits from this initiative

in the SIP, but are currently attempting to do so.

 5HODWHG /DQG 8VH 0HDVXUHV 7KDW $UH 1RW ,QFOXGHG LQ $LU 4XDOLW\ 3ODQV

The interview surveys revealed six state, regional and local land use policies that could
20 Livable Communities Program -- Executive Summary. Ventura Council of Governments, 1997.

27

potentially reduce future mobile source emissions, but are not currently identified in any air

quality plan. These policies include regional growth management policies, urban growth

boundaries, local livable communities programs, and clean air communities programs. There are

many such policies in place or under development across the country, and the examples

described below are not intended to be a comprehensive list. Table 4-2 summarizes the policies

that are currently in place.

Table 4-2: Land Use Measures Not in Air Quality Plans

Metro Area Program

Ventura County Livable Communities -- encourage local gov'ts to revise plans to promote compact,

mixed use development, ped-friendly design, transit-oriented design, etc.

San Diego Regional Growth Management Strategy -- focus new development around rail

stations

Denver Vision 2020 -- more compact growth, preservation of open space, etc.

Fort Collins City Plan -- comprehensive plan requires UGB, contiguous new development, etc.

Seattle State Growth Management Act -- local governments must identify growth areas

South Coast (LA) Clean Air Communities -- revise state environmental review to encourage design

factors that reduce emissions

Ventura County Livable Communities Program

The Ventura Council of Governments (VCOG), in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, has

adopted a set of principles intended to reduce VMT and has incorporated these into a Livable

Communities Program.20 The program calls for greater jobs/housing balance, pedestrianoriented development, transit-oriented development, mixed-use development, housing diversity,

higher density development, infill development, and neighborhood centers. Implementation

relies on local governments to amend general plans and design guidelines in support of the

program. Several cites in the county have general plans that encourage pedestrian-oriented,

mixed use downtowns, including Moorpark and Fillmore. And two large proposed

developments will incorporate many of the livable communities principles. But VCOG has not

been very successful yet in getting other local governments to amend their policies in support of

the program, in part because local government revenue needs encourage competition among

cities for commercial developers.

San Diego Regional Growth Management Strategy

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has adopted a Growth Management

Strategy to serve as policy guidance to local governments. One element of the Strategy is the

Land Use Distribution Element, which calls for accommodating forecast population growth
21 Land Use Distribution Element of the Regional Growth Management Strategy, San Diego Association

of Governments, February 1995.

22 Metro Vision 2020 Plan, Denver Regional Council of Governments, July 1997.

23 See Metro Vision 2020: A Framework for the Denver Metropolitan Region, Denver Regional Council

of Governments, November 1995.

28

while improving congestion and air quality.21 New development is to be focused around rail

transit stations and bus corridors, and should incorporate design characteristics that encourage

transit, walking and bicycling trips. In addition, new housing should be accommodated in

existing employment areas that currently lack housing. The Strategy is to be implemented by

local cities and San Diego County through their general or community plans. Participation by

local governments is voluntary.

While many cities have not yet incorporated the Strategy policies, the City of Chula Vista is one

example that has. The City requires that an "Air Quality Improvement Plan" be submitted by

developers of any large project, and that the plan demonstrate how the project will minimize air

quality impacts. The City has issued a design element checklist as guidance for developers

preparing these plans. The checklist includes specific planning benchmarks in the areas of

connectivity of street design, higher housing and employment densities near transit, land use

mixing, site design with bicycle and pedestrian orientation, and reduced commercial parking.

Denver Area Metro Vision 2020

The Denver Regional Council of Government (DRCOG) adopted a long-range comprehensive

plan in 1997 called the Metro Vision 2020 Plan.

22 The Plan's elements include growth, open

space, transportation, and air and water quality. The Plan was developed upon the analysis of

four different future land use scenarios for the region.23 One scenario featured a continuation

along the current trends of low density, dispersed development. The other three offered different

alternatives of more compact future development. Regional models were used to analyze the

four land use scenarios in terms of their impact on travel and emissions. The results were mixed,

in part because of the limitations of the models used. The Dispersed alternative produced the

highest VMT and NOx emissions, but also the lowest emissions of volatile organic compounds

(VOC). This somewhat anomalous result was due to the different effects of average speed on

different pollutant emissions, and to problems with the models.

The scenario adopted as the Vision 2020 Plan is a hybrid of two of the compact scenarios. It

identifies a target metropolitan area that occupies a land area roughly seven percent smaller that

resulting from current trends. To achieve this more compact form, the Council has adopted a

flexible urban growth boundary. The Plan clearly states that the growth boundary relies on

voluntary local government implementation; there is no regional government mandate to

implement the plan. It is too early to determine how much local government participation will

occur.

Fort Collins City Plan
24 City Plan: Fort Collins, Colorado Comprehensive Plan, City of Fort Collins, 1997.

25 "State of Washington's Growth Management Act and Related Laws - 1997 Update, " Revised Code of

Washington.

26 Vision 2020: 1995 Update, Puget Sound Regional Council, 1995.

29

The City of Fort Collins adopted last year a progressive comprehensive plan called City Plan.

24

Fort Collins is a fast-growing community, surrounded by large areas of undeveloped land, and

thus has the opportunity to significantly shape its future urban form. The City Plan identifies

several land use policies intended to promote reduced vehicle use, many of which have been

implemented through changes in the municipal codes. One of these policies is an Urban Growth

Area boundary. Another is intended to discourage "leapfrog" growth by requiring that new

development be contiguous with existing development, and that city roads and utilities not be

extended to development outside of designated areas. Several other policies give priority to

infill development over new growth development. Design-related policies are included for each

neighborhood type. All new neighborhoods are required to include such elements as street

connectivity, pedestrian amenities and traffic calming, while gated-street entries are prohibited. 

The Fort Collins City Plan applies only to land within the city boundaries. The City is working

with the county and other nearby cities to promote a regional approach to new development that

is consistent with their City Plan. It is not yet clear how much regional cooperation they will be

able to attain.

Seattle -- Washington State Growth Management Act

The State of Washington adopted the Growth Management Act in 1990.25 It requires that cities

and counties designate urban growth areas, and outside of these areas no urban growth should

occur. Areas that can adequately be served by existing public facilities and services should be

given priority as growth areas, before other areas. Critical agricultural and other natural

resource lands must be designated and protected in local plans. Growth Management Hearings

Boards have been established to make decisions regarding local plan conformity to the Act.

The long-range plan for the Seattle Area, Vision 2020, includes regional strategies to (1) identify

and maintain urban growth areas, (2) support compact communities, and (3) focus growth in

centers.26 However, the Growth Management Act maintains nearly all local government

authority over land use decisions. The Act was established primarily to preserve open space and

natural resource lands, and to discourage inefficient extension of public services. It was not

specifically intended to reduce vehicle use, and according to regional agency planners, it is not

yet evident what effect, if any, the Act is having on growth patterns and vehicle use.

South Coast Clean Air Communities Program

The South Coast Air District has considered an alternative approach to reducing the mobile

source emissions from new development through the environmental impact review process. 

Both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality

Act (CEQA) require that projects be reviewed for their environmental impacts, including air

quality, and that significant impacts be mitigated. Currently, the CEQA Handbook used by the
27 Implementing The Clean Air Communities Initiative In The South Coast Air Basin, Submitted to the

CEQA Air Quality Handbook Revision Working Group, May 27, 1998.

30

Air District identifies fixed thresholds of emissions for the significance determination. All

projects that are found to produce emissions over the threshold are considered significant. As a

result, almost all medium and large projects are found to be significant, and then must undergo a

much more extensive review process. The CEQA process does nothing to reward large projects

that incorporate elements designed to reduce emissions. Small projects that may produce higher

emission per capita or square foot are found to be not significant, yet their cumulative impact

can be more than a single large project.

To address this discrepancy, the Air District has proposed to amend its CEQA Handbook.27

Under the change, medium and large projects that incorporate air quality beneficial elements

could gain "not significant" status for regional air quality. The emissions from a proposed

project would be calculated on a per capita or square foot basis. If the emissions are lower than

a similar project that lacks clean air design attributes, then the project would be designated Clean

Air Community status and would be deemed to be not significant for regional air quality

purposes. Alternatively, because it is often difficult to estimate the emissions resulting from a

new development, Clean Air Community status could also be granted to those projects that

incorporate specific mitigation measures. The Air District originally considered including in

these mitigation measures land use elements that could reduce vehicle use. Under strong interest

group opposition, however, land use is no longer included as a possible mitigation measure. The

specific mitigation measures are still being determined, but will most likely be limited to

construction practices and building technological improvements.

 /DQG 8VH 3ROLFLHV ,QFRUSRUDWHG ,QWR 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ 'HPDQG )RUHFDVWV

As mentioned in Chapter 1, metropolitan areas could also "take credit" for certain land use

policies by incorporating them into forecasts of regional transportation demand. Emissions

forecasts are based on forecasts of travel patterns, which in turn are based on the forecast

location of households and jobs. Local or regional land use policies could alter the location and

design of housing and employment growth, and could potentially reduce future emissions. In

order for this to occur, land use forecasts would have to reflect the policies. In interviews with

MPO and COG planners, questions were asked to determine if and how land use policies are

reflected in the forecasting process.

Current Forecasting Practice

Nearly every metropolitan area starts with fixed regional population and employment growth

totals. These forecasts are often done by the state, though they may be done by the metropolitan

COG itself. The MPO/COG then allocates the growth to the local level, and ultimately to the

zonal level. This allocation process, often called "land use forecasting," may be done in a

variety of ways, though there are basically two approaches. One approach is to use a computer

model. The most common model used is DRAM/EMPAL, though other commercial models are

used as well, and some metropolitan areas develop their own customized models. These models

use mathematical equations to predict the location of future jobs and households based largely

on 
31

past trends and available land. The amount of available land is generally determined by local

government plans. 

The second approach is to negotiate an allocation of growth with local governments, based on

their general plans. Because general plans can often be more of an ideal future vision than a

realistic forecast, there is always a process of negotiation between the regional agency and the

local governments. Typically, local plans call for more employment growth and less population

growth than is realistic. The regional agency and the local governments reach an agreement for

growth allocation that is consistent with the regional growth control totals. Three examples of

the land use forecasting process are described below:

& In the Dallas metropolitan area, a combination of computer models and local government

input is used to produce forecasts. Regional growth totals are allocated to 300 districts

using DRAM/EMPAL, based on economic "demand" for employment. Once the districtlevel growth forecasts are adopted, DRAM/EMPAL is used to allocate growth to the

zonal (TAZ) level, based on available land and past trends. Local governments are then

free to shift their portion of the growth between zones within the city, though they cannot

change the total growth for the city without approval from the advisory committee.

& In the San Francisco Bay area, the POLIS model is used to forecast household and

employment growth. Regional growth totals are first allocated 119 districts, and then

down to 1200 census tracts. The Association of Bay Area Governments conducts a

continuous survey of local government growth and development policies. Both the

district allocation and the tract sub-allocation are constrained by the land use patterns

reflected in these policies.

& The Washington DC Area Council of Governments (MetroWash COG) allocates regional

growth forecasts using a negotiated process. COG officials meet with local government

planners and compare the local growth projections (as identified in general plans) with

historical trends. If local projections seem unrealistic given past trends and current

market forces, the parties come to some agreement on an alternative set of population

and employment growth forecasts.

However growth allocations are done, local government plans and policies are nearly always

taken into account. If a local government adopts policies that call for restrictions on new low

density greenfield development and more infill development, then the forecast growth in that

city would be allocated to reflect this, provided it was considered realistic by the COG. If the

local policies adopted allow less growth in general, then the city would be allocated a smaller

share of regional growth. Other neighboring cites, or the unincorporated portions of the county,

would be allocated this growth instead.

Even in cases where cities play a large role in the zonal growth allocation, the forecasts must still

be approved by the MPO/COG. The conformity process requires that travel demand forecasts be

based on the best available land use assumptions. MPO/COG planners may require cities to

revise their growth allocation if it is grossly inconsistent with past trends. Metropolitan-level
28 Evaluation of Modeling Tools for Assessing Land Use Policies and Strategies, 1997.

32

planners are often somewhat skeptical of local government "growth management policies,"

particularly if it looks to be defying market trends. 

Accounting for land use policies

The important question to ask is: How well do land use and transportation forecasting

procedures account for land use policies? The SAI report describes the limitations of

commercial models in incorporating land use policies.28 The local government review and

modification of forecasts may allow for better reflection of policies. Indeed, in interviews with

MPOs/COGs, most planners seemed confident that their forecasts would reflect growth

management policies if such policies were adopted. However, they point out that the impact of

land use policies would probably not be evident for several decades. Furthermore, land use

forecasters rely heavily on past trends. Since nearly all strong growth management policies have

taken shape in the past ten years, there is little evidence of their impact, and therefore little for

COGs to use in determining what is a realistic local forecast.

As described in the SAI report, the nature of the forecasting process is inherently limited by zone

size. The smallest unit of analysis is the TAZ, which is typically the size of one or several

census tracts. Policies that result in a shift in growth from one TAZ to another could be

accounted for in the forecasting process. But many of the policies listed in Section 2.2 would

merely result in rearranging and modifying growth within a zone, and would not be accounted

for.

Even if land use forecasting was improved and zone size made smaller, transportation models

have limitations that prevent full accounting for land use policies. Many models don't even

incorporate land use as a model variable. When land use is included, it is generally only

represented by the population or employment density within a zone. The benefits of land use

mixing may not be fully represented because trips must be classified into one of a limited

number of trip purposes. The poor representation of trip chaining also tends to neglect mixed

use benefits. Land use variables are often not included in mode choice models, though they have

a major impact on bicycling and walking travel.

A few metropolitan areas have improved their travel demand models so that they better account

for small-scale land use and design elements. Portland, Oregon and Sacramento have included a

variable in their mode choice models to account for differences in pedestrian amenities. A panel

of experts scores each zone in terms of its pedestrian-friendliness. By including this Pedestrian

Environmental Factor (PEF) as a mode choice variable, small-scale design attributes that 

encourage walking (and biking) can be shown to reduce vehicle use. Most metro areas,

however, do not include such variables in their models. 

In summary, the forecasting practices used to determine the baseline emissions for a region

could account for coarse, large-scale land use policies designed to discourage sprawl and protect

open space -- policies like urban growth boundaries, adequate public facilities ordinances,

transfer of development rights, etc. They could not very well account for smaller-scale or

micro-scale land use policies designed to encourage alternative travel modes, policies like
33

requirements for pedestrian- and bike-friendly design elements, higher density zoning around

transit facilities, fine-grained mixed-use zoning, etc.
34

 68**(67,216 )25 (3$
6 52/( )520 ,17(59,(:6

$OO DLU DJHQF\ DQG 032&2* SHUVRQQHO LQWHUYLHZHG ZHUH DVNHG WR JLYH WKHLU RSLQLRQ

UHJDUGLQJ D SRVVLEOH UROH IRU (3$ LQ SURPRWLQJ ODQG XVH SROLFLHV WKDW UHGXFH YHKLFOH XVH $V

H[SHFWHG WKH DLU DJHQFLHV KDG D EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI (3$
V FXUUHQW UROH LQ WKH SURFHVV DQG

ZHUH DEOH WR JLYH PRUH VSHFLILF VXJJHVWLRQV 032&2* SHUVRQQHO WHQGHG WR EH PRUH GRXEWIXO

DERXW (3$
V DELOLW\ WR LQIOXHQFH ODQG XVH SROLF\

 $LU $JHQF\ 3HUVSHFWLYH

7ZHQW\QLQH DLU DJHQF\ SHUVRQQHO ZHUH DVNHG LI WKHUH ZDV DQ\WKLQJ WKH\ WKRXJKW (3$ FRXOG

GR WR SURPRWH ODQG XVH SROLFLHV WKDW UHGXFH YHKLFOH XVH DQG ZKHWKHU (3$ JXLGDQFH RQ WKH

H[SHFWHG HPLVVLRQV UHGXFWLRQ EHQHILWV RI VXFK SROLFLHV ZRXOG EH KHOSIXO WR SURPRWH WKHP

7ZRWKLUGV RI WKH UHVSRQGHQWV IHOW WKDW VRPH IRUP RI (3$ JXLGDQFH RU LQIRUPDWLRQ VKDULQJ

ZRXOG EH KHOSIXO 2I WKHVH URXJKO\ KDOI VDLG WKDW WKH TXDQWLILFDWLRQ RI H[SHFWHG EHQHILWV

ZRXOG EH XVHIXO ZKLOH WKH RWKHU KDOI IHOW WKDW (3$
V UROH VKRXOG EH OLPLWHG WR GLVWULEXWLQJ RI

H[DPSOHV RI RWKHU ODQG XVH FRQWURO PHDVXUHV DURXQG WKH FRXQWU\ 2QO\ RQH DLU DJHQF\ VDLG

WKDW WKH\ ZRXOG DFWXDOO\ XVH (3$ JXLGDQFH WR TXDQWLI\ D ODQG XVH PHDVXUH LQ D 6,3 0RVW VDLG

WKDW TXDQWLILFDWLRQ RI ODQG XVH PHDVXUH EHQHILWV ZRXOG EH XVHIXO VLPSO\ EHFDXVH LW ZRXOG OHQG

ZHLJKW WR SURSRQHQWV RI VXFK SROLFLHV

7DEOH  6XPPDU\ RI $LU $JHQF\ 5HVSRQVHV

(3$ *XLGDQFH +HOSIXO  RI WRWDO

   %\ 4XDQWLI\LQJ %HQHILWV  RI WRWDO

   %\ 6KDULQJ ,QIRUPDWLRQ  RI WRWDO

(3$ *XLGDQFH 1RW +HOSIXO  RI WRWDO

$LU DJHQF\ LQWHUYLHZV LQFOXGHG QLQH PDQDJHUV DQG  VWDII PHPEHUV 0DQDJHUV DSSHDU WR EH

VRPHZKDW PRUH SRVLWLYH DERXW DQ (3$ UROH WKDQ DLU DJHQF\ VWDII DOWKRXJK WKHUH ZDV QRW D

ODUJH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR JURXSV 1HDUO\  SHUFHQW RI WKH PDQDJHUV IHOW WKDW (3$

FRXOG KHOS WKHP SURPRWH VXVWDLQDEOH ODQG XVH 6WDII PHPEHUV ZHUH PRUH VSOLW ZLWK 

SHUFHQW VHHLQJ D XVHIXO UROH IRU (3$ 2I WKH  SHUFHQW WKDW GR VHH D XVHIXO UROH IRU (3$

PDQDJHUV WHQGHG WR SUHIHU LQIRUPDWLRQ VKDULQJ DQG VWDII WHQGHG WR SUHIHU DFWXDO TXDQWLILFDWLRQ

RI EHQHILWV

(3$ JXLGDQFH ZRQ
W OHDG WR 6,3 LQFOXVLRQ RI ODQG XVH PHDVXUHV

%DVHG RQ WKH LQWHUYLHZV LW DSSHDUV WKDW (3$ JXLGDQFH RQ WKH TXDQWLILFDWLRQ RI HPLVVLRQV

EHQHILWV RI ODQG XVH SROLFLHV ZRXOG QRW PRWLYDWH PDQ\ PRUH PHWURSROLWDQ DUHDV WR WDNH FUHGLW

IRU WKHVH SROLFLHV 7KH IHZ WKDW KDYH DOUHDG\ TXDQWLILHG WKH EHQHILWV JHQHUDOO\ IHHO WKDW WKH\

FDQ GR VR ZLWKRXW (3$ GLUHFWLRQ 7KRVH WKDW LQFOXGH XQTXDQWLILHG ODQG XVH PHDVXUHV LQ DLU

TXDOLW\ SODQV KDYH GRQH VR SULPDULO\ WR SURPRWH WKH SROLFLHV DQG JHQHUDOO\ DUHQ
W ORRNLQJ IRU

HPLVVLRQV FUHGLWV IURP WKHP 2WKHUV GRQ
W SODQ WR DGRSW DQ\ ODQG XVH PHDVXUHV VRRQ EHFDXVH

WKH\ NQRZ WKDW WKH\ FDQ
W FRPPLW WR DQ\ NLQG RI ODQG XVH FRQWURO
35

7KRVH WKDW VHH D XVHIXO UROH IRU (3$

7KH JHQHUDO FRQVHQVXV DPRQJ DLU DJHQFLHV LV WKDW (3$ E\ LGHQWLI\LQJ WKH EHQHILWV RI

VXVWDLQDEOH ODQG XVH SROLFLHV ZLOO DGG VXSSRUW WR WKH SROLFLHV LQ UHJLRQDO DQG ORFDO GHEDWHV RU

ZLOO DW OHDVW IRVWHU GHEDWH WKDW LV QRW FXUUHQWO\ RFFXUULQJ 5RXJKO\  SHUFHQW IHOW WKDW (3$

VKRXOG WU\ WR FOHDUO\ TXDQWLI\ WKH HPLVVLRQV EHQHILWV WKDW FRXOG EH H[SHFWHG IURP YDULRXV ODQG

XVH PHDVXUHV EHFDXVH WKH ODFN RI FUHGLEOH TXDQWLILFDWLRQ LV KLQGHULQJ DGRSWLRQ RI WKHVH

PHDVXUHV $QRWKHU VXJJHVWLRQ ZDV WKDW LI 6,3 FUHGLW ZHUH DOORZHG IRU ODQG XVH SROLFLHV WKH

DLU DJHQF\ ZRXOG KDYH DQ HDVLHU WLPH JHWWLQJ IXQGLQJ WR VWXG\ WKH WUDYHO DQG HPLVVLRQV LPSDFWV

RI GLIIHUHQW GHYHORSPHQWV

2WKHUV IHOW WKDW E\ TXDQWLI\LQJ EHQHILWV (3$ FRXOG VWUHQJWKHQ WKH KDQG RI ORFDO DGYRFDWHV ZKR

DUH SXVKLQJ IRU WKHVH W\SHV RI SROLFLHV

:H WKLQN ZH FDQ TXDQWLI\ WKH PHDVXUHV RXUVHOYHV DQG WDNH FUHGLW IRU WKHP ZLWKRXW (3$
V

KHOS

:H ZRXOG SUREDEO\ QRW WDNH 6,3 FUHGLW IRU PHDVXUH VLQFH ZH GRQ
W QHHG LW

(3$
V HIIRUWV ZRXOG QRW KHOS XV ZLWK 6,3 DGRSWLRQ (YHQ LI LW
V D YROXQWDU\ PHDVXUH

\RX
YH JRW WR FRPPLW WR GR VRPHWKLQJ DQG ZH
UH QRW JRLQJ WR FRPPLW WR ODQG XVH FRQWURO

(3$ JXLGDQFH ZRXOG EH D ELJ KHOS , FDQ
W VD\ LI ZH ZRXOG DFWXDOO\ DGRSW ODQG XVH UHODWHG

YROXQWDU\ FRQWURO PHDVXUHV %XW DW WKH PRPHQW WKHUH
V XQFHUWDLQW\ DV WR ZKHWKHU WKH\

DFWXDOO\ SURGXFH DQ\ EHQHILW

:H QHHG GRFXPHQWDEOH HYLGHQFH RI WKH LPSDFW RI ODQG XVH SROLFLHV WR ILJKW WKH EXLOGLQJ

LQGXVWU\ $V ORQJ DV ZH FDQ
W VKRZ D QH[XV EHWZHHQ WKHVH SROLFLHV DQG HPLVVLRQV

UHGXFWLRQV ZH
UH QRW JRLQJ WR EH DEOH WR DGRSW DQ\WKLQJ

(3$ JXLGDQFH RQ WKH EHQHILWV RI ODQG XVH SROLFLHV ZRXOG EH UHDOO\ KHOSIXO WR XV , PXVW

ILJKW IRU VXSSRUW IRU 7&0V ZKHQ ZH
UH FRQVLGHULQJ DOO NLQGV RI PHDVXUHV DQG LI \RX FDQ
W

TXDQWLI\ D UHGXFWLRQ LQ HPLVVLRQV LW
V KDUG WR PDNH WKH SLWFK IRU WKHP

:H KDYH VRPH GHYHORSPHQWV LQ WKH UHJLRQ WKDW IROORZ WKHVH NLQGV RI SROLFLHV EXW ZH GRQ
W

KDYH WKH IXQGLQJ WR VWXG\ WKHLU LPSDFW ,I (3$ JDYH XV UHDVRQ WR VWXG\ WKHP LW ZRXOG EH

HDVLHU WR JHW IXQGLQJ IRU LW
36

$QRWKHU  SHUFHQW IHHO WKDW LW
V QRW UHDOO\ SRVVLEOH WR FUHGLEO\ TXDQWLI\ WKH EHQHILWV DW WKLV

VWDJH DQG WKDW (3$ FRXOG EH PRVW XVHIXO E\ VLPSO\ SXEOLFL]LQJ UHOHYDQW H[DPSOHV 7KLV

ZRXOG SURYLGH PRGHOV WR ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV WKDW DUH FRQFHUQHG DERXW YHKLFOH XVH DQG

HPLVVLRQV 6HYHUDO DJHQFLHV DOVR VXJJHVWHG WKDW ZKDW WKH\ QHHG LV D PRGHO IRU KRZ WR DFKLHYH

FRQVHQVXV DPRQJ ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV LQ WKH UHJLRQ

7KRVH WKDW GR QRW VHH D XVHIXO UROH IRU (3$

7KH RWKHU  SHUFHQW RI UHVSRQGHQWV IHOW WKDW (3$ GRHV QRW KDYH D XVHIXO UROH LQ WKH SURPRWLRQ

RI ODQG XVH SROLFLHV 9DULRXV UHDVRQV ZHUH JLYHQ IRU WKLV DQVZHU 6RPH VDLG WKDW WKHLU DLU

TXDOLW\ SUREOHPV ZHUH VLPSO\ QRW EDG HQRXJK WR ZDUUDQW FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI DQ\ DGGLWLRQDO

FRQWURO PHDVXUHV VR (3$
V HIIRUWV ZRXOG QRW EH XVHIXO WR WKHP 6LPLODUO\ RWKHUV IHOW WKDW

WKH\ ZRXOG RQO\ DGRSW D QHZ FRQWURO PHDVXUH LI LW ZDV PDQGDWHG DQG ZHUH QRW LQWHUHVWHG LQ

DQ\ YROXQWDU\ PHDVXUHV 2QH UHVSRQGHQW QRWHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV OLWWOH LQWHUHVW LQ JURZWK

PDQDJHPHQW EHFDXVH WKH DUHD ZDV QRW JURZLQJ YHU\ UDSLGO\ $QRWKHU H[SUHVVHG FRQFHUQ WKDW

DQ\ GHVLJQ UHTXLUHPHQWV ZRXOG EH DEXVHG E\ GHYHORSHUV 6WLOO DQRWKHU IHOW WKDW ODQG XVH

PHDVXUHV ZHUH VLPSO\ QRW TXDQWLILDEOH DQG SURPRWLQJ WKHP WKURXJK WKH DLU TXDOLW\ SURFHVV

ZDV QRW ZRUWKZKLOH

4XDQWLI\LQJ WKH EHQHILWV RI ODQG XVH PHDVXUHV JLYHV WKHP PRUH ZHLJKW DQG FUHGLELOLW\ LQ

WKH SXEOLF H\H DQG PDNHV LW HDVLHU IRU WKH DJHQF\ WR SXVK IRU WKHP :H PD\ QRW DGRSW D

ODQG XVH 7&0 EXW E\ KDYLQJ WKH RSWLRQ RXW WKHUH SHRSOH VWDUW WR WKLQN DERXW WKH WUDGHRIIV

EHWZHHQ WKDW DQG RWKHU PHDVXUHV

,I (3$ RIIHUHG VRPH JXLGDQFH RQ TXDQWLI\LQJ ODQG XVH 7&0 EHQHILWV LW ZRXOG EH D XVHIXO

WRRO IRU DFWLYLVWV RSSRVHG WR QHZ VSUDZO GHYHORSPHQWV

4XDQWLILFDWLRQ RI EHQHILWV E\ (3$ ZRXOG EH YHU\ KHOSIXO 7KHVH PHDVXUHV DUH

FRQWURYHUVLDO DQG VSHOOLQJ RXW WKH EHQHILWV LQ D GRFXPHQW ZRXOG VWUHQJWKHQ WKH KDQG RI WKH

SURSRQHQWV

(3$ FRXOG KHOS E\ PDNLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ DYDLODEOH RQ WKH LPSDFW RI ODQG XVH SROLFLHV DQG

ZKDW KDV EHHQ GRQH HOVHZKHUH &LWLHV DQG 032V DUH ORRNLQJ WR WKH VWDWH DLU TXDOLW\ GLYLVLRQ

IRU JXLGDQFH EXW ZH GRQ
W KDYH PXFK H[SHULHQFH ZLWK RU NQRZOHGJH RI ODQG XVH

:H QHHG D PRGHO IRU KRZ WR EULQJ WRJHWKHU D IUDFWXUHG UHJLRQ 7KH LQQHU FLWLHV DUH

VXIIHULQJ IURP FRQJHVWLRQ DQG DLU TXDOLW\ SUREOHPV ZKLOH WKH RXWHU FLWLHV DUH VFUDPEOLQJ

IRU JURZWK :H QHHG WR UHDFK D UHJLRQDO FRQVHQVXV
37

 032&2* 3HUVSHFWLYH

)RUW\WKUHH 032 DQG &2* SHUVRQQHO ZHUH LQWHUYLHZHG LQFOXGLQJ  PDQDJHUV DQG  VWDII

&RPSDUHG WR DLU DJHQF\ SHUVRQQHO WKH\ WHQGHG WR EH PRUH SHVVLPLVWLF DERXW WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI

(3$ KHOSLQJ WR SURPRWH DLU TXDOLW\EHQHILFLDO ODQG XVH PHDVXUHV 7KLV LV QRW VXUSULVLQJ DV

PDQ\ RI WKHP VWUXJJOH GDLO\ ZLWK WKH FRPSOH[LWLHV RI PRGHOLQJ WUDYHO EHKDYLRU DQG WKH\ DUH

ZHOO DZDUH RI WKH XQFHUWDLQWLHV LQYROYHG 7ZRWKLUGV VDLG WKDW WKH\ GLG QRW WKLQN (3$

JXLGDQFH ZRXOG EH XVHIXO LQ SURPRWLQJ ODQG XVH SROLFLHV

7DEOH  6XPPDU\ RI 032&2* 5HVSRQVHV

(3$ *XLGDQFH +HOSIXO  RI WRWDO

(3$ *XLGDQFH 1RW +HOSIXO  RI WRWDO

/LNH DLU DJHQFLHV 032 DQG &2* PDQDJHUV WHQGHG WR EH PRUH SRVLWLYH DERXW D XVHIXO UROH IRU

(3$ LQ SURPRWLQJ VXVWDLQDEOH ODQG XVH $ERXW KDOI RI WKH PDQDJHUV LQWHUYLHZHG VDLG WKDW (3$

FRXOG EH KHOSIXO ZKLOH RQO\ DERXW  SHUFHQW RI WKH VWDII DJUHHG ZLWK WKLV

7KRVH WKDW GR QRW VHH D XVHIXO UROH IRU (3$

0DQ\ 032 DQG &2* LQWHUYLHZHHV VHHPHG UHVLJQHG WR WKH IDFW WKDW WKHUH ZDV QR ZD\ WR

LQIOXHQFH ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW ODQG XVH GHFLVLRQV 6RPH DGGHG WKDW PRQHWDU\ LQFHQWLYHV ZHUH WKH

RQO\ ZD\ WR JHW ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV WR UHVSRQG 2WKHUV IHOW WKDW WU\LQJ WR TXDQWLI\ HPLVVLRQV

7KHUH
V QR LQFHQWLYH KHUH WR DGRSW DQ\ DGGLWLRQDO FRQWURO PHDVXUHV :H
UH LQ DWWDLQPHQW

DQG JHWWLQJ EHWWHU

&RQWURO PHDVXUHV DUHQ
W SURPRWHG XQOHVV WKHUH
V D UHTXLUHPHQW :H ZRQ
W DGRSW DQ\WKLQJ

WKDW
V YROXQWDU\

7KHUH
V QRW PXFK JURZWK LQ WKH VWDWH DQG QRW PXFK LQWHUHVW LQ JURZWK PDQDJHPHQW VR ,

GRQ
W WKLQN WKHUH
V PXFK FKDQFH RI DQ HPLVVLRQV EHQHILW

<RX QHHG WR WKLQN FDUHIXOO\ DERXW KRZ ODQG XVH SROLFLHV PLJKW JHW XVHG DQG DEXVHG )RU

H[DPSOH LI \RX VLPSO\ UHTXLUH ELNH SDWKV DQG WUDQVLW VWRSV \RX
OO JHW PDVWHU SODQ

GHYHORSHUV EXLOGLQJ IDU RQ WKH XUEDQ HGJH ZLWK WKHVH ZLQGRZ GUHVVLQJV WKDW QR RQH XVHV

:KDW \RX UHDOO\ QHHG DUH UHJLRQDOVWDWH SROLFLHV WKDW UHTXLUH LQILOO GHYHORSPHQW EHIRUH

OHDSIURJ GHYHORSPHQW

7KH ORQJ WHUP VROXWLRQ WR RXU WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ DQG DLU TXDOLW\ SUREOHPV PXVW FRPH IURP ODQG

XVH XOWLPDWHO\ %XW WKHVH W\SHV RI ODQG XVH 7&0V DUHQ
W TXDQWLILDEOH DQG DUHQ
W

FRPSDUDEOH ZLWK RWKHU WUDGLWLRQDO 7&0V (3$ LV ZDVWLQJ WKHLU WLPH WU\LQJ WR GR LW
38

EHQHILWV IURP ODQG XVH SROLFLHV ZDV VLPSO\ IXWLOH

7KRVH WKDW VHH D XVHIXO UROH IRU (3$

7KH RWKHU RQHWKLUG RI 032 DQG &2* LQWHUYLHZHHV GLG IHHO WKDW (3$ FRXOG SOD\ D XVHIXO UROH

1RW VXUSULVLQJO\ WKHVH WHQGHG WR EH LQ UDSLGO\ JURZLQJ DUHDV LQ WKH ZHVWHUQ 86 6RPH RI

WKHVH IHOW WKDW WKH IHGHUDO JRYHUQPHQW QHHGV WR PRUH DFWLYHO\ DGYRFDWH ODQG XVH FRQWUROV DV D

ZD\ WR DGGUHVV RXU WUDIILF DQG DLU TXDOLW\ SUREOHPV 2WKHUV LGHQWLILHG WKH QHHG IRU EHWWHU

HYDOXDWLRQ RI WKH LPSDFWV RI YDULRXV ODQG XVH SROLFLHV FXUUHQWO\ LQ SODFH

7KHUH
V QRW D ORW (3$ FDQ GR DV ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV PDNH WKH ODQG XVH GHFLVLRQV 1R ORFDO

JRYHUQPHQWV FDUH DERXW UHJLRQDO 907

,W
V JRLQJ WR EH WKH UHJLRQ DQG VWDWH WKDW WDNH WKH OHDG LQ SURPRWLQJ PRUH VXVWDLQDEOH ODQG

XVH SDWWHUQV QRW (3$

3HRSOH DUHQ
W YHU\ LQWHUHVWHG LQ DLU TXDOLW\ LQ WKH UHJLRQ 7KH RQO\ ZD\ (3$ FRXOG PDNH D

GLIIHUHQFH LV WR PDNH VRPH PRQH\ DYDLODEOH

'ROODUV GULYH HYHU\RQH
V DFWLRQV \RX QHHG JUDQW IXQGV WR JHW SHRSOH
V DWWHQWLRQ

7DNLQJ 6,3 FUHGLW IRU ODQG XVH SROLFLHV LV UHDOO\ VWUHWFKLQJ WKH PRGHOLQJ FDSDELOLW\ <RX
UH

DOUHDG\ SXWWLQJ D ORW RI SUHVVXUH RQ WKHVH PRGHOV WR IRUHFDVW WUDYHO GHPDQG DQG WKH\
UH

EXLOW RQ D VKDN\ IRXQGDWLRQ $Q\ 6,3 EHQHILW ZRXOG EH VPDOO DQG YHU\ XQFHUWDLQ VR

WKHUH
V OLWWOH SRLQW LQ SXUVXLQJ LW

&RQVWDQW SUHVVXUH LV QHHGHG WR NHHS HPLVVLRQV VSUDZO DQG RWKHU HQYLURQPHQWDO LVVXHV LQ

WKH ODQG XVH  WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ SODQQLQJ SURFHVV (3$
V KHOS LQ DSSO\LQJ WKLV SUHVVXUH ZRXOG

EH XVHIXO

(3$
V KHOS ZRXOG EH DSSUHFLDWHG 7KH\ QHHG WR SURPRWH WKH IDFW WKDW \RX FDQ JHW D ORW

PRUH 907 DQG HPLVVLRQV UHGXFWLRQV IURP ODQG XVH SODQQLQJ WKDQ IURP VD\ WUDQVLW

LPSURYHPHQWV

7KHUH
V D QHHG IRU VRPH GHPRQVWUDWHG LPSDFWV RI ODQG XVH SROLFLHV 5LJKW QRZ WKHUH
V QR

FRQVHQVXV RQ WKH HIIHFWV 3HRSOH QHHG WR DJUHH RQ WKH UDQJH RI LPSDFW \RX FDQ H[SHFW

(3$ FRXOG EH PRVW KHOSIXO E\ GLVWULEXWLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ WR PHWURSROLWDQ DUHDV :H QHHG WR

VHH GRFXPHQWDWLRQ RI WKH TXDQWLILFDWLRQ RI EHQHILWV IURP DOWHUQDWLYH ODQG XVH VFHQDULRV LQ

RWKHU UHJLRQV $QG ZH QHHG WR VHH GRFXPHQWDWLRQ RI VRPH UHDOZRUOG VXFFHVVHV WRR :H

QHHG WR VHH LI WKHVH VWDWH JURZWK PDQDJHPHQW SROLFLHV DUH ZRUNLQJ
29 The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments specifically states: "Nothing in this chapter constitutes

an infringement on the existing authority of counties and cities to plan or control land use, and nothing in

this chapter provides or transfers authority over such land use." (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7431) The State of

California has similar statutory restrictions on the authority of air agencies over land use.

39

 $1$/<6,6 2) ),1',1*6

The interviews and document review conducted for this study suggest that there is a growing

potential for promoting sustainable land use practices through the air quality planning process,

but significant barriers still remain. A number of institutional barriers hinder the adoption of

effective land use policies and the state, regional and local levels. At the same time, analytical

barriers make it difficult to predict how these policies will improve air quality. 

 %DUULHUV WR (IIHFWLYH /DQG 8VH 3ROLF\

Despite the recent interest in sustainable land use, there are very few policies currently in place

in this country that are having an impact on the development practice status quo. The few recent

success stories suggest that to be effective, sustainable land use policies need both regional

coordination and substantial local government participation.

%DUULHUV WR UHJLRQZLGH FRRUGLQDWLRQ

$LU TXDOLW\ LV D UHJLRQDO SUREOHP DQG PDQ\ RI WKH SROLFLHV WR UHGXFH YHKLFOH HPLVVLRQV QHHG WR

EH FRRUGLQDWHG DW WKH PHWURSROLWDQ RU VWDWH OHYHO 6HYHUDO IDFWRUV VWDQG LQ WKH ZD\ RI

PHWURSROLWDQ ODQG XVH SROLFLHV

& 6WDWH RU PHWURSROLWDQ JURZWK PDQDJHPHQW SURJUDPV DUH OHVV IHDVLEOH LQ DUHDV WKDW DUH

QRW JURZLQJ UDSLGO\ *URZWK PDQDJHPHQW LQKHUHQWO\ LQYROYHV UHVWULFWLRQV RQ RU

PRGLILFDWLRQV WR QHZ GHYHORSPHQW ,Q FLWLHV WKDW DUH H[SHULHQFLQJ OLWWOH RU QR QHW

JURZWK WKHVH SROLFLHV ZLOO EH SROLWLFDOO\ GLIILFXOW WR DGRSW DQG ZRXOG KDYH OLWWOH LPSDFW

DQ\ZD\ ,W LV QRW VXUSULVLQJ WKDW PXFK RI WKH FXUUHQW GLVFXVVLRQ VXUURXQGLQJ JURZWK

PDQDJHPHQW LV RFFXUULQJ LQ IDVWJURZLQJ :HVWHUQ VWDWHV

& /RFDO JRYHUQPHQWV UHWDLQ QHDUO\ IXOO FRQWURO RYHU ODQG XVH GHFLVLRQV ZLWKLQ WKHLU

ERUGHUV 7KH IHGHUDO JRYHUQPHQW UHTXLUHV WKH IRUPDWLRQ RI 032V EXW PHWURSROLWDQ

DJHQFLHV H[LVW HVVHQWLDOO\ WR VHUYH PHPEHU ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV $ UHJLRQDO DJHQF\

FDQQRW HQIRUFH DQ\ VRUW RI UHJLRQDO ODQG XVH SROLF\ XQOHVV VXFK SRZHUV DUH JUDQWHG WR LW

E\ WKH VWDWH 3RUWODQG 2UHJRQ
V 0HWUR JDLQHG D VKDUH RI ODQG XVH DXWKRULW\ WKURXJK

VWDWH OHJLVODWLRQ DQG D YRWHU UHIHUHQGXP 6LPLODU VWDWH DFWLRQ LV QHHGHG EHIRUH RWKHU

UHJLRQDO DJHQFLHV FDQ LPSOHPHQW 0HWURVW\OH SROLFLHV

& 5HODWHG WR WKH ODVW SRLQW PDQ\ DUHDV RI WKH FRXQW\ VKDUH D VWURQJ DOPRVW UHYHUHQWLDO

WUDGLWLRQ RI ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW ODQG XVH FRQWURO 7KLV WUDGLWLRQ KDV EHHQ UHLQIRUFHG E\

IHGHUDO ODZ DQG VWDWH ODZV ,Q WKHVH DUHDV DQ\ WUDQVIHUHQFH RI VRPH ODQG XVH SRZHU

WR D UHJLRQDO DJHQF\ LV KLJKO\ XQOLNHO\ DW WKLV WLPH
30 Livable Communities and Air Quality: An Examination of Linkages and Their Impacts on the

Construction Industry. Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition, Diamond Bar, CA, October 1997.

40

& %HFDXVH UHJLRQDO ODQG XVH SROLFLHV PD\ LQFUHDVH WKH FRVWV RI QHZ GHYHORSPHQW WKH

FRQVWUXFWLRQ LQGXVWU\ DQG UHDO HVWDWH LQWHUHVWV KDYH PRXQWHG FDPSDLJQV WR SUHYHQW WKHLU

DGRSWLRQ (YHQ LQ PHWUR DUHDV WKDW KDYH VXFFHHGHG LQ DGRSWLQJ JURZWK PDQDJHPHQW

SROLFLHV UHJLRQDO SODQQHUV RIWHQ GHVFULEH D FRQVLGHUDEOH QHJRWLDWLRQ DQG FRPSURPLVH

SURFHVV ZLWK WKH EXLOGLQJ LQWHUHVWV ,Q WKH /RV $QJHOHV UHJLRQ YRFLIHURXV RSSRVLWLRQ

E\ WKH %XLOGLQJ ,QGXVWU\ $VVRFLDWLRQ %,$ WR ODQG XVHUHODWHG PHDVXUHV LQ DLU TXDOLW\

SODQV OHG WR UHPRYDO RI WKH PHDVXUHV 7KH LQGXVWU\ KDV HYHQ FRPPLVVLRQHG D VWXG\ WKDW

UHIXWHV PDQ\ RI WKH FODLPV RI WKH DLU TXDOLW\ EHQHILWV RI ODQG XVH SROLFLHV

%DUULHUV WR ORFDO LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ

0HWURSROLWDQ JURZWK PDQDJHPHQW SROLFLHV LI WKH\ DUH DGRSWHG XVXDOO\ PXVW EH LPSOHPHQWHG

WKURXJK WKH YROXQWDU\ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ RI ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV $FKLHYLQJ WKLV SDUWLFLSDWLRQ

SDUWLFXODUO\ IURP WKH IDVWHVW JURZLQJ H[XUEDQ FRPPXQLWLHV KDV EHHQ YHU\ GLIILFXOW

& /RFDO JRYHUQPHQW GHYHORSPHQW SROLFLHV DUH RIWHQ VKDSHG E\ ILVFDO QHHGV 0DQ\ ORFDO

JRYHUQPHQWV ILQG WKHPVHOYHV FDVKVWUDSSHG DV WKH\ DUH FKDUJHG ZLWK JUHDWHU

UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV ZKLOH YRWHU LQLWLDWLYHV KDYH OLPLWHG WKHLU DELOLW\ WR UDLVH UHYHQXH WKURXJK

WD[DWLRQ 1HZ FRPPHUFLDO GHYHORSPHQW SDUWLFXODUO\ ODUJH UHWDLO RXWOHWV FDQ RIIHU

FLWLHV EDGO\ QHHGHG VDOHV WD[ UHYHQXH $V QHLJKERULQJ FLWLHV FRPSHWH IRU QHZ SURMHFWV

H[DFWLQJ GHYHORSHU FRQFHVVLRQV OLNH GHVLJQ HOHPHQWV WR HQFRXUDJH QRQDXWR WUDYHO FDQ

EH LPSRVVLEOH 6LPLODUO\ FLWLHV ZLOO ILQG LW KDUG WR UHTXLUH GHYHORSHUV RI QHZ

UHVLGHQWLDO VXEGLYLVLRQV WR LQFRUSRUDWH PL[HG ODQG XVHV PXOWLIDPLO\ XQLWV ELNH DQG

SHGHVWULDQ SDWKV HWF WKDW PLJKW UDLVH GHYHORSHU FRVWV /RFDO JRYHUQPHQWV PD\ QRW

UHFRJQL]H WKDW FRPSDFW FRQWLJXRXV GHYHORSPHQW FDQ SURGXFH ILVFDO EHQHILWV LQ WHUPV RI

ORZHU LQIUDVWUXFWXUH DQG VHUYLFH SURYLVLRQ FRVWV

& 0DQ\ RI WKH LPSDFWV RI XQFRQWUROOHG VSUDZO GHYHORSPHQW DUH QRW IHOW E\ IDUIOXQJ

VXEXUEDQ FRPPXQLWLHV RU DW OHDVW DUH QRW YLHZHG DV V\PSWRPV RI WKHLU JURZWK SDWWHUQV

0RVW ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV GRQ
W FDUH DERXW UHJLRQDO 907 DQG GRQ
W VHH UHJLRQDO

HPLVVLRQV DV D SUREOHP WKDW WKH\ FDQ DIIHFW

& 7KRXJK VRPH FLWLHV DQG FRXQWLHV GR DGRSW JURZWK PDQDJHPHQW SROLFLHV LW XVXDOO\

FRPHV LQ UHVSRQVH WR D SHULRG RI UDSLG JURZWK 3XEOLF FRQVFLRXVQHVV LV UDLVHG RQO\

DIWHU FRQJHVWLRQ JHWV EDG DQG RSHQ VSDFH GLVDSSHDUV DQG E\ WKDW WLPH RSSRUWXQLWLHV WR

VKDSH QHZ JURZWK LQ WKH FLW\ DUH OLPLWHG 5DUHO\ DUH JURZWK LVVXHV FRQVLGHUHG LQ WKH

HDUO\ VWDJHV RI GHYHORSPHQW 6RPH UHDFWLRQDU\ ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW SROLFLHV VORZJURZWK

LQLWLDWLYHV JURZWK PRUDWRULD PD\ DFWXDOO\ HQFRXUDJH VSUDZO DQG DXWRPRELOH XVH E\

IRUFLQJ QHZ GHYHORSPHQW IDUWKHU RXW

 %DUULHUV WR )RUHFDVWLQJ $LU 4XDOLW\ ,PSDFWV RI /DQG 8VH 3ROLFLHV
41

/DQG XVH SROLFLHV DUH RQO\ LQGLUHFWO\ UHODWHG WR HPLVVLRQV DQG DLU TXDOLW\ ,Q RUGHU WR IRUHFDVW

WKH LPSDFW RI ODQG XVH SROLFLHV RQ DLU TXDOLW\ D VHULHV RI NH\ UHODWLRQVKLSV PXVW EH XQGHUVWRRG

$ VLPSOLILHG GLDJUDP RI WKHVH UHODWLRQVKLSV LV SUHVHQWHG LQ )LJXUH 

)LJXUH  .H\ 5HODWLRQVKLSV %HWZHHQ /DQG 8VH 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ DQG $LU 4XDOLW\

7KHUH DUH D QXPEHU RI DQDO\WLFDO EDUULHUV WR SUHGLFWLQJ KRZ HDFK RI WKHVH UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLOO

EHKDYH $V WKH XQFHUWDLQWLHV LQYROYHG DW HDFK VWDJH ZLOO EH FDUULHG RQ WR WKH QH[W VWDJH RI

DQDO\VLV UHOLDEOH IRUHFDVWV RI WKH HPLVVLRQV RU DLU TXDOLW\ EHQHILWV IURP ODQG XVH SROLFLHV FDQ

EH YHU\ GLIILFXOW WR REWDLQ 6RPH RI WKH EDUULHUV WKDW H[LVW LQ IRUHFDVWLQJ HDFK UHODWLRQVKLS DUH

GLVFXVVHG EHORZ

 3 ,PSDFW RI ODQG XVH SROLF\ RQ GHYHORSPHQW SDWWHUQV

7DNLQJ FUHGLW IRU ODQG XVH SROLFLHV ZLOO UHTXLUH HVWLPDWHV RI KRZ WKH SROLFLHV ZLOO FKDQJH IXWXUH

GHYHORSPHQW SDWWHUQV 7KLV UHODWLRQVKLS LV SUREDEO\ WKH OHDVW XQGHUVWRRG RI WKH IRXU DERYH

0RVW ODQG XVH SROLFLHV RI WKH W\SH LGHQWLILHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ KDYH DSSHDUHG RQO\ LQ WKH ODVW WHQ

\HDUV DQG WKXV KDYH KDG OLWWOH LPSDFW WR WKLV SRLQW 6HYHUDO IDFWRUV PDNH LW GLIILFXOW WR IRUHFDVW

WKH LPSDFWV

& /RFDO JRYHUQPHQW SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ D YROXQWDU\ UHJLRQDO SROLF\ LV RIWHQ XQFHUWDLQ /RFDO

JRYHUQPHQWV PD\ VXSSRUW YDJXH YLVLRQDU\ SULQFLSOHV UHJDUGLQJ IXWXUH JURZWK SDWWHUQV

EXW PD\ QRW EH ZLOOLQJ WR DPHQG WKHLU SODQV DQG SROLFLHV LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH

SULQFLSOHV ,Q WKH 'HQYHU UHJLRQ IRU H[DPSOH WKH UHFHQWO\ DGRSWHG 0HWUR 9LVLRQ 

3ODQ FDOOV IRU ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW WR IDFLOLWDWH IXWXUH JURZWK LQ D PRUH FRPSDFW PDQQHU

/RFDO JRYHUQPHQW SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ FUDIWLQJ WKH SODQ EXW QRWKLQJ LQ LW UHTXLUHV WKHP WR

FKDQJH WKHLU FXUUHQW GHYHORSPHQW SDWWHUQV 7DNLQJ HPLVVLRQV FUHGLW IRU WKLV SODQ ZRXOG

UHTXLUH PDNLQJ DVVXPSWLRQV DERXW IXWXUH ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW DFWLRQV

& 0DQ\ JURZWK PDQDJHPHQW SROLFLHV ZLOO RQO\ KDYH DQ LPSDFW RYHU D ORQJ WHUP $Q

XUEDQ JURZWK ERXQGDU\ IRU H[DPSOH PD\ OHDG WR LQILOO RU KLJKHU GHQVLW\ GHYHORSPHQW

RQO\ ZKHQ DYDLODEOH JUHHQILHOG ODQGV EHFRPH VFDUFH (YHQ WKHQ LW ZLOO WDNH WLPH IRU

WKH FXPXODWLYH LPSDFW RI PXOWLSOH SURMHFWV WR VLJQLILFDQWO\ DOWHU WKH GRPLQDQW XUEDQ

IRUP 6HYHUDO RI WKH SODQQHUV VXUYH\HG VXJJHVWHG WKDW ODQG XVH SROLFLHV PLJKW QRW KDYH

D QRWLFHDEOH LPSDFW IRU VHYHUDO GHFDGHV 8QOHVV DQ DUHD KDV D ORQJ DWWDLQPHQW SODQQLQJ

KRUL]RQ ODQG XVH PHDVXUHV PD\ QRW KDYH TXDQWLILDEOH LPSDFWV ZLWKLQ WKH DLU TXDOLW\

SODQQLQJ WLPHIUDPH
42

& 7KH GHYHORSPHQW SURFHVV LV FRPSOH[ DQG JRYHUQHG E\ PDUNHW IRUFHV WKDW OLH EH\RQG WKH

UHDOP RI SROLF\ ,Q JHQHUDO ODQG XVH SROLFLHV ZRUN RQO\ E\ SURKLELWLQJ FHUWDLQ DFWLRQV

 WKH\ FDQQRW UHTXLUH QHZ FRQVWUXFWLRQ ,I D PDUNHW GRZQWXUQ UHPRYHV WKH LQFHQWLYH

IRU GHYHORSHUV WR EXLOG ODQG XVH SROLFLHV EHFRPH LUUHOHYDQW 6LPLODUO\ FRQVXPHU

SUHIHUHQFHV FDQ FKDQJH PDUNHW GHPDQG DQG GHYHORSHU LQFHQWLYHV 7KHVH IRUFHV FDQ EH

QRWRULRXVO\ ILFNOH DQG PDNH SUHGLFWLQJ ODQG XVH SROLF\ LPSDFWV GLIILFXOW

 3 ,PSDFW RI GHYHORSPHQW SDWWHUQV RQ WUDYHO EHKDYLRU

$OWKRXJK WKLV UHODWLRQVKLS KDV EHHQ WKH VXEMHFW RI H[WHQVLYH UHVHDUFK WKHUH DUH VWLOO

XQFHUWDLQWLHV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR KRZ ORFDO ODQG XVH FKDQJHV ZLOO DIIHFW UHJLRQZLGH WUDYHO

& /DQG XVH SROLFLHV WKDW JHW DGRSWHG E\ LVRODWHG ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV ZLOO KDYH OLWWOH RU QR

LPSDFW RQ UHJLRQDO YHKLFOH XVH RU HPLVVLRQV 7KH DQDORJ\ RIWHQ XVHG LV VTXHH]LQJ D

EDOORRQ UHJLRQDO JURZWK FDQ EH DVVXPHG WR EH IL[HG VR UHVWULFWLRQV LQ RQH DUHD PHUHO\

FDXVH PRUH JURZWK LQ DQRWKHU :KLOH ORFDO SROLFLHV FDQ FOHDUO\ UHGXFH ORFDO YHKLFOH

XVH WKHVH SROLFLHV PD\ KDYH QR HIIHFW RU HYHQ WKH RSSRVLWH HIIHFW RQ RWKHU SDUWV RI WKH

UHJLRQ

& 5HJLRQDO ODQG XVH SROLFLHV WKDW DUH SULPDULO\ LQWHQGHG WR SUHVHUYH RSHQ VSDFH RU SURWHFW

FHUWDLQ QDWXUDO UHVRXUFHV PD\ QRW UHGXFH YHKLFOH XVH 2SHQ VSDFH SUHVHUYDWLRQ SROLFLHV

FRXOG KDYH WKH HIIHFW RI GLVFRXUDJLQJ QHZ VXEXUEDQ HPSOR\PHQW DQG VKRSSLQJ FHQWHUV

IURP ORFDWLQJ QHDU UHVLGHQWLDO ]RQHV DQG FRXOG LQFUHDVH WULS OHQJWKV 6LPLODUO\ D ULQJ

RI RSHQ VSDFH FRXOG OHDG WR QHZ GHYHORSPHQW PXFK IDUWKHU RXW WKDQ ZRXOG RWKHUZLVH

RFFXU DQG SRWHQWLDOO\ OHQJWKHQ WULSV

& 7KH WUDYHO EHQHILWV RI specific land use and design elements may only occur when they

are used as a package with other elements. In isolation, specific land use elements may

have no discernable impact on travel. 

& 0DQ\ RWKHU IDFWRUV DIIHFW WUDYHO EHKDYLRU IDFWRUV WKDW PD\ VZDPS WKH LPSDFW RI ODQG

XVH %HFDXVH RI WKLV LW ZLOO EH GLIILFXOW WR GHYHORS UXOHRIWKXPE HVWLPDWHV RI H[SHFWHG

HPLVVLRQV UHGXFWLRQV IURP VSHFLILF ODQG XVH SROLFLHV ZLWKRXW FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI D KRVW RI

FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH DUHD LQ ZKLFK WKH SROLFLHV DUH DSSOLHG

 3 ,PSDFW RI WUDYHO EHKDYLRU RQ YHKLFOH HPLVVLRQV

9HKLFOH HPLVVLRQV DUH DIIHFWHG E\ YHKLFOH PLOHV RI WUDYHO 907 QXPEHU RI VWDUWV DQG

RSHUDWLQJ VSHHG $ UHGXFWLRQ LQ YHKLFOH XVH JHQHUDOO\ PHDQV ORZHU 907 DQGRU IHZHU WULSV

ERWK RI ZKLFK ZLOO UHGXFH YHKLFOH HPLVVLRQV +RZHYHU WKH LPSDFW RI YHKLFOH RSHUDWLQJ VSHHG

RQ HPLVVLRQV LV PRUH FRPSOH[ 0RVW YHKLFOHV HPLW PRUH SROOXWDQWV SHU PLOH DW ORZ VSHHGV

XQGHU  PSK DQG DW KLJK VSHHGV RYHU  PSK /DQG XVH SROLFLHV WKDW OHDG WR VLJQLILFDQWO\

KLJKHU OHYHOV RI FRQJHVWLRQ FRXOG UHGXFH DYHUDJH VSHHGV WR WKH SRLQW ZKHUH HPLVVLRQV LQFUHDVH

7KLV FRXOG RIIVHW VRPH RI WKH EHQHILWV RI GHFUHDVHG 907 DQG WULSV 9HU\ IHZ VWXGLHV KDYH

FRQVLGHUHG KRZ ODQG XVH FKDQJHV PLJKW DIIHFW HPLVVLRQV WKURXJK VSHHG FKDQJHV (3$ LV LQ WKH

SURFHVV RI UHYLVLQJ VSHHG FRUUHFWLRQ IDFWRUV IRU XVH LQ 02%,/( &RQFOXVLRQV DERXW WKH
43

UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ ODQG XVH WUDYHO EHKDYLRU DQG HPLVVLRQV UHDFKHG ZLWK FXUUHQW HPLVVLRQ

PRGHOV PD\ SURYH HUURQHRXV ZKHQ WKH QHZ VSHHGHPLVVLRQV UHODWLRQVKLSV DUH WDNHQ LQWR

DFFRXQW

 3 ,PSDFW RI YHKLFOH HPLVVLRQV RQ DLU TXDOLW\

7KH LPSDFW RI YHKLFOH HPLVVLRQV RQ XUEDQ DLU TXDOLW\ ZDV QRW WKH IRFXV RI WKLV VWXG\

+RZHYHU LW LV LPSRUWDQW WR SRLQW RXW WKDW ORZHU UHJLRQZLGH HPLVVLRQV GRHV QRW DXWRPDWLFDOO\

UHVXOW LQ EHWWHU UHJLRQDO DLU TXDOLW\ 7KH XUEDQ DLUVKHG PRGHOV WKDW IRUHFDVW UHJLRQDO DLU TXDOLW\

DFFRXQW IRU WKH ORFDWLRQ DV ZHOO DV WKH PDJQLWXGH RI HPLVVLRQV ,W LV SRVVLEOH WKDW ODQG XVH

SROLFLHV FRXOG UHGXFH UHJLRQZLGH YHKLFOH HPLVVLRQV EXW FRQFHQWUDWH WKHP LQ D VPDOOHU DUHD

DQG WKXV FUHDWH KLJKHU SROOXWDQW OHYHOV

,PSOLFLW 6,3 FUHGLW YHUVXV H[SOLFLW 6,3 FUHGLW

,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKH DQDO\WLFDO EDUULHUV GHVFULEHG DERYH LW LV LPSRUWDQW WR UHFRJQL]H WKDW VRPH

ODUJHUVFDOH ORFDO DQG UHJLRQDO ODQG XVH SROLFLHV ZLOO EH DFFRXQWHG IRU LQ WKH ODQG XVH DQG

WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ GHPDQG IRUHFDVWLQJ SURFHVV 7KXV DQ\ UHGXFWLRQ LQ YHKLFOH XVH DQG HPLVVLRQV

IURP WKHVH SROLFLHV ZRXOG EH LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR WKH IRUHFDVWV DQG WKH DUHD ZRXOG EH WDNLQJ

LPSOLFLW 6,3 FUHGLW IRU WKH SROLFLHV ,I D PHWURSROLWDQ DUHD LGHQWLILHV D ODQG XVH SROLF\ DV DQ

H[SOLFLW FRQWURO PHDVXUH LW PXVW EH DVVXPHG WKDW WKH SROLF\ LV QRW EHLQJ DFFRXQWHG IRU LQ WKH

ODQG XVH IRUHFDVWLQJ SURFHVV 2WKHUZLVH WKH EHQHILWV ZLOO EH GRXEOHFRXQWHG +RZHYHU LW LV

GLIILFXOW WR LGHQWLI\ ZKLFK SDUWLFXODU SROLFLHV DUH DFFRXQWHG IRU LQ WKH PRGHOV DQG WR ZKDW

H[WHQW
44

 ',5(&7,216 )25 )8785( ())2576

One clear conclusion from this study is that there is no easy way to promote sustainable land use

practices through the air quality planning process. There are technical limitations to our ability

to characterize the land use, transportation and air quality relationships. The development

process is subject to market forces that are difficult to predict. And the relationships between

government levels and agencies is complex. It is important to think carefully about where EPA

can influence current processes and how much it can influence them. To do this, it is useful to

classify metropolitan areas into two types: those that have adopted some sustainable land use

policies but need help taking credit for them, and those that have not yet adopted any meaningful

land use policies. 

 +HOSLQJ 0HWURSROLWDQ $UHDV 7DNH &UHGLW IRU ([LVWLQJ /DQG 8VH 3ROLFLHV

In metropolitan areas that have some kind of sustainable land use policies in place (adopted at

the local, regional or state level), EPA guidance may help them take credit for the policies. In

general, these areas are not currently taking implicit or explicit credit for the policies because

they are not able to show their benefits. Some other areas may have ineffectual policies in place

but don't take credit for them because they are not having any impact. These areas really fall

into the second type above: those that have not yet adopted any meaningful land use policies. 

For those that do have effective policies in place, there are three general areas where EPA has an

opportunity for influence.

Improve ways to assess the effectiveness of land use policies at achieving land use change.

:KLOH JUHDW VWULGHV KDYH EHHQ PDGH LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ WKH LPSDFW RI XUEDQ IRUP RQ WUDYHO

SDWWHUQV ZH KDYH D SRRU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI ZKDW LW WDNHV WR DFKLHYH FKDQJHV LQ XUEDQ IRUP

3DUW RI WKH UHDVRQ IRU WKLV LV WKDW PRVW RI WKH ODQG XVH SROLFLHV PHQWLRQHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ KDYH

DSSHDUHG RQO\ ZLWKLQ WKH ODVW GHFDGH 9HU\ IHZ RI WKHP KDYH KDG D GLVFHUQDEOH LPSDFW DW WKLV

SRLQW (3$ FRXOG KHOS E\ VXSSRUWLQJ PRUH UHVHDUFK IRFXVHG RQ WKH FRPSOH[ SURFHVV RI XUEDQ

GHYHORSPHQW 6SHFLILFDOO\

& 5HVHDUFK LV QHHGHG WR XQGHUVWDQG KRZ ZHOO H[LVWLQJ VWDWH DQG UHJLRQDO JURZWK

PDQDJHPHQW SROLFLHV ZRUN ,I ZH FDQ FKDUDFWHUL]H D UHJLRQ LQ WHUPV RI LWV

JRYHUQPHQWDO VWUXFWXUH HFRQRPLF IRUFHV GHPRJUDSKLFV HWF FDQ ZH SUHGLFW KRZ ZHOO

D SDUWLFXODU SROLF\ ZLOO ZRUN" +RZ PXFK ORFDO JRYHUQPHQW SDUWLFLSDWLRQ FDQ EH

H[SHFWHG LQ D SDUWLFXODU UHJLRQ XQGHU D SDUWLFXODU SROLF\" How much local government

participation is needed in the region to have significant impacts on regional land use and

travel?

& Research is needed to understand the effectiveness of local government land use policies. 

Under what circumstances are local government land use polices effective? What types

of incentives can change developer practices? What kinds developer practices are most

effective at reducing vehicle use? 

If metropolitan areas can assess how their policies are going to affect land use, they may be able
45

to take credit for the impact of the land use changes on travel and emissions. Credit could be

taken through an implicit SIP baseline assumption or an explicit control measure. It is important

here to reiterate that those land use changes that can be accounted for in travel demand models

cannot be included in the SIP as a control measure. By law, the SIP baseline must be built on

the best available land use forecast. If the metro area expects that a land use change will occur,

the MPO must incorporate the change in the model as best as possible. Only those changes that

cannot be incorporated into the models can be explicit SIP control measures.

Improve ways to account for land use changes in forecasting models.

Improvements to land use and travel demand forecasting procedures will allow regions to take

implicit credit for some land use changes that reduce vehicle use. Our current models do not

account for land use changes very well. More powerful computers and better model formulation

will likely do much to improve models in coming years. The work currently being performed

under the Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP) could even revolutionize transportation

models and allow simulation at the micro-scale level. Data sources will always be a constraint,

however. We need better ways to quantify land use than household demographics and

employment figures. Efforts to include model variables such as the Pedestrian Environmental

Factors are a step in the right direction. EPA could continue to support efforts to improve the

ways that urban form is quantified and incorporated into travel models. 

Improve ways to estimate the impact of land use changes off-model

Even with model improvements, it is clear that land use elements will not be fully accounted for

in travel forecasting practices for some time. Micro-scale changes in land use and design

features are too small to be represented in regional models. For these type of changes, EPA can

help air agencies estimate an emissions impact. While it is not possible to develop simple rules

of thumb to allow estimation of regional emissions reductions, publicizing examples of land use

measures and quantification efforts can help air agencies make their own best estimates. 

 3URPRWLQJ $GRSWLRQ RI 6XVWDLQDEOH /DQG 8VH 3ROLFLHV

Most metropolitan areas are not yet at the stage of quantifying land use policy impacts. Indeed,

there are probably very few sustainable land use policies in place in this country that are having

a significant impact. There are opportunities for EPA to promote sustainable land use policies at

the state and regional level, local level and project level. 

Provide tools to aid state and regional growth management efforts

A few states and metropolitan areas have managed to bring together local governments and

reach some consensus on future growth patterns. This is often a very difficult task, as growing

cities on the urban edge have very different priorities than older inner cities. A number of

regions are looking for a paradigm for how to bring together balkanized local governments. 

EPA could do more to foster regional cooperation in these areas. There is a need for better

documentation of 

existing examples of state and regions that have been able to agree on a future vision and taken

steps to achieve it. 
46

The metropolitan growth forecasting process provides a forum at which the MPO/COG and local

governments discuss land use changes and the policies that affect it. Currently, most

metropolitan agencies use this forum to temper unrealistic local forecasts, relying heavily on past

trends. Metropolitan areas that develop a normative vision of future land use could use the

existing forums to foster cooperation on how to reach this vision. EPA could have a role in

facilitating this process.

EPA could also help to promote the adoption of sustainable land use policies at the regional level

by publicizing efforts to quantify their benefits. Many regional agencies are looking for better

proof that higher densities, greater land use mixing, and certain design elements can reduce

vehicle travel and emissions, proof for themselves and for opponents of the policies.

Provide local government incentives

Local governments that allow sprawling development patterns do so because they feel it is in

their best interest. EPA could play a role in helping to show local governments the

consequences of unsustainable development. Compact, higher density development can make

good fiscal sense for cities and counties if it lowers the costs of extending streets, sewer systems,

and other service provision. Many more cities are embracing livable communities as a way to

revitalize retail areas. Local governments need examples and studies that can show how it is in

their best interest to direct new development into more sustainable patterns. 

Some local governments will need better incentives than fiscal or aesthetic arguments. The

RTP/TIP process could provide an opportunity for promoting sustainable land use. A few metro

areas may be forced to consider land use measures to show RTP conformity. EPA could aid

these areas by showing how land use has reduced emissions forecasts through regional computer

modeling. 

Interviews suggest that the regional emissions benefits from enforceable land use measures

would be quite small. And once conformity is attained, the incentive to consider land use

controls is lost. Some have suggested modifying the conformity process so that metropolitan

areas have incentives to go below attainment levels. This could help to maintain any momentum

toward considering land use policy for its emissions benefits.

Another opportunity to influence local government development policy could arise through

conformity determinations for the TIP or specific projects. Once the mobile source emissions

budget is fixed for a region, emissions from the short-term TIP must be shown not to exceed the

budget. It has been suggested that regions allow more innovative ways of trading emissions

credits. Local governments that find their transportation improvements blocked because of nonconformity might be allowed to adopt land use policies as a concession. EPA could help to

facilitate these sorts of exchanges.

Publicizing examples of local sustainable land use policies and efforts WR TXDQWLI\ WKHLU EHQHILWV

ZLOO KHOS SURPRWH WKH SROLFLHV DW ORFDO OHYHOV (3$ FRXOG OHQG VXSSRUW WR ORFDO JRYHUQPHQWV

WKDW DUH FRQVLGHULQJ VXFK SROLFLHV DQG WR ORFDO DGYRFDWHV
47

3URYLGH GHYHORSHU LQFHQWLYHV

(3$ FRXOG DOVR WDNH VWHSV WR SURPRWH PRUH VXVWDLQDEOH ODQG XVH SUDFWLFHV DW WKH SURMHFW OHYHO

'HYHORSHUV DUH LQKHUHQWO\ ULVNDYHUVH DQG HVWDEOLVKHG VLWH GHVLJQ IHDWXUHV DUH GLIILFXOW WR

FKDQJH +RZHYHU WKHUH DUH PDQ\ H[DPSOHV ZKHUH GHYHORSHUV KDYH LQFRUSRUDWHG FKDQJHV LQWR

VLWH SODQV WKDW UHGXFH DXWRGHSHQGHQF\ DW OLWWOH RU QR DGGLWLRQDO FRVW 6RPH KDYH HYHQ

VXJJHVWHG WKDW PRUH VXVWDLQDEOH XUEDQ GHVLJQ SUDFWLFHV FRXOG HYHQ VDYH GHYHORSHUV PRQH\ $W

OHDVW RQH FLW\ LV XVLQJ D *,6 PRGHO WR WU\ WR VKRZ GHYHORSHUV KRZ WKH\ FDQ UHGXFH WKHLU FRVWV

DQG SURPRWH DOWHUQDWLYH WUDYHO PRGHV (3$ LV DOUHDG\ IDFLOLWDWLQJ WKH H[FKDQJH RI WKLV NLQG RI

LQIRUPDWLRQ WKURXJK LWV 6PDUW *URZWK 1HWZRUN 7KHUH PD\ EH PRUH WKDW (3$ FRXOG GR WR

SURPRWH VXVWDLQDEOH ODQG XVH GLUHFWO\ WR GHYHORSHUV

7KH HQYLURQPHQWDO UHYLHZ SURFHVV RIIHUV DQ RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SURPRWH SURMHFWOHYHO ODQG XVH DQG

VLWH GHVLJQ IHDWXUHV WKDW UHGXFH YHKLFOH XVH $V RXU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH LPSDFW RI ODQG XVH RQ

WUDYHO LPSURYHV WKHUH PD\ EH ZD\V WR UHTXLUH LQFRUSRUDWLRQ RI PLWLJDWLRQ PHDVXUHV WKDW

UHGXFH YHKLFOH HPLVVLRQV (3$ FRXOG SURPRWH HIIRUWV VXFK DV WKRVH LQ WKH 6RXWK &RDVW $LU

'LVWULFW WR PRGLI\LQJ WKH HQYLURQPHQWDO UHYLHZ SURFHVV LQ ZD\V WKDW FRXOG DW OHDVW UHZDUG

JRRG GHYHORSPHQW SUDFWLFHV 2QH LPPHGLDWH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR PRGLI\ HQYLURQPHQWDO UHYLHZ

SURFHGXUHV PD\ EH SUHVHQWHG E\ WKH VWUHDPOLQLQJ SURYLVLRQV RI 7($  7KHVH SURYLVLRQV

UHTXLUH WKH 6HFUHWDU\ RI 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ WR HVWDEOLVK D FRRUGLQDWHG HQYLURQPHQWDO UHYLHZ

SURFHVV IRU WKH '27 DQG WR ZRUN ZLWK RWKHU )HGHUDO DJHQFLHV WR HQVXUH WKDW PDMRU KLJKZD\

DQG WUDQVLW SURMHFWV DUH DGYDQFHG DFFRUGLQJ WR FRRSHUDWLYHO\ GHWHUPLQHG WLPH IUDPHV 2QH

RSWLRQ WKDW PLJKW EH SXUVXHG XQGHU WKHVH SURYLVLRQV ZRXOG EH WR JUDQW H[SHGLWHG UHYLHZV WR

DQ\ SURMHFWV WKDW GHPRQVWUDWH WKDW VXVWDLQDEOH ODQG XVH DQG VLWH GHVLJQ SUDFWLFHV KDYH EHHQ

LQFRUSRUDWHG LQ WKH SURMHFW
48

$&.12:/('*0(176

Project Coordinator

James Carpenter, EPA Office of Mobile Sources

EPA Regional Contacts

Region 1: Donald Cooke, Linda Marinelli, Jeff Butensky

Region 2: John Walsh

Region 3: Paul Wentworth

Region 4: Kelly Sheckler

Region 5: Patricia Morris

Region 6: John Behnam

Region 7: Chris Hess

Region 8: Scott Lee, Jeff Houk

Region 9: Mark Brucker, Karina O’Connor

Region 10: Wayne Elson, Polly Hunter

Report Reviewers

EPA Office of Mobile Sources: Lucie Audette, Stephanie Alston, Kathryn Sargeant

EPA Office of Policy: Geoff Anderson, Brett VanAkkeren, Robert Noland 
49

$33(1',; $ /LVW RI 6XUYH\ &RQWDFWV

EPA Region 1

Portland, ME

Ron Severance, Mobile Sources Manager, Bureau of Air Quality, Maine Department of 

Environmental Protection

John Duncan, Executive Director, Portland MPO

Steve Lowe, Resource Systems Group, consultant to Portland MPO

Boston, MA

Christine Kirby, Branch Chief for Transportation Management Programs, Bureau of Waste 

Prevention, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

Carl Quackenbush, Deputy Director, Central Transportation Planning Staff of Boston MPO

Portsmouth, NH

Kent Finemore, Technical Services Administrator, Air Resources Division, New Hampshire 

Department of Environmental Services

Kathy Brockett, staff, Air Resources Division, New Hampshire Department of Environmental 

Services

Steve Burns, Director, Sea Coast MPO and Stafford Regional Planning Council

Providence, RI

Barbara Morin, Supervising Environmental Scientist, Bureau of Environmental Protecting, 

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management

Ralph Rizzo, Rhode Island Office of the Federal Highway Administration

John Brownell, planner, Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program

EPA Region 2

New York Metropolitan Area

Bob Stern, planner, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Bruce Benton, planner, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Julia Zhou, planner, New Jersey Transportation Planning Authority

Kuo-Ann Chiao, Manager, Systems Planning/Models Bureau, New York Metropolitan 

Transportation Council

Albany, NY

Chris O'Neill, Senior Transportation Planner, Capital District Transportation Committee
50

EPA Region 3

Washington, DC

Tom Blue, planner, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Ron Kirby, Director of Transportation Planning, Metropolitan Washington COG

Baltimore, MD

Diane Franks, Planning Division Chief, Air Management Administration, Maryland Department 

of Environment

Charles Baber, planner, Baltimore Metropolitan Council

Chris Wells, Maryland Office of Planning

Philadelphia, PA

Arlene Shulman, Section Chief, Mobile Sources, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection

Ron Roggenburk, Manager, Office of Air Quality Planning, Delaware Valley Regional Planning 

Commission

Barry Seymour, Assistant Executive Director for Regional Planning, Delaware Valley Regional 

Planning Commission

EPA Region 4

Atlanta, GA

Marlin Godschalk, Manager, Mobile and Area Source Program, Georgia Environmental 

Protection Division

Eric Pihl, planner, Atlanta Regional Council

Bart Lewis, planner, Atlanta Regional Council

Raleigh, NC

Shelia Holman, Attainment Planning Supervisor, Division of Air Quality, North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Scott Lane, Administrator, Capital Area MPO

EPA Region 5

Chicago, IL

Carol Brown, staff, City of Chicago, Department of Environment

Carl Welzenbach, planner, Chicago Area Transportation Study

Dean England, Deputy for Development, Chicago Area Transportation Study

Max Dieber, Director of Research Services, Northern Illinois Planning Commission

EPA Region 6
51

Texas

Catherine Stephens, staff, Air Quality Planning and Assessment Division, Texas Natural 

Resources Conservation Commission

Kim Hearndon, staff, Air Quality Planning and Assessment Division, Texas Natural Resources 

Conservation Commission

Dallas, TX

Lyssa Jenkins, planner, North Central Texas COG

Houston, TX

Chris Van Slyke, planner, Houston Galveston Area Council

Marilee Martin, planner, Houston Galveston Area Council

EPA Region 8

Denver, CO

Mike Silverstein, Planning/Grants Specialist, Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado 

Department of Public Health and Environment

Chris Primas, planner, Denver Regional COG

Jeff Romine, planner, Denver Regional COG

Fort Collins, CO

John Daggett, Senior Transportation Planner, North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality 

Planning Council

Susan Gordon, staff, Natural Resource Department, City of Fort Collins 

Salt Lake City, CO

Colleen Delaney, Environmental Scientist, Division of Air Quality, Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality

Name unknown, Wasach Front Regional Council

EPA Region 9

Phoenix, AZ

Joe Gibbs, Environmental Program Specialist, Air Quality Division, Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality

Cathy Arthur, contract consultant, Maricopa Association of Governments

South Coast (LA metropolitan region)

Laki Tisopulos, planning manager, South Coast Air Quality Management District

Connie Day, planner, South Coast Air Quality Management District

Steve Smith, planner, South Coast Air Quality Management District

Mike Armstrong, Senior Planner, Southern California Association of Governments
52

Simon Choy, planner, Southern California Association of Governments

Sacramento, CA

Ron Maertz, Transportation Programs Manager, Mobile Source Division, Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 

Gordon Gary, Transportation Analyst Manager, Sacramento Area Council of Governments

San Diego, CA

Andy Hamilton, Air Quality Specialist, San Diego Air Pollution Control District

George Franck, Senior Transportation Planner, San Diego Association of Governments

Paul Kavanaugh, Senior Planner, San Diego Association of Governments

Jeff Taymen, Senior Planner, San Diego Association of Governments

San Joaquin Valley, CA

Katie Bearden, planner, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

Mike Bitner, Senior Transportation Planner, Fresno COG

Kathy Chung, Planning Coordinator, Fresno COG

San Francisco, CA

David Marshall, planner, Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Jennifer Dill, planner, Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Brian Kirking, planner, Association of Bay Area Governments

Chuck Purvis, Senior Transportation Planner/Analyst, Metropolitan Transportation Commission

Monterey Bay, CA

Janet Brennan, Senior Planner, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District

Todd Muck, Associate Planner, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments

Ventura County, CA

Ben Cacatian, Air Quality Specialist, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

Carl Morehouse, Senior Planner, Ventura County

Gene Kjellborg, Senior Planner, Ventura County 

EPA Region 10

Portland, OR

Dave Nordberg, State Implementation Plan Coordinator, Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality

Annette Liebe, planner, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Scott Higgens, planner, METRO

Barbara Linssen, planner, METRO

Seattle, WA

Brian O’Sullivan, Growth Management Planner, Puget Sound Air Pollution Control District
53

Larry Blaine, Senior Planner, Puget Sound Regional Council

Paul Carr, Washington Department of Ecology
54

$33(1',; % ,QWHUYLHZ 'LVFXVVLRQ 4XHVWLRQV

Air District Personnel

Have you ever considered including any land use measures in your SIP? (explicitly)

If no, why were they not included? If yes, how were the emissions benefits quantified?

Are there local governments in your region (or the state government) that have adopted

land use policies that could reduce vehicle emissions? What are they? 

Do you know if there are any land use assumptions made in the baseline run of a regional

transportation demand model that might produce lower VMT? What are they?

What could the Federal Government do to encourage land use policies that reduce

emissions?

Have you considered any of the EPA’s Voluntary Mobile Source Programs? If the EPA

identified tools to quantify the emissions benefits of voluntary land use policies, would

you consider such a control measure?

Is there anyone else you would recommended that I speak to in your region?

MPO Transportation Modelers 

How do you develop your baseline land use scenario? Does it incorporate any land use

policies that might reduce VMT, trips and/or emissions?

Have you modeled alternate land use scenarios with the regional transportation model? 

Did this include modeling the impact on vehicle emissions? What were the results?

Are there local or regional land use policies in place that are designed to reduce auto use,

sprawl, emissions, etc.? Are these policies incorporated into your land use forecasting

process for your RTP/TIP?

Do you think that your modeling capability could quantify a reduction in VMT and/or

emissions due to sustainable land use policies -- policies such as commitments by local

governments to zone for higher densities, zone for transit-oriented development or

require site design that is ped/bike friendly?

If the regional models show the RTP/TIP to be out of conformity, is there a process by

which land use assumptions can be modified to reduce emissions from the "build"

scenario?
55

What could the Federal Government do to encourage land use policies that reduce

emissions?

Do you think it would be useful for the EPA to allow more flexibility in the adoption of

voluntary control measures that encourage VMT-reducing or trip-reducing land use

policies?

Is there anyone else you would recommended that I speak to in your region?

COG socio-economic forecasters

How do you forecast land use? Or how do you allocate growth forecasts to the zonal

level? Do you use a commercial model?

How are local General Plans and land use policies reflected in the regional socioeconomic forecasts? 

Are there any local land use policies designed to reduce vehicle travel that are reflected

in the regional socio-economic forecasts?

Do you think your land use forecasting process would account for sustainable land use

policies -- policies such as commitments by local governments to zone for higher

densities, zone for transit-oriented development or require site design that is ped/bike

friendly?

What could the Federal Government do to encourage land use policies that reduce

emissions?

Do you think it would be useful for the EPA to allow more flexibility in the adoption of

voluntary control measures that encourage VMT-reducing or trip-reducing land use

policies?

Is there anyone else you would recommended that I speak to in your region?