EPA420-R-98-012
   BACKGROUND INFORMATION
     FOR LAND USE SIP POLICY
           FINAL REPORT
             Prepared/or:

  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/or:

                           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 EPAS ROLE FROM INTERVIEWS	32
   5.1 Air Agency Perspective	32
   5.2 MPO/COGPerspective 	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

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

-------
                     Table ES-1:  Metropolitan Areas Selected for Interviews
EPA Region
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
5
6
6
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
State
ME
MA
NH
RI
NY
NY/NJ/CN
DC
MD
PA
NC
GA
IL
TX
TX
CO
CO
UT
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
OR
WA
Metropolitan Area
Portland
Boston
Portsmouth
Providence (all RI)
Albany
New York City
Washington DC
Baltimore
Philadelphia
Raleigh/Durham
Atlanta
Chicago
Houston
Dallas
Denver
Fort Collins
Salt Lake City
Phoenix
South Coast (LA Area)
Sacramento
San Diego
San Joaquin Valley
San Francisco Bay
Monterey Bay
Ventura County
Portland
Seattle
Non-Attainment/Maintenance Status
Ozone CO
Moderate
Serious Not Classified (P)
Serious
Serious
Marginal
Severe Moderate
Serious
Severe
Severe
Maintenance
Serious
Severe
Moderate
Severe
Transitional Serious
Moderate 1
Maintenance Not Classified
Serious Serious
Extreme Serious
Severe Moderate 1
Serious Moderate 1
Serious Moderate 1 & 2 (P)
Non-attainment Moderate 1
Maintenance
Severe
Maintenance
Maintenance
(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

-------
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 socio-
       economic/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 through the pilot Air
       Brownfields  program in Baltimore, Chicago, and Dallas.  This program is working 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.

-------
             Table ES-2:  Land Use Measures in Air Quality Plans
Metro Area
San Francisco
Sacramento
Monterey Bay
South Coast (LA)
Ventura County
Portland, OR
Baltimore
San Diego
New Jersey
Land Use Measure in:
Federal SIP
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
State AQ Plan
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes*
Yes
n/a
n/a
Yes
n/a
Quantifie
d
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Programs
Promote Transit-Oriented
Development
Promote Local Pedestrian
Policies
Combination transportation and
land use TCM
Livable Communities
New and Existing Development
Standards
Congestion Management
Program
- jobs/housing balance
- impact of land use decisions
Urban Growth Boundary
Regional Functional Plan
- local accommodation of
housing and employment
- regional parking policy
- no large retail in industrial
areas policy
Smart Growth Initiatives
Indirect Source Program
State growth management
Measure was included in 1994 Plan, then removed from 1997 Plan.

-------
                Table ES-3:  Land Use Measures Not in Air Quality Plans
Metro Area
Ventura County
San Diego
Denver
Fort Collins
Seattle
South Coast (LA)
Program
Livable Communities ~ encourage local gov'ts to revise plans to promote compact,
mixed use development, ped-friendly design, transit-oriented design, etc.
Regional Growth Management Strategy ~ focus new development around rail
stations
Vision 2020 ~ more compact growth, preservation of open space, etc.
City Plan ~ comprehensive plan requires UGB, contiguous new development, etc.
State Growth Management Act ~ local governments must identify growth areas
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. State-
       of-the-art forecasting practices are being developed that can  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.  Some models attempt to account for smaller-scale or micro-
       scale 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.

-------
    •   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.

-------
    •   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

-------
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 non-
conforming 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   INTRODUCTION

1.1    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.  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

-------
accordingly. This could be considered implicit SIP credit. This study will explore both of these
methods for incorporating land use policies.

1.2    Related Developments

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.

1.3    Report Organization

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

-------
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.

-------
2   LITERATURE REVIEW

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.

2.1   Complementary  EPA Work Efforts

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
        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

-------
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).
        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.

        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

-------
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 (QMS 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

-------
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

-------
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 EP A 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 (IRAQ) 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.

-------
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.

2.2   Identification of Sustainable  Land  Use Policies

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.

-------
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.
                                            10

-------
    •  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.
 2.3   Other Relevant Literature

 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.
        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

-------
Other documents were reviewed to gain a better understanding of the SIP development and
RTF/TIP conformity processes, and how land use considerations can affect them. The flowchart
in Figure 2-1 provides an overview of these processes.
                                          12

-------
Figure 2-1:  Potential Land Use Considerations in the SIP and Conformity Process
  Most Recent
  Land Use
  Projections
                         Emissions Budget
                              TCMs
                     State Conformity Procedures
                       TRANSPORTATION
                             PLAN
Perform Regional Analysis for PLAN
  Most Recent
  Land Use
  Projections
 Perform Regional Analysis for TIP
                Perform CO or PMio Hot Spot Analysis
                                         No
                                            OR
                         Project Approval
                                             13

-------
3  SURVEY METHODOLOGY

The primary intent of this study was to interview state and regional agencies that are involved
in land use, transportation and air quality planning.  Interviews were focused on three types of
agencies: air quality agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, and councils of
government.  Air quality agencies are responsible for development of the SIP.  In most states,
this agency is a division within the state environmental department, though a few states, such
as California and Washington, have regional air agencies. MPOs are required under federal
law to prepare both a 20-year Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation
Improvement Program  (TIP). The RTP is a long-range planning document that establishes
goals and priorities for the region's transportation system, while the TIP is generally a three-
to five-year programming document that identifies precisely how funds will be spent on
transportation projects.  COGs serve as a regional forum for local governments and perform
demographic, employment and land use forecasting for the region. Often, the  COG and the
MPO are the same agency.

The interviews were limited to agencies in metropolitan areas that are classified as non-
attainment or maintenance areas for either  ozone or carbon monoxide.  Twenty-seven
metropolitan areas were selected for interviews.  These areas are listed in Table 3-1  along with
their non-attainment or maintenance status. The study focused primarily on metropolitan areas
in EPA Regions 1, 3, 8, 9 and 10, although several metro areas in Regions 2, 4, 5 and 6 were
added to the interview list.  Thus, the  interviews were not conducted across a full cross-section
of U.S. metropolitan areas, but rather focused on the East Coast and Western states.  Also, by
limiting the interviews to non-attainment and maintenance areas, several metropolitan areas
known to have innovative land use policies were not included.

Many of the metropolitan areas chosen for interviews are located in California. This was done
in part because many cities  in California have poor air quality, but also because state air
quality laws allow more flexibility in the adoption of the sorts of land use measures relevant to
this study.  The California Clean Air Act of 1988 established state ambient air  quality
standards that are more strict than federal standards.  Regions that cannot comply with the
standards are  required to reduce pollutant emissions by five percent per year, or take all
feasible measures to achieve emission  reductions. This requirement has led several regions to
consider land use related control  measures, at least in their state-mandated air quality
management plans.

A total of 76 interviews were conducted for the study. This included 29 air agency personnel,
43 MPO or COG personnel, and four  others working for a state or local government. A full
list of interviewees and their position and agency is included as Appendix A. Of the air
agency personnel, nine were in management positions and 20 were staff planners, scientists, or
analysts.  Of the MPO/COG personnel, eleven  were in management positions and 32 were
staff planners.
                                           14

-------
15

-------
16

-------
                      Table 3-1: Metropolitan Areas Selected for Interviews
EPA Region
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
5
6
6
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
State
ME
MA
NH
RI
NY
NY/NJ/CN
DC
MD
PA
NC
GA
IL
TX
TX
CO
CO
UT
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
OR
WA
Metropolitan Area
Portland
Boston
Portsmouth
Providence (all RI)
Albany
New York City
Washington DC
Baltimore
Philadelphia
Raleigh/Durham
Atlanta
Chicago
Houston
Dallas
Denver
Fort Collins
Salt Lake City
Phoenix
South Coast (LA Area)
Sacramento
San Diego
San Joaquin Valley
San Francisco Bay
Monterey Bay
Ventura County
Portland
Seattle
Non-Attainment/Maintenance Status
Ozone CO
Moderate
Serious Not Classified (P)
Serious
Serious
Marginal
Severe Moderate
Serious
Severe
Severe
Maintenance
Serious
Severe
Moderate
Severe
Transitional Serious
Moderate 1
Maintenance Not Classified
Serious Serious
Extreme Serious
Severe Moderate 1
Serious Moderate 1
Serious Moderate 1 & 2 (P)
Non-attainment Moderate 1
Maintenance
Severe
Maintenance
Maintenance
(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
                                                      17

-------
All interviews were conducted by telephone. A list of discussion points was used to guide
each interview, and these are included as Appendix B. Questions differed somewhat
depending on the agency and the responsibilities of the interviewee. Air agency personnel
were asked
questions about land use control measures in air quality plans and barriers to the adoption of
such measures. MPO and COG personnel were asked questions about population and
employment growth forecasting methods,  travel demand modeling methods, and how land use
policies affect these procedures.  All interviewees were asked to suggest local, regional or
state land use policies that might have an effect on vehicle use and emissions.  And all  were
asked to give their opinion as to what, if anything, EPA could do to better encourage
sustainable land use practices.
                                           18

-------
4      SURVEY FINDINGS

The results of the survey are presented below.  First, examples of land use measures that are
included in air quality plans are presented. These include measures in SIPs as well as
measures that only appear in state mandated plans.  This section is followed by a discussion of
related land use measures that are not included in air quality plans. Finally, the chapter
concludes with a discussion of how land use policies are being incorporated into transportation
demand forecasts.

The survey results reveal certain patterns that reflect the different types of land use
responsibilities that each level of government has.  State governments tend to influence land
use decisions through the development of planning guidelines, enabling regional growth
management planning processes, and providing funding for innovative planning.  The State of
Maryland's Smart Growth initiative is one of the most comprehensive examples of a state
program.  State infrastructure funding and economic development, housing, and other
community development funding is limited to designated growth, areas.  In Washington, a
state growth management act was passed that requires cities and counties to designate urban
growth boundaries. Regional government agencies, such as MPOs, councils of government
(COGs), and regional air quality agencies generally have no direct control or jurisdiction with
respect to land use policy.  Regional programs, in most cases, are focused on issuing planning
guidance,  establishing regional goals through consensus processes, and conducting outreach
and education programs aimed at influencing local land use planning.  Local governments have
the greatest direct control over land use decisions and the widest variety of programs and
policies can be found at this level of government. Actions include growth management
programs  as part of city general plan elements, adoption of zoning ordinances,  development
review processes, and other local ordinances.  Examples of each of these types of policies and
the roles that different levels of government play in implementing them are presented in the
following  sections.

4.1    Examples of Land Use Measures in Air  Quality Plans

Nine of the 27 metropolitan areas surveyed have identified land use related control measures
in an air quality plan — two in a federal SIP submittal,  five in a state-required plan, and two in
both.  Table 4-1 summarizes these measures.  Two of these metropolitan areas  have quantified
the emissions reduction benefits from a land use control measure and take credit for these
benefits explicitly — the San Francisco Bay Area and the Sacramento Metropolitan Area.

The remaining seven do not quantify any emissions reduction. 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.
                                           19

-------
                   Table 4-1: Land Use Measures in Air Quality Plans
Metro Area
San Francisco
Sacramento
Monterey Bay
South Coast
(LA)
Ventura County
Portland, OR
Baltimore
San Diego
New Jersey
Land Use Measure in:
Federal SIP
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
State AQ Plan
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes*
Yes
n/a
n/a
Yes
n/a
Quantifie
d
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Programs
Promote Transit-Oriented
Development
Promote Local Pedestrian
Policies
Combination transportation and
land use TCM
Livable Communities
New and Existing Development
Standards
Congestion Management
Program
- jobs/housing balance
- impact of land use decisions
Urban Growth Boundary
Regional Functional Plan
- local accommodation of
housing and employment
- regional parking policy
- no large retail in industrial
areas policy
Smart Growth Initiatives
Indirect Source Program
State growth management
* Measure was included in 1994 Plan, then removed from 1997 Plan.
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 non-
attainment 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.
        Bay Area '97 Clean Air Plan, Volume 1 and Appendix E, Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
December 17, 1997.
                                            20

-------
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 7997 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.
        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

-------
    •   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 tpdROG and 0.84 tpdNOx by 2005
    •   0.72 tpdROG and 1.59 tpdNOx 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 tpdROG and 0.84 tpdNOx by 2005
    •   0.54 tpdROG and 1.59 tpdNOx 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.
       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

-------
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, CTY-
08 "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
       Q
        Indirect Source Review Program, Implementation Guidelines, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District, February 1995.
       10 1997 Air Quality Management Plan, 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

-------
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.
       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

-------
    •   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
         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
Environment, 1998.
Phase II Attainment Plan for the Baltimore Region and Cecil County, Maryland Department of
                                           25

-------
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.

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

The interview surveys revealed six state, regional and local land use policies that could
         Conformity Determination of the 1994 Baltimore Region Transportation Plan and 1999-2003
Transportation Improvement Program, Baltimore Metropolitan Council, July 1998.

         1998 Triennial Regional Air Quality Strategy Revision for the San Diego Air Basin, San Diego Air
Pollution Control District, June 1998.

       1 8
         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

-------
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
Ventura County
San Diego
Denver
Fort Collins
Seattle
South Coast (LA)
Program
Livable Communities ~ encourage local gov'ts to revise plans to promote compact,
mixed use development, ped-friendly design, transit-oriented design, etc.
Regional Growth Management Strategy ~ focus new development around rail
stations
Vision 2020 ~ more compact growth, preservation of open space, etc.
City Plan ~ comprehensive plan requires UGB, contiguous new development, etc.
State Growth Management Act ~ local governments must identify growth areas
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, pedestrian-
oriented 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
         Livable Communities Program — Executive Summary. Ventura Council of Governments, 1997.

                                          27

-------
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 theMetro Vision 2020 Plan22 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
         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.

         See Metro Vision 2020: A Framework for the Denver Metropolitan Region, Denver Regional Council
of Governments, November 1995.

                                           28

-------
The City of Fort Collins adopted last year a progressive comprehensive plan called City Plan24
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
         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

-------
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.

4.3   Land Use Policies Incorporated  Into Transportation Demand  Forecasts

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
         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

-------
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 district-
       level 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
                                           31

-------
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
         Evaluation of Modeling Tools for Assessing Land Use Policies and Strategies, 1997.

                                           32

-------
requirements for pedestrian- and bike-friendly design elements, higher density zoning around
transit facilities, fine-grained mixed-use zoning, etc.
                                             33

-------
5  SUGGESTIONS FOR ERA'S ROLE FROM INTERVIEWS

All air agency and MPO/COG personnel interviewed were asked to give their opinion
regarding a possible role for EPA in promoting land use policies that reduce vehicle use.  As
expected, the air agencies had a better understanding of EPA's current role in the process, and
were able to give more specific suggestions.  MPO/COG personnel tended to be more doubtful
about EPA's ability to influence land use policy.

5.1    Air Agency Perspective

Twenty-nine air agency personnel were asked if there was anything they thought EPA could
do to promote land use policies that reduce vehicle use, and whether EPA guidance on the
expected emissions reduction benefits of such policies would be helpful to promote them.
Two-thirds of the respondents felt that some form of EPA guidance or information sharing
would be helpful. Of these, roughly half said that the quantification of expected benefits
would be useful, while the other half felt that EPA's role should be limited to distributing of
examples of other land use control measures around the country. Only one air agency said
that they would actually use EPA guidance to quantify a land use measure in a SIP. Most said
that quantification of land use measure benefits would be useful simply because it would lend
weight to proponents of such policies.

                    Table  5-1:  Summary of Air Agency Responses
               EPA Guidance Helpful                  64% of total

                    . .  . By Quantifying Benefits       27% of total

                    . .  . By Sharing Information       36% of total

               EPA Guidance Not Helpful              36% of total
Air agency interviews included nine managers and 20 staff members. Managers appear to be
somewhat more positive about an EPA role than air agency staff, although there was not a
large difference between the two groups.  Nearly 75 percent of the managers felt that EPA
could help them promote sustainable land use.  Staff members were more split, with 57
percent seeing a useful role for EPA.  Of the 64 percent that do see a useful role for EPA,
managers tended to prefer information sharing and staff tended to prefer actual quantification
of benefits.
EPA guidance won't lead to SIP inclusion of land use measures
Based on the interviews, it appears that EPA guidance on the quantification of emissions
benefits of land use policies would not motivate many more metropolitan areas to take credit
for these policies. The  few that have already quantified the benefits generally feel that they
can do so without EPA  direction. Those that include unquantified land use measures in air
quality plans have done so primarily to promote the policies, and generally aren't looking for
emissions credits from them.  Others don't plan to adopt any land use measures soon because
they know that they can't commit to any kind of land use control.

                                          34

-------
  "We think we can quantify the measures ourselves and take credit for them, without EPA's
  help."

  "We would probably not take SIP credit for measure,  since we don't need it."

  "EPA's efforts would not help us with SIP adoption.  Even if it's a voluntary measure,
  you've got to commit to do something, and we're not  going to commit to land use control."
Those that see a useful role for EPA
The general consensus among air agencies is that EPA, by identifying the benefits of
sustainable land use policies, will add support to the policies in regional and local debates, or
will at least foster debate that is not currently occurring.  Roughly 27 percent felt that EPA
should try to clearly quantify the emissions benefits that could be expected from various land
use measures, because the lack of credible quantification is hindering adoption of these
measures.  Another suggestion was that if SIP credit were allowed for land use policies, the
air agency would have an easier time getting funding to study the travel and emissions impacts
of different developments.
  "EPA guidance would be a big help.  I can't say if we would actually adopt land use related
 voluntary control measures. But at the moment, there's uncertainty as to whether they
 actually produce any benefit."

  "We need documentable evidence of the impact of land use policies to fight the building
 industry.  As long as we can't show a nexus between these policies and emissions
 reductions, we're not going to be able to adopt anything."

  "EPA guidance on the benefits of land use policies would be really helpful to us.  I must
 fight for support for TCMs when we're considering  all kinds of measures, and if you can't
 quantify a reduction in emissions, it's hard to make the pitch for them."

  "We have some developments in the region that follow these kinds of policies, but we don't
 have the funding to study their impact. If EPA gave us reason to study them, it would be
 easier to get funding for it."
Others felt that by quantifying benefits, EPA could strengthen the hand of local advocates who
are pushing for these types of policies.
                                           35

-------
 "Quantifying the benefits of land use measures gives them more weight and credibility in
 the public eye, and makes it easier for the agency to push for them.  We may not adopt a
 land use TCM, but by having the option out there, people start to think about the trade-offs
 between that and other measures."

 "If EPA offered some guidance on quantifying land use TCM benefits,  it would be a useful
 tool for activists opposed to new sprawl developments."

 "Quantification of benefits by EPA would be very helpful.  These measures are
 controversial, and spelling out the benefits in a document would strengthen the hand of the
 proponents."
Another 36 percent feel that it's not really possible to credibly quantify the benefits at this
stage, and that EPA could be most useful by simply publicizing relevant examples. This
would provide models to local governments that are concerned about vehicle use and
emissions.  Several agencies also suggested that what they need is a model for how to achieve
consensus among local governments in the region.
  "EPA could help by making information available on the impact of land use policies, and
  what has been done elsewhere.  Cities and MPOs are looking to the state air quality division
  for guidance, but we don't have much experience with or knowledge of land use."

  "We need a model for how to bring together a fractured region. The inner cities are
  suffering from congestion and air quality problems, while the outer  cities are scrambling
  for growth. We need to reach a regional consensus."
Those that do not see a useful role for EPA
The other 36 percent of respondents felt that EPA does not have a useful role in the promotion
of land use policies.  Various reasons were given for this answer.  Some said that their air
quality problems were simply not bad enough to warrant consideration of any additional
control measures, so EPA's efforts would not be useful to them.  Similarly, others felt that
they would only adopt a new control measure if it was mandated, and were not interested in
any voluntary measures.  One respondent noted that there was little interest in growth
management because the area was not growing very rapidly. Another expressed concern that
any design requirements would be abused by developers. Still another felt that land use
measures were simply not quantifiable, and promoting them through the air quality process
was not worthwhile.
                                          36

-------
  "There's no incentive here to adopt any additional control measures. We're in attainment
  and getting better."

  "Control measures aren't promoted unless there's a requirement. We won't adopt anything
  that's voluntary."

  "There's not much growth in the state, and not much interest in growth management, so I
  don't think there's much chance of an emissions benefit."

  "You need to think carefully about how land use policies might get used and abused.  For
  example, if you simply require bike paths and transit stops, you'll get master plan
  developers building far on the urban edge with these window dressings that no one uses.
  What you really need are regional/state policies that require infill development before
  leapfrog development."

  "The long term solution to our transportation and air quality problems must come from land
  use ultimately.  But these types of land use TCMs aren't quantifiable, and aren't
  comparable with other traditional TCMs.  EPA is wasting their time trying to do it."
5.2    MPO/COG Perspective

Forty-three MPO and COG personnel were interviewed, including 11 managers and 32 staff.
Compared to air agency personnel, they tended to be more pessimistic about the possibility of
EPA helping to promote air quality-beneficial land use measures.  This is not surprising as
many of them struggle daily with the complexities of modeling travel behavior and they are
well aware of the uncertainties involved.  Two-thirds said that they did not think EPA
guidance would be useful in promoting land use policies.

                    Table  5-2: Summary of MPO/COG Responses
                    EPA Guidance Helpful        33 % of total

                    EPA Guidance Not Helpful    67% of total
Like air agencies, MPO and COG managers tended to be more positive about a useful role for
EPA in promoting sustainable land use.  About half of the managers interviewed said that EPA
could be helpful, while only about 20 percent of the staff agreed with this.

Those that do not see a useful role for EPA
Many MPO and COG  interviewees seemed resigned to the fact that there was no way to
influence local government land use decisions. Some added that monetary incentives were the
only way to get local governments to respond. Others felt that trying to quantify emissions


                                          37

-------
benefits from land use policies was simply futile.
  "There's not a lot EPA can do, as local governments make the land use decisions.  No local
  governments care about regional VMT."

  "It's going to be the region and state that take the lead in promoting more sustainable land
  use patterns, not EPA."

  "People aren't very interested in air quality in the region. The only way EPA could make a
  difference is to make some money available."

  "Dollars drive everyone's actions; you need grant funds to get people's attention."

  "Taking SIP credit for land use policies is really stretching the modeling  capability. You're
  already putting a lot of pressure on these models to forecast travel demand, and they're
  built on a shaky foundation.  Any SIP benefit would be small, and very uncertain, so
  there's little point in pursuing it."
Those that see a useful role for EPA
The other one-third of MPO and COG interviewees did feel that EPA could play a useful role.
Not surprisingly, these tended to be in rapidly growing areas in the western U.S.  Some of
these felt that the federal government needs to more actively advocate land use controls as a
way to address our traffic and air quality problems.  Others identified the need for better
evaluation of the impacts of various land use policies currently in place.
  "Constant pressure is needed to keep emissions, sprawl and other environmental issues in
  the land use / transportation planning process.  EPA's help in applying this pressure would
  be useful."

  "EPA's help would be appreciated.  They need to promote the fact that you can get a lot
  more VMT and emissions reductions from land use planning than from, say, transit
  improvements."

  "There's a need for some demonstrated impacts of land use policies. Right now there's no
  consensus on the effects. People need to agree on the range of impact you can expect."

  "EPA could be most helpful by distributing information to metropolitan areas. We need to
  see documentation of the quantification of benefits from alternative  land use scenarios in
  other regions.  And we need to see documentation of some real-world successes, too.  We
  need to see if these state growth management policies are working."
                                           38

-------
6  ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

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.

6.1    Barriers to Effective Land  Use  Policy

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.

Barriers to region-wide coordination
Air quality is a regional problem, and many  of the policies to reduce vehicle emissions need to
be coordinated at the metropolitan or state level.  Several factors stand in the way of
metropolitan land  use policies.

   •   State  or metropolitan growth management programs are less feasible  in areas  that are
       not growing rapidly.  Growth management inherently involves restrictions on or
       modifications to new development. In cities that are experiencing little or no net
       growth, these policies  will be politically difficult to adopt, and would have little impact
       anyway.  It is not surprising that much of the current discussion surrounding growth
       management  is occurring in fast-growing Western states.

   •   Local governments retain nearly full control over land use decisions within their
       borders.  The federal government requires the formation of MPOs, but metropolitan
       agencies  exist essentially to  serve member local governments. A regional agency
       cannot enforce  any sort of regional land use policy unless such powers are granted to it
       by the state.  Portland, Oregon's Metro gained a share of land  use  authority through
       state legislation and a voter  referendum. Similar state action is needed before other
       regional agencies can implement Metro-style policies.

   •   Related to  the last point, many areas of the county share a strong, almost reverential
       tradition  of local government land use control.  This tradition has been reinforced by
       federal law and state laws.29  In these areas, any transference of some land use power
       to a regional  agency is highly unlikely at this time.
          79
            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

-------
   •   Because regional land use policies may increase the costs of new development, the
       construction industry and real estate interests have mounted campaigns to prevent their
       adoption.  Even in metro areas that have succeeded in adopting growth management
       policies, regional planners often describe a considerable negotiation and compromise
       process with the building interests. In the Los Angeles region, vociferous opposition
       by the Building Industry Association (BIA) to land use-related measures in air quality
       plans led to removal of the measures.  The industry has even commissioned a study that
       refutes many of the claims of the air quality benefits of land use policies.30

Barriers to local implementation
Metropolitan growth management policies, if they are adopted, usually must be implemented
through the voluntary participation of local governments. Achieving this participation,
particularly from  the fastest growing exurban communities, has been very difficult.

   •   Local government development policies are often shaped by fiscal needs.  Many local
       governments find themselves cash-strapped as they are charged with greater
       responsibilities while voter initiatives have limited their ability to raise revenue through
       taxation.  New commercial development, particularly large retail outlets, can offer
       cities badly needed sales tax revenue.  As neighboring cities compete for new projects,
       exacting developer concessions, like design elements to encourage non-auto travel, can
       be impossible. Similarly, cities will find it hard to require developers of new
       residential subdivisions to incorporate mixed land uses, multi-family units, bike and
       pedestrian paths, etc., that might raise developer  costs.  Local governments may not
       recognize that compact, contiguous development can produce fiscal  benefits in terms of
       lower infrastructure and service provision costs.

   •   Many of the impacts of uncontrolled sprawl development are not felt by far-flung
       suburban communities, or at least are not viewed as symptoms of their growth patterns.
       Most local governments don't care about regional VMT,  and don't see regional
       emissions as a problem that they can affect.

   •   Though some cities and counties do adopt growth management policies,  it usually
       comes in response to  a period of rapid growth.  Public consciousness is raised only
       after congestion gets bad and open space disappears, and by that time opportunities to
       shape new growth in  the city are limited.  Rarely are growth issues  considered in the
       early stages of development. Some reactionary local government policies  (slow-growth
       initiatives, growth moratoria) may actually encourage sprawl and automobile use by
       forcing new development farther out.
6.2    Barriers to Forecasting Air Quality Impacts of Land Use Policies
            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

-------
Land use policies are only indirectly related to emissions and air quality.  In order to forecast
the impact of land use policies on air quality,  a series of key relationships must be understood.
A simplified diagram of these relationships is presented in Figure 6-1.

Figure 6-1 Key Relationships Between Land Use, Transportation, and Air Quality
There are a number of analytical barriers to predicting how each of these relationships will
behave. As the uncertainties involved at each stage will be carried on to the next stage of
analysis, reliable forecasts of the emissions or air quality benefits from land use policies can
be very difficult to obtain.  Some of the barriers that exist in forecasting each relationship are
discussed below

/ — Impact of land use policy on development patterns

Taking credit for land use policies will require estimates of how the policies will change future
development patterns.  This relationship is probably the least understood of the four above.
Most land use policies of the type identified in this study have appeared only in the last ten
years, and thus have had little impact to this point. Several factors make it difficult to forecast
the impacts:

   •   Local government participation in a voluntary regional policy is often uncertain.  Local
       governments may support vague, visionary principles regarding future growth patterns,
       but may not be willing to amend their plans and policies in accordance with the
       principles.  In the Denver region, for example, the recently adopted Metro Vision 2020
       Plan calls for local government to facilitate future growth in a more compact manner.
       Local government participated in crafting the plan, but nothing in it requires them to
       change their current development patterns.  Taking emissions credit for  this plan would
       require making  assumptions about future local government actions.

   •   Many growth management policies will only have an impact over a long term. An
       urban growth boundary, for example, may lead to infill or higher density development
       only when available greenfield lands become scarce.  Even then,  it  will  take time for
       the cumulative impact of multiple projects to significantly alter the dominant urban
       form. Several of the planners surveyed suggested that land use policies might not have
       a noticeable impact for several decades.  Unless an area has a long attainment planning
       horizon, land use measures may not have quantifiable impacts within the air quality
       planning time-frame.
                                           41

-------
   •   The development process is complex and governed by market forces that lie beyond the
       realm of policy.  In general, land use policies work only by prohibiting certain actions
       — they cannot require new construction.  If a market downturn removes the incentive
       for developers to build, land use policies become irrelevant.  Similarly, consumer
       preferences can change market demand and developer incentives. These  forces can be
       notoriously fickle and make predicting land use policy impacts difficult.

2 — Impact of development patterns on travel behavior

Although this relationship  has been the subject of extensive research, there are still
uncertainties with respect to how local land use changes will affect region-wide travel.

   •   Land use policies that get adopted by  isolated local governments will have little or no
       impact on regional  vehicle use or emissions.  The analogy often used is squeezing a
       balloon: regional growth can be assumed to be fixed, so restrictions in one area merely
       cause more growth in another. While local policies can clearly reduce local vehicle
       use, these policies may have no effect or even the opposite effect on other parts of the
       region.

   •   Regional land use policies that are primarily intended to preserve open space or protect
       certain natural resources may not reduce vehicle use.  Open space preservation policies
       could have the effect of discouraging  new suburban employment and shopping centers
       from locating near  residential zones, and could increase trip lengths. Similarly, a ring
       of open space could lead to new development much farther out than would otherwise
       occur, and potentially lengthen trips.

   •   The travel benefits  of 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.

   •   Many other factors affect travel behavior, factors that may swamp the impact of land
       use.  Because of this, it will be difficult to develop rule-of-thumb estimates of expected
       emissions reductions from specific land use policies without consideration of a host of
       characteristics of the area in which the policies are applied.

3 — Impact of travel behavior on vehicle emissions

Vehicle emissions are affected by vehicle miles of travel (VMT), number of starts, and
operating speed. A reduction in vehicle use generally means lower VMT and/or fewer trips,
both of which will reduce vehicle emissions.   However, the impact of vehicle operating speed
on emissions is more complex.  Most vehicles emit more pollutants per mile at low speeds
(under 25 mph) and at high speeds (over 50 mph).  Land use policies that lead to significantly
higher levels of congestion could reduce average speeds to the point  where emissions increase.
This could offset some of the benefits of decreased VMT and trips.  Very few studies have
considered how land use changes might affect emissions through speed changes.  EPA is in the
process of revising speed correction factors for use in MOBILE6.  Conclusions about the

                                           42

-------
relationships between land use, travel behavior, and emissions reached with current emission
models may prove erroneous when the new speed-emissions relationships are taken into
account.

4 — Impact of vehicle emissions on air quality

The impact of vehicle emissions on urban air quality was not the focus of this study.
However, it is important to point out that lower region-wide emissions does not automatically
result in better regional air quality. The urban airshed models that forecast regional air quality
account for the location, as well as the magnitude, of emissions. It is possible that land use
policies could reduce region-wide vehicle emissions, but concentrate them in  a smaller area
and thus create higher pollutant levels.

Implicit SIP credit versus explicit  SIP credit
In addition to the analytical barriers described above, it is important  to recognize that some
larger-scale local and regional land use policies will be accounted for in the land use and
transportation demand forecasting  process. Thus, any reduction in vehicle use and emissions
from these policies would be incorporated into the forecasts, and the area would be taking
implicit SIP credit for the policies. If a metropolitan area identifies a land use policy  as an
explicit control measure, it must be assumed that  the policy is not being accounted for in the
land use forecasting process. Otherwise,  the benefits will be double-counted. However, it is
difficult to identify which particular policies are accounted for in the models, and to what
extent.
                                            43

-------
7  DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE EFFORTS

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.

7.1    Helping Metropolitan Areas Take Credit for Existing Land Use Policies

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.
While great strides have been made in determining the impact of urban form on travel
patterns,  we have a poor understanding of what it takes to achieve changes in urban form.
Part of the  reason for this is that most of the land use policies mentioned in this  study have
appeared only within the last decade. Very  few of them have had a discernable  impact at this
point.  EPA could help by supporting more  research focused on the complex process of urban
development.  Specifically:

   •    Research is needed to understand how well existing state and regional growth
       management policies work.  If we can characterize a region in terms of its
       governmental structure, economic  forces, demographics, etc., can we predict how well
       a  particular policy will work? How much local government participation can be
       expected in a particular region, under a particular policy? 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

                                           44

-------
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.

7.2    Promoting Adoption of Sustainable Land Use Policies

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.
                                          45

-------
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
RTF/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 RTF 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 non-
conformity 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 to quantify their benefits
will help promote the policies at local levels. EPA could lend support to local governments
that are considering such policies, and to local advocates.
                                           46

-------
Provide developer incentives
EPA could also take steps to promote more sustainable land use practices at the project level.
Developers are inherently risk-averse, and established site design features are difficult to
change. However, there are many examples where developers have incorporated changes into
site plans that reduce auto-dependency at little or no additional cost.  Some have even
suggested that more sustainable urban design practices could even save developers money.  At
least one city is using a GIS model to try to show developers how they can reduce their costs
and promote alternative travel modes.  EPA is already facilitating the exchange of this kind of
information through its Smart Growth Network.  There may be more that EPA could do to
promote sustainable land use directly to developers.

The environmental review process offers an opportunity to promote project-level land use and
site design features that reduce vehicle use. As our understanding of the  impact of land use on
travel improves, there may be ways  to require incorporation of mitigation measures that
reduce vehicle emissions. EPA could promote efforts, such as those  in the South Coast Air
District, to modifying the environmental review process in ways that could at least reward
good development practices. One immediate opportunity to modify environmental review
procedures may be presented by the  streamlining provisions of TEA 21.  These provisions
require the Secretary of Transportation to establish a coordinated environmental review
process for the DOT and to work with other Federal agencies to ensure that major highway
and transit projects are advanced according to cooperatively determined time frames.  One
option that might be pursued under these provisions would be to grant expedited reviews to
any projects that demonstrate that  sustainable land use and site design practices have been
incorporated in the project.
                                           47

-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
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
Regi on 6:  John B ehnam
Region?:  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
                                        48

-------
APPENDIX A:  List of Survey Contacts
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
                                          49

-------
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

-------
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
                                          51

-------
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
                                          52

-------
Larry Elaine, Senior Planner, Puget Sound Regional Council
Paul Carr, Washington Department of Ecology
                                          53

-------
APPENDIX B:  Interview Discussion Questions
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 RTF/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 RTF/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?
                                       54

-------
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 socio-
economic 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?
                                       55

-------