2002 Annual Meeting & Conference ITE NY Upstate Section
Download
Report
Transcript 2002 Annual Meeting & Conference ITE NY Upstate Section
The Integrated Transportation/Land
Use Solution
Pilot Studies in the NYC
Metropolitan Region
A Starting Point - The “MPO
Thing” in a Complex Region
New York Metropolitan Transportation Council
Loose confederation; remnant of Tri-State Regional
Planning Commission
Covers New York City, Long Island and the lower
Hudson Valley
• Members include two NYC agencies, five suburban counties,
New York State DOT and MTA
• Advisory members include Port Authority of NY & NJ,
FHWA, FTA, USEPA, New York State DEC and our sister
MPO in New Jersey, NJTPA
An Integrated Transportation/Land Use
Solution – Key Questions at the Outset
Why would we want
to do this?
How in the world
would we go about it?
How could we
influence policy
decisions in the real
world?
Why Would We Want to Do
This?
• Build consensus & obtain local buy-in
• Develop optimal solutions
• Develop effective transportation
investments
• Address congestion management issues
• Address environmental impacts
• Enhance community involvement
How in the World Would We Go
About It?
• Use the metropolitan transportation
planning process as a catalyst
– Think regionally and act locally
– Use federal funding as a carrot
– Bring the players to the table through the MPO
How Could We Influence Policy
Decisions in the Real World?
• Make Federal funding contingent on
integrated planning in key target areas
• Use the Regional Transportation Plan as a
starting point
– Establish a regional land use/transportation goal
– Identify key issues and approaches
– Define key target areas with a critical mass of
development pressures and transportation issues
Metropolitan Planning Process
Unif ied Planning W ork
Program
Regional
Trans portation Plan
Trans portation
Im prov em ent Program
Mandated Planning Products
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
So What Did We Do?
New regional goal in 1999
plan update has been
carried forward in the
2005 plan update
Plan defined key target
areas
Worked with local
municipal planners
Defined steps for working
towards the goal
What Was Possible?
• Key ingredients in
activating the goal:
Availability of federal
funding
Agreement of MPO
members
Local interest on the
part of elected and
planning officials
Program Approach
• The LandTran Program
– Funding for education and training programs
for local officials
– Funding for local master plan updates which
reinforce the land use/transportation connection
– Funding for new integrated planning
approaches in key target areas
Integrated Planning Approaches
in Key Target Areas
New brand name: sustainable development studies
Build on New York State DOT’s Arterial Access
Management Program
Bring local officials and transportation agencies to the
table
Include all aspects of transportation and land use
planning
Use community visioning as a basis for consensus
building
Use computer simulation modeling to test future
scenarios coming out of the visioning
Build final consensus around the modeling results
Key Elements of a Sustainable
Development Study
Community Visioning
Scenario Development
Land use &
transportation futures
“Range of intensity”
Scenario Testing
Computer simulation
model
Matrix analysis
Consensus Building
Choice of preferred futures
Implementation Planning
Intermunicipal agreements
or GEIS
Master plan & zoning
revisions
Regional Transportation
Plan & Transportation
Improvement Program
Could This Approach Work?
Key ingredients:
Buy in from local
electeds
• Local champion
preferable
Buy in from MPO
members
Agreement from all
parties that the
approach starts with a
blank canvas
Funding Pilot Studies of Different Sizes
in Different Locations
• Four pilots initially funded through the Unified
Planning Work Program:
– Route 303 study in Rockland County
• Town of Orangetown
– Routes 6/35/202/Bear Mountain Parkway study in
Westchester County
• City of Peekskill, towns of Cortlandt and Yorktown
– Sustainable East End Development Strategies (SEEDS)
initiative in Suffolk County
• Five towns, eleven villages
– Coney Island/Gravesend study in Brooklyn
• Several community boards
Status of the Pilot Studies
Route 303 in Rockland
County
Complete
• Overlay zone passed by
town board
• Implementation planning
underway
Routes 6/35/202/BMP in
Westchester County
Complete
• Inter-municipal agreement
in place
• Implementation planning
underway
SEEDS in Suffolk County
Complete
• Inter-municipal agreement
under discussion
• Implementation planning
beginning
Coney Island/Gravesend
in Brooklyn
Mid point
• Community visioning
completed
• Analysis of scenarios
nearly complete
What Have We Learned So Far?
A local champion is
critical!!
Local politics can derail a
study
Community visioning has
largely been successful
Election results can damage
local buy in
Instances of the use of
studies to gain advantage on
issues
Consensus is not always the
objective
The effectiveness of the
“carrots” is not fully
understood
A Case in Point; SEEDS
By far, the most extensive and complex of the
pilot studies
Sixteen municipalities
Large study area in eastern Suffolk County
History of joint action
“Peconic County” movement
East End Supervisors & Mayors Association
Generally adversarial relationship with Suffolk County,
New York State DOT and MTA Long Island Rail Road
What’s Happened So Far?
• SEEDS launched in April
2001
• Two levels of community
visioning
– Issues sessions
– Workshops
• Fourteen meetings held
throughout the East End
• Extensive, varied input
generated
• Scenario development and
analysis has been complex
and controversial
– Initial consensus building
needed
– Significant credibility lost
• Significant work expended
to inform new elected
officials of SEEDS study
status and importance
– Champions lost their recent
elections
– New electeds don’t
understand and/or buy in to
the process
Key Lessons
• Consensus is much harder to establish in a larger,
more complex area
– Visibility and communication are more difficult
– Shared buy in and ownership are more complex
– Trust is more diffuse
• Local politics are magnified by larger numbers of
municipal players
– More points of conflict
– More win-lose gaming
– Less buy in to a larger process
Other Lessons; Technical Issues
• Simulation modeling has been complex!
– Modeling of weekday and weekend travel
needs to be captured and understood by the
public
– Matrix analysis requires multiple iterations
– Some elements of the future scenarios are
difficult to model
• For example, “centers” concept
• Study contract had to be supplemented
How is Implementation Proceeding?
• The Rockland, Westchester and Suffolk studies are
complete
– All are transitioning into an implementation mode
– All have chosen to convert the study steering
committees into implementation committees, which are
meeting regularly
• Specific implementation steps have included:
– Addressing short-term transportation issues
– Programming of transportation improvements on the
regional Transportation Improvement Program
– Development of inter-municipal agreements
(Westchester and Suffolk)
– Adoption of an overlay zone (Rockland)
How is Implementation Proceeding?
• Implementation problems have included:
–
–
–
–
Fragile consensus
Political changes
Funding restrictions
Lengthy project development process
Prospects for This Approach
• Some interest for similar studies
– Staten Island West Shore
– Rockaways peninsula
– Sagtikos Regional Development Zone
• Formal evaluation of the approach will be
conducted
– Resource requirements
– Factors for success
– Impacts and outcomes
• Even wider use is possible once the approach is
evaluated