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