Vision 2060 Scenario Planning for Chittenden County

Transcription

1 Vision 2060 Scenario Planning for Chittenden County

2 Scenario Planning for the MTP: Goals 1) Public engagement in long range transportation planning. 2) Obtain input from the public on their concerns and aspirations for the future. 3) Integrate into regional land use and transportation planning activities.

3 Scenario Planning Process 1) Hold a set of Community Workshops, where participants work together to develop 50-year land use/transportation scenarios; 2) The scenarios are reviewed and refined by staff and the MTP Advisory Committee, and 3) Public outreach in the form of an on-line survey to provide input on a preferred future scenario or vision for future growth and transportation.

4 Workshop Preparation 1) Consider recent trends in land development and growth 2) Develop regional base map for identifying future development 3) Develop chip set for workshop activities showing expected future growth if trends are continued Development Trends by Type, 1990 to 2008 Med Lot SF, 19% Large Lot SF, 17% City Center, 5% Multi- Family, 33% City Center, 0.3% Multi- Family, 4.6% Village SF, 7.0% Med Lot SF, 16.3% Village SF, 27% Large Lot SF, 71.8% Development Types by Number of Units Development Types by Land Consumed

5 Growth Trend 160, , , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 households jobs

6 Scenario Planning Land Use Chips Chip Aerial Example Transportation Development in One Square Mile Average Lot Size City Center Mix of auto, transit, Walking and biking. Short trip lengths common. 1,250 units jobs in ¼ square mile. Not applicable Compact Mixed Use Mix of auto, transit, Walking and biking. Short trip lengths common. 2,500 units + 3,750 jobs Not applicable Employment Most trips by auto, some Bus transit service available. Large parking lots required. 7,500 jobs. Not applicable Multi- Family Auto or multimodal Depending on surrounding Land use forms. 2,500 units Not applicable Village SF Walking more common, Especially if near a mixed Use Village center 1,250 units 0.4 acres Medium Lot SF Most trips by automobile 425 units 2 acres Large Lot SF Nearly all trips by automobile 85 units 7 acres

7 Visioning Workshops 1) Three workshops held (Hinesburg, Essex and Burlington) with 63 participants 2) Groups rejected trend; all scenarios traded low density for high density, resulting in lower land consumption Square Miles City Center Employment Compact Mixed Use Multi Family Village SF Medium Lot SF Large Lot SF 0 Workshop Maps

8 Workshop Results Workshops produced 12 land use/transportation scenarios

9 Refine to Three Scenarios 1) The Trend scenario developed by CCMPO/CCRPC as a baseline, because all of the workshop scenarios were far different from the current development trend. 2) The Workshop scenario modeled after one of the Essex Junction workshop maps which seemed to be a representative scenario for the majority of the public workshops. 3) The Core scenario is an additional bookend in which 45% of the regional growth was assigned to Burlington, with other core towns (South Burlington, Colchester, Winooski and Essex) receiving lesser amounts and the rural towns even less.

10 Final Three Scenarios

11 Scenario Indicators Used regional travel demand model to understand implication of scenarios on transportation system and environment. The indicators were used in the Vision 2060 internet survey to gauge public reaction to these surveys Trend Workshop Core Congestion (Weekday PM Peak Hour Annual Vehicle Hours of Delay) Weekday Daily Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tons) 1,790 2,550 2,500 2,260 Annual Transit Ridership (million boardings) Percent of Daily Trips by Walking or Bicycling 4.8% 4.3% 5.0% 8.3% Land Consumption (square miles)

12 Survey Gizmo Internet Survey Conducted from October 9 through November 29, 2010.

13 Survey Considerations/Observations 1) Not intended to be a scientific sample of every resident, but rather an opportunity for the engaged public to weigh in on important transportation planning issues. 2) High response rate indicates strong interest. Many thoughtful comments were included in the responses, and many Thank you for doing this comments. 3) Final response, after screening, was largely completed 835 surveys.

14 Survey Results: Scenario Ranking 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Core Workshop Trend Ranking 1 2 3

15 Survey Results: Preferred Scenario by town 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Bolton Burlington Charlotte Colchester Essex Junction Essex Town Hinesburg Huntington Jericho Milton Richmond Shelburne South Burlington Underhill Westford Williston Winooski Outside Chittenden Core Workshop Trend

16 Survey Results: Important Factors in Ranking Env'l Impacts Energy Use Public Transit Walking/Biking Land Consumption Congestion Public Safety Preservation Travel Time Important or Very Important Neutral Unimportant or Very Unimportant Consistent w/current Regs 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

17 Survey Results: Transportation Funding Sources Veh Reg Fees? Sales Tax? Tolls? Favor Neutral Oppose Gas Tax? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

18 Survey Results: Support for Increased Density in Your Community? More Housing in Your Community? Dense Mixed Use in Your Community? Favor Neutral Oppose 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

19 Survey Conclusions 1) Trend Development Pattern (low density) was resoundingly rejected in workshops and survey. 2) The most important factors in selecting preference were: environmental impacts; energy consumption; transportation alternatives of walking, biking, and transit; and minimizing land consumption. 3) There was support for higher fuel taxes or higher vehicle registration fees to implement transportation improvements that would be needed to realize the future vision. 4) The respondents showed a high degree of support for increased residential or mixed use density in their communities.

20 Next Steps 1) Develop a preferred Regional Plan Scenario (likely to be a blend of the Core and Workshop scenarios) 2) Develop contrasting transportation scenarios to pair with the preferred land use and evaluate the transportation impacts 3) Evaluate model results, develop new transportation scenario based on elements from the other three and test again 4) Conduct additional model runs, as needed, to identify preferred mix of transportation strategies/projects for inclusion on MTP

21 Lessons Learned Simplify, if possible, the analytical results Provide clear instructions to workshop participants Redevelopment opportunities Tie group values to scenario development More time to consider transportation component Process takes longer than first anticipated Successfully engages the public and allows them to think big Scenario planning is only a part of a larger process Model sensitivity to land use and non-motorized modes Scenario planning allows us to talk about the larger regional community instead of just talking about transportation

22 More information available at: