December 16, 2011 To: Gerrit Knaap, Fred Ducca From: Graham Petto Subject: Transit Friendly Scenario Development

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "December 16, 2011 To: Gerrit Knaap, Fred Ducca From: Graham Petto Subject: Transit Friendly Scenario Development"

Transcription

1 Preinkert Field House College Park, Maryland P: F: NATIONAL CENTER FOR SMART GROWTH RESEARCH AND EDUCATION December 16, 2011 To: Gerrit Knaap, Fred Ducca From: Graham Petto Subject: Transit Friendly Scenario Development Background The Maryland Scenarios Project at the National Center for Smart Growth has developed a model to simulate impacts on the state s transportation infrastructure in the future. The model is informed by land use characteristics through housing units and employment figures. Results produced by the model illustrate transportation network impacts through a variety of metrics; including trips by type (single-occupancy vehicle, high-occupancy vehicle, bus and rail) and highway usage (vehicle miles traveled, hours of delay, hours traveled and congested lane miles). In preparation to employ the model, the Center also developed four land use alternatives each with varying patterns of housing and employment to generate alternatives for the state. Such information will inform decision makers about the relationship between the transportation network and land use development patterns. The four land use alternatives developed were developed using two different approaches. The first approach uses locally generated planning information. In this instance, local planning and zoning information is used to model future growth. The patterns of development in these scenarios illustrate locally envisioned outcomes. The second approach employs macro-level economic modeling data. Using national and regional economic trends for a variety of sectors, household and employment growth are projected and allocated around the state. The locally informed scenarios are known as the Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) and the Buildout (BO) scenarios. The CLRP scenario is informed by local comprehensive plans, which are the vision for future growth and development in Maryland jurisdictions. In addition, significant transportation investments at the state level are considered in developing household and employment projections. In contrast, the BO scenario illustrates projections for households and employment under current zoning conditions. This contrasts from the CLRP scenario, as the BO scenario is informed by existing local regulations on development, rather than plans and visions for the future. The national and regional economic trend scenarios include the Market Driven Change (MDC) and the High Gas Price (HGP) scenarios. The MDC scenario reflects a continuation of economic trends and the realized impact locally in Maryland. Household and employment projections are formulated and allocated around the state based on these trends. The HGP scenario employs the same economic information, yet increases the cost of energy through an increase in autooperating costs. Here household and employment projections are adjusted to reflect this change and subsequent growth impacts. SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING, AND PRESERVATION SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY A. JAMES CLARK SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

2 Transit Friendly Scenario Development NCSGRE December 16, 2011 Page 2 Introduction In reviewing initial results from these scenarios, a need to generate an additional land use alternative was considered. While the current scenarios generated variation between household and employment yields, most of the scenarios had little impact in reviewing the transportation network. The HGP scenario had some impact relative to the other alternatives, but the impact could be greater. As a result, work began to develop a scenario that would generate additional transit ridership based on land use. The proposed land use alternative scenario intends to generate a shift in mode share from auto to transit by strategically targeting growth in housing and employment. Maryland has a robust dedicated right-of-way transit network. The network is served by four different transit systems at 96 stations throughout the Baltimore and Washington metropolitan regions. The following systems currently serve the state: Baltimore Subway (Maryland Transit Administration) Baltimore Light Rail (Maryland Transit Administration) MARC Commuter Rail (Maryland Transit Administration) Metrorail (Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority) The scenario outlined here seeks to shift expected growth and development projections into areas served by transit. By reallocating this growth, realized impacts on the transportation network can be assessed and conclusions about the relationship between land use and transportation can be drawn. Methodology Collaboration To begin the development of a transit-oriented land use alternative, the Center worked with a number of state agencies to identify strategies to strategically allocate growth. The first discussions about the scenario development were held with Marty Baker, Community Planner with the Maryland Department of Transportation s Office of Planning and Capitol Programming. The purpose of these initial discussions were to inform MDOT of the scenario development, and to receive consultation on the degree to which land use patterns should be shifted to represent the alternative future scenario. In 2008, Maryland Governor Martin O Malley signed legislation that would facilitate the designation of transit-oriented development in the state. These designated areas would receive additional resources to realize the potential of connecting land use and transit. With such a clear priority established by the state, these station areas were selected as Priority Transit Areas in the Transit Friendly (TF) Scenario. Ms. Baker recommended that one quarter of future projected growth be targeted within these areas. The remaining station areas would receive an addition quarter of projected growth; these areas are known as Other Transit Areas. The account for this shift, areas outside these transit areas would have growth reduced by one-half. Following this consultation, Ms. Baker suggested a meeting to review the scenario development proposal with staff at the Maryland Department of Planning. This meeting

3 Transit Friendly Scenario Development NCSGRE December 16, 2011 Page 3 included Ms. Baker, transportation planners Bihui Xu and Kiman Choi, and economist and statistician Mark Goldstein from MDP. In reviewing the proposal growth reallocation, MDP staff recommended shifting growth within metropolitan areas only. This would ensure that projected household and employment growth from rural and disparate regions of the state remain in place; rather than shifting to the metropolitan region. In addition, it was recommended that reallocated growth should be shifted within each of the two major metropolitan regions to ensure consistency. Thus growth from metropolitan Baltimore should be reallocated within that region, rather than between Baltimore and Washington. Finally, during this meeting, it was agreed that specific station area calculations should not be published as part of the scenario. The household and employment projections within each station area would be difficult to evaluate and could misrepresent actual capacity and developable land. It was agreed that calculation at the transportation modeling segments, known as SMZs would be best to avoid these small area concerns. Geographies Three geographic areas needed to be established within the metropolitan region: 1. Priority Transit Areas: State of Maryland designated TOD areas 2. Other Transit Areas: Other dedicated right-of-way, rail served areas 3. Non-Transit Areas: Those areas in the metropolitan region not served by dedicated right-of-way, rail transit The transportation model employs modeling segments, also known as SMZs as inputs for household and employment information. To maintain consistency with the model, calculations were conducted at the SMZ level. Thus, the modeling segments were assigned to each corresponding transit areas. The area suited for transit-oriented development, as established in the State of Maryland legislation, is one-half mile from each station. As a result, SMZs that were within this one-half mile area were considered to be associated with that station. Of the 1,151 modeling segments 706 are located within the Baltimore/Washington metropolitan area. Of these 706 segments, 84 are located within Priority Transit Areas and 168 are located in Other Transit Areas, with the remainder in Non-Transit Areas. See Map 1 for the modeling segments in each area and the related transit stations. Growth Shift Calculation After establishing that one-half of growth within each metropolitan region would be reallocated, the calculation the amount of growth was determined. The household and employment projections under the CLRP scenario, with a 2030 planning horizon, were selected. These projections represent locally informed planning and are informed by MPO forecasts; these figures have been sanctioned by others as representative of the future. The metropolitan region, including both the Baltimore and Washington DC areas, is currently home to 80% of the Maryland s housing units and 84% of the jobs. The Baltimore region includes the following jurisdictions: Anne Arundel County

4 Transit Friendly Scenario Development NCSGRE December 16, 2011 Page 4 Baltimore City Baltimore County Carroll County Harford County Howard County The Washington region includes the following Maryland jurisdictions Frederick County Montgomery County Prince George s County Under the CLRP scenario, an additional 283,989 housing units and 367,203 jobs are expected in this entire metropolitan region by The table below illustrates how the CLRP scenario allocates growth between the Baltimore and Washington metropolitan areas. Metro Area Current HU 2030 HU Change in HU Current Jobs 2030 Jobs Change in Jobs Baltimore 1,026,817 1,187, ,335 1,684,408 1,961, ,992 Washington 807, , ,654 1,240,001 1,330,212 90,211 Total Metro Maryland 1,834,522 2,118, ,989 2,924,409 3,291, ,023 Within each of these metropolitan areas, Baltimore and Washington, one quarter of all the growth is shifted to Priority Transit Areas; another quarter of growth is shifted to Other Transit Areas. To counterbalance the shift of one-half of growth into these service areas; Non Transit Areas see a one-half reduction in growth. The tables below illustrate the impacts in each geographic area.

5 Transit Friendly Scenario Development NCSGRE December 16, 2011 Page 5 The table below illustrates the number of housing units to be shifted to each area within each respective metropolitan area. Metro Area Change in HU, Current to CLRP 2030 Priority Transit Areas Other Transit Areas Non Transit Areas Baltimore 160, , ,084-80,168 Washington 123, , ,913-61,827 Total Metro Maryland 283, , , ,995 The table below illustrates the number of jobs to be shifted to each area within each respective metropolitan area. Metro Area Change in Jobs, Current to CLRP 2030 Priority Transit Areas Other Transit Areas Non Transit Areas Baltimore 276, , , ,496 Washington 90, , ,553-45,106 Total Metro Maryland 367, , , ,602 Allocating Growth After calculating the amount of growth to be shifted to each area, the method for allocation was developed. Initially, the TF scenario development was to begin a process of assigning station areas a typology based on level of transit service, location within the metropolitan region and carrying capacity for new household and employment development. In the interest of time, however, these plans were adjusted. In order to maintain a relative sense of expected growth and development patterns, growth allocation was modeled after the CLRP scenario plans. Reviewing household and employment distribution under the CLRP scenario enabled the use of local planning information in the development of the TF scenario. In addition, household and employment allocations reflect local plans while solely increasing density in areas that receive additional growth. Thus, the TF scenario does not deviate from local planning decisions; rather it increases their density to better support transit ridership.

6 Transit Friendly Scenario Development NCSGRE December 16, 2011 Page 6 To assign growth, the proportion of total household or employment under the CLRP scenario was calculated for each modeling segment. This assigned each modeling segment a representative value of the total housing or employment that land area was planned to accommodate. This value was then multiplied by the total housing units or jobs expected within the geographic area (Priority Transit, Other Transit, Non-Transit). The result is a figure that represents the shifted amount of either housing or jobs, in relation to the planned growth and development for that modeling segment. TF SMZ Value = (CLRP SMZ Value/CLRP Area Total)*TF Area Total Growth was allocated in each geographic area. This ensured that each modeling segment was assigned the appropriate amount and proportion of growth. Results To evaluate the results of the land use scenario alternatives and compare their variations, the Center uses geographic differences to highlight changes. Results from the land use scenario alternatives have been compared across two geographic areas; transit-served areas, or all modeling segments served by transit and inner beltways, modeling segments located within the Baltimore and Capital beltway. In addition, a jobs/housing balance calculation determines the mix of jobs and housing under each of the scenarios; a greater can indicate reduce commutation and greater proximity between home and work. Inner Beltways Scenario Housing Units Employment Jobs/Housing Balance Current Units 26% 28% 1.6 CLRP 25% 26% 1.5 BO 21% 26% 1.8 MDC 27% 28% 1.3 HGP 27% 26% 1.5 TF 29% 28% 1.4 In looking at the TF scenario results in relation to the other land use scenarios, the results show the greatest share of Maryland s housing units located within the Inner Beltway areas. The TF scenario allocates nearly one-third of all projected household growth into these areas. The scenario is consistent with results for employment with respect to the other scenarios.

7 Transit Friendly Scenario Development NCSGRE December 16, 2011 Page 7 Transit Served Areas Scenario Housing Units Employment Jobs/Housing Balance Current Units 24% 38% 2.4 CLRP 24% 41% 2.3 BO 21% 37% 2.7 MDC 30% 34% 1.5 HGP 31% 35% 1.7 TF 31% 46% 2.2 In terms of transit served areas, the TF scenario again shows favorable results. The scenario equals the HGP scenario in terms of the proportion of Maryland s housing located within transit served areas. The results are even greater for employment, where nearly one-half of the state s jobs are located within transit served areas. This outperforms the other land use scenario alternatives.

8 Transit Friendly Scenario, Transit Served SMZs Legend Priority Transit Stations Dedicated ROW Transit Line Priority Transit SMZs Other Transit SMZs

9 Legend Housing Density - TF Scenario Trans_HH30 / SMZ_AREA 1 hu/20+ acres 1 hu/10-19 acres 1 hu/2-9 acres 1 hu/1-1.9 acres 1 hu/ acres 1 hu/0.29 acres and less

10 Legend Jobs Density - TF Scenario Tran_EMP30 / SMZ_AREA 0-1 Jobs/Acre 1-2 Jobs/Acre 3-5 Jobs/Acre 6-10 Jobs/Acre Jobs/Acre 26+ Jobs/Acre