Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah.

Transcription

1 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

2 Good News and Bad News Our region sprawls less than some but more than many others If we don t develop differently, the problem will get worse Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

3 SLC Urbanized Area Sprawled Worse in 2010 than 2000 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

4 Regional Centers, Town Centers, and TODs Reid Ewing Professor & Chair City and Metropolitan Planning University of Utah Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

5 White Paper I Cannot Cover the Subject in 20 Minutes It makes the Case for Compact Development and Centers Over Sprawl Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

6 Wasatch Choice for 2040

7 Portland s 2040 Regional Growth Concept (1995)

8 Regional transportation plan Denver CO Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

9 Regional transportation plan Flagstaff, AZ Urban activity center Suburban activity center Rural activity center Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

10 Centers Guidelines in Austin, TX Centers Activity Density Transit Service Scale Minimum Maximum High- 75/acre Regional Center Capacity NA High- 45/acre Capacity or 100 acres Town Center Local 640 acres Community Center 25/acre Local Village Center 10/acre NA 250 acres Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

11 Centers Guidelines in Chattanooga, TN Center Residential (units/acre) Density Employment (jobs/acre) Mixed-use % (Open Space/Res/N on-res) Building Design Maximum Parking Residential (per unit) Commercial (ksf) Regional Hub /30/ Community Activity Center /50/ Neighborhood Activity Center /70/ Growth Corridors /50/ Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

12 MRC Research at 6 Geographic Scales (Cover 2 Scales Today) Region Community Neighborhood MXD TOD Street Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

13 REGIONAL SCALE Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

14 Measuring Sprawl and Its Impacts Low Density Segregation of Uses Lack of Strong Centers Sparse Street Network Released October 2002

15 First of Its Kind Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

16 Connections to Outcomes Physical activity, obesity (Ewing et al, 2003; Kelly-Schwartz et al, 2004; Sturm and Cohen, 2004; Doyle et al, 2006; Fan and Song, 2009; Plantinga and Bernell, 2007; Lee et al, 2009) Traffic fatalities (Ewing et al, 2003) Air quality (Kahn, 2006; Stone et al, 2010; Schweitzer and Zhou, 2010) Residential energy use (Ewing and Rong, 2008) Emergency response times (Trowbridge et al, 2009) Teenage driving (Trowbridge and McDonald, 2008; McDonald and Trowbridge, 2009) Social capital (Kim et al, 2006; Nguyen, 2010) Private-vehicle commute distances and times (Ewing et al, 2003; Zolnik, 2011; Holcombe and Williams, 2012) Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

17 Update and Refinement National Institutes of Health Ford Foundation Smart Growth America Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

18 Compactness Scores for 221 Metropolitan Areas and Divisions in the U.S

19 Compactness Scores for MSAs in Utah Compactness Ranking Metropolitan Area Compactness Score 84 Norwich-New London, CT Metro Area Provo-Orem, UT Metro Area Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metro Area Columbus, GA-AL Metro Area Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME Metro Area Amarillo, TX Metro Area Tacoma, WA Metro Division Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Division Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO Metro Area Canton-Massillon, OH Metro Area Salt Lake City, UT Metro Area Lafayette, IN Metro Area Flint, MI Metro Area Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Metro Area Colorado Springs, CO Metro Area Merced, CA Metro Area El Paso, TX Metro Area Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metro Area North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL Metro Area San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metro Area York-Hanover, PA Metro Area Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA Metro Area Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA Metro Area Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metro Area Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Metro Area Greeley, CO Metro Area Camden, NJ Metro Division Akron, OH Metro Area Duluth, MN-WI Metro Area Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI Metro Division Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX Metro Area Sioux Falls, SD Metro Area Dayton, OH Metro Area Toledo, OH Metro Area Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA Metro Area Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metro Area Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA Metro Area 99.3

20 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

21 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

22 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

23 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

24 Subcentering of Development Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

25 Compact Development a la U.S. Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

26

27

28 MXDs selection A mixed-use development or district consists of two or more land uses between which trips can be made using local streets, without having to use major streets. The uses may include residential, retail, office, and/or entertainment. There may be walk trips between the uses. Expert-based process Gateway district, Salt Lake City: dining, entertainment, retail, residential, office Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

29

30 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

31 Average acreage for MXDs Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

32 Internal capture rates of trips by MXDs 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Atlanta Austin Boston Denver Eugene Houston Kansas City Minneapolis-St. Paul Portland Sacramento Salt Lake City San Antonio Seattle Overall average Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

33 Total share of walk, bike and transit for external trips to/from MXDs Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

34 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

35 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

36 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

37 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

38 TOD SCALE Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

39 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

40 TOD Definition TODs are widely defined as compact, mixed-use developments with high-quality walking environments near transit facilities (ITE 2004, pp. 5-7; Jacobson & Forsyth 2008; Renne 2009). For our purposes, TODs are developed by a single developer under a master development plan, and can also include a clustering of development projects near transit facilities that are developed by one or more developers pursuant to a master development plan. Dense Mixed use Pedestrianfriendly Adjacent to transit Built after transit Fully developed or nearly so Self-contained parking Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

41 Redmond TOD, Seattle Rhode Island Row, Washington D.C. Wilshire/Vermont, Los Angeles Fruitvale Village, San Francisco Englewood TOD, Denver

42 How best to allocate land around transit stations? large park-andride lots VS. active uses such as multifamily housing, office, and retail Redmond TOD, Seattle Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

43 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

44 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

45 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

46 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

47 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

48 Absent Hard Numbers In practice Officials usually assume that TODs require the same number of parking spaces as conventional development and that transit stations require the same number of park-and-ride spaces as non-tod stations. Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

49 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

50 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

51 Housing Affordability # Market Rate Units # Affordable Units Redmond TOD Rhode Island Row TOD Fruitvale Village TOD Englewood TOD Wilshire/Vermont TOD Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

52 City Creek Center Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

53 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

54 Take Aways Sprawl -> Compact Development Benefits Costs Regional Town TOD Hierarchy Guidelines for Density/Mix/Transit Park-and-Ride Lot -> TODs Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

55 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah