Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah.

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

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

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

Regional Centers, Town Centers, and TODs Reid Ewing Professor & Chair City and Metropolitan Planning University of Utah ewing@arch.utah.edu Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

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

Wasatch Choice for 2040

Portland s 2040 Regional Growth Concept (1995)

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

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

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

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 20-50 50-200 5/30/60 3-5 1-1.5 1-2 Community Activity Center 10-35 20-60 10/50/40 1-4 1.5-2 2-3 Neighborhood Activity Center 7-12 10-20 15/70/15 0.5-1.5 2 3 Growth Corridors 5-10 5-15 25/50/25 0.25-1 2-2.5 3-3.5 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compactness Scores for MSAs in Utah Compactness Ranking Metropolitan Area Compactness Score 84 Norwich-New London, CT Metro Area 108.8 85 Provo-Orem, UT Metro Area 108.4 86 Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metro Area 108.4 87 Columbus, GA-AL Metro Area 108.4 88 Portland-South Portland-Biddeford, ME Metro Area 107.7 89 Amarillo, TX Metro Area 107.5 90 Tacoma, WA Metro Division 107.5 91 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro Division 107.2 92 Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO Metro Area 107.1 93 Canton-Massillon, OH Metro Area 107 94 Salt Lake City, UT Metro Area 107 95 Lafayette, IN Metro Area 106.6 96 Flint, MI Metro Area 106.5 97 Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Metro Area 106.4 98 Colorado Springs, CO Metro Area 106.3 99 Merced, CA Metro Area 105.9 100 El Paso, TX Metro Area 105.6 101 Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Metro Area 105.6 102 North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL Metro Area 105.5 103 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metro Area 105.2 104 York-Hanover, PA Metro Area 105.1 105 Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, WA Metro Area 105 106 Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA Metro Area 104.9 107 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metro Area 104.5 108 Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Metro Area 104.3 109 Greeley, CO Metro Area 103.6 110 Camden, NJ Metro Division 103.2 111 Akron, OH Metro Area 103.2 112 Duluth, MN-WI Metro Area 103.1 113 Lake County-Kenosha County, IL-WI Metro Division 103.1 114 Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX Metro Area 102.4 115 Sioux Falls, SD Metro Area 101.7 116 Dayton, OH Metro Area 101.5 117 Toledo, OH Metro Area 100.9 118 Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux, LA Metro Area 100.1 119 Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metro Area 99.6 120 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA Metro Area 99.3

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

Subcentering of Development 1980 1990 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

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

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

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

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

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

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

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

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

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

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

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

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

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

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

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

Housing Affordability # Market Rate Units # Affordable Units Redmond TOD 258 64 Rhode Island Row TOD 218 54 Fruitvale Village TOD 37 10 Englewood TOD 438 0 Wilshire/Vermont TOD 359 90 Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

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

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah

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

Department of City & Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah