Transportation Efficient Land Use:
Planning and Land Use Strategies that Reduce the Need to Drive
Contents
- Introduction
- General Information - Land Use/Transportation Coordination
- Compact Development/Transportation-Efficient Density
- Infill Development, Related MRSC Page
- Transit-Oriented Development, Related MRSC Page
- Mixed Use and Live Work Units, Related MRSC Page
- Traditional Neighborhood Development, Related MRSC Page
- Transportation-Efficient Site Design
- Street Connectivity
- School Siting and Transportation
- Siting Policies for Other Government Offices and Institutions
- Incentive Programs to Encourage Close-in Living
Introduction
This web page highlights a number of land use and community design strategies that can reduce the need for travel or the distance that must be traveled. It presents ideas about community design and land use patterns that allow greater choice in travel mode, or otherwise reduce the need to drive alone.
Development patterns and community design characteristics significantly influence the distance and manner that people travel. In recent decades, the increase in spread out development patterns means that people spend more time on the road to get to jobs, services and their homes. When residential, commercial, employment and other uses are separated by significant distances, more of the trips and errands will be made by automobile, as walking, cycling and public transit become less practical (According to the Victoria Transport Institute, most people rely on commercial and public services they can reach within 10 minutes, and try to choose jobs that they can reach within a 40-minute commute.) In addition, low density development does not provide enough potential riders to support frequent and convenient transit service. Carpooling may also become more difficult, when job locations are more spread out, rather than focused in a central city. As we spend more time in our cars, roads become more congested. Recent studies documenting these land use/transportation relationships have generated renewed interest in a better integration of land use planning and transportation planning as one important way to reduce traffic congestion.
The Surface Transportation Policy Project article: Why are the Roads so Congested? reports on research by the Texas Transportation Institute and the U.S. Department of Transportation, which found:
- The almost 70% increase in driving in the last 16 years is a primary cause of congestion
- Only 13% of the growth in driving between 1983 and 1990 is attributed to population growth. (In other words, most of the growth in driving comes not from new drivers, but from more driving by existing drivers.)
- 69% of the growth in driving in this period was due to three factors: longer average trips, less carpooling, and a switch from biking, walking, or transit to driving. Each of these factors is at least partially related to changing development patterns.
General Information - Land Use/Transportation Coordination
- Mobility Friendly Design Standards: A Framework for Delaware: DRAFT, Transportation Management Association of Delaware & Delaware Department of Transportation, February 2004 - exceptionally clear overview of how land use patterns affect mobility and why we need mobility friendly design. Includes national best practices and a wide variety of strategies to improve mobility
- Transportation-Efficient Land Use - Integrating Land Use with Transportation Investments to Help Decision-Making - Washington Department of Transportation
- Implementing Transportation-Efficient Development: A Local Overview: Phase 1 of Integrating Land Use and Transportation Investment - Kavage, S., A. V. Moudon, M. Cail, C. Lee, and N. Perkages. Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC), University of Washington, 2002
- Strategies and Tools To Implement Transportation-Efficient Development: A Reference Manual - Phase 2 of Integrating Land Use and Transportation Investment Decision-Making, Vernez Moudon, A., M. Cail, N. Pergakes, C. Forsyth, and L. Lillard, Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC), University of Washington, 2003 - Land use and development practices that support efficient transportation systems - catalogs regulatory and financial strategies and tools
- Transportation-Efficient Land Use Mapping Index (TELUMI) - Phase 3 of Integrating Land Use and Transportation Investment Decision-Making, Anne Vernez Moudon and D.W.Sohn, Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC), University of Washington, 2005 - Mapping of land use variables that affect transportation efficiency
- Why are the Roads so Congested? Sprawl as a Primary Cause of Congestion, The Surface Transportation Policy Project, 1999
- High Mileage Moms, The Surface Transportation Policy Project, 1999 - Report discusses how sprawl is increasing the drive time for all Americans, with mothers bearing the brunt of this burden
- Land Use Impacts on Transport: How Land Use Patterns Affect Travel Behavior, Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, November 2004
- Smart Growth Reforms: Changing Planning Regulatory and Fiscal Practices to Support More Efficient Land Use, by Todd Littman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Nov. 2005 - Implementation strategies that support smart growth and correct existing practices and policies that encourage sprawl and auto-dependency
- Evaluating Transportation Land Use Impacts, Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute webpage, Updated November 2005
- Location Efficient Development and Mortgages Taking Advantage of Consumer and Transportation Benefits at Accessible Locations, Victoria Transport Policy Institute
- Land Use and Transportation Planning Web Sites - Comprehensive list of resources including documents, many local programs and examples of transportation efficient developments
- Noteworthy MPO Practices in Transportation-Land Use Planning Integration - Final Report, Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, 2004 - Case studies
Compact Development/Transportation-Efficient Density
Compact, higher density development patterns shorten the distance people must travel to reach work, shopping, or other points of interest. A study by John Holtzclaw found that every time a neighborhood doubles in compactness, the number of vehicle trips residents make is reduced by 20% to 30% (see Local Government Commission and Holtzclaw articles below). Compact development allows people to conveniently walk or cycle to some destinations within a reasonable time. Higher densities also supply the potential ridership that can support more frequent transit service and a greater variety of routes. The result is more transportation options, less time on the road, and reduced traffic congestion. At the same time, well-designed density and compact development can contribute to vibrant, economically healthy neighborhoods and to centers that offer a variety of goods and services, social gathering places, recreation/entertainment opportunities and attractive character.
Many local jurisdictions in Washington (and in other states) are using a variety of tools to discourage sprawling development and to instead promote higher densities within target growth areas. Approaches include higher density concentrated in nodes or centers, mixed-use development that permits residences within walking distance of commercial services and other attractions, infill development that provides additional close-in housing, density bonuses in exchange for amenities, minimum density requirements, allowances for accessory dwelling units, and transfer of development rights programs. In addition, many communities are permitting and establishing guidelines for a variety of mid-range density housing such as cottage housing, corner lot duplexes, townhouses or garden apartments that fit more easily into or adjacent to established residential neighborhoods.
- Creating Great Neighborhoods, Density in Your Community, Local Government Commission, 2003 - Well-designed density supports walkability, transportation choices, and amenities that make communities great places to live. Includes case studies and lessons learned
- Higher Density: Myth and Fact, Urban Land Institute, 2005 - Provides examples to dispel myths such as the contention that higher density increases traffic congestion
- Growth Management Services - Measures for Providing Attractive, Compact Urban Areas, Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, 2004 - Brief overview of measures to achieve compact development
- Urban Densities - Central Puget Sound Edition, CTED Guidance Paper, 2004 - Guidance to encouraging compact urban densities
- Downtown Density Study, Kenmore Downtown Subarea Plan: Targeted Studies, Kenmore, WA - Explores relationship between densities and transportation, density bonus provisions and transfer of development rights to promote compact development
- Density Mitigated by Design, MRSC webpage with links to illustrations of well-designed density
- Density Case Studies - Denver, Denver Regional Council of Governments/American Planning Association Workshop - Powerpoint with great illustrations
Infill Development, MRSC Web Page
Transit-Oriented Development, MRSC Web Page
Mixed Use and Live Work Units, MRSC Web Page
Traditional Neighborhood Development, MRSC Web Page
Transportation-Efficient Site Design
In recent decades, site design of development has tended to focus on efficient vehicle circulation while neglecting pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation. Well-conceived site design can minimize travel distances and times for pedestrian, bicycle or transit trips. A continuous network of streets and sidewalks providing direct connections between destinations, and short blocks allowing more frequent street crossing to destinations, will minimize walking or cycling distances. In addition, measures that create a safe, comfortable, convenient environment will encourage pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel. Examples of measures include weather protection, lighting, separation from vehicle traffic, bus shelters and seating, bicycle racks, changing rooms, attractive streetscape, and similar measures.
Recent studies indicate that improved design of pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities can result in a substantial increase in the number of people who choose to walk, bike or ride transit. For instance, a recent University of Washington study found three times the pedestrian volumes in areas with short blocks and continuous and direct sidewalk connections compared to areas that lacked such systems. Similarly, a study in the Portland area concluded that vehicle miles traveled could by reduced by 10% in the suburbs by creating a pedestrian-oriented environment similar to that found in older Portland neighborhoods.
- "Site Design and Building Orientation," "Walking and Cycling Conditions," and "Connectivity" in "Land Use Impacts on Transport," TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (Scroll to listed sections)
- Site Design and Pedestrian Travel, Paul M. Hess, Anne Vernez Moudon, Mary Catherine Snyder, and Kiril Stanilov, Transportation Research Record 1674, Paper No. 99-0424, 1999 - Interesting observations of differences between urban and suburban locations such as: the distance as the crow (or airplane) flies may be much less than the actual pedestrian route because of block size, especially in the suburbs
- Effects of Site Design on Pedestrian Travel in Mixed-Use, Medium-Density Environments, Anne Vernez Moudon, Paul M. Hess, Mary Catherine Snyder, and Kiril Stanilov, Transportation Research Record 1578, Paper No. 971360, 1997 (differences in pedestrian route directness mean that service radius isn't always a good representation of travel distance, see p. 52)
- Toolkit 10: Site Design for Pedestrians, Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook, Georgia Department of Transportation
- Making Land Use Transportation Air Quality Connections - The Pedestrian Environment - Volume 4A, U.S Department of Transportation, 1993
- Designing Transportation Facilities for Pedestrians and Bicycles, MRSC web page
Street Connectivity
A well-connected street (and sidewalk) network reduces the distances that must be traveled between destinations and offers more route choices. In such a system, blocks are small, streets are provided at more frequent intervals, and there are minimal dead ends (cul-de-sacs). A major benefit of good street connectivity is decreased traffic on arterials because there are more alternative routes. A well-connected system also provides continuous, direct routes that facilitate walking or cycling to destinations, including transit stops. Emergency response time is also improved. Neighborhood residents and developers may resist a "grid" street system when they fear increased traffic through neighborhoods or increased expenses related to more frequent street intervals. However, street design that utilizes narrow streets, traffic calming devices and other design features can address many of these issues.
- Roadway Connectivity: Creating More Connected Roadway and Pathway Networks, Victoria Transport Policy Institute
- Roadway Design, in "Land Use Impacts on Transport," TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute
- Planning for Street Connectivity: Getting from Here to There, PAS Report No. 515, by Susan Handy, Robert G. Paterson, and Kent Butler, APA, 2003 - Publication available for purchase from APA or on loan from the MRSC Library
- Traditional Neighborhood Development and Grid Street Networks, MRSC Web Page
- Enumclaw, WA Municipal Code, sec. 17.16.100 & 17.16.220
- Renton, WA Zoning Code, Ch. 4-7-150(E), (F), & (G)
- Kirkland, WA Municipal Code, sec. 22.28.060 & 22.28.070
- Eugene, OR Land Development Code, sec. 9.6810 - sec. 9.6820
School Siting and Transportation
Trends in school siting are paralleling the trend toward increasingly spread out development, with similar transportation consequences. Traditionally, schools occupied a central place within compact neighborhoods and community centers. Many students could conveniently walk or bike to school. In recent decades, there has been a trend toward building ever larger schools on large sites in low density areas remote from existing population centers.
Several studies document the transportation implications of these trends. According the 2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), less than 15 percent of students between the ages of five and 15 walked to or from school, and 1 percent biked. A comparable 1969 survey found that 48 percent of students walked or biked to school. Long travel distances are the major barrier. Other studies indicate that even children living close to schools are significantly less likely to walk. A poor walking environment, often associated with sprawl, also discourages walking and cycling. The magnitude of school siting impacts on the transportation network is considerable. For instance, a recently-built school in one southern city that will accommodate 2600 students will generate approximately 6000 vehicle trips per day. School siting policies have major impacts on public budgets. The Maine State Planning Office has found that although student enrollment dropped by 27,000 between 1970 and 1995, school busing costs rose from $8.7 million to over $54 million during that same period - again associated with changing land use patterns.
Studies have also linked childhood obesity, reduced opportunity to participate in extra-curricular activities, and a higher level of student anonymity and social alienation to the large school/distant location trend.
Background Information, Articles, Studies on School Siting
- Why Johnny Can't Walk to School: Historic Neighborhood Schools in the Age of Sprawl by Constance E. Beaumont, and Elizabeth G. Pianca, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2002
- Travel and Environmental Implications of School Siting, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003
- State Policies and School Facilities: How States Can Support Or Undermine Neighborhood Schools And Community Preservation, Constance E. Beaumont, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2003
- Reversing School Sprawl for Better Schools and Communities, Translation Paper #8: Education and Smart Growth, Funder's Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities
- Linking School Siting and Land Use Planning, Georgia Department of Community Affairs - Includes recommendations for school siting criteria and intergovernmental agreements
- Smart Growth and Schools, National Clearinghouse for Education Facilities - Comprehensive collection of articles about smart growth and smart siting of schools
- Sustainable Schools Siting, State of California - and Community Matters
- Building Smart Schools, Smart Growth America
- Good Schools - Good Neighborhoods: The Impacts of State and Local School Board Policies on the Design and Location of Schools in North Carolina, by Dr. David Salvesen, Principal Investigator and Philip Hervey, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2003
- Making Current Trends in School Design Feasible, North Carolina State Dept. of Public Instruction, Div. of School Support. Raleigh, NC, Nov 2000 - Explores the trends towards smaller schools, walkable schools, sustainability and green building practices, recycling older small community schools, and joint use arrangements
- New Schools for Older Neighborhoods, Local Government Commission, CA, 2002
- Cities, Counties and Schools Partnership - Joint efforts of League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties and California School Boards Association to encourage collaborative efforts
- Several articles by Neal Peirce:
Billions for New Schools: How Well Spent?, 2001
New Schools: Dinosaurs on Opening Day?, 2000
Radical Idea: A 'Child-Centric' School, 2003 - Closing Costs: A Summary of an Award Winning Look at School Consolidation in West Virginia, a State Where It Has Been Tried Aggressively, Eric Eyre and Scott Finn, Rural School and Community Trust, Aug 2002 - Study indicates that closing schools did not save money
Local Government School Siting Policies
- Examples of Public School Siting Policies From Local Comprehensive Plans, Florida Department of Community Affairs, 2000
- Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Comprehensive Plan, St. Pete Beach, FL (See Objective 1.3 - joint processes for collaborative planning school siting)
- Zoning and Development Code, sec. 805, Clackamas County, OR - requires bike and pedestrian facilities
- Coordination of Public Schools and Land Use in Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR 2004), Broward County, FL
- Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Polk County, FL
- Ukiah Valley Area Plan, Chapter 8, Community Facilities and Services, Mendicino County, CA, - (See sec. 8.03 - Education)
- Land Use Element, Comprehensive Plan, Woodbury, MN (See pp. 5-25 through 5-29) - These policies encourage pedestrian circulation and connection to neighborhood, although somewhat resigned to the need for large parking areas.
Siting Policies for Other Government Offices and Institutions
Many government agencies, and institutions, such as government offices, courthouses, post offices, and museums attract significant numbers of customers, visitors and employees. They can be major generators of traffic and parking demand. Such agencies often serve senior citizens, children, handicapped individuals and others who do not have automobiles, or who choose not to drive. Washington's Commute Trip Reduction Plan encourages such agencies and institutions to locate within high-density areas, central business districts, or other activity centers that offer regular transit service and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Clustering such uses together within community centers can help minimize new vehicle trips and parking demand, and can make combined trips possible. In addition, strategic location of agencies and institutions that attract visitors can contribute to downtown revitalization efforts and increased vitality of community centers.
- Siting of State Facilities, State Government Commute Trip Reduction Plan, Washington State, Updated 2002
- Facility Siting, in Department of Administrative Services Policy Manual, State of Oregon, 1998
- Executive Order D-46-01, Governor of the State of California re: the siting of state offices in central business districts or "downtowns"
Incentive Programs to Encourage Close-in Living
Some communities are experimenting with different types of financial incentives that encourage homebuyers or developers to choose transportation efficient locations. Transportation efficient locations are areas that have good transit service, good walking and cycling conditions, and minimal commuting distances. Residents in these areas potentially have reduced transportations costs and more money available for housing or other needs. Location-efficient development also benefits local governments when the costs of providing public facilities and services can be minimized.
- Lancaster, PA Distance-Based Impact Fees, The New Rules Project - Impact fee model includes a surcharge levied on new development beyond the central core - the farther out, the higher the charge
- Location Efficient Development and Mortgages, TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute - Lenders use a model to determine which locations have lower transportation costs, allowing applicants to qualify for higher loan amounts
- Location Efficient Mortgage in Seattle - Calculates additional loan amounts possible in different Seattle neighborhoods based on efficiency of location
- Fannie Mae Smart Commute Initiative - Another program that rewards homebuyers who purchase a house near transit stops or rail stations
- San Mateo's TOD Incentive Program - Regional agency rewards constituent cities for building units near transit stations. Winner of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Award for Smart Growth Achievement, 2002
- Pay-As-You-Drive Vehicle Insurance, TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute - Insurance premiums based on how much the policyholder drives the vehicle during the policy period (the more you drive, the more you pay)

