The Integrated Transportation/Land Use Solution Pilot Studies in the NYC Metropolitan Region

A Starting Point - The “MPO Thing” in a Complex Region  New York Metropolitan Transportation Council Loose confederation; remnant of Tri-State Regional Planning Commission Covers New York City, Long Island and the lower Hudson Valley Members include two NYC agencies, five suburban counties, New York State DOT and MTA Advisory members include Port Authority of NY & NJ, FHWA, FTA, USEPA, New York State DEC and our sister MPO in New Jersey, NJTPA

An Integrated Transportation/Land Use Solution – Key Questions at the Outset  Why would we want to do this?  How in the world would we go about it?  How could we influence policy decisions in the real world?

Why Would We Want to Do This? Build consensus & obtain local buy-in Develop optimal solutions Develop effective transportation investments Address congestion management issues Address environmental impacts Enhance community involvement

How in the World Would We Go About It? Use the metropolitan transportation planning process as a catalyst –Think regionally and act locally –Use federal funding as a carrot –Bring the players to the table through the MPO

How Could We Influence Policy Decisions in the Real World? Make Federal funding contingent on integrated planning in key target areas Use the Regional Transportation Plan as a starting point –Establish a regional land use/transportation goal –Identify key issues and approaches –Define key target areas with a critical mass of development pressures and transportation issues

Metropolitan Planning Process

So What Did We Do?  New regional goal in 1999 plan update has been carried forward in the 2005 plan update  Plan defined key target areas Worked with local municipal planners  Defined steps for working towards the goal

What Was Possible? Key ingredients in activating the goal: Availability of federal funding Agreement of MPO members Local interest on the part of elected and planning officials

Program Approach The LandTran Program –Funding for education and training programs for local officials –Funding for local master plan updates which reinforce the land use/transportation connection –Funding for new integrated planning approaches in key target areas

Integrated Planning Approaches in Key Target Areas  New brand name: sustainable development studies Build on New York State DOT’s Arterial Access Management Program Bring local officials and transportation agencies to the table Include all aspects of transportation and land use planning Use community visioning as a basis for consensus building Use computer simulation modeling to test future scenarios coming out of the visioning Build final consensus around the modeling results

Key Elements of a Sustainable Development Study  Community Visioning  Scenario Development Land use & transportation futures “Range of intensity”  Scenario Testing Computer simulation model Matrix analysis  Consensus Building Choice of preferred futures  Implementation Planning Intermunicipal agreements or GEIS Master plan & zoning revisions Regional Transportation Plan & Transportation Improvement Program

Could This Approach Work?  Key ingredients: Buy in from local electeds Local champion preferable Buy in from MPO members Agreement from all parties that the approach starts with a blank canvas

Funding Pilot Studies of Different Sizes in Different Locations Four pilots initially funded through the Unified Planning Work Program: –Route 303 study in Rockland County Town of Orangetown –Routes 6/35/202/Bear Mountain Parkway study in Westchester County City of Peekskill, towns of Cortlandt and Yorktown –Sustainable East End Development Strategies (SEEDS) initiative in Suffolk County Five towns, eleven villages –Coney Island/Gravesend study in Brooklyn Several community boards

Status of the Pilot Studies  Route 303 in Rockland County Complete Overlay zone passed by town board Implementation planning underway  Routes 6/35/202/BMP in Westchester County Complete Inter-municipal agreement in place Implementation planning underway  SEEDS in Suffolk County Complete Inter-municipal agreement under discussion Implementation planning beginning  Coney Island/Gravesend in Brooklyn Mid point Community visioning completed Analysis of scenarios nearly complete

What Have We Learned So Far?  A local champion is critical!!  Local politics can derail a study Community visioning has largely been successful Election results can damage local buy in Instances of the use of studies to gain advantage on issues Consensus is not always the objective  The effectiveness of the “carrots” is not fully understood

A Case in Point; SEEDS  By far, the most extensive and complex of the pilot studies Sixteen municipalities Large study area in eastern Suffolk County History of joint action  “Peconic County” movement  East End Supervisors & Mayors Association Generally adversarial relationship with Suffolk County, New York State DOT and MTA Long Island Rail Road

What’s Happened So Far? SEEDS launched in April 2001 Two levels of community visioning –Issues sessions –Workshops Fourteen meetings held throughout the East End Extensive, varied input generated Scenario development and analysis has been complex and controversial –Initial consensus building needed –Significant credibility lost Significant work expended to inform new elected officials of SEEDS study status and importance –Champions lost their recent elections –New electeds don’t understand and/or buy in to the process

Key Lessons Consensus is much harder to establish in a larger, more complex area –Visibility and communication are more difficult –Shared buy in and ownership are more complex –Trust is more diffuse Local politics are magnified by larger numbers of municipal players –More points of conflict –More win-lose gaming –Less buy in to a larger process

Other Lessons; Technical Issues Simulation modeling has been complex! –Modeling of weekday and weekend travel needs to be captured and understood by the public –Matrix analysis requires multiple iterations –Some elements of the future scenarios are difficult to model For example, “centers” concept Study contract had to be supplemented

How is Implementation Proceeding? The Rockland, Westchester and Suffolk studies are complete –All are transitioning into an implementation mode –All have chosen to convert the study steering committees into implementation committees, which are meeting regularly Specific implementation steps have included: –Addressing short-term transportation issues –Programming of transportation improvements on the regional Transportation Improvement Program –Development of inter-municipal agreements (Westchester and Suffolk) –Adoption of an overlay zone (Rockland)

How is Implementation Proceeding? Implementation problems have included: –Fragile consensus –Political changes –Funding restrictions –Lengthy project development process

Prospects for This Approach Some interest for similar studies –Staten Island West Shore –Rockaways peninsula –Sagtikos Regional Development Zone Formal evaluation of the approach will be conducted –Resource requirements –Factors for success –Impacts and outcomes Even wider use is possible once the approach is evaluated