HD41 - Land Use Planning


Executive Summary:
The 50 states have, at times, been characterized as laboratories for experiments concerning alternative approaches to various social goals. (*1, *2) This characterization is evident in the areas of transportation services and land development, which may be used to pursue aims such as economic development, a better environment, reduced congestion, energy conservation, affordable housing, and more efficient use of public infrastructure.

Because transportation and land use are interdependent, the coordination of planning activities has received special attention. Item 472G of House Bill 1400 (Chapter 1042, which provides the FY 2004 budget) specifies that the Secretary of Transportation, "shall report to the General Assembly by December 30, 2003 on the best practices used by other states to improve the link between state transportation and land use planning. The report shall also address the experience of the Department of Transportation in offering technical assistance and coordination of state resources to work with local governments, upon their request, in developing sound transportation components for local comprehensive plans." (*3)

House Bill 2259 and Senate Bill 869 also indicated interest in this outreach effort from the state to localities, authorizing the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) to “offer technical assistance and coordinate state resources to work with local governments, upon their request, in developing sound transportation components for their local comprehensive plans.”

Virginia’s Current Arrangement

Virginia permits coordination of transportation and land use planning at both the local and regional levels of government. At the local level, localities are required by the Code of Virginia to develop comprehensive plans that may include “land use, transportation, community facilities, historic preservation, and redevelopment.” (*5, *6) These plans may be implemented through four primary mechanisms: zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, site plan reviews, and a capital improvements plan. Of these four, the Code requires only subdivision ordinances; the others are enacted at the discretion of the county. (*5) At the regional level, transportation and land use planning may be coordinated across jurisdictions through efforts of planning district commissions (PDCs), created by the General Assembly in 1968.(*7) Because of 1991 federal legislation giving metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) a greater role in the selection of transportation projects, the influence of PDCs, which in some cases staff the MPOs, has increased over the past decade. The exception is in the metropolitan Washington area, where the Northern Virginia PDC and the MPO are separate entities and transportation planning is done exclusively through the MPO. At both levels, informal coordination also occurs, as when residency and district staff of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) periodically meet with county planning staff to discuss development issues.

The Unique Situation in Virginia

Three factors differentiate the coordination of transportation and land use planning in Virginia from that in most other states.

First, only four other states in addition to Virginia (Alaska, Delaware, North Carolina, and West Virginia) leave maintenance and construction of county (generally secondary) roads with the state; other states generally leave some degree of responsibility for these roads to the county. (*9) Thus except for roads within incorporated cities, most incorporated towns with a population over 3,500, Henrico County, and Arlington County, significant planning, construction, and maintenance responsibilities rest with the state whereas land use decisions are the responsibility of the locality. (*10) However, counties receive secondary road funding and significantly influence the secondary road program by working with the VDOT resident engineer. Urban localities may influence any road projects that require federal funds where the MPO, of which VDOT is a member, programs projects for its Transportation Improvement Program.

Second, because there are 95 counties and 39 cities in Virginia, there are 134 jurisdictions that can make independent land use decisions, including situations where “an independent city is surrounded by an independent county.” (*5, *11)

Third, Virginia’s legislative environment is changing. In 1997, Virginia recodified Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia and in its place enacted Title 15.2. Although the motivation for recodifying Title 15.2 was to simplify existing statutes, there were also some substantive changes in the statutes. (*12) One of these refers to localities’ ability to coordinate powers in that Title 15.2 gave localities “greater flexibility in determining what provisions should be contained in a joint agreement” between these localities. (*12) Under Title 15.1, section 21 had noted that joint agreements “shall” contain several items (such as how issues of liability would be addressed, amounts of insurance, and the precise organization of an administrator or joint board responsible for implementing the cooperative agreement). Title 15.2 replaced the “shall” with “may” in order to “avoid imposing burdensome and unnecessary requirements on political subdivisions wishing to exercise powers jointly.” (*12, *13)

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this study was to identify best practices for coordinating transportation and land use planning, including providing technical assistance, in accordance with the request of Virginia’s General Assembly. To achieve this purpose, three types of practices were identified and analyzed:

1. legislative practices that address the requirements of the statutes of various states, including Virginia, regarding coordinating transportation and land use planning

2. policy and technical practices by state and local agencies for coordinating transportation and land use planning

3. technical assistance practices undertaken by state and federal agencies.

The scope of this study was limited to information that could be obtained through a review of the literature, an assessment of state legislative codes, and interviews with practitioners in state and federal agencies. Best practices are herein defined as practices that explicitly coordinate transportation and land use planning through legislative, organizational, or technical means.

Methods

Four tasks were undertaken to achieve the study objectives:

1. Review statutes and interview representatives from a sample of states that reflect centralized and decentralized planning.

2. Conduct a literature review of policy and technical practices for coordinating transportation and land use planning.

3. Interview providers of technical assistance in other states and at the federal level.

4. Participate in the Botetourt County transportation and land use pilot project. Insights from VDOT’s Fredericksburg District planning staff who are participating in a parallel pilot transportation and land use effort in Caroline County were also noted.

Legislative Practices for Coordinating Transportation and Land Use Planning

Eleven states including Virginia were surveyed to identify initiatives illustrating coordinated transportation and land use planning (see Table ES1). First, the appropriate legislation enacted by the state was reviewed as it pertained to transportation planning. Second, clarifying questions regarding the application of key legislative enactments were posed to at least one state transportation or planning agency representative by telephone or email.

The particular states were selected to represent a mix of states with centralized and decentralized planning authority and Dillon’s Rule and Home Rule status (see Table ES1). The terms centralized and decentralized denote the degree of planning authority centralized at the state level or decentralized to the county, city, or regional level. In a Dillon’s Rule state, any power enjoyed by a locality must spring from an express grant by the legislature; in a Home Rule state, municipalities have an inherent freedom to control their own affairs. (*5, *14) Thirty-nine states, including Virginia, are Dillon’s Rule states in terms of defining the power of local governments: thirty-one states apply this rule to all municipalities and eight apply this rule to select municipalities. (*14) Although Virginia applies Dillon’s Rule more stringently than other Dillon’s Rule states, Virginia counties and cities are cited as enjoying more local discretionary authority than most other states. (*14)

States with Centralized Planning

Florida’s concurrency statute requires that sufficient transportation infrastructure be present to accommodate anticipated growth. Further, localities are required to develop comprehensive plans, and both the plans and land use regulations must be consistent with the state comprehensive plan. This consistency is ensured by the fact that local plans are reviewed for compliance by a state agency that is empowered to require particular elements of the local plan. Required elements include levels of service, growth trends, and analysis of the ability of the transportation system to serve anticipated land use development.

Hawaii centralizes control through a single state agency, which creates a single state comprehensive plan with which localities must comply. Municipalities may create their own plans, but they must comply with the state comprehensive plan under the oversight of Hawaii’s Office of Planning. In addition, no agency may issue funds to localities for a project that is not in line with the state plan.

Maryland targets growth-related capital projects, such as significantly improved highway and transit facilities, to priority funding areas established through legislation (the Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act of 1997) and subsequent executive orders. Further, Maryland’s Department of Planning is responsible for developing the state comprehensive plan, enforcing planning laws, and providing technical assistance to localities.

Oregon uses a single state agency, its Land Conservation and Development Commission, to craft goals to which all local plans must adhere or risk rejection by the commission. The commission has this power when comprehensive plans are undergoing significant revisions or when an urban growth boundary will be extended in excess of 50 acres.

States with Decentralized Planning

Georgia does not require localities to create comprehensive plans, but almost all of them have done so. The recently created Georgia Regional Transportation Authority can bring localities together and encourage collaboration in the face of elements in the plans of different counties that conflict. Although the authority has significant transportation powers, it is largely an advisory body in terms of immediate local land use decisions within a single county. The authority’s review of particular large-scale land development projects is binding with regard to whether the project should receive state or federal funds.

Kansas permits but does not require the formation of PDCs, and Kansans can point to examples where municipalities have voluntarily created joint commissions. At the moment, the loss of federal funding for planning efforts has diminished the planning being done by these commissions.

North Carolina localities are not required to create comprehensive plans, and the state’s land use policy framework is purely advisory. However, the state maintains an almost $15 million technical assistance effort to localities for transportation and land use assistance, air quality planning, conformity analysis, and transportation planning.

South Carolina’s municipalities are required to develop comprehensive plans that include transportation and land use elements. The state also provides technical assistance, which localities may elect to accept. In one case, the state and a locality worked together to pinpoint the location of future access points.

Texas works with municipalities inside MPOs to write the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, but acceptance of the element rests with localities. Texas has also pursued legislation that gives greater authority to these MPOs, such as “stable formula-based funding” and legislation that allows suburban counties to vote to impose a sales tax dedicated to their public transportation projects.

Wisconsin encourages planning through a program that provides grants earmarked for planning activities to localities, giving preference to plans that address an array of planning issues, such as adequate transportation. Almost $10 million in state and federal funds was used for these planning grants from 2000 through 2003, with $2 million expected for the 2004 budget cycle. Close coordination between the Department of Transportation and the Department of Administration (which administers the grants) helps achieve transportation and land use goals. In addition, select larger local governments are given extraterritorial jurisdiction over land outside their borders and can enter into “cooperative boundary agreements” with adjacent localities to effect a more coordinated planning arrangement (as an alternative to unanticipated annexations). Finally, Wisconsin law requires that by 2010, “all programs, actions, and decisions of a community be consistent with the adopted local comprehensive plan.” (*15)

Virginia allows coordination through VDOT participation in site plan reviews for proposed developments (in cases when counties invite VDOT to participate) and periodic meetings between VDOT and county planning staff. These meetings may include briefings to staff and decision makers, longer-term discussions of development issues, and field visits to envision proposed development at a specific location. VDOT also provides $48,000 as part of its rural transportation planning assistance program to each PDC (except Northern Virginia, which has no rural component) so long as the local government gives a $12,000 match. Recent pilot efforts in Botetourt and Caroline counties where VDOT is working to provide specific deliverables requested by the counties are underway. These products are a compilation of the methods for funding transportation improvements in addition to the Six Year Improvement Program, a scenarios analysis that identifies potential transportation impacts from various types of proposed zoning changes and assists with creating the transportation element of a county comprehensive plan. Although comprehensive plans are required, a transportation element is optional. (*16)

Finally, the literature suggests that Virginia counties and cities may coordinate with each other in the areas of zoning, taxing, and issuing bonds. (*5, *17) This flexibility for land use coordination through zoning and bonding authority makes coordination more practical (than would be the case if zoning and bonding coordination were expressly prohibited) since localities can legally work together to ensure that transportation and land use policies in one locale are not negated by different policies in an adjacent locale. Section 1300 (A) of Title 15.2 states:

"Any power, privilege or authority exercised or capable of exercise by any political subdivision of this Commonwealth may be exercised and enjoyed jointly with any other political subdivision of this Commonwealth having a similar power, privilege or authority except where an express statutory procedure is otherwise provided for the joint exercise." (*18)

Summary of State Best Practices

States coordinate transportation and land use planning through at least five mechanisms:

1. In decentralized states, voluntary formation of additional bodies for land and transportation planning on behalf of select cities and counties.

2. In centralized states, empowerment of a single state agency either to review local comprehensive plans to ensure that such plans meet minimum criteria or to conduct significant transportation and land use planning.

3. In centralized states, a decision as to how transportation and planning should occur through specific legislation.

4. In both centralized and decentralized states, a mix of financial incentives or disincentives for aligning local and state planning.

5. In all states, voluntary provision of technical assistance and advice.

Policy and Technical Practices for Coordinating Transportation and Land Use Planning

How the Legislature Determines Virginia’s Direction

The General Assembly can influence the coordination of transportation and land use planning through at least three primary avenues.

1. By electing to centralize planning authority at the state level or have planning authority remain decentralized at the county, city, and regional level. Centralized planning could be accomplished through creating a single agency with full land planning authority, creating a single agency that reviews localities’ comprehensive plans, or passing legislation that dictates specific ways in which planning will occur. Decentralized planning may be accomplished through encouraging localities and appropriate state agencies to coordinate efforts including, but not limited to, providing funding for these planning efforts, requiring consistency between local comprehensive plans and subsequent local actions, enacting legislation that gives greater authority to counties to form regional compacts, and expanding the decision-making powers of existing localities or PDCs. An example of the last would be to allow local governments to require proffers or impact fees when new development is proposed (current law in Title 15.2 of the Code allows proffers or impact fees only as part of a rezoning request). (*19)

2. By providing additional resources to local or state organizations for the purposes of planning coordination. State survey results suggest that although enabling legislation provides a forum for land and transportation decisions to be considered jointly, such forums are enhanced through the use of staff to address issues on a case-by-case basis. Examples are using central planning staff to work with a locality to design a more compact land use plan, using VDOT staff to work with a locality to alter development plans so as not to build in land that will be taken for road construction, and providing money or personnel to existing planning-related entities.

3. By setting a policy goal for this coordination. Alternatively, the legislature may resolve that some other entity be charged with setting this policy goal. If the latter, the legislature may decide that this entity should be one with a statewide perspective, such as the CTB, or one with a local perspective, such as the individual counties, cities, or regional PDCs.

Policy Goals and Specific Technical Practices for Coordinating Transportation and Land Use Planning

The literature and the practices of other states suggest at least seven goals this coordination is trying to achieve, as listed in Table ES2. At the state level, choosing a policy goal - if one is to be chosen at all - is a decision for either the General Assembly or an entity charged by the General Assembly to make this determination. At the local level (it could be argued), the policy goal is the choice of the county board of supervisors, a city council and mayor, or other elected officials.

Technical Assistance Practices Undertaken by State and Federal Agencies

Agreement on legislation, policy goals, and specific technical practices that should be applied to coordinate transportation and land use planning still does not guarantee success, because so much of transportation and land use coordination requires cooperation. From a state perspective, this cooperation is the joint responsibility of the local governing bodies and an agency of the Commonwealth such as VDOT. One way the Commonwealth and a county can facilitate cooperation is through providing technical assistance.

Participation in the Botetourt pilot effort and interviews with representatives of organizations that provide technical assistance in a variety of disciplines revealed several common themes regarding how to establish, conduct, and maintain a good program in a cost-effective manner:

• Set a clear focus for the program; pick an area to target. The North Carolina DOT has an extensive assistance program for rural planning organizations (RPOs) and is focusing on helping them evaluate the impacts of land use alternatives.

• Dedicate staff. Staff need not be numerous. The key feature is that staff have providing technical assistance as their focus. Maryland's Office of Capital Programming and Planning has three transportation/land use planners.

• Retain staff. Long-term staff familiar with the agency, environment, and nature of the technical work are key. Staff are ideally supported through ongoing training; the Federal Highway Administration has noted that familiarity with instructional materials is useful for any person involved with technical assistance efforts.

• Work one on one to deliver a customized solution. Clients appreciate having access to a live person as opposed to a website or voice recording only. This approach extended to teaching in the case of the FHWA Resource Centers, which noted that being able to tailor a short one- or two-day class to a client’s needs was a key decision in using that format rather than a longer “canned” course presentation.

• Deliver and budget for what is promised. Results are the best way to spread the word about what a technical assistance program can accomplish. However, the implementation of a marketing plan for one organization’s services was halted when it was determined that the resultant growth in the demand exceeded the budget for that effort.

• Develop mechanisms to get information to customers quickly, such as using a website to archive data or a having a small cadre of individuals who can quickly respond to technical assistance requests.

• Keep making progress. One insight that appears to be emerging from the ongoing Botetourt pilot effort is the dual needs to (1) keep the project moving forward, even if the problem is not fully defined, and (2) work to produce a deliverable, even if this product is imperfect.

• Iteratively define the problem, and do so imperfectly rather than not at all. One problem was defined through a couple of in-person meetings and several telephone calls and was done in increments as key issues became clear.

• Plan for delays. Something can almost always be done on a project, even in the absence of particular data elements or clarifying instructions.

• Maintain communication. All parties need access to the full level of detail. One way to address uncertainty is to give a best guess or estimate at an early state and to describe the particular data element as such, rather than to delay the release of information until uncertainty is eliminated.

Decisions for Virginia’s Future

The Legislature’s Choices

Three questions arise that require an answer from Virginia’s elected officials that pertain to the coordination of transportation and land use planning.

First, should legislative steps be taken to institute this coordination or permit it to a greater degree?

Second, what policy should this coordination support? For example, Virginia may or may not wish to enact legislation that establishes concurrency statutes that require adequate transportation infrastructure to support proposed land uses, in support of a policy that explicitly requires counties to consider transportation effects of land use alternatives. As part of this step, it would be appropriate to study in greater depth a state that has implemented such concurrency statutes, e.g., Florida, to learn the strengths and weaknesses of this approach.

Third, what resources should be devoted to the technical and implementation aspects of this coordination? To a limited extent, VDOT or some other state-level agency responsible for planning can address this question within the context of providing more accurate and timely information to localities, where the county is the client and is thus leading the effort. There are also policy implications for more thorough technical assistance in the areas described throughout this report, such as access management, impacts on land use, or the matching of transportation infrastructure needs and land development and vice versa. The legislature will want to consider the quantity of these resources, and how they can be allocated to local and state bodies.

VDOT’s Choices Within the Legislatively Prescribed Framework

Under current law, VDOT cannot force a county or city to cooperate with the Commonwealth on transportation planning issues. However, VDOT may wish to consider several options within the planning framework established by the legislature. They are listed and shown in Figure ES1.

1. Make staff and funds available to localities for coordinating transportation and land use planning. Fulfilling this recommendation will likely require additional staff; states with active and genuine technical assistance programs, such as Maryland, North Carolina, and Oregon, accomplish this through personnel or funding.

2. Archive lessons learned and transfer these lessons from one county to another. Three ongoing products from the pilot efforts in Botetourt County and Caroline County -- documenting alternative funding sources, assisting with transportation elements of the county comprehensive plan, and modeling impacts of land use strategies on air quality -- are transferable to other situations with modifications. Although such material can be stored on a website, maintaining a knowledge base can be helped by retaining people in such technical assistance positions.

3. Work aggressively with localities to accomplish activities that are clearly within VDOT’s purview. Two such activities are working with counties to ensure that the transportation element of county comprehensive plans meet certain standards of quality such that land uses forecast in the plan can be related to realistic estimates of transportation demand, and establishing an access management code defining appropriate levels of access for the roadway.

4. Help counties quantify transportation impacts of alternatives. Staff can provide realistic estimates, based on the literature and previous case studies, of how transportation costs can be reduced by implementing particular land use strategies.

5. Review existing planning and land use tools to ensure they are being used to maximum effectiveness. Such tools and possibilities include the following:

• ensuring that VDOT participates fully in site plan reviews when invited to do so by localities

• ensuring that counties are adequately briefed on how road improvements they select may affect land development

• exploring the efficacy of the CTB’s option (provided to it by the Code of Virginia ) to designate particular highway as limited access highways (e.g., to preserve the mobility function of particular arterials, such as those that are part of the National Highway System)

• using Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways to help resident and district engineers engaged in the permitting process consider corridor or system impacts of additional access points rather than only site-specific impacts.
___________________________________
(*1) Bass, J. States and Strategies for Change, The Washington Post, October 11, 1998, pp. D6.
(*2) Murphey, M. Fed Member Jorday Says Government Shouldn’t Undertake Jobs Programs, Spokane Spokesman-Review, April 26, 1997, pp. A14.
(*3) Virginia General Assembly. 2003 Virginia Acts of Assembly, Chapter 1042, Item 472G, Richmond, 2003, p. 476.
(*4) Virginia General Assembly Legislative Information Systems. 2003 Session, Richmond, 2003. Accessed at http://leg1.state.va.us/031/lis.htm.
(*5) Jernigan, J. Briefing Paper: Local Land Use Management and State Transportation Policy: State of the Art and Practice, Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, 1999.
(*6) Va. Code. Ann. § 15.2-2233, available at http://leg1.state.va.us.
(*7) Virginia Association of Planning District Commissions. What Is a PDC?, Charlottesville, undated. Accessed October 15, 2003, at http://www.institute.virginia.edu/vapdc/Whatis.html.
(*8) McDonald, R. Personal communication, October 24, 2003.
(*9) O’Leary, A.A. Beyond the Byrd Road Act: VDOT’s Relationship with Virginia’s Urban Counties, Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, 1998. Accessed at http://virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/98-r29.pdf.
(*10) Virginia Department of Transportation. Towns and Cities that Maintain Their Own Roads, Richmond. Accessed October 24, 2003, at http://virginiadot.org/infoservice/faqrofwaylist.asp.
(*11) Virginia Municipal League. About the League, Richmond, 1998. Accessed September 2003 at http://www.vml.org/About%20the%20league.html.
(*12) Commonwealth of Virginia. Report of the Virginia Code Commission on the Recodification of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia (Senate Document No. 5), Richmond, Virginia, 1997, Vol. 1, pp. i,v, 315, 316.
(*13) Va. Code. Ann. § 15.2-1300 (D).
(*14) Richardson, J.J., Jr., Gough, M.Z., and Puentes, R. Is Home Rule the Answer: Clarifying the Influence of Dillon’s Rule on Growth Management, Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Washington, D.C., 2003, Accessible at http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/publications/dillonsrule.pdf
(*15) Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Transportation Planning Resource Guide: A Guide to Preparing the Transportation Element of a Local Comprehensive Plan, Madison, 2001. Accessed October 9, 2003, at http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/localgov/docs/planningguide.pdf ,.
(*16) Va. Code. Ann. § 15.2-2223.
(*17) Carlson, D. and King, S. Linking Transportation and Land Use by Fostering Inter-Jurisdictional Cooperation: Enabling Legislation in Eight States, Institute for Public Policy and Management, Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, 1998, pp. 31-32. Accessible at http://www.evans.washington.edu/FAC/Carlson/pubs/98trans/98REPORT.PDF.
(*18) Va. Code. Ann. § 15.2-1300 (A).
(*19) Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association. Virginia’s Growth Management Tools, Midlothian, 2002. Accessed at http://www.vaplanning.org/growthtools.pdf.