MPOs and the Integration of Transportation and Land Use Planning
By Adam Lovelady
INTRODUCTION
From his vantage point at the federal level, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan saw transportation problems mounting. In 1991, the longtime New York senator outlined the prominent challenges of the post-Interstate era: transportation investment was declining, increased highway capacity failed to solve “horrendous congestion problems,” air pollution was obviously spilling across jurisdictions, and there was a need for “consistency of transportation plans with land use plans.” Moynihan outlined these issues in his introductory statements to the Senate Report accompanying what would become the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA, commonly pronounced “ice tea”), for which Senator Moynihan was a principal architect. In an effort to address the problems outlined by the Senator, that transportation bill devolved transportation planning to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and marked a dramatic shift in federal transportation policy.
That same year, but at the opposite end of the governmental spectrum, the Local Government Commission convened a group of notable architects and urban planners to outline a new vision of local land use planning to counter the social, economic, and environmental costs of post-World War II development. The group echoed Senator Moynihan as they outlined the troublesome symptoms of existing patterns of development: “more congestion and air pollution resulting from our increased dependence on automobiles, the loss of precious open space, the need for costly improvements to roads and public services, the inequitable distribution of economic resources, and the loss of a sense of community.” Just as the Senator envisioned a dramatic shift in transportation policy through ISTEA, the designers sought a shift in local land use policy and outlined the Ahwahnee Principles, a set of guidelines for community design, regional coordination, and local government implementation named for Yosemite's Ahwahnee Hotel where the principles were first presented to local elected officials. These Ahwahnee Principles--promoting mixed-uses, walkability and transportation alternatives, compact development and environmental protection, and resource efficiency--fell under the broader umbrella of Smart Growth and provided the blueprint for what the authors would later call New Urbanism. Parallel to Senator Moynihan's prescription for integrated planning, the first regional guideline of the Ahwahnee Principles stated that “[t]he regional land-use planning structure should be integrated within a larger transportation network built around transit rather than freeways.”
From both the federal and local perspectives, policymakers saw the troubles of contemporary development patterns and outlined visions for reform. Yet after almost two decades, including subsequent federal transportation authorizations and countless local efforts at land use reform, traffic congestion is worse, environmental degradation continues, and transportation investment has limited (if any) relation to land use planning. The result is that familiar American landscape: traffic-clogged thoroughfares, aged or aging commercial strips, and, at the urban edges, new incarnations of the same. The framework for this common landscape is part land use law and part transportation policy. For decades, low-density zoning and highway-centric transportation investment fostered typical suburban sprawl. Today, any effort to turn the tide must address that essential but difficult relationship between land use and transportation planning. As it is, any federal step forward (like increased highway capacity) is matched with two local steps back (new developments and increased congestion), and any local effort at transit-oriented development or walkable community centers often lacks the necessary support of federal and state transportation policy.
At the root, the problem is fragmentation--horizontally among municipalities and vertically between local, state, and federal governments--that institutionally separates land use from transportation planning. This Note confronts that fragmentation. Drawing from local government theory, relevant institutional history, political practicalities, and the realities of our modern metropolitan lives, this Note proposes to empower MPOs as regional forums for integrated transportation and land use planning. Under this proposal, conditional federal funding will entice MPOs to coordinate with local governments to create Regional Corridor Plans that integrate future transportation investment with local land use zoning. This proposal substantively envisions walkable centers and transit-oriented developments with mixed uses--forms of development already evolving across the nation. It does not, however, require the condemnation of all single-family homes, nor does it force everyone into stark, concrete high-rise towers. Rather, the Regional Corridor Plans would align federal transportation investment with local land use zoning in ways that account for the social and resource realities of our times, allowing efficient plans for new development and much-needed redevelopment. Acknowledging that new authority requires increased accountability, the Note proposes increased checks against MPO power through public involvement and greater democratic representation.
The Note proceeds as follows: Part I provides context, both practical and theoretical, for the problem of fragmented planning and the proposed solution. This Part surveys metropolitan issues including social exclusion, suburban externalities, and sustainability. The discussion highlights the changing realities of the contemporary metropolis: metropolitan regions are the geographic units of modern American life, suburbs are diverse and evolving, and suburban-built environments face decline and/or drastic redevelopment. Continuing to frame the subject, Part I considers the theoretical context of local government law, including localism and regionalism, and extending to vertical complexities of our federal system. This academic landscape informed the existing MPO legislation and underlies the proposed institutional reform.
Part II of this Note then shifts to investigate the Metropolitan Planning Organization, a long-existing institution, and a possible model for resolving municipal fragmentation and vertical complexities. These federally-required, regional transportation policy boards have received only passing attention from legal academics, so Part II investigates the history of MPOs in light of the underlying theories of local government. As discussed, recent shifts in transportation policy made positive steps, but MPOs still fail to integrate transportation and land use planning. Drawing from the experience of certain innovative MPOs, Part III outlines a practical proposal: conditional federal funding to empower MPOs to coordinate Regional Corridor Plans which integrate federal transportation investment and local land use. As highlighted in Part III, increased authority and funding requires increased accountability, including strong public participation in administrative processes and proper democratic representation on decisionmaking boards.
Back in 1991, Senator Moynihan and the authors of the Ahwahnee Principles separately saw the challenges facing the American metropolis. They offered visions for remedying those problems, but they did not address the institutional fragmentation between land use and transportation. Now the rising concerns of our metropolitan regions demand an institutional shift to bridge that fragmentation.
From his vantage point at the federal level, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan saw transportation problems mounting. In 1991, the longtime New York senator outlined the prominent challenges of the post-Interstate era: transportation investment was declining, increased highway capacity failed to solve “horrendous congestion problems,” air pollution was obviously spilling across jurisdictions, and there was a need for “consistency of transportation plans with land use plans.” Moynihan outlined these issues in his introductory statements to the Senate Report accompanying what would become the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA, commonly pronounced “ice tea”), for which Senator Moynihan was a principal architect. In an effort to address the problems outlined by the Senator, that transportation bill devolved transportation planning to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and marked a dramatic shift in federal transportation policy.
That same year, but at the opposite end of the governmental spectrum, the Local Government Commission convened a group of notable architects and urban planners to outline a new vision of local land use planning to counter the social, economic, and environmental costs of post-World War II development. The group echoed Senator Moynihan as they outlined the troublesome symptoms of existing patterns of development: “more congestion and air pollution resulting from our increased dependence on automobiles, the loss of precious open space, the need for costly improvements to roads and public services, the inequitable distribution of economic resources, and the loss of a sense of community.” Just as the Senator envisioned a dramatic shift in transportation policy through ISTEA, the designers sought a shift in local land use policy and outlined the Ahwahnee Principles, a set of guidelines for community design, regional coordination, and local government implementation named for Yosemite's Ahwahnee Hotel where the principles were first presented to local elected officials. These Ahwahnee Principles--promoting mixed-uses, walkability and transportation alternatives, compact development and environmental protection, and resource efficiency--fell under the broader umbrella of Smart Growth and provided the blueprint for what the authors would later call New Urbanism. Parallel to Senator Moynihan's prescription for integrated planning, the first regional guideline of the Ahwahnee Principles stated that “[t]he regional land-use planning structure should be integrated within a larger transportation network built around transit rather than freeways.”
From both the federal and local perspectives, policymakers saw the troubles of contemporary development patterns and outlined visions for reform. Yet after almost two decades, including subsequent federal transportation authorizations and countless local efforts at land use reform, traffic congestion is worse, environmental degradation continues, and transportation investment has limited (if any) relation to land use planning. The result is that familiar American landscape: traffic-clogged thoroughfares, aged or aging commercial strips, and, at the urban edges, new incarnations of the same. The framework for this common landscape is part land use law and part transportation policy. For decades, low-density zoning and highway-centric transportation investment fostered typical suburban sprawl. Today, any effort to turn the tide must address that essential but difficult relationship between land use and transportation planning. As it is, any federal step forward (like increased highway capacity) is matched with two local steps back (new developments and increased congestion), and any local effort at transit-oriented development or walkable community centers often lacks the necessary support of federal and state transportation policy.
At the root, the problem is fragmentation--horizontally among municipalities and vertically between local, state, and federal governments--that institutionally separates land use from transportation planning. This Note confronts that fragmentation. Drawing from local government theory, relevant institutional history, political practicalities, and the realities of our modern metropolitan lives, this Note proposes to empower MPOs as regional forums for integrated transportation and land use planning. Under this proposal, conditional federal funding will entice MPOs to coordinate with local governments to create Regional Corridor Plans that integrate future transportation investment with local land use zoning. This proposal substantively envisions walkable centers and transit-oriented developments with mixed uses--forms of development already evolving across the nation. It does not, however, require the condemnation of all single-family homes, nor does it force everyone into stark, concrete high-rise towers. Rather, the Regional Corridor Plans would align federal transportation investment with local land use zoning in ways that account for the social and resource realities of our times, allowing efficient plans for new development and much-needed redevelopment. Acknowledging that new authority requires increased accountability, the Note proposes increased checks against MPO power through public involvement and greater democratic representation.
The Note proceeds as follows: Part I provides context, both practical and theoretical, for the problem of fragmented planning and the proposed solution. This Part surveys metropolitan issues including social exclusion, suburban externalities, and sustainability. The discussion highlights the changing realities of the contemporary metropolis: metropolitan regions are the geographic units of modern American life, suburbs are diverse and evolving, and suburban-built environments face decline and/or drastic redevelopment. Continuing to frame the subject, Part I considers the theoretical context of local government law, including localism and regionalism, and extending to vertical complexities of our federal system. This academic landscape informed the existing MPO legislation and underlies the proposed institutional reform.
Part II of this Note then shifts to investigate the Metropolitan Planning Organization, a long-existing institution, and a possible model for resolving municipal fragmentation and vertical complexities. These federally-required, regional transportation policy boards have received only passing attention from legal academics, so Part II investigates the history of MPOs in light of the underlying theories of local government. As discussed, recent shifts in transportation policy made positive steps, but MPOs still fail to integrate transportation and land use planning. Drawing from the experience of certain innovative MPOs, Part III outlines a practical proposal: conditional federal funding to empower MPOs to coordinate Regional Corridor Plans which integrate federal transportation investment and local land use. As highlighted in Part III, increased authority and funding requires increased accountability, including strong public participation in administrative processes and proper democratic representation on decisionmaking boards.
Back in 1991, Senator Moynihan and the authors of the Ahwahnee Principles separately saw the challenges facing the American metropolis. They offered visions for remedying those problems, but they did not address the institutional fragmentation between land use and transportation. Now the rising concerns of our metropolitan regions demand an institutional shift to bridge that fragmentation.