Metropolitan Centers: Evaluating Local Implementation of Regional Plans and Policies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Portland State University PDXScholar Transportation Research and Education Center TREC Final Reports (TREC) 3-2017 Metropolitan Centers: Evaluating Local Implementation of Regional Plans and Policies Richard D. Margerum University of Oregon Keith Bartholomew University of Utah Rebecca Lewis University of Oregon Robert Parker University of Oregon Stephen Dobrinich University of Oregon Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/trec_reports Part of the Transportation Commons, Urban Studies Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Richard Margerum, Rebecca Lewis, Keith Bartholomew, Robert Parker, and Stephen Dobrinich. Metropolitan Centers: Evaluating Local Implementation of Regional Plans and Policies. NITC-RR-761. Portland, OR: Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC), 2017. https://doi.org/10.15760/ trec.164 This Report is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in TREC Final Reports by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. FINAL REPORT Metropolitan Centers: Evaluating Local Implementation of Regional Plans and Policies NITCN-RR-761 March 2017 NITC is a U.S. Department of Transportation national university transportation center. METROPOLITAN CENTERS: EVALUATING LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION OF REGIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES Final Report NITCN-RR-761 by Richard D. Margerum Rebecca Lewis Keith Bartholomew Robert G. Parker Stephen Dobrinich University of Oregon University of Utah for National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) P.O. Box 751 Portland, OR 97207 March 2017 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. NITCN-RR-761 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Metropolitan Centers: March 2017 Evaluating local implementation of regional plans and policies 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Richard D. Margerum Rebecca Lewis Keith Bartholomew Robert G. Parker Stephen Dobrinich 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Department of PPPM, University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-1209 11. Contract or Grant No. 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) 14. Sponsoring Agency Code P.O. Box 751 Portland, Oregon 97207 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract The Denver and Salt Lake City Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) have embarked upon regional visioning strategies that promote development around higher density, mixed use centers with current or future access to transit. This study examines the programs and policies in the Salt Lake City and Denver regions to examine regional vision influence on local planning and the opportunities and constraints facing centers. The research team analyzed local plans over the past several decades, interviewed planners, and examined demographic, land use and transportation characteristics in select centers across the region. We found that the regional vision had a moderate influence on local planning, due to vague definitions and criteria. However, light rail investment and market forces have had a more substantial influence—resulting in cities developing supportive transit oriented development policies. While over 100 centers have been designated, many face significant challenges to support regional goals, particularly because many light rail lines were located along rail and freeway alignments. A limited number of “tipping point centers” already contain the necessary elements to be successful with city and private investment. Many “greenfield centers” offer significant future opportunity for development, but their suburban location and infrastructure needs present significant costs and challenges. Many other “redevelopment centers” are dominated by industrial, commercial or office development, and the land use and transportation patterns within these centers present substantial hurdles that may limit their potential to achieve regional goals. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Regional Planning, Collaborative Growth Management, Metropolitan Centers, No restrictions. Copies available from NITC: Transit Oriented Development www.nitc.us 19. Security Classification (of this report) 20. Security Classification (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was funded by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC). The researchers would like to thank the staff with the Denver Regional Council of Governments and the Wasatch Front Regional Council for their assistance with data and information. The researchers would also like to thank the local government staff in both regions who participated in interviews about metropolitan centers. We would like to acknowledge research contributions from Stephen Dobrinich and Kevin Cisney, who contributed to content analysis, interviews, and writing results. We would like to acknowledge GIS assistance from Kendal Black, Taylor Eidt and Mitch Koch. DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are solely responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the material and information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation University Transportation Centers Program, the University of Oregon and the University of Utah in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government and the University of Oregon and the University of Utah assume no liability for the contents or use thereof. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views of the U.S. Government nor the Universities of Oregon or Utah. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Study Goals ................................................................................................................................ 7 1.2 Report Overview ........................................................................................................................ 7 2.0 Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 9 2.1 MPO Roles In Transportation-Land Use Integration .......................................................... 10 2.2 The Structure of MPOs ........................................................................................................... 12 2.3 Evaluating Metropolitan Collaboration ................................................................................ 14 2.3.1 Implementation Effectiveness ............................................................................................... 15 2.3.2 Political Consensus ............................................................................................................... 16 2.3.3 External Pressures ................................................................................................................. 16 2.3.4 Implementation ..................................................................................................................... 17 2.4 Metropolitan Centers And Transit-Oriented Development ................................................ 18 3.0 Methods ............................................................................................................................ 19 3.1 Metropolitan Cases .................................................................................................................. 19 3.2 Case Study Analysis ................................................................................................................ 20 3.2.1 Plan Content Analysis ........................................................................................................... 20 3.2.2 Planner Interviews ................................................................................................................. 21 3.2.3 GIS Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 22 3.2.3.1 Center Selection ......................................................................................................................... 22 3.2.3.2 Limitations of GIS Analysis ....................................................................................................... 25 4.0 Denver Region ................................................................................................................. 27 4.1 Denver Regional Council of Governments ............................................................................ 27 4.2 Metro Vision and Transportation Planning .......................................................................... 27 4.2.1 Scenario Planning .................................................................................................................. 28 4.2.2 Current Centers Policies ........................................................................................................ 31 4.3 Denver Area Case Study Cities