FINAL REPORT OPTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE COORDINATION OF TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PLANNING IN VIRGINIA John S. Miller, Ph.D., P.E. Senior Research Scientist Roger W. Howe Research Associate Ryan P. Hartman Graduate Legal Assistant Arkopal K. Goswami Graduate Research Assistant Virginia Transportation Research Council (A Cooperative Organization Sponsored Jointly by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the University of Virginia) Charlottesville, Virginia March 2004 VTRC 04-R14 DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Copyright 2004 by the Commonwealth of Virginia. ii PREFACE Legislation enacted during the 2003 Virginia General Assembly Session—Item 472G of Chapter 1042 (House Bill 1400)—directed the Secretary of Transportation to document (1) best practices used by other states to coordinate transportation and land use planning, and (2) current state efforts to provide technical assistance to local governments in the area of developing the transportation component of the local comprehensive plan. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) was assigned responsibility for this request, and the Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC) was then asked by VDOT to conduct a study and deliver a report that met these two objectives. The authors gratefully acknowledge those persons who provided valuable insights through reviewing the document, participating in the pilot planning projects, and assisting this effort in other ways. Reviewers included Unwanna Bellinger, George Conner, Holly Dale, Chris Detmer, Les Hoel, Brad Johnson, Kenneth Lantz, Robert McDonald, Jeff Southard, and Chad Tucker. Botetourt County pilot project participants included Jerry Burgess, Rob Cary, Jeff Echols, Herman Hollins, Jeff Kessler, Mark Jordan, James Laughlin, Ned McElwaine, Randall Phillips, Walter Pribble, and Chuck Supan; participants in the corresponding Caroline County effort who contributed to this study were Gerry Sears and Eric Vogel. Sherry Eagle and Felicia Young both gave information regarding alternative sources of funding; Connie Sorrell provided insights regarding the recodification of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia, Linda Evans edited this report; Randy Combs assisted with graphics; and legal insights were provided by Joe Matteo and Ben Oxley. Staff from the private, state, and federal organizations who answered interview questions also made a significant contribution. Inclusion of these names does not guarantee agreement with the contents of this report. Within VDOT, the Transportation and Mobility Planning Division, Ken Lantz, Chris Detmer, and Chad Tucker were responsible for managing the study. Within VTRC, Wayne Ferguson was responsible for leading the study. John Miller served as principal investigator and received significant assistance from Roger Howe and Ryan Hartman (for the analysis of statutes in other states), Arkopal Goswami (for work with the Botetourt County pilot land use scenarios and the surveys of state technical assistance programs), and Marc Kirkland (for survey efforts). iii iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction 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.”4 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.8 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. v 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. vi The scope of this study was limited to information that could be obtained through a review of the literature, an assessment of state legislative