Guidelines for Evaluating Comprehensive Transportation Plans

To celebrate over 20 years of publishing Whatcom Watch, we will be publishing excerpts from 20 years ago. David M. Laws has been generous enough to volunteer to review the Whatcom Watch from 20 years ago to find suitable material to reprint. The below excerpts are from the December, 1994 issue of Whatcom Watch.

Develop Patterns That Reduce Driving and Increase Transit, Bicycling, and Walking

[Provided by ALT-TRANS Washington Coalition For Transportation Alternatives]

Growth Management offers a unique opportunity to promote development patterns that reduce driving and increase transit, bicycling, and walking. We can begin creating cities and communities that are vibrant and pleasant places to live, shop and hang out; where work and play aren’t dominated by dangerous, pollution-clogged traffic jams.

Washington residents drove almost 50 billion miles in 1993. The environmental and social impacts of this driving are tremendous. Cars are major contributors to air pollution, urban sprawl, global warming, water pollution and oil spills. They erode community life, consuming public spaces and making city streets unpleasant places to be.

The bottom line is that comprehensive plans should establish development patterns that support transit and other transportation alternatives. This guide will help you determine whether or not your local plan does. Your participation is critical. Local governments won’t seriously confront difficult transportation problems without public insistence and support.

Many plans will not address all the issues in this checklist. If you can’t find information on a specific topic, comment on its absence. Tell your planners that it’s critical to the plan’s effectiveness.

The hard facts are pretty straightforward. What does the plan say about motor Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT — a measure of how much people drive), air quality and water quality? Look for data in the Environmental Impact Statement. Will VMT continue to increase rapidly? Will pollution continue to get worse? If the answers are yes, the plan has missed the point.

Investing in more roads doesn’t improve the transportation system. More and wider streets attract more cars, more driving and more pollution. Moreover, road construction squanders scarce funds that are desperately needed for real improvements: facilities and services for public transit, bikes and pedestrians.

[...]

The plan should include strategies for improving transit service and prioritizing transit … a network or grid of bike and pedestrian routes [and] specific performance objectives for bicycle and pedestrian travel, as well as transit … and should also aim to reduce the difference in travel time between driving and using alternatives.

Establishing land use patterns that support alternatives is essential. Current policies encourage sprawling, low-density developments that separate housing, workplaces and commercial districts. These patterns undermine alternatives; they force people to drive.

Does the plan’s land use element call for higher-density land use? … mixed land use (combined residential, commercial, and employment uses)? … What does [the plan] say about the Urban Growth Boundary?

[...]

Does the plan address parking requirements established by zoning ordinances? The price and availability of parking strongly influences peoples’ decision to drive.

[…]

Call your local planning department today and get a copy of the comprehensive plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Ask what decisions are coming up and when, and how you can provide input. Tell your local elected officials what’s wrong and what’s right with the plan. Tell them why they must reduce driving and promote alternatives.