Advertisement

Transportation

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 397–412 | Cite as

Land use-transportation scenario planning: promise and reality

  • Keith Bartholomew
Original Paper

Abstract

Land use-transportation scenario planning has become increasingly common in regional and sub-regional planning processes. The technique promises to provide citizens with opportunities to engage in constructive dialogue about the future of their communities, and to serve as a basis for assertive action to direct the course of that future. This study reviews 80 scenario planning projects from more than 50 U.S. metropolitan areas. The analysis reveals important gaps in the practice of scenario planning—particularly in the areas of public participation, methodology, and institutional structures—and recent efforts to address the shortcomings.

Keywords

Land-Use Planning Scenario Transportation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research for this article was funded by the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation under Cooperative Agreement No. DTFH61-03-H-00134. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Federal Highway Administration. Thanks to Denny Nestripke for his valuable research assistance with this study and to the anonymous reviewers who commented on the article.

References

  1. 1000 Friends of Minnesota and Eureka Township Envisioning Task Force: Eureka Township Envisioning Task Force: Summary Report. (Eureka Township, Eureka, MN, 2003). Available via the J. Marriott Library, University of Utah. Retrieved 25 September 2006 from http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT = /FHWAGoogle Scholar
  2. 1000 Friends of Oregon: Making the Connections: A Summary of the LUTRAQ Project. (Author, Portland, OR, 1997). Available via the J. Marriott Library, University of Utah. Retrieved 25 September 2006 from http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT = /FHWAGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, E., McKeever, M., Mitchum, J.: The Energy Yardstick: Using PLACE3S to Create More Sustainable Communities. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, (1995). Available via the J. Marriott Library, University of Utah. Retrieved 25 September 2006 from http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT = /FHWAGoogle Scholar
  4. American Farmland Trust: Alternatives for Future Urban Growth in California’s Central Valley. (Author, Washington, DC, 1995)Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, J.E. Public Policymaking, 6th ed. Houghton Mifflin, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  6. Avin, U.P., Dembner, J.L.: Using scenarios to improve plan-making. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (2000)Google Scholar
  7. Bartholomew, K.: Land-use based scenario planning: theory, practice, implications. Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, DC (2005)Google Scholar
  8. Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development: Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint Project: Final Report (Association of Bay Area Governments, Oakland, CA, 2002). Available via the J. Marriott Library, University of Utah. Retrieved 25 September 2006 from http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT = /FHWAGoogle Scholar
  9. Beimborn, E., Kennedy, R., Schaefer, W.: Inside the Blackbox: Making Transportation Models Work for Livable Communities, Environmental Defense Fund, New York (n.d.). Available via Environmental Defense Fund. Retrieved 24 September 2006 from http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/1859_InsideBlackBox.pdfGoogle Scholar
  10. Burbank, C., Ways, S.: Scenario planning: a new paradigm in transportation decision making. The Public Manager 33(3), 7–11 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. Cambridge Systematics: The Effects of Land Use and Travel Demand Strategies on Commuting Behavior. (Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 1994)Google Scholar
  12. Cervero, R.: The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. Island Press, Washington, DC (1998)Google Scholar
  13. Cervero, R., Kockelman, K.: Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transport. Res. Part D 2, 199–219 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Contra Cost County, California: Shaping Our Future. (Author, Walnut Creek, CA , 2003). Available via the J. Marriott Library, University of Utah. Retrieved 25 September 2006 from http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT = /FHWAGoogle Scholar
  15. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission: Regional Analysis of What-If Transportation Scenarios: Final Report. (Author, Philadelphia, PA, 2003). Available via the J. Marriott Library, University of Utah. Retrieved 25 September 2006 from http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT = /FHWAGoogle Scholar
  16. Denver Regional Council of Governments: Metro Vision 2020 Urban Form Alternative and Evaluation Criteria. (Author, Denver, CO, 1995). Available via the J. Marriott Library, University of Utah. Retrieved 25 September 2006 from http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT = /FHWAGoogle Scholar
  17. Downs, A.: Still Stuck in Traffic. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC (2004)Google Scholar
  18. Edwards, J.L., Schofer, J.L.: Relationships between transportation energy consumption and urban structure: results of simulation studies. Transportation Research Record 599 (1976)Google Scholar
  19. Envision Utah: The History of Envision Utah. (Coalition for Utah’s Future, Salt Lake City, UT, n.d.). Available via the J. Marriott Library, University of Utah. Retrieved 25 September 2006 from http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT = /FHWAGoogle Scholar
  20. Federal Highway Administration: Scenario Planning (2005). Retrieved 24 September 2006 from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Planning/scenplan/index.htmGoogle Scholar
  21. Georgantzas, N.C., Acar, W.: Scenario-Driven Planning: Learning to Manage Strategic Uncertainty. Quorum Books, Westport, CT (1995)Google Scholar
  22. Giuliano, G.: The weakening transportation-land use connection. Access 6, 3–11 (1995)Google Scholar
  23. Godet, M.: Creating Futures: Scenario Planning as a Strategic Management Tool. Economica, London (2001)Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, D., Salkin, P.E., Jordan, J., Finucan, K.: Planning for Smart Growth: 2002 State of the States. American Planning Association, Washington, DC (2002). Retrieved 24 September 2006 from http://www.planning.org/growingsmart/states2002.htmGoogle Scholar
  25. Kockelman, K.M.: Travel behavior as a function of accessibility, land use mixing, and land use balance—evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Transportation Research Record 1607 (1997)Google Scholar
  26. Lockwood, S.: Participation: its influence on planning methodology. In Highway Research Board Special Report No. 142. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (1973)Google Scholar
  27. March, J.: A Primer on Decision Making. The Free Press, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  28. Mazziotti, D.F., Hemphill, M., Churchill, L., Hamilton, J., Gies, M.: Energy Conservation Choices for the City of Portland. Oregon. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC (1977)Google Scholar
  29. Middlesex Somerset Mercer Regional Council: The Impact of Various Land Use Strategies on Suburban Mobility. (Author, Princeton, NJ, 1988). Retrieved 24 September 2006 from http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/470.htmlGoogle Scholar
  30. Ogilvy, J.: Creating Better Futures. Oxford, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  31. Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium: Willamette Basin Alternative Futures Analysis. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 2002). Available via the J. Marriott Library, University of Utah. Retrieved 25 September 2006 from http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT = /FHWAGoogle Scholar
  32. Peskin, R.L., Schofer, J.L.: The Impacts of Urban Transportation and Land Use Policies on Transportation Energy Consumption (Report No. DOT-05–50118), Department of Transportation, Washington, DC (1977)Google Scholar
  33. Porter, M.: Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press, London (1985)Google Scholar
  34. Puget Sound Council of Governments: Vision 220: Growth Strategy and Transportation Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region. (Puget Sound Regional Council, Seattle, WA, 1990). Available via the J. Marriott Library, University of Utah. Retrieved 25 September 2006 from http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT = /FHWAGoogle Scholar
  35. Replogle, M.: Land use/transportation scenario testing: a tool for the 1990s. Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, DC (1993). Retrieved 25 September 2006 from http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/clearinghouse/docs/landuse/luts/Google Scholar
  36. Ringland, G.: Scenario Planning: Managing for the Future. John Wiley, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  37. Sacramento Area Council of Governments and Valley Vision: Tall Order Forum 2004: Regional Choices for Our Future. (Authors, Sacramento, CA, 2004). Available via the J. Marriott Library, University of Utah. Retrieved 25 September 2006 from http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT = /FHWAGoogle Scholar
  38. San Diego Association of Governments: Region 2020: 2020 Cities/County Forecast Land Use Alternatives. (Author, San Diego, CA, 1998). Available via the J. Marriott Library, University of Utah. Retrieved 25 September 2006 from http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT = /FHWAGoogle Scholar
  39. SEWRPC : Land Use-Transportation Study, Forecasts and Alternative Plans. (Author, Milwaukee, WI, 1966)Google Scholar
  40. Stone, D.: Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. W. W. Norton, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  41. Tri-County Regional Planning Commission: Regional 225 Transportation Plan. (Author, Lansing, MI, 2003). Available via the J. Marriott Library, University of Utah. Retrieved 25 September 2006 from http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/browse.php?CISOROOT = /FHWAGoogle Scholar
  42. Wirthlin Worldwide: Envision Utah: 1997 Values Research, Envision Utah. Salt Lake City, UT (1997). Retrieved 25 September 2006 from http://www.envisionutah.org/resourcesfiles/36/Wirthlin%20Worldwide%20Values%20Research%20Summary.pdfGoogle Scholar
  43. Zegras, C., Sussman, J., Conklin, C.: Scenario planning for strategic regional transportation planning. J. Urban Planning Develop. 130, 2–13 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Architecture + PlanningUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations