The purpose of ITE Committee 6A-57 was to determine specific programs and procedures that states are undertaking to coordinate land use decisions with transportation planning. Information compiled includes congestion or growth management systems as they relate to land use decisions, as well as state requirements on local government to analyse the impacts of land use decisions on transportation systems. This paper addresses: a) Selected states with such programs; b) Types of development subject to or exempted from review; c) Who is subjected to the program (that is, government units); d) How the analysis is conducted (with computer traffic models? via traffic impact studies?); e) How the program is tied to maintenance of a specific standard (for example, a level of service standard); f) Threshold of development that triggers analysis (for example, peak trips, floor area); and g) How the program relates to other environmental quality laws in the state. The study used the local knowledge of the committee members' own state programs and drew on their experience in the application of state laws. Each committee member developed the section regarding that state's program to provide information from those directly familiar with each state's implementation. The approach included case studies from the following states, which were known to have relevant programs: Arizona, California, Florida, Oregon, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington. This list is not exhaustive but represents many of the programs in force in 1993-94 and covers a variety of different approaches to the subject. After this introductory section, the next section covers the historical background of state involvement in land use/transportation decisions and provides an overview of what the seven case study states are doing. Section 2 also provides an overview of the research and program comparisons of the seven states. Section 3 includes brief case studies of two states with access-oriented statewide programs: Arizona and New Jersey. Section 4 covers states with more comprehensive programs in greater depth: California, Florida, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state. Section 5 is a summary of the implementation problems lessons to be learned, and Section 6 draws conclusions to the research and findings. Section 7 provides a list of sources and references for the interested reader.
Abstract