Planning Freight-Efficient Land Uses: Methodology, Strategies, and Tools (2022)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

24 This task seeks to incorporate feedback and guidance from stakeholders affected by freight activity and the potential FELU initiatives that could be implemented. To begin that process, it is important to understand the complexities and differences between the transportation and land-use planning processes. The traditional planning process, described in urban planning textbooks and later in this Guide, presents a pragmatic linear process that is deliberate and features a feedback loop to ensure that activities undertaken result in their intended purpose(s). In practice, the urban planning process is not always linear. Complicating the situation are the differences between the land-use and transportation plan- ning processes. The most obvious difference is that transportation planning is largely a federally driven process, and land-use is a local one. However, there are also large temporal differences, complicated even further by community differences, and their respective values and stakehold- ers. Every state has a different land-use planning framework and each community has its own culture, personality, and practices. 4.1 Transportation Planning In the United States, transportation planning is largely driven by a federally mandated process to ensure that funding allocated to the states is spent in accordance with federal laws and regula- tions. At the state level, the planning process is carried out by each respective state DOT, and, in urban areas, by MPOs. The transportation planning process is directly tied to implementation. States plan for long-term investment decisions for a system that they largely own with funding they largely control. The overall process begins with the development of state DOT Long-Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) and MPO Metropolitan Transportation Plans (MTPs) that plan 20 years into the future. While some state LRTPs are policy-oriented and do not list individual projects, most LRTPs and all MTPs feature fiscally constrained project lists that must concur with each other to ensure that transportation decisions in urban areas have the agreement of the state and local governments that make up the MPO. Similarly, the formal federal funding programming documents—Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs) and MPO Transpor- tation Improvement Programs (TIPs)—must concur before the FHWA will obligate a project’s funding. The MPOs and state DOTs oversee the implementation of a project’s development to meet obligation deadlines. The planning process is directly connected to implementation. State DOTs and MPOs plan and build projects that they fund directly in a closed loop system. Participants in the project’s workshop identified that the role of an MPO as a convener of regional cooperation was key to the development of complete streets policies and freight advi- sory committees over the past 20 years. While these two advances are quite common today, the C H A P T E R 4 Integrating Stakeholders into the Planning Processes

Integrating Stakeholders into the Planning Processes 25   rst initiatives were adopted by MPOs. While all MPOs have an important role to play, large MPOs that have dened sta, dedicated funding, and existing robust outreach eorts will likely drive the largest change. 4.2 Land-Use Planning e overall land-use planning process is oen presented as a linear process; however, its appli- cation is oen not linear. e land-use decision-making process consists of three major phases: long-term planning, current planning, and implementation phases. e role played by FELU planning activities are described thoroughly in Chapter 7. See a schematic in Figure 7. 4.2.1 Land-Use Decision-Making e decision-making process within the institution is driven by two independent but appointed groups: the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. e planning process is designed to be non-partisan. Instead of dominating the various boards and commissions with elected ocials, the early state enabling frameworks mandated the appointment of its members. However, in practice, many appointees are other elected and partisan ocials. In many communi- ties, this arrangement is not by design but rather determined by who is available to serve in these capacities. e formal separation of the planning function from elected boards is important in main- taining the impartiality of decisions that could dramatically impact property owners (Salkin 2009). 4.2.2 State-by-State Differences Today’s land-use decision-making process is based on guidance developed by the U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce in the 1920s. e Department’s Standard State Zoning Enabling Act (1924) and Standard City Planning Enabling Action (1928) provided a framework for states to develop enabling legislation which provided local governments with land-use authority. While these Acts provided a boilerplate for states, the resulting enabling codes vary signicantly from state to state. Similarly, each state’s judicial system has interpreted state law and individual court cases over the years, and these precedents can impact the nuances of how tools can be applied state to state. 4.2.3 Local Authority: Effects of Home and Dillon’s Rule While land-use control is a local function, the ability of local governments to employ new techniques is oen impacted by the level of authority granted to municipalities by their respec- tive state. States can be classied into Dillon’s Rule (narrow local authority) or Home Rule (broad local authority) states. Figure 7. Typical decision-making framework. Implementation Phase Staff Approvals Board of Zoning Appeals State Court System Current Planning Phase Zoning Ordinance Subdivsion/Design Control Ordiance Long-Term Planning Phase Comprehensive Plan Master Plan

26 Planning Freight-Efficient Land Uses: Methodology, Strategies, and Tools Dillon’s Rule originated in an 1896 Iowa court case that held that local governments could only engage in activities that were specifically granted to them by the state. After a series of appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rule in 1907 and 1923. According to the National League of Cities, Dillon’s Rule has become a cornerstone of municipal law. While each state may grant dif- ferent levels of authority to local governments, Dillon’s Rule has generally been interpreted strictly in that powers not expressly granted by the state are reserved for the state (National League of Cities 2020). In reaction to the widespread application of Dillon’s Rule statues, many states began to pass what became known as Home Rule statutes that gave significant power—albeit only in certain areas—to local governments to oversee their own affairs. 4.2.4 Rightsizing Solutions Outside of policy constraints, planners must consider the timing and other political or context- specific considerations of selecting various FELU tools. For example, while a zoning code overhaul might be philosophically the most effective way to improve FELUs, the process to do so could take years and significant political capital. However, implementing an overlay to solve localized freight issues might be a short-term solution. 4.3 Paradox The transportation planning profession has largely integrated freight stakeholders (shippers, carriers, receivers, and their representative associations) into its process—most notably, the FAST Act advocated state freight advisory committees. However, transportation is only half of the equation to create FELU decisions. As freight transportation planning matured, the other half of the puzzle, land-use planning, was largely left out of the conversation. The inclusion of freight stakeholders in the land-use and transportation planning process(es) will be key to creating FELU decisions. A great deal of freight movement is driven by the location of freight shippers, distribution points, and receivers. With the rise of e-commerce, the receiver is often a residential building. Managing where freight has to be can decrease externalities on the public and supply chains. Recently, there have been efforts to bring the land-use planning community to freight transpor- tation planning discussions to identify ways to sit at the table and be part of the established groups and processes. Initiatives like the APA Freight Policy Guide (American Planning Association 2016), the freight focused design guides published by the Florida DOT (2015), and Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency (2019) were developed to begin this integration, and advance the understanding that transportation and land-use decision-making are different but equally important sides of the equation to solve freight-related challenges. However, that conversation is still taking place within the larger professional planning com- munity. Many conversations are missing several key stakeholders, including urban designers; public works; architects; building owners and operators; parking administrators; personal and freight mobility as a service providers; and the general public. Each of these stakeholders will be key to the success of FELU initiatives. Despite these challenges and disconnects, there are proven solutions that practitioners can use to help bridge the gap by integrating stakeholders into their planning process. Like any new stake- holder involvement process, it is important to build trust between stakeholders who may not have worked together previously. For example, a community could create a FELU committee to begin the process of exchanging information, and building trust and committee capacity. Subsequent tasks might be to form a formal public-private collaboration, or Business Improvement District (BID) to approach a larger FELU challenge in their community. These initiatives are discussed in Chapter 7.