Foundational Factors and Policy Levers

Land Use

By long-standing tradition, regulation of development patterns in the United States is delegated to local governments, although ultimate authority rests with state governments. The current use of land (e.g., for agriculture, low-density residential neighborhoods, or high-rise apartment buildings) refers to how land development patterns emerged over time, as well as local government plans and policies for future land development, especially zoning and other regulation of the density of development. Cities, urban counties, and urbanized areas generally have specific policies and plans for future population and economic growth and development. They also have regulations designed to separate incompatible land uses through Euclidian zoning, or the strict separation of areas zoned for commercial, industrial, and residential use. Rural and unincorporated areas, by contrast, may only have zoning regulations, or no regulations at all. For example, to meet the burgeoning demand for e-commerce in major population centers, warehouses are being added around urban areas on land that has limited zoning regulations, sometimes to the consternation of residents unexpectedly living next to them.¹⁶⁰

For metropolitan areas, fragmentation of land use control across multiple local governments often leads to commuting sheds and travel patterns that encompass many jurisdictions.¹⁶¹ However, state, center city, and urban county transportation agencies typically have little or no direct influence on the land use plans and zoning policies for most of the jurisdictions within their respective metropolitan areas. Most metropolitan areas have metropolitan planning organizations, but these typically focus only on transportation and have no direct control over development patterns, even though many develop long-range plans reflecting regional land use and transportation goals. The typical metropolitan area growth pattern has been one of low-density housing and commercial development on the urbanized periphery.¹⁶² This has led to an ever-increasing reliance on the automobile and road transportation system and ever-increasing distances between origins and destinations.

Zoning practices have also contributed to the high cost of housing in growing metropolitan areas, particularly along the East and West Coasts, where residents of neighborhoods in desirable, low-density areas strongly resist efforts to increase the density of housing development.¹⁶³ In addition, zoning large tracts of land for suburban single-family housing drives up housing prices and excludes groups with lower incomes than the residents already in place.¹⁶⁴ Exclusionary zoning practices, such as large lot sizes, increase travel distances, as does Euclidian zoning that separates residences from commerce

and employment.¹⁶⁵ Such policies push affordable housing development to the periphery of urbanized areas, which locks in auto-dependency. As jobs and residences disperse across metropolitan areas, it creates the “many origins, many destinations” problem that transit cannot solve cost-effectively. In most metropolitan areas, transit cost-effectiveness is limited to a few corridors where destinations are shared by many travelers.

Most states, but not all, have traditionally deferred to local governments on land use regulation. Oregon is the most prominent example of a state exerting control over development; it has long exercised more influence over land use than other states.¹⁶⁶ After decades of planning, land use regulation, and investment in transit and bikeways, the Portland urbanized area has roughly 27 percent lower per capita automobile travel than the national average for urbanized areas.¹⁶⁷ More recently, Oregon in 2019¹⁶⁸ and California in 2021¹⁶⁹ passed state laws overriding local zoning restrictions to allow conversion of existing single-family lots to lots for up to four housing units. California subsequently enacted many new and modified laws to streamline permitting, increase development density, remove maximum parking mandates, and take other measures that could have a significant impact on motor vehicle travel.¹⁷⁰

Given the durability of housing stock, development patterns, and transportation infrastructure, as well as fragmented governance, it is difficult to shift residents of metro areas away from automobile dependence. Even so, areas such as Portland, Oregon; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Arlington County, Virginia, have made considerable strides. Arlington’s political consensus on smart growth and deliberate planning and investments has resulted in its residents driving solo far less (35 percent of trips versus 60 percent), walking far more (22 percent of trips versus 8 percent), and using rail transit far more (8 percent of trips versus 3 percent) than the rest of the greater Washington, DC, region.¹⁷¹ The Salt Lake City region has responded to unprecedented population growth through a coordinated and deliberate process to integrate transportation and land use involving its cities, regional planning agency, state department of transportation, and state transit authority. However, most other metropolitan areas, especially those in fast-growing regions of the Sunbelt, are heavily focused on low-density housing and commercial development, which results in ever-expanding geographies, segregation by race and income, and increased demand for roads and highways.

Many barriers currently prevent improved coordination among land use regulation, transportation policies, and infrastructure investment decisions, which leads to missed opportunities and suboptimal outcomes for society. Documenting best practices and why they have worked will help other communities struggling to overcome these barriers.