Policy Guide on Surface TransportationAdopted by National Delegate Assembly, April 10, 2010 IntroductionThe United States is truly at a transportation crossroads. We have operated from a perspective that largely dates to the 1950s to build, maintain, and operate the nation's transportation infrastructure. With major energy, environmental, social, and economic challenges occurring as the current federal transportation law is scheduled for authorization, now is the time for substantive change in our approach to delivering transportation projects and services that will position America for prosperity for the next 50 to 100 years. There are seven foundational pillars to APA's position on transportation policy as we approach authorization of a new federal transportation bill. These pillars emanate from APA's core values and our role in the planning profession to think comprehensively and to understand and integrate various perspectives to create communities of lasting value. While this document speaks to the federal transportation authorization, it is also intended to provide guidance in the state and local arena for planners and their communities seeking to address transportation issues at the statewide, regional, and corridor levels. The following pillars guide the transportation policy positions outlined in this document: I. National Transportation Vision Transportation needs a national vision to guide Congress, states, metropolitan planning organizations, and others in developing, implementing, and operating "next generation" transport networks, just as it had during the development of the Interstate System. A unified vision is essential to maximize economic growth and reduce wasteful internal competition for scarce resources and funding. A unified vision will support:
II. Empower and Improve the Mobility of Metropolitan Regions Transportation decision making requires leadership that delivers actions in the form of projects, programs, and services. This leadership is especially needed at the metropolitan regional level, where many distinct voices compete to define and advance priorities, and where transportation and the environment frame settlement patterns, economic opportunity, and social interaction. With three-fourths of our nation's population living in urban areas, the metropolitan regions have increasingly become the country's economic engine. Getting it right at the metropolitan and regional level means empowered leadership, governance authority, and funding flexibility to meet their multimodal transportation needs. III. Support Integrated Planning for Sustainable Communities For too long our transportation plans, land use plans, economic development plans, and other community planning activities have occurred in a linear, functional manner that creates silos based on professional disciplines and areas of specialty. This process typically builds upon fixed assumptions that drive decision making when in reality there is a symbiotic and interactive relationship between land use and transportation decisions. We must align federal, state, regional, and local plans to solidify the integration of comprehensive plans and transportation plans in order to anticipate and plan for change. Results of successfully integrating transportation planning will be enhanced air and water quality, reduced climate impacts and the region's carbon footprint, and protected high priority natural resources rather than just mitigation of the impacts upon the environment of transportation system investments. Long Range Transportation Plans, when properly integrated with community-based comprehensive plans, can provide the framework for urban and regional sustainability through wise, resource-efficient investments and short-term strategies. IV. Invest in Transportation that Promotes Economic Growth, Competitiveness, and Resilience With the 50-year era of the Interstate Highway System coming to a close, our nation needs a bold new transportation vision for economic competitiveness. Maintaining our infrastructure of highways, bridges, and rail lines is critical to our economic success. Reliable and timely access to employment centers, educational opportunities, services, and other basic needs by workers as well as expanded business access to markets improves economic competitiveness. We also need to expand our transportation networks in ways that offer competitive travel choices for people and goods, promote clean energy, create better balance and connectivity among modes in urban and rural areas, enhance affordability, and enable us to respond quickly to disasters and emergencies. Finally, transportation projects themselves can create jobs in planning, engineering, and construction that will help in economic recovery. V. Foster Location-Efficient Decisions For a majority of Americans, transportation and housing costs combine to exceed 50 percent of household expenses. We need to create new models of housing and transportation that increase affordability through an emphasis on livability, choice, and access to economic opportunity. It is imperative to create cost structures based on location efficiencies that enable people and goods to reach their destinations at less expense and with reduced dependence on declining natural resources. More specifically, movement of people and goods in an efficient manner should focus on minimizing person delay across modes rather than exclusively on minimizing vehicle delay. VI. Create Safe, Healthy, and Accessible Communities for Everyone Our transportation networks must serve all users equitably, whether they walk, ride a bicycle, take transit, or use an automobile. Investment benefits and burdens should be shared equitably among all population groups within communities. We should take advantage of opportunities created to employ economically disadvantaged persons in the development of the transportation system. As our population ages, it is imperative that we focus attention on ensuring adequate personal mobility for daily needs and social interaction. We can reduce negative impacts to public health by improving roadway user safety, improving air quality, promoting physical activity and fitness, increasing community cohesion, improving access to medical services, and increasing transportation affordability. We need to expand transportation options that promote healthy lifestyles and a safe environment. We must work toward the elimination of crashes, but where accidents and crashes do occur, we can reduce their severity. Our vital infrastructure — from ports to inter-modal terminals — needs to be secure against natural and man-made threats. VII. Expand Funding Sources to Meet Transportation Needs in Ways that Are Flexible, Performance-Driven, and Linked to Outcomes With a declining gas tax revenue source comprising the majority of federal and state transportation funding, we need to move away from single-mode funding streams and toward funding strategies that reward integrated planning, provide flexible funding to leverage greater transportation choices, and balance user fees across all system users based on the goal of balancing transportation demand across modes. Affordable transportation investments need to consider the initial investment to plan, design, and construct; the life-cycle costs to maintain and operate; and the economic benefits to the community. Enhancement, maintenance, and expansion of the existing system should support an efficient and well maintained overall transportation system. Our states, regions, and localities need a financial model that enables mode-neutral, locally defined transportation investments within a system of accountability that is tied to outcomes defined through an integrated planning process. The guide is organized around these foundational pillars and reflect these guiding principles. FindingsOver the last decade, many have come to the conclusion that our transportation system is both broke and broken. At the statewide, metropolitan and rural levels, there is mounting frustration over the inability to deliver transportation projects and programs to keep pace with needs. Funding backlogs persist for years, resulting in a lack of funding certainty and lengthy delays to improve mobility and access, which are critical to achieving economic and social vitality. The convoluted and protracted process of moving projects through the federal funding pipeline contributes to the proliferation of congressional earmarks, which can thwart carefully considered statewide, regional, and local priorities. Key Issues: Funding Excellent transportation is an economic game-changer. However, funding streams have not kept pace with mounting needs and changing national priorities. Over-reliance on the stagnant gas tax and a formula-driven approach to funding that rewards states for miles driven runs counter to the broader goals for transportation, location efficiency, clean energy, and sustainable economic growth. Single-mode funding streams reduce flexibility in meeting the needs of states, metro areas, and rural communities, and the inequity in funding approaches between highways and transit display an ingrained institutional bias that favors solutions that are often inconsistent with community plans and aspirations. We need to broaden the capital and operating funding base for transportation. Federal policy should encourage and support innovative solutions for new sources for state and local matching funds, build on regional partnerships, diversify revenues, and require user fees between auto access and transit access that are applied equitably between auto and transit modes, and are maintained at levels that account for inflation over time. Comprehensive Planning It has long been recognized that long-range transportation planning can be most effective when it is linked to long-range comprehensive planning. At the local level, city and county general plans look at the connections among land use, transportation, other public facilities, the natural environment, the economy, and social equity. At the regional scale, comprehensive planning or "regional blueprint planning" has evolved more recently as an effective means of looking at regions in a comprehensive manner. In California, funding for regional blueprint planning programs has been provided to metropolitan planning organizations by the state department of transportation, which recognized the importance of developing long-range regional transportation plans in the context of land use, environmental, economic, and social factors. Regional blueprint planning moves development in a more sustainable direction by examining scenarios and outcomes. Its collaborative governance approach helps integrate state, regional, and local priorities and needs in a context of much conflict between "no-growth" and "pro-growth" forces and attitudes. Its frame links local choices to wider — even global — consequences. And it focuses attention on achieving the three E's (environment, economy, and social equity) simultaneously. Structural Requirements for Effective Transportation Planning The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) is divided into modal stovepipe administrations (i.e., Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Aviation Administration). That division more easily leads to competition rather than cooperation and a focus on narrower project and programmatic outcomes. This setup leads to mode-centric solutions rather than corridor-wide approaches to mobility across modes. In our metropolitan regions, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are the nucleus of regional transportation partnerships. Across the nation, we have wide variability in how MPOs are organized. Some are councils of governments with broad agency powers. Others are planning commissions. Some are little more than city or county departments of transportation, while others are independent MPOs. The designation agreements establishing the MPOs often haven't been read, let alone updated, for decades. Like any partnership, the foundational documents must be reviewed to make sure the partnership is functioning properly. With some exceptions, MPOs are almost exclusively planning and programming entities. It is up to other organizations like cities, counties, transit agencies, and state DOTs to implement the plans MPOs produce. This creates challenges that are not always met. Financial incentives, governance mechanisms, and policy tools need to be developed to strengthen these planning and implementation partnerships. MPOs, state DOTs, and transit agencies typically have no land use powers. Most land use planning and development regulation occurs at the local level and is carefully guarded. Transportation planning most often occurs at the regional and statewide level. This is not a financial issue. Money does not solve the disconnect that can occur as a result of these structural fissures. Ultimately, people solve problems through partnerships, meaningful public participation, and sustaining agreements that reflect the longer view and meet the goals of both the region and the locality. Environmental/Climate Change Since the beginning of the modern environmental movement in the early 1970s, it has been recognized that transportation plans and projects can have significant negative impacts on the natural environment. Impacts on air quality, water quality, and sensitive habitats have been identified, and federal and state environmental laws require that such impacts be evaluated and mitigated whenever possible. More recently, it has been recognized that the transportation sector is responsible for one-third of overall greenhouse gas emissions, and if current trends continue, those emissions are projected to increase rapidly. The transportation sector's emissions are a function of vehicle efficiency, fuel content, and vehicle use. It is important to develop integrated land use and transportation planning strategies to reduce and shift travel demand to modes that have the lowest carbon output and reduce vehicle miles of travel (VMT). Social Issues: Social Justice, Environmental Justice, and Public Health Social justice and environmental justice have become increasingly important considerations in transportation planning and comprehensive planning. "Social justice" can be defined as fairness in the distribution of goods, services, rights, and opportunities. "Environmental justice" can be defined as fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Federal and state laws enacted since the 1990s require planners to give careful consideration to equitable distribution of impacts and benefits in transportation planning and program implementation. In addition, there has been greater attention paid in recent years to the relationship between the built environment, including transportation systems and public health. There is increasing evidence that improvements in accessibility can be tied directly to improvements in community health. Behavioral changes caused by accessibility improvements can contribute to achieving sustainable activity patterns by, for instance, improving air quality and encouraging individual physical activity from walking and bicycling. Holistic strategies to community transportation planning can make significant contributions to lower health care costs and higher economic output. Funding strategies that reduce the cost of sustainable modes tie together the goals of social and environmental justice. Economic Development Historically, economic development in transportation has meant providing good highway access and facilitating the optimum movement of people and goods. While access remains the principal objective of transportation, in the 21st century economic development also means providing access to jobs and using transportation to promote a clean energy economy. The goal of economic development remains to create and sustain jobs. Transportation should also be used to create places that attract and retain not only workers, but people who want to live, work, shop, and play in proximity to their other needs and destinations. Transportation mobility is a critical element to maximize the flow of dollars through the economy when supply and demand meet. It is directly attributable to goods being on the shelf, people being able to get to the markets to purchase goods on the shelves, and the goods themselves being able to reach the market on time and cost efficiently. Increasingly, however, we need to think of access in terms of good transit service to connect our regions, downtowns, major activity centers, and the people who will work there; and direct, safe, and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle facilities to help people of all ages and abilities acquire the knowledge and income they need to be productive members of society. This gives people an opportunity to spend their income on more than transportation and housing. Thus, economic development depends on a variety of modes to meet a wide range of demand to support an environmentally sustainable economy. Safety and Security Safety and security in transportation planning involves several elements:
Measuring Performance Transportation needs to be driven by outcomes. This is the essence of blueprint or scenario planning, in which desired end goals drive land use and transportation planning and decision-making. There is an old saying that you fund what you measure. Conventional indicators of transportation performance focus on speed (roadway level of service or travel time, duration of congestion, etc.), and this results in an emphasis on highway capacity improvements at the expense of other modes. Transportation planning and development agencies need shared measures of performance that focus on multimodal transportation at the regional, county, city, and corridor scales ), as well as the contextual impacts of potential investment decisions on the environment, historic and natural resources, land use and energy sustainability. Ultimately, transportation performance and outcomes must be sensitive to the interrelationships among these multimodal transportation and contextual factors. Policy RecommendationsThe following recommendations are organized by the foundational pillars that have guided APA's position: a national transportation vision, empowering and improving metropolitan mobility; integrated planning for sustainable communities; investments that promote economic growth and competitiveness, location efficiency, safety, and accessibility for all users; and flexible, performance-driven funding options. I. Empower and Improve the Mobility of Metropolitan Regions General Policy #1The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support establishment of national vision, goals, and performance measures to guide planning and implementation of the integrated intermodal transportation system of the future. Reasons to support Specific Policy #1.1: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support integration of planning for transportation with planning for land use, economic development, and the environment. Reasons to support Specific Policy #1.2: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support a single system of integrated performance measures. Reasons to support: A unified system of performance measures that balances mobility and access, considers transportation in its context as a community and economic support system, and engages all community types will offer a common benchmark for the full range of transportation planning activities, implementation programs, and operational outcomes. Specific Policy #1.3: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support better consideration of long-term trends, such as sea level rise. Reasons to support Specific Policy #1.4: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support balance between mobility and access. Reasons to support Specific Policy #1.5: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support balance between movement of people and movement of goods. Reasons to support Specific Policy #1.6: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support integration of multiple transport modes. Reasons to support Specific Policy #1.7: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support development and integration of new technologies. Reasons to support Specific Policy #1.8: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support establishment of equitable, sustainable, and flexible funding streams for both capital and operations. Reasons to support II. Empower and Improve the Mobility of Metropolitan Regions General Policy #2The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support a greater focus on transportation policy and funding authority within the country's metropolitan regions to strengthen urban centers, improve multimodal connectivity within and between metropolitan regions, and to reinforce the metropolitan planning process for transportation decision making. Reasons to support Specific Policy #2.1: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support a vertically and horizontally aligned transportation planning governance structure that is built on the foundation of regional framework plans to provide vision, leadership, and policy direction for federal, state, and local funding and project development strategies across the spectrum from rural to suburban and urban landscapes within those regions. Reasons to support Specific Policy #2.2: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support a hierarchy of metropolitan mobility that begins with an emphasis on pedestrians (including elderly, young, and disabled pedestrians) as the foundational element of mobility and access. Reasons to support Specific Policy #2.3:The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support bicycling as a viable transportation mode that includes development of connected on-road and off-road facilities designed to accommodate all types of users, as well as program elements that promote bicycle safety, encourage people of all ages to ride, provide education for better awareness, foster partnerships with law enforcement, and evaluate implementation efforts. Reasons to support Specific Policy #2.4: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support an increased emphasis on public transportation, including buses, passenger rail, and other modes as a principal way to meet the mobility and access needs of our metropolitan regions. Reasons to support Specific Policy #2.5: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support the creation of a preliminary consultation process in the federal transit planning process that gives local and regional planning agencies a greater level of guidance and assurance to plan for a preferred transit alignment and technology, along with a land use strategy to create transit corridors with transit oriented development. Reasons to support Specific Policy #2.6: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support a revision of federal transit funding policy to give at least equal weight to land use in the selection of a preferred transit alignment as well as measures of cost efficiency and effectiveness. Reasons to support Specific Policy # 2.7: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support planning for high-speed and intercity passenger rail networks and intermodal passenger facilities that can help to meet a significant portion of the travel demand currently being met through short-haul commercial aviation to connect communities across the country. Reasons to support Specific Policy #2.8: As part of their support for high-speed and intercity passenger rail networks, American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners further endorse context sensitive planning balancing the needs of rail alignments, improvements, and station placement and design within communities. Specific Policy #2.9: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support enhanced clean waterborne transportation and associated intermodal transportation for both movement of goods and people as a key element of economic vitality in our metropolitan regions. Reasons to support Specific Policy #2.10: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support the use of highways as a component of overall multimodal transportation plans where necessary to meet specific mobility objectives that cannot be met effectively through other modes. New highway facilities should be designed to accommodate multimodal use (e.g. use of corridors for Bus Rapid Transit service), and should be compatible with transportation systems management strategies (e.g., high-occupancy toll facilities). They shall also accommodate the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, and wildlife habitats not only along the highway but convenient to intuitive crossing points. Reasons to support Specific Policy #2.11: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support parking policy to maximize efficiency of this high value resource within both the public realm (on-street) and on private property (off-street). The goal should be to provide the least amount of parking necessary to meet a community's overall goals. Communities should manage the parking supply to maximize utilization in commercial areas, minimize the impacts on residential areas, and enhance user convenience while employing equitable, fiscally sound, and environmentally sustainable practices. In order to allocate the scarce parking resource (and the most valuable, on-street parking resource), communities should allow the market to dictate the value of the space. Meter rates should be set at the lowest price necessary to achieve 85 percent occupancy — the rate that represents the best balance between making it easy to find a space while maximizing utilization. This will require differential rates by location, with higher rates in the most dense commercial cores, and time of day. Reasons to support Specific Policy #2.12: For off-street parking, the American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners recommend that municipalities establish parking standards tailored to meet their unique community goals based on the study of local conditions. In transit supportive environments, maximum parking requirements instead of minimum parking requirements shall be encouraged. The cost of parking should be separated from the cost of real estate lease or purchase. The goal should be to provide the least amount of parking necessary to meet a community's overall goals. Reasons to support This inefficient economic pattern contradicts several of APA's policies, especially guidance of balancing use of the transportation system and the prioritization of users paying for a service that benefits them directly. APA's policy should be to eliminate all minimum parking requirements, and recommend that municipalities establish parking standards that meet their unique community goals. In addition, the cost of parking should be separated from the cost of real estate lease or purchase. As stated in APA's Housing Policy (2006), Specific Policy Position #5C, "Where applicable, planners should seek to unbundle the cost of parking from basic housing costs." Specific Policy #2.13: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support the establishment of Transportation Demand Management (TDM), including but not limited to such programs as ridesharing coordination through social networking, vehicle and bicycle sharing programs, and safe routes to school as an overarching guideline to transportation planning, to nurture sustainable communities that embrace all modes of the transportation realm. Reasons to support Specific Policy #2.14: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support the use of Transportation Systems Management (TSM) to improve the efficiency and safety of transportation operations within multimodal networks, intermodal facilities, and services that can provide interchangeable service configurations as necessary and appropriate. Reasons to support Specific Policy #2.15: APA also supports planning for and provision of effective transportation in the nation's non-metropolitan areas, and support rural planning organizations as part of a coordinated transportation planning and decision-making framework that promotes flexibility and equality by focusing on farm-to-market access and other connectivity options without promoting sprawl into exurban and rural areas. III. Support Integrated Planning for Sustainable Communities General Policy #3The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support an integrated, multimodal approach to transportation planning that links land use and transportation decision making to create sustainable communities of lasting value. Reasons for support Specific Policy #3.1: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support the development of long-range transportation plans that incorporate a variety of transportation modes, and include intermodal systems components, along with systems management and demand management strategies. These plans should be linked to a national vision for transportation that leads to a national network of intercity passenger rail, of goods movement, metropolitan mobility networks, and linkages between rural areas and economic centers that will carry this country forward in the next 50 years. Reasons to support Specific Policy #3.2: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support policy approaches that integrate transportation policy goals with broader sustainability goals. Reasons to support Specific Policy #3.3: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support transportation plans and strategies that lead to protection and enhancement of the natural environment and socio-cultural resources. Reasons to support Specific Policy #3.4:The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support transportation planning that can achieve significant reductions in GHG emissions and improvements to air quality Reasons to support Specific Policy #3.5: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support transportation planning that addresses and minimizes the potential adverse impacts of transportation facilities and associated urban development on water quality. Reasons to support Specific Policy #3.6: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support transportation planning that addresses and minimizes the potential adverse impacts of transportation facilities and associated urban development on natural habitats. Reasons to support Specific Policy #3.7: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support the development of "regional blueprint plans" (also known as "regional framework plans" or "regional comprehensive plans") that look at the integration of land use, transportation,and other public facilities at a regional scale, leading to sustainable development that addresses environmental quality, economic health, and social equity. Reasons to support General Policy #4The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support wise investments in transportation infrastructure and services necessary to expand sustainable economic opportunity through land use planning and design that supports such investments to improve national and regional economic competitiveness in the global economy and fosters greater economic resilience. Reasons to support Specific Policy #4.1: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support development of statewide transportation plans and cooperative multistate plans that identify and support the interconnectivity of economic regions and provide policy guidance and investment support to develop transportation networks that support and strengthen those regions. Reasons to support Specific Policy #4.2: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support the inclusion of commercial ports, marine/intermodal terminals, marine highways (short sea shipping), and rail freight corridors in transportation planning to enhance economic competitiveness, alleviate traffic congestion, mitigate emissions per ton-mile, and improve highway safety in and between major metropolitan areas. Reasons to support Specific Policy #4.3: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support the development of intercity high speed rail corridors and the integration of new technologies of air and rail as a cornerstone of a 21st century clean energy economy in the United States. Reasons to support Specific Policy #4.4: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support economic growth and opportunity through the creation of great communities and livable places that offer a variety of transportation options and accessible destinations. Reasons to support V. Foster Location-Efficient Decisions General Policy #5The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support policies at the federal, state, and local levels that encourage the efficient location and co-location of transportation, housing, jobs, and community facilities to reduce public and individual household costs, limit greenhouse gas emissions, and foster social equity. Reasons to support Specific Policy #5.1:The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support prioritizing investments in the maintenance of critical transportation infrastructure to connect existing communities. Reasons to support Specific Policy #5.2:The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support co-location of public schools and other community facilities with locations in areas that are close to where people live who will use those facilities, and where modal options exist to serve the facilities by means other than the automobile. Reasons to support VI. Create Safe, Healthy, and Accessible Communities for Everyone General Policy #6The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support transportation policies and investments that create safe, healthy, and accessible communities. Reasons to support Specific Policy #6.1: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support a policy of Complete Corridors, ensuring that transportation corridors can accommodate all modes for people of all ages and abilities to provide access to destinations along the corridor. Reasons to support Specific Policy #6.2: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support modes of Active Transportation as high priority investments to connect people with their destinations, recreational opportunities and other modes. Reasons to support Specific Policy #6.3: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support the development, implementation and evaluation of transportation plans that foster the equitable distribution of benefits and avoid the disproportionate burden of negative impacts. Reasons to support: Specific Policy #6.4: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support comprehensive Safe Routes to Schools Programs that involve school districts, teachers, parents, staff, students, law enforcement, and implementing agencies in the development of facilities, programs, and policies that support walking and bicycling to school. Reasons to support Specific Policy #6.5: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support transportation plans and programs that enable people to age with dignity and purpose and that enable disabled persons to participate fully by having transportation options that connect them to their destinations. For instance, housing and transportation options need to be linked to enable all persons to access community services and amenities. Reasons to support Specific Policy #6.6: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support meaningful and substantive public participation in the development of transportation plans and programs by engaging stakeholders, including the general public, interest groups, transportation providers, implementing agencies, and advocates early and throughout the planning process, and taking their input into consideration. APA believes effective public involvement is both necessary and essential in the creation of great plans and great places. Reasons to support VII. Expand Funding Sources to Meet Transportation Needs in Ways that Are Flexible, Performance-Driven, and Linked to Outcomes General Policy #7The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support a shift in transportation financing methods that provide the ability to better achieve our transportation needs by linking funding to performance benchmarks and clearly defined outcomes that reflect state, regional, and local flexibility. Reasons to support Specific Policy #7.1: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support an expansion of transportation funding methods, including innovative approaches that move away from single-mode funding streams, with declining reliance on the gas tax over time. Reasons to support Specific Policy #7.2: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support the continued structure of proportional partnerships that requires state and local cash or in kind matches for federal transportation funding investments. Reasons to support Specific Policy #7.3: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support a system of flexible transportation funding and accountability that links long range transportation plans, "regional blueprint plans," and comprehensive plans with benchmarks and outcomes. Planners support the use of transportation block grants, greater sub-allocation funding authority for metropolitan planning organizations, and other flexible funding methods to create incentives for comprehensive, community-based transportation plans. Reasons to support Specific Policy #7.4: The American Planning Association, its Chapters and Divisions, and planners support the following structural changes in the federal transportation planning process:
Reasons to support | ||