|
i · I I
<br />
<br />DECEMBER 1998
<br />
<br />AMERICAN
<br />PLANNING
<br />ASSOCIATION
<br />
<br /> The Evolution of
<br /> Corridor Planning
<br /> By Pamela ?reese
<br />
<br /> Corridoi planning is a familiar tool for transportation
<br /> infrastructure planning. The concept has also successfully
<br /> been redefined as a comprehensive tool for a range of planning
<br /> applications, including economic development, environment,
<br /> and historic or heritage-related efforts. As the applications
<br /> continue to diversify and the land-use implications increase, it is
<br /> important for planners and zoning professionals to be familiar
<br /> with corridor planning as an effective planning tool.
<br />
<br /> Corridor PlunnGng Busics
<br /> All corridor planning processes share four general
<br /> characteristics: clearly delineated spatial boundaries,
<br /> stakeholder participation, a need for authorizing legislation
<br /> and intergovernmental agreements, and a comprehensive
<br /> planning process. These characteristics interact differently
<br /> based on the scope and objectives of each individual corridor
<br /> planning application.
<br /> SpatlalBoundaries. Corridor planning efforts have a linear
<br /> designation, either connecting two points o~ preserving a large
<br /> area to maintain unrestrained movement or development within
<br /> specified boundaries. For example, the Heritage Corridor
<br /> Planning Council was established in Illinois to consider a
<br /> highway corridor connecting interstates 55 and 80.
<br /> Alternatively, river corridors often prioritize preservation of the
<br /> aesthetic and ecologica] elements of waterways, in addition to
<br /> maintaining healthy waterway linkages.
<br /> Stakeholder Participation. Regardless of whether a corridor
<br /> crosses jurisdictional boundaries, a wide array of stakeholders is
<br /> often involved, including planners, mayors, developers,
<br /> environmentalists, property owners, and forest preserve districts.
<br /> Section 1 of the Indiana Code mandates the creation ora
<br /> corridor planning board to ensure broad-based representation of
<br /> the parties. The board must consist ora commissioner, director,
<br /> representatives from the agricultural and railroad industries,
<br /> local government representatives, and two other individuals, one
<br /> of whom must own corridor property. All parties are appointed
<br /> by the governor, and not more than five members of the board
<br /> may belong to the same political party. Public participation
<br /> requirements also attract developers, taxpayers,
<br /> environmentalists, and other interested stakeholders.
<br /> Authorizing Zegfslatlon. State legislation can authorize
<br /> zoning controls helpful in corridor preservation, such as overlay
<br /> zones, planned unit developments, site plan review, and interim
<br /> uses employed primarily for transportation corridors. Other
<br /> planning and zoning tools include discretionary review power,
<br /> land-use intensity review, comprehensive plan review, density
<br /> transfers, and development agreements.
<br /> Authorizing legislation can also establish a corridor, such as
<br /> the Mississippi River National Heritage Corridor, created in
<br />fgnition of the unique and nationally significant resources
<br />
<br />associated with the Mississippi River. The corridor's planning
<br />commission calls for the boundaries to coincide xvith existing
<br />political and administrative boundaries, and that they include
<br />the regions of concern or intere};t to the organizations and
<br />individuals involved in the Mississippi River. The
<br />recommendation welcomes 'stakeholder involvement and strives
<br />to limit intergovernmental disputes.
<br /> Planning Process. Corridor planning traditionally includes
<br />identifying the proposed corridor, securing necessary
<br />authorizing legislation and intergovernmental agreements,
<br />seeking public input, refining corridor goals, identifying
<br />funding, and implementation.
<br />
<br />The Virginia Department of Transportation completed a
<br />major investment study (MIS) to evaluate the need for,
<br />and the effects of, transportation improvement options in
<br />the western Washington, D. C, mewopolitan area.
<br />
<br /> The planning process is perhaps,%ost clearly defined tn the
<br />Transportation EquityAct for the 2-:Ist Century (TEA-21) as it
<br />applies to transportation planning. TEA-21 calls for all
<br />transportation planning efforts requiring federal funding to
<br />undergo a Major Investment Study (MIS). The MIS requires
<br />that the project area be well-defined, that the planning process
<br />consider all feasible alternatives, and ample opportunities for
<br />input be allowed for by all interested parties, including the
<br />public. Only when the process has met the designated planning
<br />requirements for scope, participation, and evaluation, will
<br />funding be approved for the "preferred alternative."
<br />
<br />
<br />
|