PAS REPORT 586  EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING |  Piro, Leiter, and Rooney        

American Planning Association

205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200
Chicago, IL 60601-5927

planning.org

p a s r e p o r t 586

EMERGING TRENDS
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
IN REGIONAL
PLANNING
Rocky Piro, phd, faicp, and Robert Leiter, faicp, Editors, with Sharon Rooney, aicp

APA RESEARCH MISSION
APA conducts applied, policy-relevant re-
search that advances the state of the art in
planning practice. APA’s National Centers for
Planning—the Green Communities Center,
the Hazards Planning Center, and the Plan-
ning and Community Health Center—guide
and advance a research directive that ad-
dresses important societal issues. APA’s re-
search, education, and advocacy programs
help planners create communities of lasting
value by developing and disseminating infor-
mation, tools, and applications for built and
natural environments.
Since 1949, APA’s Planning Advisory Service has provided planners with
expert research, authoritative information on best practices and innovative
solutions, and practical tools to help them manage on-the-job challenges. APA
membership includes access to all PAS publications, including PAS Reports,
PAS Memo, and PAS QuickNotes. Learn more at www.planning.org/pas/.
James M. Drinan, jd, Chief Executive Officer; David Rouse, faicp, Director
of Research; Meghan Stromberg, Editor in Chief; Ann F. Dillemuth, aicp,
Editor.
PAS Reports are produced in the Research Department of APA.
For recipients of print editions of PAS Reports, replacements for miss-
ing and damaged print issues may be obtained by contacting Customer
Service, American Planning Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite
1200, Chicago, IL 60601 (312-431-9100 or customerservice@planning.org)
within 90 days of the publication date.
© January 2017 by the American Planning Association, 205 N. Michigan
Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601–5927. The American Planning
Association also has offices at 1030 15th St., NW, Suite 750 West,
Washington, DC 20005–1503.
ISBN: 978-1-61190-190-0
E-mail: pasreports@planning.org
ABOUT THE EDITORS
Rocky Piro, phd, faicp, is executive director of the Colorado Center
for Sustainable Urbanism and associate professor at the University of
Colorado Denver. He is past chair of the Regional and Intergovernmen-
tal Planning Division of the American Planning Association (APA) and
is on the board of directors of the International Urban Planning and En-
vironment Association. He served as manager of Denver’s Department
of Planning and Community Development, program manager in the
Growth Management Department of the Puget Sound Regional Coun-
cil, and chair of the Shoreline Planning Commission in Washington.
MEMBERSHIP
Robert A. Leiter, faicp, is a lecturer in the Urban Studies and Plan-
ning Program at the University of California San Diego. He previously
served as planning director in four California cities from 1978 to 2003.
From 2003 to 2009, he served as director of land use and transportation
planning for the San Diego Association of Governments, the regional
planning agency for San Diego County and its 18 cities. He has served on
the board of APA’s Regional and Intergovernmental Planning Division
for over ten years, including four years as board chair.
Now includes PAS publications!
The following individuals assisted with this report as contributors and
All APA members now get digital access to every new Planning
reviewers: Elisa Barbour, University of California Berkeley; Uri Avin,
faicp, University of Maryland; Ben Bakkenta, aicp, Puget Sound Re- Advisory Service publication—each one filled with expert guidance
gional Council; John Bridges, faicp, retired, San Diego; Brad Calvert, on big planning challenges, relevant research, and best practices.
Denver Regional Council of Governments; Camille Fink, phd, Ameri-
can Planning Association; Amy Goodwin, aicp, Atlanta Regional
Council; Jim Hassinger, Southwest Pennsylvania Commission; Juli Previously available only to subscribers, these authoritative resources
Beth Hinds, aicp, Orion Design and Planning; Ken Kirkey, Metropoli- are now included with APA membership.
tan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area); Robert Leit-
er, faicp, University of California San Diego; Carleton Montgomery,
Digital PAS publications include:
New Jersey Pinelands Alliance; Sandra Pinel, aicp, Antioch University
New England; Rocky Piro, phd, faicp, Colorado Center for Sustain- PAS Reports I PAS Memo I PAS QuickNotes
able Urbanism; Jennifer Raitt, Town of Arlington, Massachusetts; Dan PAS Essential Info Packets
Reuter, faicp, Atlanta Regional Council; David Rouse, faicp, Ameri-
can Planning Association; Sharon Rooney, aicp, Cape Cod Commis-
sion; Anais Schenk, Dudek and Associates; Lee Schoenecker, aicp, And, there’s more! Members also get unlimited access to the
retired, Washington, D.C.; Mark VanderSchaaf, Minneapolis–Saint entire PAS online archive. Hundreds of resources are available for
Paul Metropolitan Council; Karen Walz, faicp, Strategic Community
Solutions LLC; Karla Weaver, aicp, North Central Texas Council of
download—right now.
Governments; Karen Wolf, faicp, King County; and Mariia Zimmer-
man, MZ Strategies.
APA membership. Always good. Now even better.
ON THE COVER
Learn more at planning.org/pas
Boston sunrise (TCKPhotography/Thinkstock photo)
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  4

CHAPTER 1  INTRODUCTION TO CURRENT TRENDS   10

Where We Are Today: Six Key Trends  11
About This Report  16

CHAPTER 2  REGIONAL PLANNING IN THE UNITED STATES: AN OVERVIEW  18

What Is Regional Planning?  19
Regional Planning: A Brief History  19
An Evolution in the Making  20
Forms of Regionalism in the United States Today  21
Regional Planning: A Constellation of Approaches  21
Regional Planning as Sustainability Planning  24
New Tools and Techniques  25
Conclusion 26

CHAPTER 3  REGIONAL PLANNING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES   28

Regional Water Resource Planning  29
Regional Land Resource Planning  35
Conclusion 42

CHAPTER 4  REGIONAL PLANNING FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING   44

Regional Economic Development Planning  45
Regional Housing Planning  51
Conclusion 54

CHAPTER 5  REGIONAL PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   56

Regional Climate Change Planning  57
Regional Public Health Planning  61
Conclusion 63

CHAPTER 6  PROFILES IN REGIONAL INTEGRATED PLANNING   66

Why Regional Integrated Planning?  67
Regional Profiles of Integrated Planning  69
Conclusion 82

CHAPTER 7  TECHNIQUES FOR IMPLEMENTING REGIONAL PLANS   84

Funding for Regional Plan Implementation  85
Collaboration With Implementation Partners  88
Consistency Review   89
Technical Assistance 90
Performance Monitoring 90
Conclusion 91
CHAPTER 8  THE FUTURE OF REGIONAL PLANNING  92
An Action Agenda for Regional Sustainability Planning  93
Further Evolution of the Regional Planning Agenda  96
Future Work for Understanding and Advancing Regional Planning in the United States  98
The Future Is What We Make of It   99

APPENDIX  100

REFERENCES  101

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES  105

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  106
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Regional planning in the United States has undergone an evolution over the past several decades—and continues to evolve.
In the earlier decades of the twentieth century, regional planning approaches typically focused on single topical areas. In
many cases, the early regional plans only addressed transportation. In other cases, regional plans were developed around
other single issues, such as parks and open space, or regional economic development. However, beginning in the 1970s and
1980s, regional planning began to evolve into more multidimensional and comprehensive area-wide plans and long-range
strategies that integrated related topical areas such as land use, transportation, open space, and air quality. As we move fur-
ther into the twenty-first century, regional planning in the United States continues to transform itself. Regional planning
has further advanced integration of complex related issues, such as infrastructure, housing, economic development, and
environmental planning.

WHERE WE ARE TODAY: SIX KEY TRENDS
Many of the emerging trends in regional planning reflect a
shift toward a more integrated, or systems, approach, with a
growing focus on sustainability. The following six emerging
trends are highlighted in this report:
1. Regional planning for sustainability
2. Integrated regional planning across related issues
3. Inclusive engagement and expanded partnerships in re-
gional planning
4. New approaches for implementation
5. Changing demographics and changing regions
6. New tools and techniques for regional planning
REGIONAL PLANNING IN THE UNITED STATES:
AN OVERVIEW
Regional planning can be defined as collaborating to plan
for common issues within a common geographical area that
may be defined ecologically, politically, or economically. Ju-
risdictional boundaries may give definition to the region, but
in most instances in the United States, jurisdictional bound-
aries—including both county lines and city limits—do not
necessarily correspond with current understandings or defi-
nitions of regional issues.
Regional planning in the United States is in a period
of rapid change. As regional planning evolves, it is becom-
ing increasingly creative, collaborative, and integrated across
multiple functions, while engaging both public and private
actors. At the same time, it is addressing the broader aspects
of social, environmental, and economic sustainability. The
challenges, and opportunities, of planning on a regional scale
show that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Rather, there
are many different forms and variations on how regions—
large and small, urban and rural—find ways to work together
on common issues that transcend borders.
The first half of the twentieth century witnessed a burst
of regional activity as cities grew, suburbs developed, and
governments realized that many issues required action be-
yond a single jurisdiction. Regional entities were typically
established to coordinate planning across jurisdictions in
order to ensure the efficient use of public funds, manage in-
frastructure and other types of systems or network planning,
and give local governments a stronger political voice in their
dealings with state or federal governments.
One of the more common regional governance struc-
tures is the special-purpose authority focused on a specific
geographic area or issue, such as regional airport, water, or
transit authorities. Federal law established metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) in the 1960s for regions with
populations greater than 50,000 to coordinate long-range
transportation planning as a condition of receiving federal
funding. Councils of government are another common re-
gional governance model. Informal regional structures also
exist. These can be civic collaborations that work with and
sometimes include governmental partners, or they may work
outside of government and serve as a voice to influence public
policies and investments.
Working at the regional level requires coordination
among local, state, and federal governments. This can hap-
pen through formal processes, such as enabling legislation
or official memorandums of understanding between local
governments, or it can occur more informally through self-
designated regional agencies or collaborations.
A Constellation of Approaches
Such a broad spectrum of regional planning agencies and col-
laborative efforts exists across the United States that it is chal-

4 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org


lenging to create a common classification system to reflect all
the various structures, functions, and operations. It is per-
haps most useful to describe “continuums” related to various
characteristics of regional planning approaches, while at the
same time recognizing the overall trend toward multifunc-
tional integration. In the United States, there are five char-
acteristics that influence regional planning in various ways
and to varying degrees: territory, functions, decision making,
participation, and implementation.
Regional Planning as Sustainability Planning
Regional planning is continuing to evolve in ways that signal
a renewed interest in regionalism sparked by the growing re-
ality that complex issues such as climate change, economic
competitiveness, and even infrastructure finance cannot be
addressed by one jurisdiction alone. Increased federal sup-
port for regional planning activities initiated by the Obama
administration in 2009 added to this movement of grassroots
regional awareness by local communities. These reflected a
trend toward integrated and comprehensive regional plan-
ning strategies that is fundamentally reliant on cross-sector
partnerships and data-driven processes. Many of these plans
and programs are designed around principles of sustainabil-
ity. A common tag line for the growing recognition about
bringing social, economic, and environmental issues into re-
gional planning in an integrated fashion is “think globally,
plan regionally, and act locally.”
New Tools and Techniques
The emphasis on performance-based planning and the emer-
gence of regional planning issues that introduce increasing
uncertainty about the future, such as climate change and
technological innovations, have led to rapid expansion in the
use of new tools and techniques in regional planning.
Performance-based planning includes specific out-
comes to track progress towards established planning goals
over time and evaluates policy and investment options and
alternatives. The emphasis on performance-based planning
is linked to new opportunities to use emerging technologies,
open-source data, and metrics that are collected and used by
multiple agencies. At the same time, limitations such as the
availability of data at the appropriate scale or the source of
available data can be challenging for many regions.
A proliferation of computer-based software has also re-
sulted in the increased use of scenario planning at the region-
al as well as local level. The scenario planning process uses
software tools to develop different land-use and transporta-
tion scenarios and visualizations for values and goal setting
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY
to engage the public in participatory planning processes.
Scenario planning helps local decision makers and the public
understand the local and regional impacts of different policy
choices on indicators such as land use, energy consumption,
pollution, and financial impacts.
REGIONAL PLANNING FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
As the study and understanding of ecology have evolved, so
too has the recognition of the importance of working with
natural systems—including watersheds, topographical areas,
and climate zones—in developing regional plans. Using the
regional ecosystem to frame the context for the full range of
regional issues (whether urban or rural, large or small) will
typically allow for a more complete analysis of those issues
and development of workable strategies to address them.
Regional Water Resource Planning
The water supply for many urban areas in the United States is
typically drawn from rivers or lakes that may be a great dis-
tance away, while rural and agricultural areas often receive
their water directly from local surface waters or groundwater
wells. The land area that contributes to a specific water supply,
from either above-ground or subsurface flows, is known as
a watershed. Watersheds do not observe municipal or utility
boundaries. Therefore, planning at a regional or watershed
scale can help ensure consistent water quality and quantity
to meet existing and future demand, improve coordination
among multiple agencies and stakeholders, and implement
land-use planning and ecosystem protection to protect water
quality from degradation. Planning at the regional scale also
has helped large urban areas cope with extended periods of
drought through conservation and other best practices.
Regional Land Resource Planning
Land-use planning continues to remain the purview of local
individual jurisdictions. At the same time, significant plan-
ning efforts occurring at the regional level around water,
sewer, and infrastructure planning have forced recognition
of ways land use in one jurisdiction may impact other com-
munities. This evolution is probably most pronounced when
an understanding of the social, environmental, and econom-
ic benefits of effective land use exists: the benefits of habitat
lands in urban settings, of rural lands adjacent to urbanized
areas, and of parks and open space. Planning for some of these
regionally significant land uses is becoming more integrated
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 5
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY
into a systems approach—that is, an approach that considers
habitat, open space, and agriculture as a whole system.
Regional planning for parks and open space looks at
green places and greenways in an integrated and cross-ju-
risdictional manner. Regional open space planning in some
instances focuses on connections from one jurisdiction to
another. In more detailed regional planning processes, open
space planning uses a systems approach that integrates green
connections with stormwater management, mobility and ac-
cessibility, community revitalization, and sustainability.
REGIONAL ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
Regional economic development initiatives are having posi-
tive impacts in both metropolitan areas and in rural settings.
These developments are creating fresh opportunities for
making urban regions more vibrant and sustainable, whether
they are growing regions or areas experiencing a shrinking
population. Planning for economic prosperity today, whether
in growing or shrinking regions, addresses a broad array of
assets that include cultural resources and amenities, natural
resources, workforce education, and mobility initiatives to
improve access and equity for all workers.
Elevating talent and workforce skills is increasingly vi-
tal for successful regional economic development programs.
In addition, infrastructure investment, which was a major
theme at the beginning of the twenty-first century, has be-
come much more complex.
Economic competitiveness planning has emerged as
a game changer for regional planning in many parts of the
country. In addition, it has become prominent across a va-
riety of scales—from large metropolitan areas to midsized
urban regions and rural areas. A growing number of regional
efforts have begun to emphasize economic competitiveness
factors such as adequate infrastructure, housing availability,
and workforce development programs in long-range plan-
ning. At the same time, many regional planning agencies
have moved beyond strategic planning for economic com-
petitiveness. They have taken direct responsibility for project
planning and development for major infrastructure projects
and system improvements that are identified as necessary
components of an economically competitive region. Tribal
governments are now playing a greater role in regional plan-
ning efforts by partnering with regional districts, serving as
state regional transportation organizations, and developing
linkages between rural and urban areas.
6 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
REGIONAL HOUSING PLANNING
The challenges of housing an increasingly diverse population
with new needs and demands are being addressed in regional
planning efforts, but new strategies are required to address
housing needs effectively and overcome the barriers to pro-
viding affordable housing at all income levels.
From a regional planning perspective, housing strategies
are not just about guaranteeing that people have a place to live;
they must also ensure that where people live reflects sound
principles of growth and social equity. Providing affordable
housing opportunities throughout a region or metropolitan
area is critical to maintaining a healthy region that permits
individuals to live near their work, allows regions to grow in
an environmentally responsible fashion, and begins to undo
the concentration of low-income households and people of
color in urban neighborhoods that still characterizes many
American metropolitan areas. This focus on affordable hous-
ing also considers related aspects of planning for housing,
such as ensuring fair housing (avoiding discrimination in
housing availability) and avoiding dislocation of existing
community residents in redeveloping areas (gentrification),
as key components of a region’s affordable housing strategy.
REGIONAL PLANNING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
AND PUBLIC HEALTH
As recently as ten years ago, almost no regional plans in the
United States included any meaningful discussion of climate
change or planning for public health. However, over the past
decade these two topical areas have gained huge importance
in the regional dialogues on sustainability, resulting in well-
defined approaches to addressing these topics in multidimen-
sional, integrated regional plans and programs.
In addition, there has been a growing understanding of
the strong connections between planning for climate change
(both mitigation and adaptation) and planning for public
health and wellness. Regional plans and programs are begin-
ning to address these connections in their comprehensive re-
gional plans as well as in partnerships that involve scientists,
public health professionals, and urban planners.
Confronting Climate Change
Regional planning agencies across the country have taken an
increasingly important role in addressing climate change is-
sues. In large part, this may be due to the roles that regional
transportation agencies have taken on since the early 1990s

in addressing the effects of transportation and land-use plan-
ning on regional air quality. In the realm of climate change
mitigation, many regions across the country have incorpo-
rated proactive strategies in their long-range transportation
plans. In addition, a number of regional planning agencies
have also begun to address climate change adaptation—
preparing regions to address the various predicted physical
changes in the natural and built environments that will re-
sult from climate change. As with other airborne pollutants,
greenhouse gases do not stay within jurisdictional boundar-
ies. Among the major contributors to greenhouse gas emis-
sions in urban regions are power plants and motor vehicles.
While the federal government has acted to curb pollution
from coal-burning power plants, the largest sources of green-
house gas emissions in many urban regions continue to be
those related to transportation, which can be addressed in an
effective manner at a regional scale. Therefore, many regions
in the United States are beginning to develop regional plans
and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to be-
gin to address the impacts of climate change on the natural
and built environment.
Addressing Public Health in a Regional Context
Another topic of growing importance in U.S. urban planning
is health and wellness. Local jurisdictional planning has been
integrating aspects of health and well-being into citywide
and neighborhood planning through health impact assess-
ments and more in-depth evaluations of environmental qual-
ity, safety, and active living. As regional planning evolves,
there is growing interest in how to address health-related is-
sues at the regional scale in an effective manner. A number
of regional bodies that serve as metropolitan planning orga-
nizations are incorporating active living into their decision-
making processes for the distribution of regionally managed
state and federal transportation funds. This focus includes
improving and expanding pedestrian and bicycle facilities
as well as programs to support transit-oriented development.
This shift toward the incorporation of aspects of active living
into regional planning can be viewed as a logical expansion
of integrated land-use and transportation planning.
REGIONAL INTEGRATED PLANNING
In recent decades, various regional planning problems have
arisen that are seen to require more holistic solutions than
can be solved by functional, single-focus agencies on their
own. The need for regional integrated planning becomes
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY
especially relevant when a broad set of planning concerns—
such as sprawl, mobility, housing, environmental restoration,
and the provision of services—are perceived to require action
at a scale not matching the jurisdictional boundaries of any
existing general-purpose government (federal, state, county,
or city levels). Increasingly, regional transportation plans are
addressing a broader array of issues in addition to mobility
and accessibility, including equity, economic development,
environmental factors, housing affordability, air quality, and
greenhouse gas emissions.
Planners in many of the country’s metropolitan areas
and smaller regions have been seeking better planning inte-
gration as concerns have arisen about fiscally and environ-
mentally inefficient development patterns and loss of natural
resources that defy single-sector solutions. Of particular note
are efforts by many communities to factor more aspects of en-
vironmental planning, including open space, habitat protec-
tion and restoration, and climate change—as well as health
and social equity—into what may be considered comprehen-
sive regional sustainability plans.
Integrated approaches to regional planning are emerging
in a variety of settings and circumstances. Some approaches
have developed in response to specific federal or state require-
ments, such as in states with growth management planning
systems or legislative mandates for specific aspects of regional
planning. Even in those settings, some regions take integra-
tion beyond mandates and requirements, and others develop
innovative programs to attain mandated performance goals.
In other situations, regions have developed more integrated
approaches to regional planning in the absence of state man-
dates. There are also examples of integrated regional plan-
ning efforts that are more grassroots or ad hoc in nature,
rather than institutional. Examining the large urban regions
of Seattle, San Francisco, Denver, Minneapolis–Saint Paul,
and Dallas–Fort Worth shows how regional planning has
evolved from a focus on integrating land-use and transporta-
tion planning just a few decades ago into broader planning
programs that are now more complex and factor in additional
issues and topics.
TECHNIQUES FOR IMPLEMENTING
REGIONAL PLANS
One of the common challenges for those working at the re-
gional scale is ensuring implementation of these plans, since
in most instances these planning agencies have little direct
authority over land use, economic development, housing
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 7
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY
decisions, or even local infrastructure investment. In some
instances, regional planning bodies do have authority to
implement their own regional land-use plans, such as Metro
in Portland, or other regional governmental bodies, such as
consolidated city-county governments in Florida, Indiana,
and Kentucky. However, the dominant pattern for regional
plan implementation is through local member jurisdictions.
While implementing planning at the regional scale can be
challenging, regions continue to find various ways to carry
out their areawide plans and policies.
Funding for Regional Plan Implementation
One of the most common approaches taken by regional plan-
ning agencies to promote local implementation of regional
plans is the distribution of regionally managed funds from
federal, state, or regional sources to specific projects and
programs in local jurisdictions that support regional plan-
ning goals and policies. In addition to their transportation
improvement programs, a number of regions have created
“livable communities” local assistance programs. These pro-
grams provide incentives to local jurisdictions to better coor-
dinate housing, economic development, and transportation
in compact urban communities. Such programs may also
focus on funding environmental mitigation efforts or social
and cultural quality-of-life initiatives.
Regionally managed transportation funding programs
in Portland, San Diego, San Francisco, Denver, Philadelphia,
and Atlanta include investments in urban centers—among
other projects and programs that are also eligible for regional
funding—but none of these has gone as far as the Seattle re-
gion in focusing on investing regional dollars exclusively in
projects that support centers.
Collaboration with Implementation Partners
As regional plans become more integrated and take on more
interrelated issues, often there are partners beyond the re-
gional planning body who are responsible for one or more
aspects of implementation. These partners may be govern-
mental or quasigovernmental bodies, including special dis-
tricts set up for providing transit, water, or parks; nongov-
ernmental organizations, including housing authorities or
economic development enterprises; or academic institutions.
Collaborative efforts can help obtain funding for plan imple-
mentation and translate regional objectives into local actions.
Consistency Review
Consistency review is a process whereby local plans or pro-
grams are evaluated according to whether they adequately
8 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
address adopted regional plans and policies. The process may
be formal or informal and may be required under planning-
related statutes or official provisions, or through a voluntary
program. Especially when tied to incentives or requirements,
such as eligibility to compete for regionally managed federal
funds, consistency review can be a useful tool for ensuring
implementation of regional planning policies at local levels.
Technical Assistance
As noted previously, implementation of regional planning
commonly occurs through steps and actions taken by lo-
cal jurisdictions. In the 1960s and 1970s, it was common for
councils of governments receiving federal funding to help
localities with various types of planning. In many regions,
regional planning bodies continue to provide technical assis-
tance to jurisdictions for implementation.
Performance Monitoring
Regional planning bodies are often best equipped for devel-
oping and maintaining data and information related to mon-
itoring planning outcomes. Regional monitoring programs
typically include implementation monitoring, which involves
tracking actions and steps committed to as part of a regional
planning process. These programs also often include perfor-
mance monitoring, which relates to tracking whether estab-
lished goals have been achieved as a result of actions taking
place. Information from monitoring performance helps plan-
ners, decision makers, and community members understand
whether objectives are being met and whether implementa-
tion efforts are effective.
THE FUTURE OF REGIONAL PLANNING
Regional planning in the United States has historically faced
and continues to face many challenges. There have been and
continue to be political pressures against regionalism. Dedi-
cated funding has been a significant challenge and continues
to hamper the broadening of regional planning efforts and
initiatives. Yet regional planning continues to make a re-
markable contribution to places large and small, metropoli-
tan and rural, and continues to evolve and renew itself.
An Action Agenda for Regional
Sustainability Planning
Many of the standards and principles that are applied to lo-
cal planning initiatives across the country also have applica-
tion for regional planning. A current example is the Ameri-
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY

can Planning Association’s Comprehensive Plan Standards
for Sustaining Places, developed as part of APA’s Sustain-
ing Places initiative. Regional planning should address the
topics of livable built environment, harmony with nature,
resilient economy, interwoven equity, healthy communities,
responsible regionalism, authentic participation, and ac-
countable implementation.
In addition, based on the major trends for regional plan-
ning, this report suggests the following topics for a regional
planning agenda:
There is both promise and excitement regarding the fu-
ture of regional planning. It has been and no doubt can con-
tinue to be a game changer in terms of improving the built
environment and the infrastructure necessary to support it,
improving the natural environment and the role it plays in
health, and improving social and economic well-being for all.

• Regional plans that are more comprehensive in nature

• Megaregional planning
• Regional action plans as organizing frameworks
• Changing demographics and regions
• New tools and techniques

Future Work for Understanding and Advancing

Regional Planning in the United States
The emerging trends in regional planning strongly suggest
that there is a bright future for regional planners and leaders
in the United States. The challenges that they will face hight-
light the need for additional research, work, and information
sharing in the field of regional planning.
Historically, regional planning has been  enabled and
funded by the  federal government and by numerous state
and local governments. The federal transportation agencies
should continue their efforts of the last 20 years while remain-
ing open to innovation. In addition, the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental
Protection Agency should become more engaged in sustain-
able regional planning, and the Economic Development Ad-
ministration and other similar federal agencies should, at a
minimum, maintain their current efforts.
It is also pivotal that the states play an increasing role in
adopting enabling legislation and providing financial assis-
tance. Each state is different, but they all benefit by promoting
sustainable planning and development at regional and local
levels. APA and its individual divisions and chapters should
work towards these ends.
In addition, further research on best practices for region-
al planning agencies in the areas of water planning, climate
change, bioregional planning, and innovative collaboration
would greatly advance state-of-the-art regional planning
across the United States. This information gathering and
sharing could be pursued in collaboration with universities to
produce research and training related to a variety of planning
and modeling topics that are relevant to regional planners.

www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 9

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
TO CURRENT
TRENDS
Regional planning in the United States has undergone an evolution over the past several decades—and continues to evolve. In
the earlier decades of the twentieth century, regional planning approaches typically focused on single topical areas. In many
cases, the early regional plans only addressed transportation. In other cases, regional plans were developed around other
single issues, such as parks and open space, or regional economic development. However, beginning in the 1970s and 1980s,
regional planning began to evolve into more multidimensional and comprehensive area-wide plans and long-range strategies
that integrated related topical areas such as land use, transportation, open space, and air quality.

This PAS report examines this ongoing transformation
of regional planning in the United States. A primary contri-
bution of this report is to provide insights into various prac-
tices and techniques in regional planning. Examples of ways
contemporary regional planning continues to evolve are pro-
vided, along with prospects for where it is heading.
As we move further into the twenty-first century, region-
al planning in the United States continues to transform itself.
Regional planning has further advanced integration of com-
plex related issues, such as infrastructure, housing, economic
development, and environmental planning. The transforma-
tion has been happening for various reasons in different re-
gions, including as a response to calls for action from local
leaders and citizen interests or in answer to federal and state
directives. Looking ahead, there is no doubt that emerging
trends—shifts to renewable and alternative energy, for exam-
ple—will continue to shape and transform regional planning.
WHERE WE ARE TODAY: SIX KEY TRENDS
Many of the emerging trends in regional planning reflect a
shift toward a more integrated, or systems, approach, with a
growing focus on sustainability. In addition, broader partner-
ships and alliances are in play that advance regional collabo-
ration on current issues. As with other aspects of planning
practice in the United States, more attention is also being
paid to implementation and monitoring of actions and out-
comes. New tools are available to help with various aspects of
planning in a regional context, including scenario analysis of
alternatives and performance monitoring.
This report identifies and highlights the following six
emerging trends in regional planning:
1. Regional planning for sustainability
2. Integrated regional planning across related issues
3. Inclusive engagement and expanded partnerships in re-
gional planning
4. New approaches for implementation
5. Changing demographics and changing regions
6. New tools and techniques for regional planning
Trend 1: Regional Planning for Sustainability
A focus on sustainability in planning and decision making is
having a major impact on regional planning. Sustainability
planning and decision making are associated with a frame-
work in which environmental protection and restoration,
social equity and public well-being, and economic prosper-
ity are addressed simultaneously in an integrated way. This
integration takes place across temporal and geographic
scales. Sustainability planning emphasizes achieving mul-
tiple benefits that advance multiple goals and objectives. For
example, rather than accepting environmental degradation
for an economic benefit (that is, a tradeoff where the econo-
my “wins” and the environment “loses”), sustainability plan-
ning provides a model for achieving economic benefits along
with equity benefits and environmental benefits. For a more
detailed discussion of sustainability planning, see Assessing
Sustainability: A Guide for Local Governments, PAS Report
565 (Feiden and Hamin 2011).
This sustainability planning framework is often con-
strued as one that works to simultaneously maximize benefits

www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 11

 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 1
Equity Economy
Sustainability
Environment
Figure 1.1. The “three Es” of sustainability (APA)
for the environment, social equity, and economy—the “three
Es.” Figure 1.1 shows the way in which the three Es interact
with each other in such a framework. The benefits occur both
over time (i.e., the present population and generations to
come) and through space (i.e., throughout a region, as well as
beyond the region).
How planning for sustainability occurs varies from re-
gion to region, but those forms have in common the creation
of frameworks for cooperation and collaboration that recog-
nize holistic effects of development choices for the environ-
ment, social equity, and economic well-being:
• Pressing environmental issues, such as climate change,
underscore the need for integrated, multisector responses,
often at a regional scale.
• Social equity has gained greater recognition as an essential
component of regional planning, addressing issues such as
affordable housing, fair housing, access to jobs, health and
wellness, criminal justice, and policing.
• Economic prosperity is a major focus for planning efforts
in many regions, and can take the form of an area-wide
economic development strategy or be the basis for trans-
portation or land-use and development plans.
Sustainability and National Planning Initiatives
The focus of planning—whether local, regional, or state-
wide—is not limited to development patterns or buildings but
12 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
instead encompasses all aspects and scales of human settle-
ment. This includes areas set aside in their natural state, rural
areas and small towns, cities and urban regions, and metro-
politan areas and megaregions (that is, clusters of regions).
The role of planning in making places sustainable touches on
all facets of natural and built environments. Planning for sus-
tainability has been lifted up as the defining challenge for the
twenty-first century.
Over the past several years, the American Planning As-
sociation (APA) has focused greater attention on the impor-
tance of considering sustainability principles in conducting
urban and environmental planning at all geographic scales.
As part of its Sustaining Places initiative, APA set forth the
following working definition of sustainability:
Planning for “sustaining places” is a dynamic, demo-
cratic process through which communities plan to
meet the needs of current and future generations with-
out compromising the ecosystems upon which they de-
pend by balancing social, economic, and environmen-
tal resources, incorporating resilience and linking local
actions to regional and global concerns. (Godschalk
and Anderson 2012, 4)
Sustainability and Resilience
An important aspect of sustainability planning is resilience,
or the capacity to prepare for, navigate through, and recover
from turbulent change. In an urban planning context, this
capacity can refer to responses to both natural or human-
caused disasters or threats. Examples include natural disas-
ters such as earthquakes, changes in the environment due
to climate change (e.g., sea level rise and more severe storm
events), or terrorism.
Sustainability and Livability
In some respects, sustainability is an extension of livability.
Livability connotes aspects of “quality of life,” which can
mean different things to different people. For some, it means
a community with plenty of parks and green places; for oth-
ers, it means a vibrant urban hub with active street life. Liva-
bility has become a concept used in community planning for
designing infrastructure and facilities to fit better in urban
contexts, while also achieving certain mobility needs. For
example, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Livability
Initiative encourages local governments to use investments in
transportation infrastructure to achieve broader community
goals such as access to good jobs, affordable housing, quality
schools, and safe streets (Rue et al. 2009), while AARP’s Liv-

able Communities initiative emphasizes safety and security,
affordable and appropriate housing and transportation, and
supportive community features and services (AARP 2014).
Trend 2: Integrated Regional Planning across
Related Topics
Regional plans are increasingly emphasizing a “systems” ap-
proach—for example, addressing environmental concerns at
a bioregional or ecosystem scale rather than in a piecemeal
fashion. Many regional planning agencies view the biore-
gional or ecosystem scale as the most appropriate founda-
tion for regional planning. However, at the same time that
integrating natural resource protection with land-use and
growth management strategies is becoming more common,
there is recognition that though the appropriate geography
for one topic may not match entirely with another, there can
be significant overlap.
For example, we are seeing the evolution of regional
transportation plans to address multiple parts of transporta-
tion infrastructure, including roads, transit networks, bike-
ways, sidewalks, and freight corridors, along with crosscut-
ting transportation demand management and transportation
system management strategies. These types of transportation
plans are often based on a strategic goal of reducing vehicle
miles traveled by increasing alternatives to driving alone,
rather than the goal of meeting prescribed level-of-service
standards for highways and arterial roads. In addition, mo-
bility initiatives are increasingly incorporating strategies to
address housing supply and affordability concerns and co-
ordinate housing location in relation to transportation and
jobs. These same strategies seek to grow market interest in
compact, infill housing, which aligns with changing demo-
graphics. Many agencies now recognize that revitalization of
urban core areas also presents equity challenges for mobility
and accessibility (especially displacement threats).
Regional plans recognize the value of environmental
amenities for economic prosperity—for example, open space
protection and urban parks are important elements of liv-
ability and placemaking strategies. Many regional plans now
blend “greenprints,” or green infrastructure concept plans for
protecting and enhancing environmental values, with blue-
prints, or smart growth concept plans for infrastructure and
urban development. These plans are not only addressing is-
sues in urban areas but are also considering urban-rural in-
terfaces, as well as interfaces between metropolitan areas and
adjoining tribal lands. This is particularly evident with the
growing movement of preserving farmland and increasing
local food production.
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 1
Contemporary urban and environmental planning prac-
tice is placing a greater importance on integrated planning,
where integration occurs both horizontally and vertically:
• Horizontal integration refers to linking related topics such
as land use, environmental planning, mobility, and eco-
nomic development. In regional planning, for example,
smart mobility efforts have expanded to include not only
urban land use and transportation integration but also
environmental resource protection, regional economic
development, and social equity considerations.
• Vertical integration in regional planning primarily in-
volves connecting regional level efforts with federal- and
state-level policymaking, as well as with local jurisdiction
standards and actions. For example, some aspects of re-
gional smart growth planning are implemented through
county- and city-level land-use planning and regulations.
Table 1.1 (p. 14) illustrates how urban and environmen-
tal planning topics and issues can be viewed within an inte-
grated planning framework, looking at both the horizontal
(topical) and vertical (scalar) dimensions.
More and more regional planning programs in the Unit-
ed States are dealing with many, if not all, of the topical ar-
eas addressed in local comprehensive plans. It is important
for city planners to look across related issues in preparing
comprehensive plans and to consider effects that extend past
their local borders. But it is becoming equally important for
regional planners to develop integrated approaches to related
issues in regional plans. Some regional planning agencies are
now preparing regional comprehensive plans that look at the
whole range of topical areas in a single planning document.
(However, there remains hesitation to use the term “regional
comprehensive plan” because of ongoing concerns of local
land-use control.) Even agencies that are not at the point of
preparing regional comprehensive plans are looking at an
expanded set of key interrelated issues in their topical plans.
Forecasting: New Directions
The integrated approaches to regional planning that have
emerged over recent decades are requiring ever more sophis-
ticated growth forecasts based on sound demographic fore-
casting techniques and state-of-the-art modeling capabilities.
At the same time, it has become apparent that a common set
of forecasts should be used for all related aspects of regional
planning, whether these forecasts are being used by tradi-
tional regional planning agencies or other regional entities
planning for future infrastructure needs, housing needs, or
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 13
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 1

TABLE 1.1. EXAMPLES OF HORIZONTAL (TOPICAL) AND VERTICAL (SCALAR) INTEGRATION

Infrastructure and Natural Resources

Land Use Mobility Services Conservation Resiliency
water resource plans;
regional transportation
urban growth bound- energy supply and open space and natural policies regarding
network plans; growth
Region aries; urban service distribution plans; resource conservation location and design of
centers policies; mobil-
boundaries regional green infra- plans and policies regional facilities
ity hub concepts
structure concepts
urban and rural land- local multimodal resource protection hazards maps; policies
local utility and service
use designations; plan- transportation network designations (e.g., regarding hazards
City or County plans for urban and
ning for local growth plans; complete street greenbelts, habitat avoidance and adapta-
rural areas
centers, transit villages policies conservation areas) tion
complete street desig- community green application of hazards
urban design guide- plans for open space
nations; mobility hub infrastructure plans; maps and policies to
Community lines for local growth preserves; buffering
designations for key food systems plans; community planning
centers, transit villages policies
transit locations park siting policies areas

detailed plans for design of open space/

detailed land-use detailed plans and green infrastructure natural resource con- application of hazards
Subarea / plans; implementa- designs for multimodal projects and other servation projects for maps and policies to
Neighborhood tion and financing transportation facilities; necessary facilities (e.g., neighborhood plan- neighborhood plan-
strategies financing strategies parks, libraries, com- ning area; financing ning areas
munity gardens) strategies

Source: Editors

environmental systems protection. Regional planning agen-
cies are playing increasingly important roles by developing
robust forecasts for employment, housing, and population
that are being used by a variety of agencies and organizations
planning for future economic, social, and environmental sys-
tems and services.
Scenario Planning
In addition to the need for improved forecasting, there is also
a need for new methods to address increasing uncertainty
about the future—for example, uncertainty caused by chang-
ing climate or new innovations in technology. Scenario plan-
ning has evolved as a well-accepted method to characterize
and model the effects of different spatial planning alterna-
tives. It can take into account a variety of social, economic,
and environmental systems and thereby can formulate pre-
ferred scenarios that can be used as the basis for developing
plans and strategies.
Trend 3: Inclusive Engagement and Expanded
Partnerships in Regional Planning
Integration is happening not only around regional issues
and topics that are interrelated; it is also happening through
collaborative planning and decision-making processes. The
integrated approach to regional planning similarly seeks to
bring together complex, multifaceted issues related to gover-
nance and implementation. Regional planning, as it evolves,
recognizes the need to develop experimental, adaptive, re-
flective, and continually updated plans.
Throughout the country, a broader range of stakehold-
ers, technical experts, interest groups, and members of the
public at large are becoming engaged in regional planning
and decision making. Many regional agencies are transform-
ing themselves to facilitate broader stakeholder engagement
and deliberation. In other instances, where there has been re-
luctance by regional public agencies to address certain issues,
new regional coalitions and alliances have emerged to take
on those issues.
This trend toward collaborative regional planning re-
flects what is happening in decision-making processes for
sustainability planning at all scales. With sustainability,
there is a need for expanded engagement to include multiple
perspectives and knowledge from different communities and
vantage points (for example, integrating both scientifically
and experientially generated knowledge). Inclusive engage-
ment—that is, bringing more people into the planning and

14 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org


decision-making process—is becoming more foundational
in many regional planning efforts around the country. This
inclusive engagement includes the following features:
• Regional planning that increasingly relies on coalitions
and partnerships that bring together nongovernmental
organizations, private-sector participation, and philan-
thropy
• Planning processes becoming more consciously experi-
mental and performance-focused, emphasizing perfor-
mance measurement and management across iterative
planning cycles
• Federal and state agencies across the country recognizing
the value of robust regional planning programs that ad-
dress issues of national and statewide interest
• An emerging movement toward megaregional planning (a
megaregion is a large network of urban regions in physi-
cal proximity to one another that may share one or more
of the following features: common ecosystems or topog-
raphy, common settlement patterns, common infrastruc-
ture systems or needs, and economic linkages)
Communication and leadership are key factors in en-
gagement and partnerships. More and more sophisticated
communication tools and techniques are becoming avail-
able—such as social media, scenario sketch tools, visualiza-
tion tools, and online interactive programs—to further in-
formation sharing, involvement, and collaboration. At the
same time, strong leadership is a necessary foundation for the
partnerships required for the creation and implementation of
regional plans and strategies.
Trend 4: New Approaches for Implementation
While more sophisticated and integrated approaches to re-
gional planning are to be applauded, implementation re-
mains key for achieving successful outcomes. A frequent
challenge of regional planning has been in the area of imple-
mentation. Often regional agencies have authority limited
to certain planning functions, with the responsibility for
implementing regional plans resting with other agencies or
governments. Regional open space planning is an example:
regional planning agencies may be responsible for creating an
area-wide framework or strategy for open space, but typically
they are not responsible for funding, acquiring, operating, or
maintaining parks and greenbelts. Similarly, many regional
plans have demonstrated the importance of land-use plan-
ning strategies in meeting regional goals related to areas such
as mobility and air quality. However, in most regions of the
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 1
United States, land-use planning and decision-making au-
thority rests almost entirely with local governments.
Historically, regional agencies have relied on member lo-
cal governments to implement many of the important poli-
cies and actions identified in regional plans. In regions where
the regional body was set up as a voluntary association, it was
not uncommon for local implementation of regional plans to
be somewhat optional. Just as there are new models for in-
tegrating planning and decision making, there are also new
models and new approaches to implementation. One exam-
ple is mechanisms to encourage or incentivize local imple-
mentation of regional plans, including funding for innovative
initiatives, such as livable communities programs. Another
example is new partnership efforts to guide implementation
that include universities, foundations, or special oversight
boards or committees.
Finally, implementation efforts are frequently combined
with performance monitoring, using agreed-upon perfor-
mance standards designed to assess whether planning poli-
cies are being implemented properly and are in fact leading
to the desired outcomes. Thus regional planning agencies are
given responsibility to both engage in implementation ac-
tions and track performance. These activities add account-
ability to implementation actions and provide information
for making any needed adjustments or refinements to achieve
desired planning outcomes.
Trend 5: Changing Demographics and
Changing Regions
Demographic changes are occurring across the United States
in ways that influence employment, income, demand for
housing, and associated mobility choices. Four population
groups are growing: (1) seniors, (2) single-person households,
(3) start-ups (young people entering the housing market), and
(4) single-parent families (Hinshaw 2007). Many regional
planning efforts are preparing for this shift and the implica-
tions for housing demand and needs, development patterns,
mobility options, and the provision of services. Of particular
note is the recent emergence of age-friendly planning. Such
an approach addresses the needs of all ages and ensures that
multigenerational issues are taken into account.
The United States continues to witness immigration and
further diversification of the population. New immigrants
from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and post-Soviet states bring
a variety of social and cultural values and expectations that
require fresh approaches for addressing housing, mobility,
and social well-being. The racial and ethnic composition of
regions is also changing. In regions across the United States,
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 15
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 1

Figure 1.2. Profiles and

examples of regional
planning practices
in the United States
(Editors)

LEGEND
Regional planning
profiles in Chapter 6

Regional Planning examples

used throughout report

certain racial and ethnic population groups are increasing in
numbers. In some instances, minority groups, such as Lati-
nos, are now part of new regional majorities.
Trend 6: New Tools and Techniques for • Scenario planning, which allows for more flexibility in con-
Regional Planning
At the same time that inclusive engagement of a wide variety
of stakeholders has made integrated regional planning more
high touch, a new generation of high-tech tools and innova-
tive techniques are making regional planning more accessible
and user friendly. New planning tools are helping to trans-
form the ways in which regional planning takes place. While
improving the technical confidence and reliability of plan de-
velopment, evaluation, and monitoring, these tools are also
becoming more useful for providing information and alter-
natives to officials and decision makers. Examples of these
tools and techniques include the following:
velopment choices, including environmental, social, and
economic impacts. These often include images, icons, and
animations that help professionals, elected officials, and
citizens better understand alternatives and outcomes.
sidering options and alternatives for long-range planning.
• New metrics for measuring regional sustainability, many
of which reflect integrated systems thinking, such as ac-
cessibility metrics for transportation (which assess mobil-
ity–land-use interactions) and ecosystem-based standards
of environmental quality (such as for standards for multi-
species habitat or watershed protection).
Regional planning efforts typically produce regional da-
tabases, models, and toolkits that then add greater detail and
sophistication to local scenario development and planning
alternatives.

• More sophisticated regional-scale models that rely on big

data. For example, agent-based models that integrate and
iterate spatial analysis and alternatives for mobility and
accessibility are now available.
• Widespread use of a host of less data-intensive sketch tools
for projecting effects of land-use and infrastructure de-
ABOUT THIS REPORT
This report offers a distinct contribution to understanding
regional planning in the United States because it is written
primarily for planning professionals and practitioners, as

16 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org

 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 1

well as for decision makers and interested citizens. It draws

from the experience and expertise of planners who work in
regional planning, and it presents the current state of regional
planning, with a focus on emerging trends and best practices.
Examples of notable regional planning efforts from regions
across the country are highlighted throughout the report,
and five more detailed profiles of regions and their notewor-
thy planning practices and accomplishments are featured in
Chapter 6 (Figure 1.2).
In addition, included in this report is a discussion of the
ways in which state-of-the-art integrated regional plans are
addressing critical issues of sustainability as informed by
the integrated planning framework of APA in its Sustaining
Places initiative. While this planning framework has been
designed primarily to provide guidance and evaluation crite-
ria for local comprehensive plans, the sustainability planning
principles and standards are just as relevant to integrated re-
gional plans. (See the appendix for a summary of APA’s Com-
prehensive Plan Standards for Sustaining Places.)
The chapters that follow provide information, examples,
and case studies on the evolution of regional planning in
the United States. In each instance, the trends presented in
this chapter are highlighted and explained in a variety of ex-
amples and regional profiles from New England to the West
Coast and points in between. Chapter 2 sets the context and
describes various ways in which regional planning and deci-
sion making are organized and take place. Chapters 3 and 4
examine many of the key topical areas at the center of con-
temporary regional planning initiatives. Although the topic
areas in these chapters are somewhat discrete—environmen-
tal topics in Chapter 3 and economic and housing topics in
Chapter 4—they demonstrate a shift to a more integrated
approach for addressing challenges, opportunities, and so-
lutions. Chapter 5 explores planning for climate change and
public health and wellness in regional contexts and high-
lights collaborative and integrated approaches to these com-
plex issues. Chapter 6 profiles five regions and describes how
a transformation of regional planning is taking place in each
of them. The profiles trace the evolution of integrated land-
use and transportation plans (sometimes referred to as smart
growth or smart mobility strategies) into broader regional
strategies that have expanded to address issues including re-
gional development patterns, housing, natural resources, and
environmental restoration. Chapter 7 examines innovative
techniques for implementing regional plans. Finally, Chapter
8 offers a summary of lessons learned and outlines prospects
for the future of regional planning in the United States.

www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 17

CHAPTER 2
REGIONAL
PLANNING IN THE
UNITED STATES:
AN OVERVIEW
Regional planning in the United States is in a period of rapid change. As regional planning evolves, it is becoming increasingly
creative, collaborative, and integrated across multiple functions, while engaging both public and private actors. At the same
time, it is addressing the broader aspects of social, environmental, and economic sustainability.
WHAT IS REGIONAL PLANNING?
Most simply, regional planning can be defined as collabo-
rating to plan for common issues within a common geo-
graphical area. In most cases, the geographical area is defined
ecologically, politically, or economically, or through some
combination of these methods. Jurisdictional boundaries
may give definition to the region, but in most instances in
the United States, jurisdictional boundaries—including both
county lines and city limits—do not necessarily correspond
with current understandings or definitions of regional issues.
The definition of a region therefore tends to vary de-
pending on the problems being considered, and many of the
concerns that gain attention are functional. For example,
air quality is considered within the boundaries of naturally
formed air basins that do not match the jurisdiction of any
single city or county. Another example is water quality with-
in watershed boundaries. Corresponding to these functional
concerns, many regional and subregional service agencies
and districts have been established, often by neighboring lo-
cal governments, to address issues such as water supply, waste
management, and transit service provision. In addition, the
federal and state governments have created regional agen-
cies to implement regulations and programs in areas such as
transportation, water cleanup, and air quality protection.
REGIONAL PLANNING: A BRIEF HISTORY
Regional planning has a long history in the United States
tracing back more than a century. Prior to 1900, the Boston
metropolitan area’s “Emerald Necklace” of greenways and
parks was an early example of a regional planning effort for
connectivity of open space and waterways. In the 1920s, met-
ropolitan-wide planning organizations were established in a
number of urban regions, beginning with the formation of
the Regional Plan Association in the New York area. Others
soon followed in areas including Chicago; Los Angeles; Wash-
ington, D.C.; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The initial focus
of these organizations was on transportation networks and
parks. While states began in the 1920s to enable local govern-
ments to perform planning and enact zoning laws, nonurban
regional planning efforts were also taking shape, most nota-
bly the Tennessee Valley Authority in the early 1930s.
By the 1960s and 1970s, federal programs resulted in
many regions establishing regional planning organizations
for the review and administration of federal aid to urban ar-
eas. This included federal programs for highways, housing,
public works, and economic development. Of particular note
are the metropolitan planning organizations introduced in
the early 1960s to direct federal funding for transportation
projects and programs to urban areas across the country.
Over time, transportation planning has remained a promi-
nent focus of regional planning initiatives.
Also, in the 1970s, new federal and state laws required
environmental assessments to be conducted on all major
public-sector development projects and plans along with the
identification and implementation to the extent feasible of
mitigation measures for significant environmental impacts.
At the federal level, the National Environmental Policy Act
required that all federal projects, funding, permits, policies,
and actions be screened for environmental effects. Several
states also developed parallel versions of the federal act, such
as the California Environmental Quality Act and Washing-
ton’s State Environmental Policy Act. Among other things,
these new federal and state laws led to the creation of regional
regulatory and planning agencies, including air pollution
control districts and regional water quality agencies.
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 19
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 2
Over time, a number of states began to develop their
planning requirements in very different ways. Hawaii, Ore-
gon, Colorado, and Vermont started to bring an understand-
ing of impacts, especially environmental impacts, into their
state planning statutes in the 1970s. By the 1990s, more than
a dozen states had incorporated provisions for some form
of growth management into their state provisions for plan-
ning. These revised statutes frequently addressed regional
planning. Others states took action to address coastal zone
management, conservation, and open space planning. Again,
these new provisions often addressed the need for regional
and intergovernmental planning. Conversely, in the 1980s,
the federal government—which had played an active role in
advancing regional planning, especially in the area of trans-
portation planning—went through stages of redefining (often
reducing) its role in regional planning expectations. For ex-
ample, federal funding of regional programs for housing was
reduced and then eliminated.
A renewed interest in regional planning began to take
place in the 1990s, reflecting concerns about urban develop-
ment problems that play out at a regional scale, such as traffic
congestion and associated air pollution within metropolitan
areas, and sprawling land-use patterns that put pressure on
natural resource areas. Of particular note was a major over-
haul of federal transportation legislation in 1991 called the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
This legislation, and the reauthorized versions of it in subse-
quent federal budget cycles, reinvigorated regional planning
efforts with a framework that called for coordinating land-
use and economic factors into area-wide transportation plan-
ning. A number of previously discrete federal transportation
funding programs were collapsed into ISTEA, and regions
were given more discretion in strategically prioritizing the
federal dollars they received.
Renewed emphasis on regional planning was a hallmark
of the Obama administration’s Sustainable Communities
Initiative (www.sustainablecommunities.gov) in 2009. The
initiative built on a new partnership between several federal
• Transportation
SINGLE • Economic Development INTEGRATED
TOPIC • Housing TOPICS
• Parks
Figure 2.1. Evolution of regional planning in the United States (Editors)
20 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
agencies: the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Devel-
opment (HUD), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Major grants to regions served as catalysts for advancing in-
tergovernmental planning and problem solving.
AN EVOLUTION IN THE MAKING
Due to state legislative efforts, local planning initiatives, and
federal requirements, there has been a demonstrable evolu-
tion of regional planning. From a period of more localized
planning and project-by-project impact analysis, regional-
scale environmental systems plans—such as habitat conser-
vation plans, watershed management plans, and regional air-
quality plans—had become more the norm by the 1990s. In
the early part of the twenty-first century, regional-scale envi-
ronmental systems planning and regulation has continued to
evolve. There has been a movement toward integrated region-
al and local planning, which coordinates transportation and
land-use planning strategies with environmental protection
strategies. Moreover, these integrated plans in many cases
seek to achieve long-term sustainability goals. In summary,
regional planning is more intentional in considering cross-
cutting issues and concerns more holistically.
Another way to track the evolution of topics being ad-
dressed by regional planning agencies is to look at the overall
evolution of urban planning issues in North America and Eu-
rope during this same period (Figure 2.1). In the early twen-
tieth century, much of planning, including regional planning,
was one-dimensional; single issues or topics were often the
focus (e.g., a plan for parks, a plan for housing). In the latter
half of the century, planning began to become more multidi-
mensional—for example, bringing together land-use planning
and transportation planning. As the twenty-first century was
dawning, more and more planning, both local and regional,
was taking a systems approach of integrating multiple issues
into complex, multidimensional planning frameworks.
• Regional Blueprint
• Land Use/ • Regional Greenprint
INTEGRATED
Transportation/Air Quality • Climate Action Plan
SYSTEMS
• Open Space/Parks/ PLANNING • Public Health & Wellness Plan
Water Resources • Regional Comprehensive Plan

FORMS OF REGIONALISM IN THE Informal regional structures also exist and can be seen
UNITED STATES TODAY
Not only has the role of regional planning evolved over the
past century, so too have forms of regionalism. It can be a
loose collaboration, a contractual arrangement, or a legal
entity—or even some of each of these. The first half of the
twentieth century witnessed a burst of regional activity as cit-
ies grew, suburbs developed, and governments realized that
many issues required action beyond the efforts or boundar-
ies of a single jurisdiction. Regional entities were typically
established to coordinate planning across jurisdictions in
order to ensure the efficient use of public funds, manage in-
frastructure and other types of systems or network planning,
and give local governments a stronger political voice in their
dealings with state or federal governments.
One of the more common regional governance struc-
tures is the special-purpose authority focused on a specific
geographic area or issue, such as regional airport, water, or
transit authorities. These regional authorities or commissions
are enabled and established by federal or state governments
that delegate to them clear planning, management, and regu-
latory roles, often including the ability to tax or raise their
own revenues. Some regional agencies were created through
federal statutes, such as the Appalachian Regional Commis-
sion and the Tennessee Valley Authority, both created by
Congress to address economic growth and development.
Federal law also established metropolitan planning or-
ganizations (MPOs) in the 1960s for regions with populations
greater than 50,000 to coordinate long-range transportation
planning as a condition of receiving federal funding. Today
there are more than 400 MPOs nationwide, more than half
of which are parts of larger regional planning agencies with
multiple responsibilities.
Councils of government are another common regional
governance model. They are established when local gov-
ernments formally agree to work together on a set of issues
through a compact, a memorandum of understanding, or
other formal structure. More than 500 regional councils ex-
ist in 47 states in both urban and rural settings, covering 90
percent of the nation’s local governments.
Regional planning bodies may play more of an advisory
than authority role. They exist to address common functions
across jurisdictions and provide a unified voice on issues that
cross traditional smaller-scale boundaries. The set of issues
they address varies by region but may include waste manage-
ment, transportation planning, economic planning, storm-
water management, and health and human services.
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 2
in such examples as a metropolitan mayors’ caucus or a joint
policy committee created to collaborate across regional en-
tities. These can be civic collaborations that work with and
sometimes include governmental partners, or they may work
outside of government and serve as a voice to influence public
policies and investments.
Some regions have many regional structures, while in
others a metropolitan planning organization may be the only
regional entity. The Denver urban region is one metropolitan
example where all of these different types of regional enti-
ties exist simultaneously. The Denver Regional Council of
Governments comprises local elected officials representing
almost 60 cities and counties. The council plays a formal re-
gional planning function for transportation, aging, and plan-
ning as delegated by both state and federal authorities. Two
of the region’s special-purpose authorities are the Regional
Transportation District, with a directly elected board, and
the Denver Regional Air Quality Council. Important civic
groups also exist, including Mile High Connects and the
Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation (Metro
Denver EDC). Mile High Connects is a broad partnership
that focuses on better coordinating mobility and accessibil-
ity to connect people to housing, jobs, and education. Metro
Denver EDC is made up of more than 70 public-sector eco-
nomic development groups that work to promote regional
economic competitiveness.
Working at the regional level requires coordination
among local, state, and federal governments. This can hap-
pen through formal processes, such as enabling legislation
or official memorandums of understanding between local
governments, or it can occur more informally through self-
designated regional agencies or collaborations.
REGIONAL PLANNING: A CONSTELLATION
OF APPROACHES
Such a broad spectrum of regional planning agencies and col-
laborative efforts exists across the United States that it is chal-
lenging to create a common classification system to reflect all
the various structures, functions, and operations involved.
It is perhaps most useful to describe “continuums” related
to various characteristics of regional planning approaches,
while at the same time recognizing the overall trend toward
multifunctional integration.
In the United States, there are five characteristics
that influence regional planning in various ways and to
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 21
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 2
varying degrees (Figure 2.2): (1) territory, (2) functions,
(3) decision making (governance), (4) participation (i.e., who
is at the table), and (5) implementation.
Continuum of Territory
Regional planning bodies run the gamut from multistate
agencies (such as the Appalachian Regional Commission) to
single-county functional planning agencies (such as Com-
munity Transit in Snohomish County, Washington). Metro-
politan planning bodies can serve large urban regions (with
populations greater than one million), medium-sized urban
regions (with populations between 200,000 and one million),
or small urban regions (with populations less than 200,000).
There are rural regional planning agencies that serve substate
areas or corridors traversing rural counties. Finally, there are
regional organizations with planning responsibilities for spe-
cial resource areas or environmentally designated regions,
such as the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency for the Lake
Tahoe area in California and Nevada, or the Pinelands Com-
mission in New Jersey.
Continuum
of Decision-
Making
Continuum
of
Function
Continuum
Figure 2.2. The constellation of regional planning in the United States (Editors)
22 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
Continuum of Function
Regional planning efforts can be focused on a single topi-
cal area (e.g., multijurisdictional transit service or regional
stormwater management) or can address comprehensive,
multipurpose functions (e.g., green infrastructure plan-
ning for mobility, watershed restoration, and open space).
A large number of the regional planning organizations in
the United States today were formed in response to federal
or state mandates. One example is MPOs, which prepare re-
gional transportation plans and regional funding programs
for transportation projects in response to federal transpor-
tation requirements. Such plans go through a formal review
by federal transportation agencies and are then “certified” for
conforming to federal requirements. On the other end of the
spectrum are voluntary or ad hoc regional planning efforts.
Vision North Texas in the metropolitan Dallas–Fort Worth
area is an example of a voluntary regional planning initia-
tive, with the North Central Texas Council of Governments
serving as a key partner along with partners from the private
sector and academic community.
Continuum
of
Participation
Continuum
of
Implementation
of
Territory

Functions carried out by regional planning bodies dif-
fer greatly in how they are funded and staffed. Metropoli-
tan planning agencies typically receive both federal and
local funding for their programs. The amounts of contri-
butions from state governments vary significantly across
the country.
While federal transportation legislation has required
a more integrated approach to land use and mobility in re-
gional transportation planning since the early 1990s, land-
use planning and regulations largely remain the purview of
local jurisdictions. It is not uncommon for regional planning
agencies to create forecasts based on past trends and fac-
tor those trends into area-wide mobility and development
strategies. However, some regions play direct roles in local
land-use decision making. In Minnesota, the Metropolitan
Council in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul area is an example
of a regional agency with the authority to disallow a local
land-use decision if it is determined to conflict with regional
system plans for transportation (including aviation), waste-
water, and regional parks and trails.
Some regional planning bodies find themselves taking
on new or distinct roles. For example, the Denver Regional
Council of Governments has an area agency on aging that
has been serving the metropolitan area for a number of de-
cades. In the Seattle area, the economic development district
merged with the Puget Sound Regional Council in the mid-
2000s. Other new issues finding their way into regional plan-
ning organizations include public health and climate change.
Continuum of Decision-Making Structure
Historically, regional agencies were established or enabled by
state or federal law to match either a territory, such as a river
basin, or a functional area, such as an urban transportation
network. Previously established political boundaries, such as
counties or cities, were hardly ever redrawn to match the re-
gional territory or service area. With little support from local
politicians to redraw boundaries or create new governmental
agencies, the focus in regions has more practically shifted to
understanding how and under what circumstances civic and
voluntary collaborative networks, agreements, and regional
visioning processes are most effective.
Today regional planning often mediates among a va-
riety of different jurisdictions and an entire range of is-
sues and challenges, including environmental protection,
development patterns, economic vitality, housing, mobil-
ity and accessibility, regional service provision, climate
change, and health. As a result, there is a continuum of
types of decision-making structures in place across the
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 2
United States. For example, Metro, in Portland, Oregon,
has a directly elected body of representatives that makes
decisions and oversees functions of that regional planning
body. In other instances, officials on a regional planning
body may be appointed. Such is the case for the Metropoli-
tan Council in Minnesota’s Twin Cities region, for which
the governor makes appointments. A common pattern is
simply to “borrow” local officials from member county
and city governments to sit on the executive governing
body of a regional planning organization.
It is also important to note that many regional planning
initiatives are led by nongovernmental organizations. In-
deed, some of the earliest examples of regional planning in
the United States are projects initiated by private civic groups
like the Commercial Club of Chicago, which engaged Daniel
Burnham to create the 1909 Plan of Chicago. In the twenty-
first century context, there are several reasons for these proj-
ects being initiated through nongovernmental efforts:
• Impact and persuasion: Nongovernmental interests
or groups may initiate a regional planning effort if they
determine it is in the best interest of a particular region.
Private-sector leadership can engage businesses and civic
organizations and can shape the effort’s outcomes so they
affect private investments and decisions, in addition to
those of local governments. When a nongovernmental
effort is initiated, it is less likely to be perceived as scope
creep—that is, the intentional addition of new regulations
or expanding of bureaucracy. A nongovernmental part-
nership has an opportunity to carry out a collaborative ef-
fort that educates and persuades decision makers—wheth-
er private, public, or academic—to make smarter choices
for themselves.
• Resources: When regional planning is not mandated by
a state or federal agency, local and regional governments
may not have the funding to conduct a regional planning
effort on their own. Private-sector organizations, academ-
ic institutions, nonprofit foundations, and civic groups
can contribute resources (funding or expertise) to make a
regional planning effort possible.
• Flexibility: Voluntary partnerships allow the partners
to structure an effort to respond most directly to the is-
sues, concerns, and dynamics of a particular region. The
partnership’s leaders can decide how to carry out research,
which public involvement strategies are desirable, and
which work products will offer the greatest benefit to the
region. The partnership can adjust its activities over time
as conditions change.
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 23
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 2
Continuum of Participation
While some regional bodies accommodate limited participa-
tion in their day-to-day operations, there is a growing interest
in finding new ways to involve the public, stakeholders, and
interest groups in planning programs and decisions. It has be-
come more commonplace to have decision-making commit-
tees and boards supplemented with individuals who have pro-
fessional, technical, and community expertise—either through
direct membership on such boards or through groups such as
advisory committees and task forces. In addition, a broad and
growing variety of engagement practices and tools are in play,
including online resources as well as more traditional face-to-
face approaches designed to encourage meaningful involve-
ment of all people, especially traditionally underrepresented
populations that are affected by regional plans and policies.
Examples of this engagement can be found throughout
the country. In the Minneapolis–Saint Paul area, local ad-
vocacy organizations have received regional grant money to
build capacity in suburban and immigrant neighborhoods to
engage residents more fully in regional discussions about tran-
sit. There are also partnerships among government, nonprofit,
and private-sector partners that are addressing regional equity
issues, all with an eye toward investments and policy decisions
to tackle regional disparities. Similarly, in central Puget Sound
in Washington, efforts are underway to determine how to in-
corporate social equity and environmental justice into the al-
location of regional transportation funds. In both New Orleans
and Detroit, local foundations are active partners working to
leverage public and private investments to support revitaliza-
tion efforts in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. In
the Des Moines, Iowa, region, local business leaders are active-
ly coordinating with city planners, youth leaders, and a diverse
set of citizen groups to preserve local and regional community
character. And in the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota,
Oglala Lakota tribal elders and youth developed a radio show
and established a steering committee to provide guidance on
community involvement and resource allocation decisions.
As a result of this growing emphasis placed on social equi-
ty in regional planning, new community engagement models
have emerged to create and sustain partnerships that will ben-
efit members of the community at large. Emerging tools and
techniques to encourage participation include websites, open
houses, focus groups, surveys, public polling, gaming, and in-
creased use of scenario planning tools.
Continuum of Implementation
Long-standing approaches to implementing regional plan-
ning rely largely on local government action. As a result,
24 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
implementation often entails providing direct funding to
municipalities and counties to take certain actions. Another
common practice is for regional agencies to provide technical
assistance to jurisdictions and agencies with on-the-ground
implementation responsibilities. A growing practice is to
provide toolkits with a variety of tools and practices avail-
able for use by local jurisdictions. Toolkits allow localities to
tailor their implementation of regional planning provisions
to reflect their own jurisdictions’ characters and needs. (See
Chapter 7 for further information on toolkits.) There is also
a growing trend of creating new collaboration mechanisms
designed to advance implementation steps.
REGIONAL PLANNING AS
SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING
Regional planning is continuing to evolve in ways that
signal a renewed interest in regionalism. These trends are
sparked by the growing reality that complex issues such as
climate change, economic competitiveness, and even in-
frastructure finance cannot be addressed by one jurisdic-
tion alone. Increased federal support for regional planning
activities initiated by the Obama administration in 2009
added to this movement of grassroots regional awareness by
local communities. These programs reflected a trend toward
integrated and comprehensive regional planning strategies
that are fundamentally reliant on cross-sector partnerships
and data-driven processes. As discussed in Chapter 1, many
of these plans and programs are designed around principles
of sustainability.
A common tagline for the growing recognition about
bringing social, economic, and environmental issues into
regional planning in an integrated fashion is “think glob-
ally, plan regionally, and act locally.” One example of an in-
tegrated growth management, economic development, and
transportation plan is VISION 2040, the long-range regional
strategy from Washington State’s central Puget Sound area.
The document’s vision states that “land-use, economic, and
transportation decisions will be integrated in a manner that
supports a healthy environment, addresses global climate
change, achieves social equity, and is attentive to the needs of
future generations” (PSRC 2008, xi).
Federal Programs Advancing Sustainability
in Regional Planning
With the creation of the federal Partnership for Sustainable
Communities in 2009, DOT, HUD, and EPA began in ear-

nest to better coordinate their activities across entrenched
silos. The three agencies adopted shared principles to guide
their investments, regulations, and policy making for the
next several years. A new emphasis on place-based planning
and programs was introduced by this partnership and then
reinforced by other elements of the Obama administration,
including the White House.
Regional agencies have had major responsibilities to de-
velop and implement initiatives sponsored under this federal
partnership. Those regional planning bodies who also serve
as MPOs are finding new ways to use federally required plan-
ning factors and scenario planning tools to reshape regional
plans in ways that look at broader sets of issues, identify the
benefits and costs of different development patterns, and en-
gage new voices in the planning process.
State Programs Advancing Sustainability evolved. This response reflects the needs that small towns
in Regional Planning: California and rural communities across the U.S. have to address long-
Even before the rollout of the Partnership for Sustainable
Communities initiative in 2009, the State of California was
promoting regional planning designed around sustainability
principles. California’s interest in this approach can be traced
back to the late 1990s when the four large metropolitan plan-
ning organizations in the state—Los Angeles, Sacramento,
San Diego, and San Francisco—along with the San Joaquin
Valley metropolitan planning organization began to trans-
form their regional growth forecasting and planning func-
tions into integrated planning programs. These programs
addressed planning for multimodal transportation systems
in ways that coordinated with future land-use distribu-
tion (urban form), sensitive lands protection, and regional
growth-management principles. Over the following several
years, programs and plans such as the Sacramento Region
Blueprint (SACOG 2016), the San Diego region’s The Regional
Comprehensive Plan (SANDAG 2006), and Great Valley Cen-
ter initiatives in the San Joaquin Valley (www.greatvalley
.org) continued to evolve. The State of California, through the
leadership of the governor’s cabinet, began to provide fund-
ing and staff resources for learning networks that allowed
regional planning agencies across the state to share best prac-
tices in these topical areas.
Subsequently, with the state’s growing interest in ad-
dressing climate change issues, the Sustainable Communities
and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Senate Bill 375) required
all 18 MPOs in the state to prepare sustainable communities
strategies in conjunction with the periodic updates of their
regional transportation plans. In addition, the state contin-
ued to provide funding to regional planning agencies for
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 2
coordinating the preparation of these plans and for sharing
best practices related to planning, public participation, and
implementation of these plans.
The funding being allocated to regional plan implemen-
tation has increased dramatically in recent years with the es-
tablishment of a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas
emission permits. A significant portion of the revenues from
the program went to the Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities Program (www.sgc.ca.gov/Grant-Programs/
AHSC-Program.html), which provides funding for local af-
fordable housing projects linked to transit, pedestrian, and
cycling enhancements.
Regional Planning and Sustainability
in Rural Contexts
Rural and tribal interest in sustainability planning has also
standing patterns of shifting demographics and complex eco-
nomic and development challenges. Of note, the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture has increased its efforts to identify ways
its programs and resources can support rural sustainability
and regional planning efforts in concert with HUD sustain-
able planning grants. Moreover, urban and rural regions are
rediscovering the interdependence between rural, suburban,
and urban economies, populations, and markets within met-
ropolitan areas and realizing that their adjacent rural and re-
source districts are vital to the overall success of their regions.
NEW TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES
The emphasis on performance-based planning and the emer-
gence of regional planning issues that introduce increasing
uncertainty about the future, such as climate change and
technological innovations, have led to rapid expansion in the
use of new tools and techniques in regional planning.
Performance-based planning includes specific outcomes
to track progress toward established planning goals over time
and evaluates policy and investment options and alterna-
tives. Performance-based planning is now required for all
regional transportation plans by the Federal Highway Ad-
ministration. The emphasis on performance-based planning
is linked to new opportunities to use emerging technologies,
open-source data, and metrics that are collected and used by
multiple agencies. At the same time, limitations such as the
availability of data at the appropriate scale or the sources of
available data can be challenging for many regions. For ex-
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 25
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 2

Alt. 1
Scenario 1
Alt. 2

Alt. 1 Choose
Choice
Scenario 2 Preferred Implement
of Actions Alt. 2 Alternative

Alt. 1
Scenario 3
Alt. 2

Present Day Desired Future

Figure 2.3. Scenario planning in the decision-making process (D. Donahue, Cape Cod Commission)

ample, some issues in sustainability planning, such as social CONCLUSION

equity, environmental justice, and climate change, are not
easily tracked using existing data sources. In other cases, re- This chapter has provided a brief overview of regional plan-
gions may have to rely on national or state data in the absence ning, how it has evolved, and the ways regional planning in-
of adequate data at the regional level. terfaces with the framework of sustainability planning. The
A proliferation of computer-based software has also challenges, and opportunities, of planning on a regional scale
resulted in the increased use of scenario planning at the re- have also been introduced, showing that there is no one-size-
gional as well as local level. This process uses software tools to fits-all approach. Rather there are many different forms and
develop different land-use and transportation scenarios and variations on how regions—large and small, urban and ru-
visualizations for values and goal setting to engage the pub- ral—find ways to work together on common issues that tran-
lic in participatory planning processes (Holway et al. 2012). scend borders. The next chapters continue the discussion by
Scenario planning helps local decision makers and the public focusing on topical areas in regional planning.
understand the local and regional impacts of different policy
choices on indicators such as land use, energy consumption,
pollution, and financial impacts (Figure 2.3). Some of the best
known commercially available tools currently used include
CommunityViz (www.communityviz.com), Urban Foot-
print (http://calthorpeanalytics.com/index.html#software),
INDEX (http://crit.com/portfolio/sparc-with-index), and En-
vision Tomorrow (http://envisiontomorrow.org).
Scenario planning offers powerful analytical tools to
estimate how well existing or potential plans and strategies
will meet important local and regional needs given different
assumptions about the future. The use of scenario planning
techniques also introduces some new challenges. The selec-
tion of a “preferred scenario” that assumes major shifts in
jobs and housing may be challenging to implement on the
local level. Some of the regions that have successfully used
scenario planning tools are profiled in Chapter 6.

26 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org

 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 2

www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 27

CHAPTER 3
REGIONAL
PLANNING FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES
There are dozens of topics and issues addressed within a regional planning context in the United States. While transportation
planning remains the most prominent issue addressed by regional planning organizations in urban regions, many other top-
ics have found their way into the regional planning arena. For example, in a number of regions, planning is occurring related
to food systems, disasters and hazards mitigation, and age-friendly communities. The focus in this this chapter is on regional
environmental planning. Chapter 4 will address topics related to regional economic development planning and regional hous-
ing planning. Chapter 5 focuses on two additional categories of regional planning that have gained a great deal of attention in
the past decade: climate change and public health.

As the study and understanding of ecology have evolved,
so too has the recognition of the importance of working with
natural systems—including watersheds, topographical ar-
eas, and climate zones—in developing regional plans. Using
the regional ecosystem as a framework and context for the
full range of regional issues (whether urban or rural, large
or small) will typically allow for a more complete analysis
of those issues and more effective development of workable
strategies to address them.
The following discussion addresses a diverse set of en-
vironmental planning topics, including water resource plan-
ning, green infrastructure planning, wildlife habitat conser-
vation planning, agricultural and farmland preservation,
and regional planning for parks and open space. The regions
highlighted in this chapter illustrate different structures and
approaches being used across the United States to address
these complex topics. Tackling environmental issues such
as water quality and open space conservation at the regional
scale requires collaboration among federal, state, and local
jurisdictions as well as partnerships between academic insti-
tutions, nonprofit organizations, and the business commu-
nity in order to be successful.
The move toward regional approaches to environmental
planning has sometimes come from federal or state regula-
tory agencies or municipal utilities responsible for environ-
mental resource protection or services. In many cases, a re-
gional planning approach is more effective and efficient than
case-by-case regulatory review and enforcement (e.g., regu-
lation of nonpoint source water pollution under federal and
state environmental laws). In such situations, an agency may
take on the role of developing and implementing a functional
regional plan directly, or it may seek a partnership with an
existing general-purpose regional planning agency to obtain
needed expertise in the areas of planning analysis, technical
resources, and stakeholder and public participation. In other
cases, emerging priorities for regional environmental plan-
ning are related to other issues or topics already being ad-
dressed effectively at a regional scale. Table 3.1 (p. 30) lists
these topical areas and regions with effective programs that
are discussed in more detail in this chapter.
REGIONAL WATER RESOURCE PLANNING
Water is one of the most fundamental natural resources. A
safe and reliable water supply is necessary for human and
animal life and to irrigate crops and provide electric power to
our communities. Until recent decades, the availability of wa-
ter to support human settlements was taken almost for grant-
ed. There was not widespread worry that water resources had
finite limits, that they could be lost to contamination or out-
right removal, or that the pressures of burgeoning popula-
tions (especially in sensitive climates or settings) would create
physical and chemical stresses on these resources. Since the
1960s, increased awareness of the fragility of water resources
has resulted in new laws and regulations and the adoption of
planning programs to protect water resources from degrada-
tion and contamination.
The United States is reasonably well endowed with water
when compared to many other countries. Much of the country

www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 29

 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 3

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN TABLE 3.1. REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL

A REGIONAL CONTEXT PLANNING TOPICS AND EXAMPLES

Perhaps the single most common Topical Area Examples in this Chapter
topical area in regional planning in the Water supply and
United States over the past 50 years has drought response San Diego County, California
planning
been transportation planning. Federal Regional Water
Resources Water supply and wa-
and state legislative mandates for re- Planning ter quality planning
Cape Cod, Massachusetts
gional transportation plans and contin-
Green infrastructure
ued funding for regional transportation planning
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
planning activities have led to a robust
Wildlife habitat con-
network of regional planning agencies servation planning
San Diego County, California
that are continually refining their meth-
Pinelands, New Jersey
ods for addressing transportation needs Lancaster County, Pennsyl-
and issues at the regional scale. Agricultural and re- vania
A number of national and state- source land planning Sacramento region, Cali-
wide organizations have been formed Regional Land fornia
Resources Western North Carolina
over the years to support transporta- Planning
tion planning. Some of these organi- Minneapolis–Saint Paul,
Minnesota
zations—such as the Transportation Portland, Oregon
Research Board, the Association of Met- Open space / re-
gional park planning Puget Sound region, Wash-
ropolitan Planning Organizations, and ington
Transportation for America—place an Memphis / Shelby County,
Tennessee
emphasis on providing professional and
technical support to regional transporta- Source: Editors
tion planners and analysts. For example,
Transportation for America published
The Innovative MPO: Smart Planning, is bordered by oceans, which provide abundant atmospheric
Strong Communities (Zimmerman 2014), moisture, and it is far enough north to be largely outside the
which provides an excellent overview of desert zone. Unfortunately, the distribution of water resources
current and emerging best practices for is not uniform, especially over wide areas of the western Unit-
regional transportation planning in the ed States. Except for coastal areas and mountainous regions,
United States. most of the western half of the country is water deficient.
Given the broad body of research
and information that is already available Why Regional Water Resource Planning?
on regional transportation planning, The water supply for many urban areas in the United States is
this chapter and the next intentionally drawn from rivers or lakes that may be a great distance away,
focus on other important topics and is- while rural and agricultural areas often receive their water
sues that are interrelated with transpor- directly from local surface waters or groundwater wells.
tation planning, including the natural The land area that contributes to a specific water supply,
environment, economic development, from either above-ground or subsurface flows, is known as
and housing. See Chapter 6 for profiles a watershed. Watersheds do not observe municipal or utility
of regions that have integrated transpor- boundaries. Therefore, planning at a regional or watershed
tation planning with land use and other scale can help ensure consistent water quality and quantity
environmental issues. to meet existing and future demand, improve coordination
among multiple agencies and stakeholders, and implement
land-use planning and ecosystem protection to protect water

30 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org


quality from degradation. Planning at the regional scale also
has helped large urban areas cope with extended periods of
drought through conservation and other best practices.
Evolution of Water Resource Planning
The evolution of water resource planning parallels the over-
all evolution of environmental planning in the United States
over the past 50 years. Passage of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. §§1251–1376) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (42
U.S.C. §300f) in the 1970s (which remain the major federal
legislation related to water pollution control and safe drink-
ing water) triggered attention to planning for water quality
and water management. Many states across the country also
enacted state legislation regulating water pollution; this en-
hanced the ability of state and local governments to address
directly the major sources of pollution within their jurisdic-
tions. New opportunities were also provided for nongovern-
mental stakeholders to challenge projects that did not ade-
quately mitigate impacts on water quality, along with other
environmental impacts.
For the first two decades following passage of the Clean
Water Act, the primary focus of federal and state water regula-
tors was on point sources of water pollution, primarily poorly
performing wastewater treatment plants and industrial dis-
chargers. As large point sources were reduced, the primary
sources of pollution leading to impaired water quality and
public health risks became nonpoint sources, which are much
more difficult to regulate directly. Since the early 1980s, there
has been an evolution in the way that regulators—working
with scientists, planners, and engineers—have approached
plans and strategies to control nonpoint source pollution. As
nonpoint source management and even point-source treat-
ment approaches have continued to evolve, these plans are
increasingly integrated with more holistic approaches that
ensure environmental protection and the availability of water
supply for domestic use.
Planning for Drought
Drought is a recurring feature of nearly every climate on the
planet. In many parts of the world, including North America,
there is very little ability to predict exactly when drought will
happen next. However, improved monitoring tools such as the
U.S. Drought Monitor (http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu) have
been developed to implement an integrated drought moni-
toring and forecasting system at the federal, state, and local
levels to help plan for and address the impacts of drought.
Densely populated areas face difficult choices in years
with below-normal precipitation, such as whether to im-
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 3
pose cutbacks on large-scale users (typically industries) or
to take agricultural land out of production to satisfy urban
water needs. Urban water users are more insulated from the
supply impacts of drought because operators of large mu-
nicipal water systems often have the abilities to manage spe-
cific components of supply and demand. However, growing
populations in chronically water-short areas are vulnerable
to drought—areas such as the western United States and the
Atlanta and the North Carolina Piedmont regions, which are
more dependent on snowmelt or regular rains to fill reser-
voirs. Compounding the issue, the impacts of climate change
are exacerbating the duration and extent of droughts and in
coastal areas are leading to associated impacts on water sup-
plies from salt water intrusion.
Drought planning can and should be conducted at all
levels of decision making: by federal and regional water man-
agement agencies; by state agencies with authority over wa-
ter, agriculture, the environment and natural resources, and
health; by tribal governments; by water suppliers; by counties
and municipalities; and by those who depend upon rainfall
for their livelihoods. As average temperatures rise due to
the impacts of climate change, more frequent and intense
droughts may be expected in some areas, particularly those
with already arid climates. Planning for drought is a chal-
lenge that requires effective water management planning and
conservation to ensure the safety and well-being of affected
communities. For more information on drought and its rela-
tionship to planning, see Planning and Drought, PAS Report
574 (Schwab 2013).
Green Infrastructure Planning
As planners and decision makers have recognized the value
of integrating water planning with other aspects of planning
for the natural and built environments, the evolving concept
of green infrastructure has emerged. Green infrastructure
planning means different things to different practitioners
and at different scales. An original intent in bringing together
the terms infrastructure and green was to elevate the societal
value and functions of natural lands and systems to the same
level of importance as conventional constructed, or gray, in-
frastructure. Often green infrastructure refers specifically to
systems and practices that use or mimic natural processes
to improve water quality. A broader definition of green in-
frastructure planning with application to regional planning
would include restoration of the hydrologic functions of a re-
gion’s landscape and management of stormwater. This could
include reducing or eliminating the need for gray infrastruc-
ture. Many approaches to green infrastructure also integrate
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 31
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 3
open space planning, including conservation of habitat and
green spaces. For more information about green infrastruc-
ture planning, see Green Infrastructure: A Landscape Ap-
proach, PAS Report 571 (Rouse and Bunster-Ossa 2013).
Regional Approaches to Water Resource Planning
There are a variety of different ways in which regional water
resource planning occurs. The three examples in this section
represent a range of different approaches. San Diego County
focuses on regional water supply and drought response. Cape
Cod, Massachusetts, looks primarily at the relationship be-
tween regional water quantity and water quality and the issue
of ensuring adequate water supply. Finally, metropolitan Mil-
waukee, Wisconsin, takes a broader view of the relationship
between water supply planning and water quality planning
in addressing other environmental and community goals.
Milwaukee illustrates the evolving concept of regional green
infrastructure planning for water resources, as well as ways to
address specific federal and state regulatory requirements to
improve water quality while also addressing other important
environmental, economic, and social goals.
San Diego County: Regional Water Resource Planning
The metropolitan region encompassing the city of San Diego
and urbanized portions of San Diego County lies within a
semi-arid region and relies heavily on imported water sup-
Figure 3.1. Water
desalination plant in San
Diego County (Poseidon
Resources)
32 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
plies from a single supply source. The region historically has
imported 75 to 95 percent of its water through the Metropoli-
tan Water District of Southern California, from sources that
include the Sacramento Bay Delta and the Colorado River.
The San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) is the
wholesale water agency serving 23 retail water agencies in
the San Diego region. For more than 25 years, the SDCWA
and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
have worked together to link future water supply needs with
forecasted growth within the region. The two organizations
entered into a memorandum of agreement, which ensures
that the water demand projections for the San Diego region
are linked with the SDCWA’s growth forecasts and that water
supply is a component of the region’s official growth manage-
ment plans. This linkage has occurred primarily through the
SDCWA’s urban water management plans. These state-man-
dated documents for urban water suppliers are important
tools for reporting long-term planning efforts to meet future
water demands and tracking progress toward achieving wa-
ter conservation targets (SDWCA 2016a).
In the early 1990s, following a severe drought over the
previous several years that had caused significant economic
problems for the region, the SDCWA focused the update of
its urban water management plan on providing a greater
diversification of water resources. This effort was combined
with continued water conservation initiatives. Through this

update and subsequent updates, the urban water manage-
ment plan now quantifies the regional mix of existing and
projected local and imported supplies necessary to meet fu-
ture retail demands within the SDCWA’s service area over
the next 25 years.
The amount of locally available water has increased due
to several factors. Recycled wastewater is being used for land-
scape irrigation in portions of the service area. Groundwater
from brackish water basins, previously thought to be unus-
able, is now being demineralized and distributed. And water
conservation efforts are reducing per capita demand.
In addition, several new water sources for the region
have recently been brought online. In 2016 the SDCWA put
a major seawater desalination facility into operation through
a public-private partnership (Figure 3.1). The City of San Di-
ego Public Utilities Department, the retail customer of the
SDCWA that supplies water within the city of San Diego,
has completed the demonstration phase of a potable reuse
(or advanced wastewater treatment for reuse) project called
Pure Water San Diego (www.sandiego.gov/water/purewater).
Having secured key city and state approvals, the San Diego
Public Utilities Department is now planning to expand the
scope of both indirect potable reuse (in which treated waste-
water is reintroduced to a surface or groundwater reservoir
before being treated for potable use) and direct potable reuse,
adding a largely “drought-proof” component to the region’s
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 3
water supply. At the same time, through major investments
in storage and transmission infrastructure, the SDCWA has
significantly improved its ability to distribute its diversified
sources of water to users throughout the region and manage
water shortages that occur during drought years.
The most recent update to the plan, Final 2015 Urban
Water Management Plan (SDCWA 2016b), includes the re-
sults of a scenario planning process to assess the reliability
of the region’s future resource mix and plan for potential un-
certainties of the water supply sources. Five scenarios were
developed based on the following factors: (1) drought, (2)
limitations on external water supplies, (3) limitations on new
member agency local supplies, (4) demographic shifts, and (5)
climate change. The process assessed potential risks associat-
ed with implementation and helped to identify management
strategies to deal with the uncertainties.
Cape Cod, Massachusetts: Regional Water
Resource Planning
Cape Cod is a region defined by water. Only 10 miles across
at its widest point, Cape Cod is completely surrounded by
marine water, including Cape Cod Bay, the Atlantic Ocean,
Nantucket Sound, and the Cape Cod Canal (Figure 3.2). It
consists of 440 square miles (281,600 acres) of land and 559
miles of coastline. The cape is composed of glacial end mo-
raines, which mark the approximate locations of the ice front
Figure 3.2. Aerial view of
Cape Cod, Massa-
chusetts (Design Pics/
Thinkstock photo)
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 33
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 3
and outwash plains—both formed by sediments deposited by
streams of meltwater from glaciers about 20,000 years ago.
A contiguous and permeable sandy substrate makes up Cape
Cod’s freshwater aquifer. Ponds, freshwater wetlands, salt
marshes, and estuaries provide habitat for a wide variety of
fish and wildlife.
Because a large proportion of both homes and nonresi-
dential uses on Cape Cod derive drinking water from the
aquifer, the protection of groundwater quality on the cape is
critical to maintaining a healthy drinking water supply. How-
ever, this is a challenging exercise given both the nature of
the natural resources and the sheer number of agencies with
responsibility for water management. There are 17 separate
water districts or departments across Cape Cod responsible
for supply. Moreover, the cape’s groundwater system is di-
rectly connected to the freshwater ponds and lakes as well as
surrounding marine systems, making it susceptible to con-
tamination from various land uses and activities.
The Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development
Commission worked steadily from 1965 to 1989 to edu-
cate the public about the importance and fragility of Cape
Cod’s sole-source aquifer. The adoption of wellhead pro-
tection areas was a major strategy used to protect the land
area that receives precipitation to recharge the pumping
wells. However, rapid population growth and development
in the 1980s led to an initiative to develop a coordinated
strategy to manage growth and protect resources shared
by the cape’s 15 towns.
In 1990 the state legislature adopted the Cape Cod Com-
mission Act, creating the Cape Cod Commission to coordi-
nate the use of land and protect water resources, including
the cape’s sole-source aquifer. Over the past 25 years, the
commission has worked with federal, state, and local officials
to ensure strict water quality standards to prohibit or limit
land uses that are potentially detrimental to drinking water
quality. The public also embraced acquisition of land for pro-
tection of wellhead areas through local, regional, and state ac-
tions, such as through the Cape Cod Land Bank established
through the Cape Cod Land Bank Act (later converted to the
Community Preservation Act).
Recent efforts for water protection include completion
of the Cape Cod Area Wide Water Quality Management
Plan Update (Cape Cod Commission 2015), which focused
on nutrient impacts to estuaries primarily caused by nitro-
gen loading from insufficient onsite wastewater treatment.
The update reflects a watershed-based approach—as water-
sheds, not town boundaries, define the jurisdiction of the
problem—that targets specific watersheds with known wa-
34 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
ter quality problems and examines potential green alterna-
tives to conventional sewer systems.
Metropolitan Milwaukee, Wisconsin: A Green Infrastructure
Approach to Water Resource Planning
Wisconsin’s metropolitan Milwaukee region has become in
recent years a laboratory for the integration of green infra-
structure, sewer system improvements, and flood mitigation
at the regional scale. It is a representative case for metropoli-
tan areas pursuing green infrastructure strategies to address
the mitigation or elimination of combined sewer overflows.
These areas are finding in the process of addressing this wa-
ter management issue the many synergies between outflow
mitigation, flood control, land-use planning, and neighbor-
hood enhancement. Milwaukee and other urban regions de-
veloping similar strategies—such as Cleveland, Philadelphia,
Cincinnati, and Detroit—provide examples of regional plan-
ning processes being led not by metropolitan planning orga-
nizations or councils of governments, but by water utilities
whose primary mission has not typically included regional
planning. Milwaukee demonstrates how utilities are becom-
ing part of regional planning processes.
Like many of the nation’s older metropolitan areas, the
city of Milwaukee and many of its suburban neighbors have
combined storm and sanitary sewer systems that carry both
wastewater and storm drainage. When storm-related flows
surpass the treatment plant’s intake capacity, a combined
sewer overflow event occurs: the mix of sanitary wastewater,
storm drainage, and other inflows in the system is discharged
directly into the Milwaukee River and Lake Michigan. This
ongoing pollution has occurred despite the issuance of mul-
tiple consent decrees by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and billions of dollars in municipal investments
made throughout the basin.
Responsibility for outflow abatement fell principally on
the shoulders of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Dis-
trict (MMSD). The MMSD determined that combined sew-
er outflows could be reduced through several means, all of
which are costly and many of which involve disruptive con-
struction projects. After MMSD completed construction of
the Deep Tunnel—a massive storage system which captured
and cleaned more than 98 percent of all the water and waste-
water entering the sewer system—large, concentrated storm
events still overwhelmed its storage capacity.
Once the Deep Tunnel was operational, the MMSD
began the Greenseams program (www.mmsd.com/flood
management/greenseams), a multifaceted effort to reduce
overflows and build greater system resilience. This program

uses land conservation and tree planting strategies to prevent
flood damage and reduce combined sewer overflows. It in-
cludes the following elements: (1) aggressive funding of pri-
vate property reduction of excess flows in its member munici-
palities, (2) regulation of the volume and rate of stormwater
discharge from new development and redevelopment in the
service area, and (3) exploration of the potential to encourage
the region-wide use of green infrastructure practices through
grants and incentives.
Through these actions, the MMSD began dealing much
more directly with land-use planning, zoning, and develop-
ment as it sponsored site-scaled projects and implemented
post-construction stormwater controls on development. Its
green infrastructure programs began modestly with a rain
barrel and downspout-disconnection initiative (Figure 3.3),
but they have expanded substantially in recent years to in-
clude direct funding for municipal and private green infra-
structure projects ranging from permeable surfacing in mu-
nicipal parking lots to green roofs and large-scale bioswales
treating highway runoff.
Green infrastructure planning has become an organiz-
ing principle underlying regional cooperative efforts to pro-
tect water quality and enhance the Milwaukee region’s en-
vironment as well as one method for achieving the MMSD’s
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 3
combined sewer outflow reduction goals. Bringing local
planning and goals together with an overarching and well-
articulated regional strategy will be Milwaukee’s challenge in
the next phase of its ongoing program to build a robust and
resilient green infrastructure system and to help the region
achieve the many potential benefits and opportunities this
approach offers.
REGIONAL LAND RESOURCE PLANNING
While regional planning for water resources and water qual-
ity protection has a strong connection to public health, the
protection of land resources has its origins in other impor-
tant public policy objectives, including protection of sensitive
habitats, preservation of scenic natural areas, and preserva-
tion of working landscapes. The following sections examine
regional planning approaches to wildlife habitat protection,
agriculture and resource lands protection, and regional parks
and open space systems.
Regional Planning for Wildlife Habitat Protection
The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§1531–1544) was
enacted in 1973 (a year after the Clean Water Act), giving
Figure 3.3. Rain barrel
system (schulzie/Think-
stock photo)
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 35
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 3
authority to federal agencies to regulate activities that could
lead to the endangerment of plant and animal species. In en-
acting this legislation, Congress recognized that economic
growth and development in the absence of conservation ef-
forts had already rendered various species extinct and was
threatening many more. The act prohibits any willful taking
of threatened or endangered species on all lands within the
United States, both public and private (“taking” is defined as
killing, hunting, harming, capturing, or collecting a threat-
ened or endangered species, or destroying its habitats). The
Endangered Species Act led to numerous efforts by state,
regional, and local authorities to protect as well as restore
plant and wildlife habitat from extinction, fragmentation, or
reductions in range. The following example from San Diego
County illustrates a regional effort to protect multiple species
from the impacts of growth over a large area.
San Diego County: Regional Habitat Conservation Planning
In the late 1980s, rapid urban development and diminish-
ing open space in southern California led to inevitable con-
flicts. To address this, the California state legislature passed
the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act in 1991.
The act provided for a regional planning process focused on
protection of biological communities rather than single spe-
cies. The process designed plans that covered regional geo-
graphic areas and allowed for the protection of one or more
sensitive plant and animal species within those areas while
also allowing development in less-sensitive areas. These plans
were typically developed by a local or regional public agency
or private property owner in collaboration with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and
Game (now the California Department of Fish and Wildlife),
and environmental stakeholder groups.
The County of San Diego’s Multiple Species Conserva-
tion Program (www.sandiegocounty.gov/pds/mscp) spans
11 cities as well as unincorporated portions of central and
southwest San Diego County. In 1991 the city of San Diego
took the lead in designing the program, which addresses the
impacts of regional growth on native species and their habi-
tats within a 900-square-mile study area. The local jurisdic-
tions participating in the program agreed to permanently
preserve certain sensitive habitat areas in order to protect
85 animal and plant species, while allowing development in
nondesignated areas.
Approved in 1997, the San Diego County plan targeted
more than 172,000 acres for preservation. Since this plan was
adopted, the participating local governments have made sig-
nificant progress in acquiring and maintaining the habitat
36 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
areas that were required to be preserved (Figure 3.4). For ex-
ample, by 2014 the city of San Diego had conserved or com-
mitted to preserve nearly all of the roughly 53,000 acres in its
jurisdiction that the plan required it to preserve. At the same
time, implementation of this plan has allowed development
to continue within the areas designated for “incidental tak-
ing” under the plan and implementing agreement.
While the Multiple Species Conservation Program laid
out an aggressive plan for protecting sensitive habitat areas,
there was recognition that implementation of this plan would
require a major financial commitment by the region. In 2003
the SANDAG board of directors initiated preparation of a
ballot measure and expenditure plan to extend the San Diego
region’s existing half-cent sales tax for transportation, Trans-
Net (www.sandag.org/transnet), for an additional 30 years
in order to address a wide range of regional transportation
needs. However, environmental agencies and stakeholders
in the region were concerned that voters would not support
a transportation funding measure that did not also address
funding needs for habitat protection and that this could lead
to future difficulties obtaining regional funding to imple-
ment the plan and other habitat conservation plans.
As a result, SANDAG worked with the environmental
community to develop its Environmental Mitigation Program
(www.sandag.org/EMPGrants), which was included in the ex-
penditure plan for the TransNet extension. The program was
designed to provide direct funding for acquisition, manage-
ment, and monitoring of sensitive habitat lands designated for
protection in the Multiple Species Conservation Program. The
purpose of the program is to mitigate the impacts of new trans-
portation facilities on these sensitive lands. This establishes a
clear legal and policy nexus between regional transportation
needs and regional habitat protection needs.
The TransNet extension was approved by slightly more
than the two-thirds majority needed. Following the election,
SANDAG took responsibility for implementing the Environ-
mental Mitigation Program. It has continued working with
its local governments, federal and state wildlife agencies, and
stakeholder groups to maintain and manage this program.
Agricultural and Resource Land Preservation
More and more urban regions are rediscovering the relation-
ships they have with adjacent rural and resource areas. Rather
than seeing the unbuilt environment as potential future de-
velopment areas, regions are recognizing the significance of
rural lands, with their distinct characters and economic op-
portunities; the value of resource lands, including agricultur-
al areas and forest districts; and the importance of the social,

economic, and environmental well-being of both city and
countryside. The acknowledged local economic and health
value of regional food production is growing in regions all
across the country. This is just one example of regions real-
izing the benefits of reestablishing the connections between
urban and adjacent rural areas.
New Jersey: Management of the Pinelands
In the 1960s and 1970s, citizens, scientists, and officials
aiming to save New Jersey’s Pine Barrens ecosystem from
the devastation of post-war sprawl faced a daunting task.
New Jersey was already on its way to becoming the nation’s
most densely populated state, and the Pine Barrens was still
a working landscape—a complex mosaic of forests, farms,
towns, and small settlements. New Jersey’s land-use planning
regime could not have been more fragmented and inimical to
natural resource protection, as New Jersey is a strong home-
rule state in which every inch is controlled by independent
municipalities. Developers and politicians were dreaming of
a vast airport and new cities as urban decline in Camden was
pushing suburbs eastwards into the Pine Barrens.
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 3
Figure 3.4. Escon-
dido Creek in San Diego
County, a protected wa-
tershed area (San Diego
Habitat Conservancy)
Yet a regional planning solution, championed by an
extraordinary bipartisan set of political leaders, has been
astonishingly successful over the last 35 years. Through
Section 502 of the National Parks and Recreation Act of
1978 and the 1979 state Pinelands Protection Act, one of
the country’s strongest regional planning regimes was
created. It had the overriding mission to protect natural
resources while fostering development only to the extent
compatible with the act (Figure 3.5, p. 38). Today the 1.1
million acres of the Pinelands National Reserve (www.
nj.gov/pinelands/reserve) is home to 800,000 acres of for-
est, at least 300,000 acres of which are in private owner-
ship; 60,000 acres of farmland; and communities ranging
from new suburbs to towns tracing their histories to early
colonial settlers.
The Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (State
of New Jersey Pinelands Commission 1991) includes manda-
tory regional allocation of conservation and growth zones
for local, state, and federal governments. Municipal land-use
ordinances must be certified by the Pinelands Commission
as consistent with the plan, or they are of no force and effect.
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 37
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 3
Figure 3.5. Wading River,
New Jersey Pine Barrens
(Ernest B. Cozens III)
The requirements are clear and highly unambiguous, and
there is rarely room for debate as to whether a development
project complies with the plan.
The Pinelands Commission consists of 15 volunteer
commissioners. Seven are nominated by the governor sub-
ject to state senate confirmation, seven are chosen by each of
the counties with land in the Pinelands, and one represents
the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. No one person is able to
select a majority of the commission’s members, and there
are no big public works contracts to award. As a result, the
commission has historically been quite insulated from par-
tisan political maneuvers. The commission implements the
comprehensive management plan by reviewing all develop-
ment applications in the region and can also amend the map
and regulations. To date, most revisions have strengthened
the plan’s environmental protections.
The plan’s transfer of development rights (TDR) pro-
gram has led to the deed restriction of more than 50,000 acres
of forest and farmland. Developers working in the regional
growth area must purchase rights for certain activities from
landowners in the most stringently regulated zones of the
Pinelands. By regulation, the land is permanently deed re-
stricted with the same limitations required by the applicable
plan regulations.
38 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
The Pinelands faces various and serious threats. Among
these are periodic political assaults; statutory limits on the
commission’s jurisdiction along the Jersey Shore; the political
and technical difficulties of reversing nonpoint source contam-
ination of the aquifer and associated surface waters; and the
ever-growing demand for water from the aquifer to serve hu-
man needs and desires. As elsewhere, this program’s survival
relies on a vocal public pressuring government to do right by
the Pinelands. But the Pinelands story also shows that strong
regional land-use planning can reconcile people and the rest
of nature even in a crowded, dynamic setting like New Jersey.
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania: Farmland Preservation
Pennsylvania’s Lancaster County has some of the most pro-
ductive nonirrigated farmland in the eastern United States.
The county’s farmlands provide the basis for a robust agri-
cultural industry as well as a rural way of life. These same
lands are also viewed as highly desirable for development,
resulting in challenges for the county and its 60 cities, bor-
oughs, and townships.
Lancaster County has recognized that its agricultural
lands have economic, environmental, and social benefits. The
county’s network of farm-related services—including feed
sales, fertilizer and crop care, food manufacturing and distri-

bution, custom planting and harvesting, and farm machinery
sales—provides more than 51,000 jobs and contributes more
than $4 billion to the local economy each year (Lancaster
Farmland Trust 2009). Rainfall on the county’s farmlands
recharges underground aquifers that are local water sourc-
es and provides water habitat to a variety of wildlife. These
farmlands also provide a distinct sense of place and contrib-
ute to a high quality of life and vibrant communities in which
to live, work, and recreate.
To accommodate additional population, the county’s
townships and boroughs have established designated growth
areas that have been identified as appropriate for future de-
velopment. Cities, boroughs, and villages within the county
have established “cores” or central places—areas with exist-
ing or planned public infrastructure services that have the
capacity to support growth. To reduce sprawl, maintain and
enhance agriculture, and protect soil in areas best suited for
agricultural uses, 39 townships have adopted some form of
effective agricultural zoning ordinances.
The Lancaster County Planning Commission is the re-
gional planning agency (the designated metropolitan plan-
ning organization) for Lancaster County, which is both a
county and region defined by geography and land-use pat-
terns. Balance (Lancaster County 2006), its growth manage-
ment plan, is an adopted element of the county comprehen-
sive plan and designates urban growth areas and rural areas.
These areas are managed by the local municipalities through
zoning and land-use regulations and capital improvements
programming as well as through the county’s agricultural
preservation program. Lancaster County also adopted Green-
scapes (Lancaster County 2009), a green infrastructure plan,
as an element of the comprehensive plan.
A nine-member Agricultural Preserve Board, appointed
by the county’s board of commissioners, is responsible for de-
veloping and administering a voluntary farmland preserva-
tion program to preserve selected areas of agricultural land.
The board operates under the authorization of the Pennsylva-
nia Open Spaces Act. For more than 20 years, the board has
also administered a program to purchase agricultural con-
servation easements and advised the county commissioners
on other matters involving farmland preservation.
Sacramento County: Agricultural Land and Smart Growth
In California, Sacramento County established an urban limit
line in an effort to control the loss of prime commercial agri-
cultural lands to urbanization. It has been largely successful;
there have been instances of development over the line, but
this primarily has only been on nonprime agricultural prop-
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 3
erties. In exchange for committing land to agricultural uses
for at least 20 years, landowners in the county receive signifi-
cant tax breaks for maintaining land for agricultural use or
as open space.
In 2004, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments
completed the Sacramento Region Blueprint (SACOG
2004), a collaborative planning effort involving the 22 cit-
ies and six counties of the Sacramento region. While the
plan represented a strong vision for urban economic de-
velopment, it lacked information and data on the specific
land-use activities and economic assets of the county’s ru-
ral areas. Compelled to level the playing field for these ru-
ral communities, the council used its technical expertise,
refined during the blueprint planning process, to develop a
new project called the Rural-Urban Connections Strategy
(SACOG 2008). The project was launched in 2008 to sup-
port rural economic development, environmental sustain-
ability, and the quality of life in these rural areas. Several
innovative, data-driven, and replicable mapping and com-
puter modeling tools have emerged from the project that
provide valuable planning data for a powerful but vulnera-
ble rural agricultural region. By focusing on data gathering
and stakeholder input, the council is successfully produc-
ing models that can inform economic development strate-
gies for agriculture and guide smart growth, land conser-
vation, and resource protection efforts.
Western North Carolina: Preserving Its Distinct Character
The Land of Sky in western North Carolina is a rural region of
forests, farmland, and small towns nestled between the Blue
Ridge and Great Smoky Mountains. The Land of Sky Regional
Council, a planning body with representatives from four coun-
ties and 15 municipalities, gathered a consortium of member
jurisdictions, eight state and local agencies, and 52 nonprofit
and business groups called GroWNC to think about eco-
nomic development strategies and sustainability. The group
developed the GroWNC Regional Plan (GroWNC 2013), which
offers a voluntary policy framework that promotes smart in-
frastructure investments, diverse economic development strat-
egies, and farmland and environmental preservation.
Asheville, a primary city in the region, developed the
East of the Riverway Multimodal Neighborhood Project, a lo-
cal sustainability project, working in concert with GroWNC.
The project area contains more than 1,000 acres of ecologi-
cally, economically, and culturally important sites between
the French Broad River and downtown Asheville. The project
integrates the city’s existing transportation, greenway, revi-
talization, and energy plans to foster a multimodal transpor-
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 39
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 3
tation network and the redevelopment of old industrial sites
along the river (HUD PD&R 2015).
Regional Park, Open Space, and Trail Planning
Central Park in New York City was established in the 1850s
as the first major planned urban park in the United States.
Similar iconic parks are prominent in a number of other
American cities. In cities and regions of all sizes, green
spaces are recognized for their ecological, aesthetic, health,
and recreational values. The development of green systems
that link features including parks, boulevards, trails, and
natural areas—such as Boston’s Emerald Necklace, which
dates back to the 1880s—has become commonplace across
the United States.
Planning processes for parks and open space have pro-
vided assessment information on the ideal size and distribu-
tion of parks to serve urban populations—from pocket parks
in high-rise urban districts to major regional parks that can
include museums or host major civic or cultural events.
Regional planning for parks and open space looks at
green places and greenways in a more integrated and cross-
jurisdictional manner. Regional open space planning in some
instances focuses on connections from one jurisdiction to
another. In more detailed regional planning processes, open
space planning uses a systems approach and seeks to inte-
grate green connections with stormwater management, mo-
bility and accessibility (such as the creation of regional trails
networks), community revitalization, and sustainability.
Minneapolis–Saint Paul, Minnesota: Regional Park the regional park and trail system.
and Trail Planning
The Minneapolis–Saint Paul urban region is known for its
exemplary city park and recreational trail systems. In 2015
the Trust for Public Land honored Minneapolis and Saint
Paul for having the best park systems among the nation’s 75
largest cities (Trust for Public Land 2015). Less well known
is that their park and trail systems are nested within a larger
regional system that extends throughout all counties within
the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Council, the area’s met-
ropolitan planning organization.
Major objectives of regional park and trail planning ef-
forts in the Twin Cities are the preservation of high-quality
natural resources that contribute to the ecological health of
the region and provide recreational opportunities for resi-
dents and visitors (Figure 3.6). In the 1970s, the state legisla-
ture vested the Metropolitan Council with the responsibility
of creating a region-wide park system. The legislature deter-
mined that it would be prudent to establish an overarching
40 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
system to ensure that natural resource conservation and
recreational opportunities would develop coherently, rather
than haphazardly, throughout the region.
The Metropolitan Council oversees a hybrid regional
park and trail system that defines what kinds of parks and
trails are regionally significant, sets policies for those parks
and trails, channels funding to the regional system, and en-
sures that the region develops in a way that accommodates
the needs of this system. The Twin Cities’ system has grown
to encompass 54,000 acres of parkland and 340 miles of trails.
It has made important contributions to the region’s quality
of life, as evidenced by numerous surveys in which residents
consistently identify natural resource–based recreational op-
portunities as their favorite feature of the region. The Metro-
politan Council also released the Regional Parks Policy Plan
(2015), which highlighted emerging issues, including en-
hanced programming to connect people to the outdoors, and
strengthened efforts to ensure equitable access to the system.
Funding for the regional park and trail system relies on
state funding, Metropolitan Council bonding, and local con-
tributions. These funds support acquisition of parkland and
trails as well as development, operation, and maintenance of
the system. Although challenges continue in acquiring ad-
equate funding to grow the system to its ideal size, plans are
in place to have a system with 70,000 acres and 1,100 miles of
trails by 2040. The funding picture brightened in 2008 when
Minnesota’s state constitution was amended to include a
Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Amendment, which has pro-
vided substantial additional financial resources to support
Portland, Oregon: A Coalition for Park and Trail
Development
The building blocks for a multicounty regional park and trail
system in the Portland, Oregon, area date back to 1992 when
Metro, the area’s regional government, approved the Metro-
politan Greenspaces Master Plan (Metro 1992). Voters in the
urban region have approved multimillion-dollar bond mea-
sures twice to protect natural areas and complete trail seg-
ments having regional significance. In 2016, Metro released
the Parks and Nature System Plan (Metro 2016), the first plan
of its type for the Portland region, to guide the future devel-
opment of the area’s regional park and trail system.
An additional effort is in place in the Portland urban
region to advance park development, natural area preserva-
tion, and expansion of the network of trails and greenway
corridors. The Intertwine Alliance (www.theintertwine.org)
is a coalition of more than 100 private firms, public agencies,

and nonprofit organizations working together to complete
the region’s trail network, restore damaged natural areas, tap
new sources of funding, better leverage existing investments,
and more fully engage residents with the outdoors and na-
ture. The coalition uses what it terms a collective impact ap-
proach to advancing the expansion of green systems in Port-
land through a commitment by participating organizations
to a common agenda for addressing complex social or envi-
ronmental challenges. It also recognizes the multiple cross-
benefits of addressing green space through a large-scale, re-
gional approach, including mobility, health, prosperity, and
restored ecosystems.
Puget Sound: Regional Open Space Strategy
In 2008, the Puget Sound Regional Council adopted its pio-
neering long-range sustainability strategy, VISION 2040. VI-
SION 2040 is an integrated approach to guiding future devel-
opment and investments in the central Puget Sound region. It
is based on state growth management planning requirements
but expands to address compact urban form, resource lands
preservation, clean mobility, climate change, housing for all,
health and wellness, and conservation in the provision of
services. A noteworthy feature of VISION 2040 is the set of
implementation actions and measures to achieve the policies
and plans in the strategy.
One of the 68 implementation actions calls for the de-
velopment of a region-wide strategy for open space. Unfortu-
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 3
nately, VISION 2040 was adopted as the Puget Sound region,
along with the rest of the nation, entered into a major eco-
nomic recession. Staff positions were cut, and the council’s
leadership had to make tough decisions about which imple-
mentation actions would be carried out first.
A number of elected officials and regional stakeholders
expressed strong interest in moving forward with a regional
open space initiative even given the shrinking resources of
the council. They approached the University of Washington
and the Bullitt Foundation, which funds innovative envi-
ronmental efforts in the Pacific Northwest. The result was
the creation of the Regional Open Space Strategy program
(http://openspacepugetsound.org/), a collaborative effort that
brings together decision makers, planners, businesses, and
individuals to make regionally based, coordinated decisions
to support open space in the central Puget Sound region.
The program is stewarded by the University of Wash-
ington’s Green Futures Lab (http://greenfutures.washington
.edu). A pilot study developed a green systems plan for the
Cedar River watershed. The river traverses resource lands,
rural areas, and urban communities before entering Lake
Washington on Seattle’s eastern border. An innovative fea-
ture of this approach was the identification of public and
private lands as well as both active and passive open space
areas that could form a green corridor connecting communi-
ties and natural areas along the watershed. Additional grant
funding has allowed the program to evolve from a pilot study
Figure 3.6. Minneapolis
skyline from Chain of
Lakes Regional Park
(Metropolitan Council/
Saint Paul, Minnesota)
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 41
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 3
to a region-wide approach for integrating greenspace connec-
tions. However, finding funding to translate the strategy into
action remains a challenge.
Memphis: Mid-South Regional Greenprint Consortium
The Mid-South Regional Greenprint consortium, led by Shel-
by County in Tennessee, released GREENPRINT 2015/2040
(Mid-South Regional Greenprint Consortium 2015), a plan
to address transportation, community health and well-
ness, social equity, and economic development through an
integrated network of green spaces and trails in the greater
Memphis region.
Emphasizing equitable participation and strong repre-
sentation from communities of color and low-income com-
munities, the project engaged more than 3,000 residents
who provided crucial feedback on the plan and identified
underserved areas where Greenprint investments could pro-
vide maximum benefit. The plan lays out a network of trails
that will link households across the region, including under-
served neighborhoods, to key destinations, such as major
employers and services.
The consortium committed to the establishment of an
outreach council that will monitor potential displacement
stemming from Greenprint investments. Other activities
include the publication of an outreach toolkit for effective
public engagement and the establishment of incentives for
the development of affordable housing on or near Greenprint
corridors (HUD OER 2015c).
Summary
Land-use planning continues to remain the purview of local
individual jurisdictions. At the same time, significant plan-
ning efforts occurring at the regional level around water,
sewer, and infrastructure planning have forced recognition
of ways that land use in one jurisdiction may impact other
communities. This evolution is probably most pronounced
when an understanding of the social, environmental, and
economic benefits of effective land use exists: the benefits
of habitat lands in urban settings, of rural lands adjacent
to urbanized areas, and of parks and open space. Planning
for some of these regionally significant land uses is becom-
ing more integrated into a systems approach—that is, an ap-
proach that considers habitat, open space, and agriculture as
a whole system.
As regional planning for parks and open space evolves, a
variety of approaches are in play. For example, the Twin Cities
process represents a formal, institutionalized approach, based
on the state legislature recognizing the benefits of “regional-
42 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
izing” existing successful local programs to create green con-
nections. In Portland, a successful formal approach through
the regional governing body is influenced and informed by
an ad hoc coalition of public, private, and nonprofit interests
committed to advancing the creation of a green system with-
in the built environment. Puget Sound provides an example
of a local university and philanthropic organization stepping
in to take on a regional initiative with the support of local
professionals, decision makers, and engaged citizens.
CONCLUSION
The regional environmental planning topics described in this
chapter, while quite varied in scope and application, have all
demonstrated a remarkable evolution in the ways in which
they have been addressed and handled. For example, plan-
ning for water resources has evolved from a situation where
different aspects of water were addressed separately—for ex-
ample, stormwater management, flood control, water treat-
ment, and distribution—to a more integrated and holistic ap-
proach bringing together the various aspects of water sources,
water use, and water treatment. Planning for water is moving
in the direction of sustainability, where the entire water sys-
tem is addressed, from supply to reuse to return to the natural
environment. Integration with other related regional issues
is also becoming more commonplace, such as linking water
planning with open space planning. The emergence of green
infrastructure planning further integrates water planning
with other infrastructure planning.
Regional planning around specific topics is also result-
ing in new partnerships and public engagement. For example,
open space and parks planning in the Portland, Oregon, and
Seattle regions demonstrates new ways of developing green
connections that serve multiple purposes, including habitat,
recreation, and open space.
Chapter 4 moves into a discussion of emerging trends in
regional economic development planning to make regions
more competitive. The chapter also discusses innovative tools
being used to address regional housing needs and make ur-
ban regions more vibrant and sustainable.
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 3

www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 43

CHAPTER 4
REGIONAL
PLANNING FOR
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
AND HOUSING
At the same time as many regional planning programs have focused on important environmental topics, there is also a wide
range of planning programs dealing with regional economic development and housing issues. This chapter provides a look at
trends in these two broad categories of regional planning.

REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT improve access and equity for all workers. Federal econom-
PLANNING
Regional planning for economic development has a relatively
long history in the United States, and a high level of interest
in and activity around it has continued over the past decades.
However, the specific approaches to economic development
planning have taken a number of different forms, affected by
both the scales of the regions and the specific issues on which
these regions are focused.
The Evolution of Regional Economic come much more complex. Today, infrastructure includes
Development Planning
The federal government first invested in rural development
through the creation of the land-grant university system in
1862. In the 1930s, federal economic development initiatives
focused on multistate natural resource and regional develop-
ment initiatives, including large public works, electrification,
and rural industrial job-creation projects such as the Hoover
Dam and the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority. The
Appalachian Regional Commission was established in 1965
to address the issue of persistent multistate regional poverty,
with similar multistate regional commissions created else-
where. The Economic Development Administration of the
U.S. Department of Commerce (EDA) is the most sustained
source of funding for regional economic assistance programs
and continues to apply unemployment and poverty criteria
to its federal assistance programs. Starting in the 1980s, eco-
nomic development also became a priority for federal pro-
grams targeted at American Indian tribes.
Planning for economic prosperity today, whether in
growing or shrinking regions, addresses a broad array of as-
sets that include cultural resources and amenities, natural
resources, workforce education, and mobility initiatives to
ic development programs now encourage more integrated
place-based development strategies to ensure economic com-
petitiveness in rural and distressed areas. Place-based region-
al institutions and partnerships provide resources to better
link metropolitan and rural areas, as well as to build capacity
in local and tribal governments.
Elevating talent and workforce skills is increasingly vi-
tal for successful regional economic development programs.
In addition, infrastructure investment, which was a major
theme at the beginning of the twenty-first century, has be-
fiber optic networks and transportation systems that meet
the needs of workers, such as high-capacity transit and more
complete sidewalk and bicycle networks.
While some rural communities and older urban neigh-
borhoods are declining, many are finding ways to flourish in
the new economy. The most successful collaborations involve
a meshing of economic development (transactions to support
key employers), community development (infrastructure,
services, and amenities to support both employers and em-
ployees), and workforce development (training and educa-
tional institutions).
Economic Competitiveness
Economic competitiveness planning has emerged as a game
changer for regional planning in many parts of the coun-
try. In addition, it has become prominent across a variety of
scales—from large metropolitan areas to midsized urban re-
gions and rural areas. A growing number of regional efforts
have begun to emphasize economic competitiveness factors
such as adequate infrastructure, housing availability, and
workforce development programs in long-range planning.
Some agencies, such as the Wasatch Front Regional Council

www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 45

 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 4

in the Salt Lake City, Utah, region, have formally established America’s Original Megaregion: The Appalachian Regional
regional economic planning authorities. Others, such as the Commission
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning and the Minne- Regional planning for economic development is fundamen-
apolis–Saint Paul Metropolitan Council, have elevated the tal to one of the largest and best-defined multistate regions
importance of regional jobs, business retention, and work- in the United States: the Appalachian region. As defined in
force needs in their long-range plans and strategies. federal legislation, the region covers all or part of 13 states
and 205,000 square miles along the Appalachian mountain
Project Planning and Development chain from western New York to northern Mississippi. The
At the same time, many regional planning agencies have region is mostly mountainous and piedmont territory with
moved beyond strategic planning for economic competitive- small to midsized towns and cities and nonurbanized areas,
ness. They have taken direct responsibility for project planning with a few larger exceptions such as Pittsburgh; Birmingham,
and development for major infrastructure projects and system Alabama; and greater Atlanta. The region has approximately
improvements that are identified as necessary components of 25 million residents.
economically competitive regions. For example, some of the The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a
regional planning agencies responsible for both comprehen- unique federal, state, and local partnership for economic
sive regional planning and regional infrastructure planning development that relies in large measure on multicounty re-
and development have taken the lead on project-level planning gional organizations for implementation. Member states of-
for key infrastructure improvements needed in their regions to ficially designate local development districts to act as their
make them more economically competitive. regional coordinating bodies for the commission’s programs.
The examples that follow highlight regions that are find- Most federal agencies are departments of the federal gov-
ing fresh ways to integrate economic development planning ernment—such as the DOT, which funds transportation
into other aspects of long-range regional planning (Table planning by metropolitan planning organizations and ru-
4.1). The first example focuses on the evolution of one of the ral planning organizations. The commission, however, is a
longest-existing regional economic development programs in partnership itself. As a multistate commission, much of the
the Appalachian region. A number of examples from larger activity intentionally reaches across departmental functions
metropolitan areas and midsized urban regions follow. The such as commerce, transportation, agriculture, health and
section concludes with examples from rural and tribal pro- human services, housing, energy, environmental protection,
grams to advance twenty-first century prosperity. and education. Created by the Appalachian Development Act
in 1965 as part of the federal antipoverty program, ARC and
its local development districts have been agents for numerous
programs that require multicounty regional coordination on
a wide variety of initiatives. By design, they collaborate with
TABLE 4.1. REGIONAL ECONOMIC multiple levels of government agencies, private industry, phil-
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING EXAMPLES anthropic entities, and neighboring districts on many proj-
ects requiring cross-agency agreements and funding.
Example Regional Scale
Many of the local development districts also have been
Appalachian Region multistate designated as economic development districts for the EDA.
Pittsburgh metropolitan This designation allows the districts to be agents for compre-
Northeast Ohio metropolitan hensive economic development strategies in areas that qualify
Mid-Ohio metropolitan for economic assistance. Consistent regional comprehensive
economic development strategies are required by the EDA
Seattle metropolitan
for funding through its programs. The development districts
Denver metropolitan
may also be the designated coordinating agencies for work-
Baltimore metropolitan force initiatives from the U.S. Department of Labor, and they
Clearwater, Idaho rural may provide venues for other special programs requiring a
New Mexico rural regions rural / tribal regional staff and specially designed local boards that meet
the requirements of various federal and state programs (such
Source: Editors as area agencies on aging). Districts with multiple designa-

46 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org


tions provide a more efficient means for service delivery from
multiple programs compared to what can be accomplished by
a single local government.
Since its inception, ARC has witnessed a significant drop
in the number of counties identified as high-poverty areas
in the region it serves. In addition, infant mortality rates
have dropped and high school graduation rates have risen to
achieve near parity with national averages (Center for Eco-
nomic Competitiveness and West Virginia University 2015).
In recent years, there has been a clearer emphasis on the
basics of regional economic sustainability throughout the
Appalachian region. The accommodation of firms in well-
prepared locations with infrastructure investments remains
a priority. However, a robust emphasis continues on creat-
ing healthy communities that are self-reliant and focused on
specific assets, economic innovation, and “grow-your-own”
kinds of entrepreneurship and small business development.
Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area: The Southwestern ios covering urban, rural, and suburban parts of the region
Pennsylvania Commission
One example of a diverse development district is the South-
western Pennsylvania Commission (SPC), which is designat-
ed as a local development district, a metropolitan planning
organization, and an economic development district for a
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 4
Figure 4.1. Southwestern
Pennsylvania Com-
mission regional vision
scenario map (South-
western Pennsylvania
Commission)
10-county region of approximately 7,200 square miles in the
greater Pittsburgh metropolitan area.
SPC develops its transportation plan in concert with its
economic development strategy. By integrating regional eco-
nomic development and transportation planning mandates,
it focuses on achieving balanced, cost-effective growth and
development by targeting population centers with infrastruc-
ture improvements and integrating economic development
and transportation system priorities. For example, SPC’s plan
focuses on economic development to address local business
needs in existing communities through financing programs
available to the local development district as well as programs
and projects that help create new opportunities for existing
communities through brownfield redevelopment.
An example of this type of integrated planning is SPC’s
Project Region planning process (www.spcregion.org/proj),
which kicked off with large assemblies of partners that con-
sidered computer-generated alternative development scenar-
(Figure 4.1). SPC also developed the 2040 Transportation and
Development Plan (SPC 2011). Supported in part by funding
from ARC and EDA, the program directly engaged thou-
sands of the region’s residents in conversations about what
they valued and wanted for their future.
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 47
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 4
The consensus view that emerged from SPC’s extensive
Project Region outreach process was a regional development
scenario of transportation and land use that supports and en-
hances the regional economy and the region’s communities.
As a result, new transportation and economic investments
are considered in 16 specific policy goals in the plan.
Northeast Ohio: Changing the Region’s Trajectory
The northeast corner of Ohio has faced years of economic de-
cline and population loss. The growth that has occurred has
typically been on undeveloped land in suburban and exurban
communities that absorb residents from legacy cities. This
population movement contributes to disinvestment in legacy
cities; places the region’s natural resources in jeopardy; and
weakens the fiscal health of cities, counties, and the region.
To reverse this trend, a coalition of local governments,
metropolitan planning organizations, and nonprofit advoca-
cy groups launched the Northeast Ohio Sustainable Commu-
nities Consortium (NEOSCC), which crafted a coordinated
approach to land-use, transportation, and housing policy
for the 12-county region. The consortium produced Vibrant
NEO 2040 (NEOSCC 2014), a vision and framework that
encourages greater integration of Northeast Ohio’s employ-
ment centers (the cities of Cleveland, Akron, Canton, and
Youngstown) through inclusive economic and land-use poli-
cies and a cohesive transportation plan (HUD PD&R 2015).
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission: The Food District
at Weinland Park
When the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission evalu-
ated ways to strengthen the local economy, building a robust
regional food system rose to the top of its list of strategies.
Developing a value-added agricultural sector would not
only ensure access to healthy, locally produced food, but it
would also preserve farmland threatened by development in
the growing Columbus metropolitan area. The commission’s
Central Ohio Local Food Assessment and Plan (MORPC 2010)
identified opportunities to improve the region’s food distri-
bution system, develop food enterprise incubators, and in-
crease local food-processing capacity—activities that would
make agriculture more profitable (HUD OER 2015b).
Seattle: A Merging of Regional Long-Range Planning economic development goals.
and Regional Economic Development
Many residents in the central Puget Sound region of Wash-
ington State still remember the serious downturn in the local
economy in the 1970s. What was called the “Boeing Bust” re-
sulted not only in a loss of jobs but a loss in population as well.
48 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
A billboard on the Seattle landscape read, “Will the last one
leaving Seattle—Turn off the lights” (Lange 1999).
To help revive the region’s economy, an economic de-
velopment district was created for the four-county metro-
politan area comprising King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish
counties. Early district efforts focused on regional economic
initiatives and grants to local jurisdictions for federal dol-
lars. However, by the early 2000s, the staff of the district
was down to three people. Many of the board members for
the district were also members of the Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC), the metropolitan planning organization for
the greater Seattle-Everett-Tacoma area. As the council took
on more of an integrated planning approach to land use and
transportation, regional economic development issues be-
came part of the long-range planning agenda. In 2004 the
economic development district folded its staff into the PSRC
to advance collaboration and integration of growth manage-
ment, infrastructure, and economic development planning.
The Regional Economic Strategy for the Central Puget
Sound Region (PSRC 2012) serves as the functional economic
development plan for the central Puget Sound area’s VISION
2040 regional long-range growth and sustainability strategy.
It lays out a detailed game plan to grow jobs and economic
activity throughout the region. The strategy emphasizes
strengthening the fundamentals shared by all industry sec-
tors. Underpinning the plan are five goals to improve the
foundations of the economy:
1. Ensure residents have access to family-wage jobs and
employers have access to world-class talent.
2. Foster a regional business climate that supports high-
quality investment and job creation.
3. Harness the entrepreneurship and technology innova-
tion assets in the region.
4. Advance the region’s infrastructure to meet the demands
of a globally connected modern economy.
5. Ensure a healthy and beautiful environment, vibrant and
thriving communities, and a high quality of life for all
the region’s residents.
Each foundation goal includes a set of strategies, with a
total of over two dozen strategies for achieving the region’s
Denver: Regional Collaboration to Advance
Economic Competitiveness
The Denver metropolitan area went from a dramatic econom-
ic boom to a bust in the 1980s. The Metro Denver Economic

Development Corporation worked in partnership with every
city, county, and economic development group in the greater
Denver region to create a collaborative atmosphere among
Denver-area jurisdictions—especially between central city
and suburban neighbors. The message was that competition
should not take place between suburbs or between the city
and county; rather, the region should compete with other ur-
ban regions nationally and globally.
From the City of Denver’s perspective, a long-standing
issue was the use of city facilities by suburban residents.
Since 1989 all jurisdictions from the seven-county Denver
area have contributed to a metropolitan-wide Scientific and
Cultural Facilities District (http://scfd.org). One-tenth of one
percent of sales and use tax proceeds are now distributed to
cultural facilities throughout the urban region with the pri-
mary purposes of enlightening and entertaining the public
through the production, presentation, exhibition, advance-
ment, and preservation of art, music, theater, dance, zoology,
botany, natural history, and cultural history. This funding
has helped the region’s many cultural facilities continue to
grow and thrive, which in turn has benefitted region-wide
economic development efforts. The program has also helped
to create a regional sense of community and pride.
Baltimore: Bridging of the Jobs-Access Gap
The Opportunity Collaborative (www.opportunitycollabora
tive.org) is a consortium formed by state and local govern-
ments, businesses, universities, philanthropies, and commu-
nity leaders in greater Baltimore. The collaborative’s goal is
to strengthen the regional economy and connect all residents
to opportunity; to help implement this goal, it developed the
Baltimore Regional Plan for Sustainable Development (Op-
portunity Collaborative 2015). The collaborative mapped out
the complex barriers that prevent many Baltimore residents
from accessing employment. Many workers in metropolitan
Baltimore struggle to find affordable housing near the grow-
ing job centers that are concentrated far from the urban core.
In addition, low-income households dependent on public
transportation are unable to make the commutes because the
region’s transit system does not connect to these decentral-
ized employment locations.
As a result, the collaborative’s Last Mile Project (www
.cmtalliance.org/priorities/The-Last-Mile) has sought to
bridge the jobs-access gap by teaming up the Central Mary-
land Transportation Alliance with the Baltimore Washington
International Business Partnership to create stronger transit
connections to the region’s airport district. This innovative
partnership will connect people to a major employment cen-
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 4
ter, increase access to jobs for all residents in the region, and
ensure that critical regional employers can attract new talent
and retain existing workers (HUD OER 2015b).
Rural Areas and Tribal Lands: Regional Economic
Development
Tribal governments are playing a greater role in regional
planning efforts by partnering with regional districts, serv-
ing as state regional transportation organizations, and devel-
oping linkages between rural and urban areas.
Idaho: Collaborative Economic Development
The Clearwater Economic Development Association (CEDA)
encompasses five counties in Idaho at the confluence of the
Clearwater and Snake Rivers, where the Lewis and Clark
Expedition met the Nez Perce Tribe. CEDA serves 29 small
cities and unincorporated communities within and around
the Nez Perce reservation and adjacent to the largest block
of designated forest wilderness outside of Alaska. The city
of Lewiston is the central trade area. CEDA’s comprehen-
sive economic development strategy, Pathways to Accelerate
North Central Idaho (CEDD 2014), identifies strategic indus-
trial and manufacturing clusters as part of comprehensive
workforce realignment. It also incorporates transportation
and housing strategies into economic development planning.
CEDA also established the Manufacturing Working
Council. Through this effort, it has led business cluster devel-
opment activities, such as working with partners to address
the workforce needs of the manufacturers in the region that
produce wine and building a partnership with the Lewis-
Clark Valley Wine Alliance. The organization also supports
the travel industry by providing grant writing and grant ad-
ministration services to the North Central Idaho Travel As-
sociation. In addition, it connects communities and small
industries to multiple resources by working with many part-
ners, including the University of Idaho, with a representative
from the university serving on CEDA’s board.
Federal funding partners have included the U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, the EDA, the National Science Founda-
tion, and U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development.
Local investors include the Ports of Clarkston and Lewiston.
CEDA’s planners also provide microeconomic data and exper-
tise in support of schools and other collaborative groups build-
ing career opportunities for youth, including CEDA’s eastern
Washington counterpart, the Southeast Washington Eco-
nomic Development Association. When the Nez Perce Tribe
developed its regional telecommunications service (many
small cities are within reservation boundaries), CEDA helped
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 49
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 4
to develop the plan for rural telecommunication needs. This
plan was instrumental in allowing the tribe to secure funding
and build a regional telecommunication system. The tribe also
operates an award-winning rural public bus system.
New Mexico: State and Tribal Government Support for In the northwestern part of the state—which includes
Rural Regional Development
New Mexico is among the states that have designated fed-
eral economic development districts as multipurpose state
planning districts—districts that serve local communities
by leveraging multiple state and federal plans and programs.
The New Mexico Department of Finance and Administra-
tion’s Local Government Division has worked closely with
the state’s councils of government to strategically coordi-
nate and leverage state and federal financing to implement
local capital improvement, housing, and transportation
projects that often extend across local and tribal jurisdic-
tional boundaries. Without any state requirements for local
comprehensive planning, the incentive for local capital im-
provement programming requirements came from legisla-
tive and state agency actions to adopt these plans to priori-
tize state appropriations.
Tribal governments are playing greater roles in regional
planning efforts by partnering with regional districts, serv-
ing as state regional transportation organizations, and devel-
oping linkages between rural and urban areas. For example,
the Mid-Region Council of Governments, which includes
Albuquerque and several surrounding counties with many
tribal communities, developed the Rail Runner commuter
train that follows the original rail line between Albuquerque
and Santa Fe (Figure 4.2). This service reestablished the his-
Figure 4.2. Rail Runner
commuter train
(Mark c Childs)
50 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
toric connections between the two cities and the six Pueblo
Indian communities through which the line passes. Most of
the 22 tribal governments in New Mexico have chosen to re-
tain their own intergovernmental associations of sovereign
tribal governments.
Gallup, Zuni, and much of the Navajo reservation lands—the
Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments is also the
designated regional transportation planning organization
and has facilitated a memorandum of agreement between
tribal and state agencies to upgrade a federal highway corri-
dor that runs from Gallup across the Navajo reservation. The
council prepares and implements a comprehensive economic
development strategy, which is updated every five years. Mul-
tiple sources of funds are used to address four key regional
issues: energy, health care, tourism, and water.
Summary
Economic development planning in various regional plan-
ning contexts is evolving to deal with changing regions,
changing demographics, and more integrated approaches
that link economic prosperity with infrastructure invest-
ments, the creation of more vibrant places, and long-range
regional planning objectives. An emphasis on cooperation
and collaboration has expanded these efforts to include
more partners—public agencies, private-sector stakeholders,
educational institutions, and others interested in advancing
long-term economic well-being. As with other regional plan-
ning issues, economic development planning has expanded
its focus on performance and the recognition of co-benefits
beyond economics as well as social and environmental issues.

Tribal governments, in cooperation with their states,
play increasingly critical roles in enabling effective regional
strategies within their jurisdictions and adjacent areas. Some
designate substate districts for coordinated state, local, tribal,
urban, and rural development initiatives and celebrate the
role of regional councils in effective and efficient investment
of public dollars. Finally, place-based strategies that link local
food systems, value-added export industries, import substi-
tution, and healthy communities improve resilience in the
face of disasters, climate change, and global forces. Regional
planners and regional institutions are critical intermediaries
in processes that both build and extend beyond historical re-
gional planning and development districts to include busi-
ness, community, and nongovernmental partners.
REGIONAL HOUSING PLANNING
Planning for housing at the regional level is critical to ensure
that the needs of diverse and changing populations are met in
a manner that provides sufficient, safe, and healthy housing
for all. Planning for housing also provides benefits such as
more job opportunities and improved mobility. While many
regional plans across the United States address the provision
of housing for low- and moderate-income households, new
strategies are required to address housing needs effectively
and overcome the barriers to providing affordable housing at
all income levels.
There is a major transformation taking place in urban
regions across the country because of changing demograph-
ics and migration. By the middle of the twenty-first century,
the traditional American household of two adults with one
or two children will be in the minority of household types.
Taking its place are households made up of single individu-
als or single parents as well as an increasing number of se-
nior households. Regional planning for housing is critical
for addressing these trends to ensure that housing provid-
ers and local jurisdictions are taking steps to accommodate
these changes.
From a regional planning perspective, housing strate-
gies are not merely about guaranteeing that people have a
place to live; they must also ensure that where people live re-
flects sound principles of growth and social equity. Provid-
ing affordable housing opportunities throughout a region
or metropolitan area is critical to maintaining a healthy re-
gion that permits individuals to live near their work, allows
regions to grow in an environmentally responsible fashion,
and begins to undo the concentration of low-income house-
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 4
holds and people of color in urban neighborhoods that still
characterizes many American metropolitan areas.
Regional Housing Planning Programs
While it is still the exception rather than the rule, some states
and regions have determined that access to affordable hous-
ing is a topical area of regional planning that deserves the
same type of focused attention as other regional planning
topics. This focus on affordable housing also considers re-
lated aspects of planning for housing, such as ensuring fair
housing (avoiding discrimination in housing availability)
and avoiding dislocation of existing community residents in
redeveloping areas (gentrification), as key components of a
region’s affordable housing strategy.
The examples provided in this section showcase a num-
ber of very different programs and approaches to planning
for housing in a regional context (Table 4.2). An overview is
provided of regional housing legislation in California, with
an example of how it was applied in the Monterey Bay area
of the state. Two metropolitan housing planning efforts, in
Boston and Minneapolis–Saint Paul, are then described. Fi-
nally, examples are offered from a midsized urban region in
Oregon and a rural county in West Virginia.
California: A State Framework for Regional Housing
Needs Assessments
Addressing fair share housing at the regional level has
evolved in California over the past 40 years and continues to
become more synchronized with other key regional planning
processes. The California Housing Element Law, passed in
1969, requires local governments to plan adequately for hous-
ing supply to accommodate the projected needs of all eco-
nomic segments of the population. The intent of the law is
that local governments should not constrain housing supply
TABLE 4.2. REGIONAL HOUSING PLANNING EXAMPLES
Example Scale
Monterey Bay area (operating under state
small metro
framework)
Metropolitan Boston large metro
Minneapolis–Saint Paul large metro
Lane County, Oregon small metro
Randolph County, West Virginia rural
Source: Editors
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 51
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 4
and should work to provide opportunities for housing devel-
opment. The California Department of Housing and Com-
munity Development (HCD) and all regional councils of gov-
ernment, through a process called the regional housing needs
allocation, determine the number of housing units required
to meet those needs.
The California Department of Finance prepares projec-
tions, which use the regional councils of government projec-
tions for growth, to establish regional housing needs alloca-
tions. Each council of governments is then responsible for
determining the allocation of needed housing units to each
of its local jurisdictions. The HCD reviews and certifies lo-
cal housing elements (part of local general plans) to ensure
those housing needs figures are addressed in the local hous-
ing planning process.
In 2008 the state passed the Sustainable Communities and
Climate Protection Act (Senate Bill 375), which among other
things requires that the regional housing needs allocation is
prepared every eight years in conjunction with the regional
transportation plan and the newly required sustainable com-
munities strategy. The strategy is a projected development pat-
tern that, in conjunction with the regional transportation plan,
seeks to reduce a region’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions.
Regional transportation planning agencies now prepare fore-
casts for demographic growth, housing need, and transporta-
tion projects in the same planning cycle, which allows them
to incorporate regional goals into a more holistic planning ap-
proach that considers both land use and transportation.
Monterey Bay, California: Regional Housing Needs may improve their economic stability while also supporting
Assessment in Practice
The Monterey Bay area is a midsized region located on the
central coast of California. This relatively slow-growing re-
gion has a diverse economy. The coastal portion of the region
tends to comprise tourist destinations with more high-priced
housing stock, while inland areas are home to farming com-
munities with low- to mid-cost housing.
The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
(AMBAG) is the regional metropolitan planning organi-
zation responsible for conducting coordinated regional
transportation planning as required by SB 375. In its first
metropolitan transportation plan/sustainable communi-
ties strategy adopted pursuant to this law, known as Mon-
terey Bay 2035: Moving Forward (2014), AMBAG set forth a
planned regional land-use pattern that promotes infill devel-
opment near existing cities and, more specifically, promotes
infill housing development in cities with potential high job
growth. Additionally, high-quality transit services are fo-
52 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
cused in areas with this projected job and housing growth.
Like other metropolitan planning organizations in Califor-
nia, AMBAG used an iterative scenario planning process to
coordinate transportation improvements and land-use plan-
ning for the region. The resulting plan serves as the long-
range transportation plan for the region.
The regional housing needs allocation also identified fu-
ture housing needs not based solely on projected population
growth but also on projected job growth. This assessment en-
sured that housing opportunities would be provided where
they were most needed instead of continuing existing trends
of housing growth on the fringes of the urbanized areas.
Since the adoption of this plan, AMBAG has begun to
seek funding to assist local governments in proactively plan-
ning for land-use patterns emphasizing infill and compact
development consistent with the regional sustainable com-
munities strategy. It was awarded funding from the Califor-
nia Strategic Growth Council to engage local jurisdictions in
developing planning ordinances and policies that implement
the sustainable communities strategy goals. The funding al-
lows AMBAG to work with rural communities with less po-
tential for growth to establish a framework of economic de-
velopment planning that could place jobs, goods, and services
closer to existing housing. The result will be a framework for
implementing the regional sustainable communities strategy
at a local level that considers housing, jobs, and transporta-
tion from both a local and a regional perspective. Thus, for
example, smaller cities in the inland portion of the region will
be able to promote economic development opportunities that
housing and transportation facilities that are aligned with re-
gional sustainability goals.
Boston: Regional Planning for Fair Housing
The Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) serves
the 101 cities and towns in and around metropolitan Boston.
The council works to shape and implement local, regional,
and statewide housing opportunities through the following
activities:
• Production of local and regional plans
• Design of model zoning bylaws for housing diversity and
affordability
• Collection, dissemination, and analysis of housing data
and the forecasting of population and household trends
• Preparation of housing publications
• Advocacy for housing funding, policies, and programs at
the state and federal levels

Fair housing and affordable housing are distinctly sep-
arate concepts in law and public policy, but they are inter-
related. Federal fair housing statutes were enacted to ensure
that members of protected classes, regardless of income or
need for assisted housing, are free to rent or buy housing
without discrimination. The obligation to further fair hous-
ing was intended to reverse unfair housing conditions in
cities across the country.
Following the principles of fair housing, MAPC worked
with the Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association to pro-
duce the report Fair Housing and Equity Assessment for Met-
ropolitan Boston (MAPC 2014). This assessment examines
conditions in the housing market and whether or not they
affect access to assisted housing (Figure 4.3). It also consid-
ers the historical patterns of residential segregation, such
as public- and assisted-housing siting decisions, admission
policies assigning families to assisted housing based on race
and color, and exclusion of people of color from federal mort-
gage insurance and homeowner programs. The objective of
this region-wide assessment was to ensure that MetroFuture
(MAPC 2008), the regional plan for the metropolitan Boston
area, links fair housing considerations with issues of trans-
portation, employment, education, land-use planning, envi-
ronmental justice, and access to housing consistent with the
livability principles developed by HUD (HUD n.d.).
MAPC has also created an online Fair Housing Toolkit
(www.mapc.org/fair-housing-toolkit), which brings together
resources to help appointed and elected leaders; municipal
planning, housing, and development officials; and develop-
ers, citizen board members, and other volunteers understand
how to further fair housing goals and principles. It addresses
nearly a dozen housing topics and also provides information
about fair housing laws, regulations, and executive orders.
Minneapolis–Saint Paul: Regional Planning for Housing
The Metropolitan Council in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul
area has long been involved in planning for the location and
production of affordable housing. The council’s overall ap-
proach to affordable housing is as follows: (1) it determines
the regional and local need for affordable housing; (2) it nego-
tiates with local communities to establish goals for affordable
and life-cycle housing production; and (3) it generates hous-
ing performance scores to rate how well communities are do-
ing in meeting their housing goals.
Minnesota statutes require local comprehensive plans
to include housing implementation programs that address
each community’s share of the regional need for affordable
housing. The council has helped communities to fulfill this
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 4
Figure 4.3. Housing in Boston (Elenathewise/Thinkstock photo)
requirement by generating a forecast for Minneapolis–Saint
Paul region-wide need and a formula for local share for the
coming decade. All communities in the Twin Cities area are
required by state statute to update their long-range compre-
hensive plans during the sixth through eighth years of each
decade. To provide communities with information to help
them address affordable housing issues in their updated com-
prehensive plans, the council establishes the affordable hous-
ing need prior to the sixth year of the decade.
The Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Housing Policy Plan
(2014a) establishes several parameters for determining need
based on expected growth in population and households,
various tiers of area median income, the ratio of low-wage
jobs to low-wage workers, and the presence of existing af-
fordable housing. After defining the need for regional and
local affordable housing, the council negotiates housing pro-
duction goals with individual communities. This process is
integrated with the Livable Communities program (https://
metrocouncil.org/About-Us/Facts/CommunitiesF/FACTS-
Livable-Communities.aspx), an innovative legislative pro-
gram that the council administers. This program supports
plan implementation by providing grants to communities for
projects that revitalize economies, create viable housing op-
tions, and link land use and transportation.
The council also rates communities regarding their per-
formance in meeting their housing goals. The scores have
historically been used to guide funding provided by Livable
Communities program grants, but they are now used to help
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 53
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 4
prioritize other regionally managed funding as well. The pro-
cess makes the Metropolitan Council both a regulator and a
funder. However, its funding role has a strong collaborative
dimension to it. Developers can apply for multiple funding
resources at once, and the council facilitates creative financ-
ing packages that best fit each project and the strategic priori-
ties of each funder. It contributes a designated portion of the
Livable Communities program funds to this process.
Much of the council’s housing collaboration work oc-
curs within the context of transit-oriented development. The
council has designated a transit-oriented development offi-
cer to leverage appropriate investment near transit stations,
particularly where it owns key parcels of property. It has also
created a special transit-oriented development funding pro-
gram to incent local communities to have their own focus on
transit-oriented development (Metropolitan Council n.d.).
Lane County, Oregon: Engagement of the Latino Community
As part of the Lane Livability Consortium (www.livability
lane.org), the University of Oregon led a research and out-
reach effort to engage the growing Latino community in
Lane County, Oregon. The project produced equity indica-
tors and engagement tools to help public agencies build trust
and measure progress on issues important to Latino com-
munities. The project provided safe spaces for residents to
share concerns and ideas, used trusted informal networks
for disseminating information, and improved the cultural
competency of agency staff. As a result, it reduced isolation,
fostered networking within Latino and immigrant commu-
nities, and yielded insights about local plans that may not
have been captured otherwise.
Municipalities in the county are incorporating the re-
search findings into an area-wide plan, which will guide
grant funding for affordable housing and community de-
velopment and influence each local fair housing plan. Other
Oregon towns are looking to replicate the process, including
training staff on outreach to Latino and other marginalized
communities (HUD OER 2015c).
Randolph County, West Virginia: Housing Needs ing regions or areas experiencing a shrinking population. The
and Accessibility
Randolph County is a rural region in West Virginia with
high poverty and unemployment rates. The county has very
limited public transportation options and approximately 20
percent of local residents lack access to personal vehicles. The
number of senior citizens living in the region is projected to
double by 2035, while population growth is stagnant.
54 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
To address these challenges, the Randolph County Hous-
ing Authority conducted an analysis of housing and trans-
portation needs in the region (RCHA 2012). It used a robust
community engagement process and data collected through
a needs analysis to identify a number of strategies for improv-
ing housing and transportation choices in the county. As a
result, the authority is now working with partners to diversify
housing options for a range of ages and incomes and expand
fixed-route transit service destinations, while the county is
building a trail connector that will link the Allegheny High-
land Trail to the Elkins Depot Welcome Center in downtown
Elkins (HUD OER 2015a).
Summary
This previous discussion described a number of examples of
planning programs addressing housing needs at the regional
scale. In some cases, these programs are initiated within the
region itself—recognizing the value of addressing housing
needs at the scale at which the housing market typically op-
erates in metropolitan areas. In other cases, such as Califor-
nia, the state has enacted legislation that requires each region
to address regional housing needs in a systematic way and
furthermore requires that all cities and counties adopt local
plans to address their share of regional housing needs. A new
federal rule requires that all communities receiving federal
housing funds address fair housing issues; the rule allows
them to develop regional assessments of fair housing as a way
to address this requirement.
CONCLUSION
New tools are emerging for achieving regional goals and
objectives around maintaining economic prosperity and
achieving affordable and fair housing. Regional economic
development initiatives are having positive impacts in both
metropolitan areas and in rural settings. These developments
are also creating fresh opportunities for making urban re-
gions more vibrant and sustainable, whether they are grow-
challenges of housing an increasingly diverse population with
new needs and demands are increasingly being addressed in
regional planning efforts. New topics are also entering the re-
gional planning arena, including climate change and public
health—the focus of Chapter 5.
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 4

www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 55

CHAPTER 5
REGIONAL
PLANNING FOR
CLIMATE CHANGE
AND PUBLIC
HEALTH
As recently as ten years ago, almost no regional plans in the United States included any meaningful discussion of climate
change or planning for public health. However, over the past decade these two topical areas have gained huge importance in
the regional dialogues on sustainability, resulting in well-defined approaches to addressing these topics in multidimensional,
integrated regional plans and programs.
In addition, there has been a growing understanding of
the strong connections between planning for climate change
(both mitigation and adaptation) and planning for public
health and wellness. Regions are beginning to address these
connections in their comprehensive regional plans and pro-
grams as well as in partnerships that involve scientists, public
health professionals, and urban planners.
This chapter explores the rapidly evolving realms of re-
gional climate change planning and regional public health
planning as well as the more recent connections being made
between these two distinct but interconnected issue areas.
REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE PLANNING
Most experts agree that climate change brought about by
harmful greenhouse gas emissions and the warming of the
Earth’s atmosphere presents a major global threat with huge
environmental, economic, and social implications. Climate
change is a paramount challenge and the far-reaching and
fundamental consequences for the economy, environment,
public health, and safety are just now being fully understood.
Globally, changes in temperature and weather are occur-
ring, along with the alteration of river and stream flows and
increased cycles of flooding and drought. Sea-level rise is al-
ready affecting nearshore habitats, salt marshes, and marine
species. In addition, sea-level rise is a serious concern because
a significant portion of the world’s population lives on or near
coastlines. Inland regions are also experiencing changes in
weather and the loss of long-established plant and animal
habitats, often with the intrusion of new plants and terrestrial
species. At the same time, climate change is leading to weath-
er-related physical impacts on major investments in public
and private development and infrastructure as well as serious
public health impacts, particularly to vulnerable populations.
The increasing severity of natural disasters—including
hurricanes, wildfires, and major floods—highlights the im-
pacts of climate change on natural and built environments
at the regional and megaregional scales. Already in the early
years of the twenty-first century, the United States has faced
destructive climate events, including Hurricane Katrina and
Superstorm Sandy; raging wildfires in San Diego County and
the Colorado Springs, Colorado, metropolitan area; and epic
floods in and around Houston and in Maryland. Disaster
planning and resilience are growing concerns for regional
planning, as evidenced by initiatives such as HUD’s Na-
tional Disaster Resilience Competition (www.hudexchange
.info/programs/cdbg-dr/resilient-recovery) and the Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s
Regional Coastal Resilience Grants program (https://coast
.noaa.gov/resilience-grant/), both of which prioritize regional
approaches. For more information on planning for disaster
events, see Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery: Next Genera-
tion, PAS Report 576 (Schwab 2014).
More regional planning agencies across the country have
taken increasingly important roles in addressing climate
change issues. In large part, this may be due to the more sig-
nifcant roles that regional transportation agencies have taken
on since the early 1990s in addressing the effects of transpor-
tation and land-use planning on regional air quality. In the
realm of climate change mitigation—strategies and actions
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—many regions across
the country have incorporated proactive strategies in their
long-range transportation plans. In addition, a number of re-
gional planning agencies have also begun to address climate
change adaptation—preparing regions to address the various
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 57
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 5
predicted physical changes in the natural and built environ-
ments that will result from climate change.
Confronting Climate Change
It goes without saying that air is critical to all life on the planet.
Visible and unhealthy levels of smog in many of the nation’s
urban regions prompted Congress to establish the Clean Air
Act in 1970. The 1990 amendments to the act address con-
formance of regional transportation plans to federal stan-
dards. The purpose of transportation conformity is to create
a procedural framework for analyzing transportation-related
pollution in urban regions, tighten the connection between
transportation planning and air quality processes, provide
for public deliberation and decisions on transportation and
air quality issues, and promote a cleaner environment.
While federal standards already require the regulation of
greenhouse gases and other carbon pollutants, the response
to climate change in the United States continues to be mixed,
due to the politicizing of the issue at all levels of government.
In 2005 the U.S. Conference of Mayors took the lead in es-
tablishing commitments at the municipal level to take action
to address climate change. As of 2015, more than 1,000 cities
across the country have signed on to the U.S. Conference of
Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (USCM 2008). In ad-
dition, more than 15 states have passed legislation, developed
action plans, or taken other steps to address climate change.
Addressing Climate Change in Regional Contexts
As with other airborne pollutants, greenhouse gases do not
stay within jurisdictional boundaries. Among the major con-
tributors to greenhouse gas emissions in urban regions are
power plants and motor vehicles. Power companies typically
provide energy to customers in multiple jurisdictions or re-
gions, and transportation systems serve intercity mobility
in metropolitan areas across the United States. While the
federal government has recently taken action to curb pollu-
tion from coal-burning power plants, the largest sources of
greenhouse gas emissions in many urban regions continue
to be those related to transportation, which can only be ad-
dressed in an effective manner at a regional scale. Therefore,
many regions in the United States are beginning to develop
regional plans and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emis-
sions, and to begin to address the impacts of climate change
on the natural and built environments (Institute for Sustain-
able Communities 2015).
Two examples of regional climate change planning are
examined in this chapter: King County, Washington, and
San Diego County, California. Each of these two regions has
58 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
been taking a multipronged approach to climate change plan-
ning and actions involving regional and local public agencies,
educational institution partners, and nongovernmental orga-
nizations and coalitions. Taken together, they illustrate many
of the ways in which regional stakeholders are working to ad-
dress the challenging issues related to climate change mitiga-
tion and adaptation.
King County, Washington: Addressing Climate Change
in the Puget Sound Region
While the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) was de-
veloping the Seattle metropolitan area’s long-range regional
plan and sustainability strategy, VISION 2040, the question
of whether or not to incorporate climate change mitigation
policies into the regional plan was significant topic of discus-
sion. Seattle mayor Greg Nickels was a leading voice at the
U.S. Conference of Mayors for taking steps locally to imple-
ment the Kyoto Protocol. At the same time, King County ex-
ecutive Ron Sims was calling for local action to address both
climate change mitigation and adaptation. Additionally, the
state governor was one of the initial signatories to the West-
ern Regional Climate Action Initiative, and the state legisla-
ture then passed an act setting statewide targets for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
Nearly 20 percent of the policies in VISION 2040 related
to growth management and transportation strategies address
climate change. Under the Washington State Growth Man-
agement Act, these policies are part of an official regional
planning framework and are subsequently to be addressed in
county and local plans. Transportation 2040 (PSRC 2010) is
a functional mobility plan to implement VISION 2040 that
also serves as the federally certified regional transportation
plan. It includes a four-part greenhouse gas strategy that calls
for reducing emissions through (1) changing land use, (2)
introducing user fees on transportation facilities, (3) provid-
ing transportation choices, and (4) taking advantage of im-
provements in technology. A lawsuit was filed alleging that
Transportation 2040 failed to address specifically how cen-
tral Puget Sound as a region would meet targets for reducing
greenhouse gases that were set statewide. The Washington
law addressed reduction targets at the state level—not region-
ally or locally—and the courts ruled in favor of PSRC.
The impacts of climate change already being experienced
in the central Puget Sound region—including warming tem-
peratures, acidifying marine waters, rising seas, increasing
flood risk, decreasing mountain snowpack, and less water in
streams during the summer—have been noted. The water in
Puget Sound has risen more than eight inches over the last
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 5

century, and local waters are becoming more acidic, which

can potentially have severe impacts to ocean ecosystems.
King County planners and officials have opted to move for-
ward with more specific planning for mitigating and adapt-
ing to climate change at the county level, and the county has
taken the following position: “The decisions we make region-
ally, such as where and how our communities will grow and
be served by transportation, will set the stage for success or
failure in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and in making
our communities more resilient to climate change impacts”
(King County 2014, 2).
King County is committed to reducing its own carbon
footprint and supporting climate-friendly choices in the re-
gion. The county has established a set of goals outlined in
its Strategic Climate Action Plan (King County 2015) and is
working with the broader community to reduce county-wide
greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 (Figure 5.1).
A recent update to the plan provides a five-year blueprint for
confronting climate change issues in all areas of county op-
erations. Actions taken by the county include the following
(King County 2014):

• Green public transportation fleets: King County Metro

Transit, which provides more than 100 million passenger
trips annually, operates one of the  greenest fleets in the
country and at the same time helps to reduce emissions by
providing alternatives to driving vehicles.
• Forest protection: More than 200,000 acres of working
forest lands have been protected in eastern King County,
creating a “green wall against sprawl.”
• Energy efficiency: King County is realizing $2.6 million
in annual savings by meeting ambitious energy efficiency
targets.
• Renewable energy facilities: King County is capturing
waste energy from landfills and wastewater treatment
plants. For example, the county’s Cedar Hills Landfill is
among the top three landfills in the nation for capturing
landfill gas, scrubbing it, and generating pipeline-quality
methane gas. The facility generates an amount equivalent
to the natural gas needed for more than 20,000 homes.
Many of King County’s actions to confront climate
change have become models for local government.
San Diego County, California: Climate Action Planning
Predictions show that the San Diego region will experience
the consequences of ongoing global climate change; sea lev-
els along the coastline are already rising. Potential impacts
Figure 5.1. Greenhouse gas emission goals of King County, Washington (King
County, Washington)
include higher surf and storm surges that will erode beaches,
degrade bluffs, and damage coastal infrastructure. Other
projected impacts include less fresh water, more frequent and
intense wildfires and severe weather events, and the loss of
native plant and animal species.
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
is the regional planning agency for the County of San Diego
and the 18 incorporated cities in the county. Over the past
several years, SANDAG has been working collaboratively
with other regional public agencies and local governments
to reduce the production of greenhouse gases contributing
to climate change and prepare for the potential impacts of a
changing climate in the San Diego region.
In 2010, SANDAG prepared its Climate Action Strategy
(SANDAG 2010), which provides tools for local agencies and
SANDAG itself to use as plans and projects are prepared. One

www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 59

 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 5
Figure 5.2. The San Diego Regional Climate Collab-
orative network works to address climate change in
a region vulnerable to sea level rise (logo San Diego
Regional Climate Collaborative, image dances-
trokes/Thinkstock photo)
example is SANDAG’s Energy Roadmap Program (www.san
dag.org/energyroadmap). This program develops free energy
management plans, or “roadmaps,” for local governments
that identify opportunities to save energy and reduce costs in
their own operations and in their larger communities. SAN-
DAG also provides assistance to local governments in devel-
oping programs and projects to implement these plans.
In addition, to better track the sources of greenhouse
gas emissions in the region, SANDAG periodically prepares
a regional inventory of emissions sources. Transportation is
the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the region,
followed by electricity and natural gas. At the same time,
all of the region’s cities and the county government have
inventoried greenhouse gas emissions from government
operations and from their communities as a whole. More
than half of these jurisdictions, which include more than
75 percent of the region’s population, also have adopted or
are in the process of developing their own local government
climate action plans. This type of plan includes an inventory
of emissions sources and a forecast of greenhouse gas emis-
sions. It also identifies measures to lower emissions toward
a specific target.
In 2011, SANDAG adopted the 2050 Regional Transpor-
tation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)
(SANDAG 2011). This plan was designed to meet the green-
house gas reduction targets for light-duty vehicles that were
set by the California Air Resources Board pursuant to the
state’s Sustainable Community and Climate Change Protec-
60 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
tion Act (Senate Bill 375). The plan set forth specific strategies
in five distinct areas: land-use patterns, transportation net-
work, transportation demand management, transportation
system management, and pricing. It was also accompanied
by an environmental impact report (EIR) that was certified
along with the plan. The EIR included mandatory mitigation
measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
While SANDAG was able to demonstrate to the state air
resources board that its plan would meet the state’s green-
house gas reduction targets, it received criticism from several
organizations arguing that the plan did not go far enough in
reducing long-term greenhouse gas emissions. Two environ-
mental organizations subsequently filed a lawsuit challenging
the adequacy of the EIR for the plan. This lawsuit has now
reached the California Supreme Court, which is expected to
hear arguments on the case in 2017. In the meantime, in 2015
SANDAG adopted an update to its 2011 RTP/SCS, known as
San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (SANDAG 2015).
At the same time that SANDAG was focused on meeting
the requirements of SB 375, the need for ongoing coopera-
tion among the regional and local agencies and organizations
concerned about climate change led to the creation of the San
Diego Regional Climate Collaborative (http://sdclimatecol
laborative.org). The collaborative is an ad hoc network of
public agencies that shares expertise, leverages resources,
and advances comprehensive solutions to facilitate climate
change and resiliency planning (Figure 5.2). By partnering
with academia, nonprofits, and businesses, the collaborative

also works to raise the visibility of regional leaders from these
diverse sectors who are working toward solutions to the chal-
lenges raised by climate change.
The following are major accomplishments of the San Di-
ego Regional Climate Collaborative:
• Building local capacity: The collaborative hosted or co-
hosted several major workshops for local governments
and public agency staff to build and leverage local ex-
pertise in addressing climate impacts. These included a
workshop on coastal storm modeling in partnership with
the NOAA Coastal Services Center and a green infra-
structure workshop. Quarterly network meetings provide
updates on best practices and other relevant climate-re-
lated topics, such as water reuse, sea-level rise, and state
climate policies and funding.
• Providing technical and grant assistance: Several local
jurisdictions receive grant support from the collaborative.
Additionally, the collaborative’s staff has worked with one
of its member agencies, the San Diego Foundation, to issue
a call for technical assistance grant proposals from local
governments and public agencies.
• Research projects: The collaborative recently received a
grant from NOAA for a regional coastal resilience proj-
ect. The project will support coastal resilience efforts in
seven cities by filling key data gaps; providing scientific,
economic, and legal expertise to help evaluate vulnerabili-
ties and adaptation strategies; providing assistance with
outreach and communications to local communities; and
expanding knowledge about living shoreline design and
implementation in southern California.
The collaborative hosted a boat tour for attendees of the
EPA Climate Leadership Conference in 2014. The tour high-
lighted potential impacts of rising sea levels on various sec-
tors and geographic areas around San Diego Bay. Because of
its efforts, the collaborative received a Climate Leadership
Award for Innovative Partnerships in 2015, which recognized
the organization as a model partnership that could be repli-
cated in other regions of the country.
Summary
The two examples presented here—King County, Washing-
ton, and San Diego County, California—help to illustrate the
complexities of climate change planning and actions involv-
ing regional and local public agencies, education partners,
and nongovernmental organizations and coalitions. Taken
together, they highlight the ways in which regional stake-
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 5
holders are working to address the challenging issues related
to climate change mitigation and adaptation.
REGIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH PLANNING
Another topic of growing importance in U.S. urban planning
is health and wellness. The rationale for advancing planning
and zoning early in the twentieth century was health, safety,
and general welfare. The twenty-first century has seen a re-
newed emphasis in bringing health back into planning. Lo-
cal jurisdictional planning has been integrating aspects of
health and well-being into citywide and neighborhood plan-
ning through health impact assessments and more in-depth
evaluations of environmental quality, safety, and active liv-
ing—including increased opportunities for walking and
bicycling. In addition, with the growing interest in climate
change, there has been a heightened awareness of potential
impacts of climate change on public health, particularly in
disadvantaged communities. A report from the Lancet Com-
mission on Health and Climate Change (2015), an interna-
tional body formed to map out a comprehensive response
to climate change, discussed climate change impacts that
threaten to undermine more than 50 years of gains to im-
prove health and wellness around the globe.
As regional planning evolves, there is growing interest
in how to address health-related issues at the regional scale in
an effective manner. A number of regional bodies that serve
as metropolitan planning organizations are incorporating
active living considerations into their decision-making pro-
cesses for the distribution of regionally managed state and
federal transportation funds. This focus includes improv-
ing and expanding pedestrian and bicycle facilities as well
as programs to support transit-oriented development. This
shift toward the incorporation of aspects of active living into
regional planning can be viewed as a logical expansion of in-
tegrated land-use and transportation planning (Figure 5.3, p.
62). However, which other aspects of regional planning can
and should be developed around issues of improved public
health and personal well-being, public and personal safety,
environmental quality, and the design and use of the built
environment remain to be seen.
The impacts of the built environment on public health
and wellness are becoming concerns in urban regions of all
sizes as well as in rural areas. One regional example of using
a nontraditional approach to educate and assist planning and
zoning commissions about the ways planning can impact
long-term public health is the Eastern Highlands Health Dis-
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 61
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 5
Figure 5.3. Investments in transit and walkable neighborhoods can encourage more active living, improving health and cutting costs (Felix Sockwell)
trict Community Health Action Response Team in Connecti-
cut. Cosponsored by local chapters of the American Planning
Association and the American Public Health Association,
this Plan4Health (http://plan4health.us) project is designed
to leverage planners’ roles as collaborators and conveners to
improve health outcomes (APA CT 2016).
Addressing Public Health in a Regional Context
King County in Washington State and San Diego County in
California are again highlighted here as two metropolitan
counties that have taken on public health as an important
regional issue. Both of these regions have a history of re-
gional and local government collaboration and have adopted
regional comprehensive plans that integrate a wide range of
planning topics, and in both cases regional leaders saw the
value of taking regional approaches to this emerging topic.
King County: Addressing Health and the Built Environment
HealthScape (www.kingcounty.gov/transportation/Health
Scape.aspx) is King County’s effort to promote public health
by improving how communities are built. The county rec-
ognizes that land-use patterns and transportation invest-
ments can play key roles in making communities healthier.
Well-planned neighborhoods have features like connected
street networks, nearby shopping, walking paths, and tran-
sit service. These amenities reduce dependency on cars, in-
crease opportunities to be physically active, and improve air
quality. To advance healthy communities, the county has
developed tools to help communities set priorities to pro-
mote individual health and reduce global warming.
King County began a study of land use, transporta-
tion, air quality, and health in 2001 to establish and imple-
ment community design principles and transportation
62 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
investment policies that improve accessibility, air quality,
and public health in King County and the central Puget
Sound region. The study was completed in 2005, and the re-
sults clearly showed that changes in land-use patterns and
transportation investment strategies could help the county
achieve its goals related to smart growth, land use, transit
efficiency, and improved air quality and public health (King
County 2005). Communities that already had the attributes
identified in the study—such as compact neighborhoods,
well-connected street networks, mixed uses, and orienta-
tion to transit—were delivering benefits to their residents,
including lower levels of automobile dependence, more
ways for people to be physically active and healthier, and
improved regional air quality.
Following the completion of the study, the county
launched HealthScape to put the findings into action. The
focus of this work has been the development of tools that
help communities allocate resources and services in ways
that promote sustainable transportation choices, reduce
climate change, and promote public health. The county has
produced two tools, one for transportation planning and
another for land-use planning:
• Transportation Programming Tool: This tool allows
planners to predict the likely benefits of proposed non-
motorized transportation projects such as bike lanes and
walking trails. A benefits calculator provides information
for proposed projects about predicted increases in trans-
portation connectivity and transit access; decreases in
conflicts with vehicles; and related economic, air quality,
and health benefits.
• Development Impact Assessment Tool: This tool focuses
on proposed land-use changes to assess the likely impacts

and benefits of development plans. It allows planners to
compare baseline scenarios against various alternatives to
determine the alternatives’ relative effects on transporta-
tion (e.g., transit use and walking), public health (e.g., obe-
sity levels), and air quality (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions).
The application of these tools provides planners and
elected officials with additional information on health and
wellness in the assessment of transportation and develop-
ment programs and projects in the county.
San Diego Region: Public Health Planning
In 2011, the Health and Human Services Agency of San Diego
County received a Community Transformation Grant from
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. To achieve
its goals, the agency partnered with SANDAG, along with
other public agencies and contractors, to launch its Healthy
Works program (www.healthyworks.org), which included a
variety of projects aimed at increasing levels of physical ac-
tivity and access to healthy food and nutrition. Activities and
tools that have been oriented toward regional public health
planning include the following:
• San Diego Regional Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan
(SANDAG 2012a) and Regional Complete Streets Policy
(SANDAG 2014), which allowed the local governments
within the region to prioritize how and where to apply for
safe routes funding
• Inclusion of the county public health agency in the devel-
opment of the updated regional plan, San Diego Forward
(SANDAG 2015)—a first-ever change that ensures health
will be considered in regional transportation decisions
and lead to more active transportation options for San Di-
ego area residents
• Establishment of a monitoring and evaluation program
to assist in quantifying outcomes of active transportation
projects and programs (for example, the use of bike coun-
ters has allowed planners to document the increase in bicy-
cle ridership in areas where amenities have been improved)
• Healthy Communities Atlas (SANDAG 2012b), a series of
maps used by local governments that depict the relation-
ships between health and planning and a number of indi-
cators: physical activity and active transportation, injury
prevention, nutrition, and air quality
• The Healthy Communities Planning Grant Program, a
competitive funding program for local jurisdictions to
include public health in their planning efforts (examples
of funded projects include urban agriculture and park
equity planning)
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 5
• New tools and resources to assist agencies throughout the
region in conducting health analyses of transportation
and land-use projects
One specific example of an analytical tool developed
through the Healthy Works program is an innovative trans-
portation and land-use scenario planning tool. Using Com-
munityViz scenario planning software, planning consulting
firm Urban Design for Health developed a scenario planning
model that can predict public health outcomes at the neigh-
borhood scale. SANDAG used this model to perform case
studies of two different neighborhoods, evaluating the pub-
lic health impacts of new transportation projects and other
proposed changes.
In addition, the County of San Diego and SANDAG
partnered to establish the Regional Public Health Working
Group, which met to address public health issues in the re-
gion until the completion of the regional plan update in 2015.
The working group provided a forum for regional and local
stakeholders to collaborate with the county and SANDAG in
the implementation of regional public health planning and
program activities.
One of the most significant outcomes of this regional
public health and planning partnership has been the prepa-
ration of public health elements for local government general
plans. Six cities have already adopted public health elements
in their local general plans, and two more are currently in the
process of developing public health elements. This is a good
example of how to vertically integrate local government plans
and policies with regional ones by recognizing that there are
important roles for both local and regional agencies in pro-
moting public health through urban planning.
CONCLUSION
There is ongoing debate among planners and decision mak-
ers regarding whether to continue addressing climate change
through strategies designed to mitigate greenhouse gas emis-
sions or to focus on adaptation, which involves planning for
and recovering from hardships and disasters caused by cli-
mate change. Indeed, evidence from many scientists indicates
that climate change is beyond the turning point. In addition,
given the national political climate, there is more common
ground around talking about resiliency—which addresses
other issues beyond climate change adaptation, including
natural and human-made disasters.
Rather than looking at the challenge as an either-or
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 63
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 5

question—that is, either address mitigation or adaptation—

the planner’s response is better framed by addressing both.
Governments have environmental, social, and economic
obligations, if not also moral and ethical obligations, to con-
tinue to take steps to curb and eliminate the pollution that
results in greenhouse gas emissions. The Seattle and San Di-
ego regions provide examples of areas that are taking both
mitigation and adaptation seriously, and many other regions
across the country are also moving in this direction.
At the same time, public health and wellness continue to
evolve and influence regional planning as well. Rather than
these being considered issues strictly for health profession-
als, awareness is growing that how we live, where we live, and
how we get around affect personal well-being. The growing
attention to health and the built environment not only con-
siders opportunities for active living but also the proximity of
land uses to one another that make communities conducive
to walking, bicycling, and transit use. In the next chapter, we
will discuss several examples of integrated regional planning,
which brings issues like climate change and public health into
an even broader planning framework.

64 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org

 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 5

www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 65

CHAPTER 6
PROFILES IN
REGIONAL
INTEGRATED
PLANNING
Regional planning addresses issues that transcend the jurisdictional boundaries of a single local government, as well as single-
purpose service providers, such as transit agencies and utility operators. As regional planning continues to evolve, it in-
creasingly considers cross-cutting issues and concerns within regions more holistically. The previous three chapters provided
examples of how planning around specific topics or issues is moving toward a more integrated approach and more intention-
ally incorporating sustainability principles. This chapter considers some of the more advanced efforts at the regional level to
achieve fuller integration of regional planning programs and address multiple related issues in area-wide contexts.

An overview of regional integrated planning is pre-
sented, followed by profiles of five larger urban regions in the
United States: Seattle, San Francisco, Denver, Minneapolis–
Saint Paul, and Dallas–Fort Worth. These regions provide
both comparative and contrasting information on how re-
gional planning has evolved from a focus on integrating land-
use and transportation planning just a few decades ago into
broader planning programs that are now more complex and
factor in additional issues and topics.
WHY REGIONAL INTEGRATED PLANNING?
The need for regional integrated planning becomes espe-
cially relevant when a broad set of planning concerns—such
as sprawl, mobility, housing, environmental restoration, and
the provision of services—are perceived to require action at
a scale not matching the jurisdictional boundaries of any
existing general-purpose government (federal, state, county,
or city levels). In recent decades, various regional planning
problems have arisen that are seen to require more holistic
solutions than can be solved by functional, single-focus agen-
cies on their own. For example, regional transportation plan-
ners have increasingly sought to incorporate land-use policy
making into their plans in order to achieve more fiscally and
environmentally sound investment choices. Environmen-
tal planners have seen that cities, and not just natural areas
beyond urban boundaries, are spaces where environmental
values need protecting through regional policy approaches
to address daunting problems like clean water, clean air, and
public health and wellness. In that context, sustainability—as
described in Chapter 2—provides a useful platform for ad-
vancing increased integration in regional planning.
Achieving full planning integration at the regional scale
would seem to be a herculean, if not unreachable and im-
practical, ambition. Yet in spite of the challenges, planners in
many of the country’s metropolitan areas and smaller regions
have been seeking better planning integration, as concerns
have arisen about fiscally and environmentally inefficient de-
velopment patterns and losses of natural resources that defy
single-sector solutions. For example, planning for the protec-
tion of resource lands might require that regional plans for
watersheds and natural habitat uphold standards for water
quality and endangered species protection while integrating
them with land-use and growth management goals.
Similarly, in influencing development patterns, land-use
and transportation choices are inextricably linked, affecting
one other on the ground. The regional scale is an appropri-
ate one for considering and addressing these interlinkages,
because transportation networks are often regional in scale,
and mobility patterns reflect the interplay of regional hous-
ing and labor markets and their associated “commute sheds.”
Therefore, planning for efficient and environmentally friend-
ly development patterns requires attention to the interplay of
land-use and transportation policy making.
Reinforcing this understanding, the passage in 1991
of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) was viewed as a milestone in federal transportation
policy for states and regions. ISTEA advanced the integration
of land-use and transportation planning, which a number

www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 67

 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 6

of urban regions had already been doing. At the same time,
amendments to the Clean Air Act passed in 1990 required
regional transportation plans to demonstrate conformity to
regional air quality standards. Regions that failed to meet the
requirements risked losing federal transportation funds.
In addition to environmental constraints, fiscal con-
straints have also become more of a factor. The combination
of fiscal and environmental constraints has prodded regional
bodies to prioritize efficiency. Sustainability takes on multi-
ple aspects in this context—environmental and also financial
and economic. In many urban regions attention has shifted
to managing demand for transportation by improving acces-
sibility and alternatives to driving alone, rather than enhanc-
ing mobility through building new roadways.
Increasingly, regional transportation plans are address-
ing a broader array of issues in addition to mobility and
accessibility, including equity, economic development, en-
vironmental factors, housing affordability, air quality, and
greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, planners are
considering environmental impacts on land by estimating
development footprints and impacts to floodplains and agri-
cultural lands. A new generation of implementation strategies
is also being pursued, including programs to strengthen cor-
ridors and centers by identifying areas near transit for direct-

TABLE 6.1. CHARACTERISTICS OF REGIONAL PROFILES

Region Policies & Tools Used
Regional Council certifies
transportation provisions in
local plans and designates
Puget Sound Area regional centers
(Seattle)
Regionally managed funds
directed to regionally desig-
nated centers
Greenhouse gas emissions
reduction target
Integration of regional trans-
San Francisco Bay Area
portation and housing plans
Direction of regional funds
to designated growth zones
Special Features Legislation/Authority Urban Growth Boundary
VISION 2040
Regional Sustainability
Strategy Washington State Growth
Management Act (Chapter Yes, per state Growth Man-
Growing Transit Communi-
36.70A, Revised Code of agement Act
ties Program
Washington)
Regional Economic Strategy
Regional Design Strategy
Global Warming Solutions Some counties and commu-
Sustainable Communities Act (Assembly Bill 32) nities within the region have
Strategy
Sustainable Communities voluntarily adopted urban
One Bay Area Grant Program and Climate Protection Act growth boundaries or urban
(Senate Bill 375) service areas

Metro Vision long-range

Regional centers self-desig-
Denver
nated by local jurisdictions
growth management and
transportation strategy Yes, voluntary; local jurisdic-
Mile-High Compact volun- tions can designate either
FasTracks high-capacity rail
tary interlocal agreement urban growth areas or urban
system
growth boundaries
“Boomer Bond” assessment
tool for older population

Thrive MSP 2040 30-year plan-

Systems approach to
ning framework with cross- 1976 Metropolitan Land
Minneapolis–Saint Paul regional plans with local No
cutting outcomes including Planning Act
conformance required
sustainability

Voluntary public-private- North Texas 2050 regional

North Central Texas academic partnership vision and action plan
None No
(Dallas–Fort Worth) Preferred land-use scenario Sustainable Development
includes mixed use centers Funding Program

Source: Editors

68 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org


Figure 6.1. Seattle and the Puget Sound region (luchschen/Thinkstock photo)
ing new and infill development, and then funneling resources
to reward supportive local land-use policies and projects.
Such holistic planning presents a very substantial imple-
mentation challenge, however, arising from complexity in
the governance landscape and institutional disjunctures in
planning authority. The disconnection that has been institu-
tionalized between authority for transportation and author-
ity for land use provides a good example of the governance
challenge. The regions profiled in this chapter have attempted
to overcome these fractures in authority. These processes can
be conceived as promoting sustainable long-range planning
because of their holistic character, addressing multiple topi-
cal concerns while also working to integrate plans and pri-
orities across the continuum of territories, functions, deci-
sion-making structures, participation, and implementation
frameworks discussed in previous chapters.
In spite of the challenges in overcoming institutional
barriers, metropolitan planning organizations are well po-
sitioned for the consensus building and policy deliberation
needed to promote more sustainable and efficient develop-
ment patterns through planning integration. Even as numer-
ous local governments are developing sustainability plans for
the sake of climate protection, livability, fiscal efficiency, and
other purposes, these local plans can only achieve limited ob-
jectives if they do not occur within the context of effective
metropolitan growth and development policy making.
REGIONAL PROFILES OF
INTEGRATED PLANNING
To depict the evolution taking place in regional planning
toward a more integrated approach, the following sections
profile five urban regions that have exhibited efforts to better
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 6
integrate land use, growth management, and other environ-
mental and economic issues (Table 6.1). Of particular note
are efforts to factor more aspects of environmental planning,
including open space, habitat protection and restoration, and
climate change—as well as health and social equity—into
what may be considered comprehensive regional sustainabil-
ity plans. In some cases, this new generation of regional plans
now treats environmental systems as elements equal to land
use and mobility.
Each of the profiles includes information on (1) how the
urban region in question has moved toward a more integrat-
ed approach to regional planning, (2) what policy approaches
are being used, and (3) additional issues that are being ad-
dressed or special features of the particular region profiled.
Each profile also includes an “Observations” section, reflect-
ing on lessons learned and positive as well as unexpected
outcomes. Several of the case studies also highlight regional
livable communities programs, efforts promoted by the
American Planning Association’s Regional and Intergovern-
mental Planning Division. (Chapter 7 includes more detailed
information on regional livable communities programs.)
A Regional Vision for Implementing a Sustainable
Future in the Central Puget Sound Region
Washington State’s central Puget Sound region is one of the
principal urban areas in the Pacific Northwest (Figure 6.1).
It includes King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties,
along with 82 cities and towns. The Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC) is a regional planning agency with specific
responsibilities under both federal statute and state law for
transportation planning, growth management, and eco-
nomic development. PSRC is designated by the federal gov-
ernment as the metropolitan planning organization and
the regional transportation planning organization for the
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 69
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 6
four-county metropolitan area under the State of Washing-
ton’s Growth Management Act.
In 1990, the Washington State legislature adopted the
Growth Management Act (GMA), which provides the frame-
work for more integrated comprehensive planning, including
identifying and protecting critical environmental areas, de-
veloping coordinating regional and subregional (i.e., county-
level) policies, and crafting local comprehensive plans. The
GMA directs planning agencies at the county-wide, regional,
and local levels of government to coordinate their planning
efforts, with a bottom-up approach emphasizing the adop-
tion of local comprehensive plans and regulations to direct
growth and development.
That same year, the central Puget Sound region adopted
VISION 2020 (PSRC 1995) as its first integrated long-range
land-use and transportation strategy. While it had very little
force of law when adopted, VISION 2020 built support for
regional coordination and a recognition that central Puget
Sound jurisdictions would benefit from working together to-
ward common objectives.
In April 2008, after a nearly four-year public scenario
planning and evaluation process, PSRC adopted VISION
2040, one of the most detailed and far-reaching sustainability
strategies for an urban region in the United States. VISION
2040 contains the following regional vision statement and
overarching goals as a sustainable framework for multicoun-
ty planning policies:
Our vision for the future advances the ideals of our
people, our prosperity, and our planet. As we work to-
ward achieving the region’s vision, we must protect the
environment, support and create vibrant, livable, and
healthy communities, offer economic opportunities for
all, provide safe and efficient mobility, and use our re-
Figure 6.2. VISION 2040 Sustainability Framework (Puget Sound Regional Council)
70 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
sources wisely and efficiently. Land use, economic, and
transportation decisions will be integrated in a manner
that supports a healthy environment, addresses global
climate change, achieves social equity, and is attentive
to the needs of future generations. (PSRC 2009, xi)
An extensive public engagement process was used in the
development of VISION 2040. Formal and informal oppor-
tunities for input and comment, including web-based initia-
tives, allowed for information sharing and feedback. Nearly
4,000 individual comments were received at different points
in the process. Comments were shared with a board of elected
officials overseeing the process, and responses were provided
to individuals and groups who had participated.
Certification of Local Plans Ensures Consistency
with Regional Vision
The GMA directive for metropolitan collaboration is a
vaguely worded provision directing parts of the state with
two or more counties, each with a population of 450,000 or
more with contiguous urban areas, to adopt “multicounty
planning policies.” The only part of the state this applies to
is central Puget Sound. In 1995, PSRC formally updated and
readopted VISION 2020 under the authorization of the GMA
to strengthen its commitment to concentrate growth in the
urban growth areas and to focus that growth in urban cen-
ters (PSRC 1995).
The GMA also directs PSRC to certify the “transporta-
tion-related provisions” in local comprehensive plans. Initial-
ly, that requirement was treated somewhat narrowly to relate
primarily to the evaluation of mobility, land-use, and eco-
nomic provisions in local plans. As the multicounty planning
policies have been updated and have become more integrated
and cross-cutting, so have the expectations for the certifica-
tion of local plans. The whole body of multicounty policies is
now used in the review of local plans.
The GMA, however, did not specify what it means to
have a regionally certified local comprehensive plan. To that
end, PSRC’s executive board took action to require that only
jurisdictions whose plans have been formally certified are
eligible to compete for the regionally managed federal funds
that PSRC oversees.
VISION 2040 included a number of new features in its
regional policy framework (that is, the multicounty planning
policies) beyond requirements in the GMA, such as a sustain-
able environment framework, as well as provisions on climate
change, health, and regional design (Figure 6.2). Policy di-
rection related to climate change addresses both the natural

environment and the built environment, transportation and
the provision of infrastructure, economic development, and
more. Action steps are laid out both for mitigation and ad-
aptation. The region’s long-range regional growth strategy
is made more relevant with specific implementation actions
and measures to monitor performance.
Urban Growth Areas and Regional Centers
PSRC has been developing regional growth management
plans for nearly 25 years. The region has a well-established
urban growth boundary and has taken steps to focus growth
into more compact urban centers. The region’s approach to
growth centers has evolved with various iterations and re-
finements. Since 2002 PSRC has formally designated regional
growth centers and manufacturing/industrial centers.
VISION 2040 has also further refined policies and expec-
tations for more localized types of central places and center
planning. A regional growth strategy within VISION 2040
and implemented by the policies advances an increasingly
compact urban development pattern by allocating 93 percent
of future population and employment growth to the region’s
existing designated urban growth area, identifying a limited
number of regional growth centers to accommodate a signifi-
cant proportion of that growth. These centers contain transit
station areas that strategically link the region’s high-capacity
transit system to other multimodal transportation options,
such as ferries and express and local buses. More than 50 per-
cent of population growth and more than 70 percent of job
growth is directed into local jurisdictions having designated
regional growth centers.
Multimodal Transportation Planning
Adopted initially in May 2010 and updated on a four-year
cycle, Transportation 2040 (PSRC 2010) serves as the region’s
metropolitan transportation plan within the VISION 2040
integrated policy framework. The region’s transportation
improvement program must demonstrate implementation of
the multicounty planning policies in VISION 2040. The poli-
cies prioritize funding investments to designated centers. The
overarching transportation goal in the multicounty policies is
to develop a safe, cleaner, integrated, sustainable, and highly
efficient transportation system that (1) supports the regional
growth strategy, (2) promotes economic and environmental
vitality, and (3) contributes to better public health.
The regionally managed transportation improvement
program for the distribution of federal transportation dollars
prioritizes half of the program money for projects and pro-
grams within or serving the 38 designated regional centers.
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 6
The other half of the program money is made available to four
subregional county-wide planning bodies to fund projects in
center-type places that are more local in character.
Regional Economic Strategy
Updated in 2012, the adopted Regional Economic Strat-
egy (PSRC 2012) identifies detailed action initiatives to
strengthen the region’s leading industry clusters and build
the foundations of the region’s economy. The region’s eco-
nomic strategy is directly aligned with implementing VI-
SION 2040 objectives.
The regional economic strategy identifies ten targeted
industry clusters that drive job creation and import wealth
into the region. These clusters enhance the competitiveness
of the region in particular industries by improving eco-
nomic efficiencies of member jurisdictions. They also tend
to concentrate workers with specialized skills and experi-
ence within the region. Some of these skills are transferable
to multiple industries within and across clusters. The cen-
tral Puget Sound region has focused on a mix of mature and
emerging industry clusters with higher concentrations of
employment, including aerospace, clean tech, life sciences
and global health, and tourism.
Regional Design Strategy
A special regional strategy was crafted for the central Puget
Sound region during the development of VISION 2040. The
Regional Design Strategy (PSRC 2007) document supports
the goals of VISION 2040 by providing design concepts,
strategies, and tools to implement VISION 2040’s policies
at the local level. Successful implementation of regionally
adopted goals and principles for development patterns—in-
cluding designated urban centers and more compact urban
neighborhoods—requires the application of appropriate de-
sign objectives and standards. Elected officials who oversaw
the VISION 2040 process recognized that design plays an
important role in shaping the physical environment: creat-
ing livable communities, integrating land-use and transpor-
tation systems, restoring wildlife habitats, and providing in-
tentional connections between human-built structures and
the natural environment.
The regional design strategy was the result of a highly
collaborative process. Initial grassroots efforts from a dedi-
cated group of volunteer urban design professionals and
academicians from the University of Washington resulted
in the formation of the Puget Sound Regional Design Team
and a committed partnership with PSRC. The design team
actively sought assistance from the urban design commu-
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 71
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 6
nity throughout the region through a series of workshops
and outreach events.
The strategy works with the understanding that private
investment and civic projects (guided by local governments),
agency and institutional activities, and public efforts will still
be the primary shapers of the region’s environment. It then
provides a conceptual framework and a means of better coor-
dinating these activities.
Growing Transit Communities
While PSRC has not adopted a formal regional livable com-
munities funding program, its approach to allocating fund-
ing for local projects that support its VISION 2040 goals and
objectives is similar in many respects to these types of pro-
grams. Recognizing an additional opportunity to advance
implementation of the region’s plans for sustainable develop-
ment, PSRC led a consortium of 19 co-applicants that suc-
cessfully competed for a major grant from the HUD Sustain-
able Communities Regional Planning Grant Program.
Called the Growing Transit Communities Strategy
(PSRC 2013), the work program focused on five activities:
(1) working with existing community development organi-
zations, public health departments, and others to create a
stakeholder body called the Regional Equity Network that
supported communities and organizations to become en-
gaged in making decisions about equitable development, (2)
crafting new regional and corridor transit-oriented devel-
opment compacts and action strategies for its major transit
corridors to coordinate across jurisdictions, sectors, and
among stakeholders to ensure implementation of the re-
gion’s adopted plans, (3) creating a regional affordable hous-
ing action strategy, (4) developing innovative tools, infor-
mation, and resources that can be broadly used throughout
the region to implement sustainable development, and (5)
providing resources and technical assistance to local juris-
dictions in support of updates to local plans, required by the
GMA every eight years.
Observations
Through this history of over 20 years of coordinated regional
planning, the central Puget Sound region has demonstrated
a dramatic evolution in integrated planning. Beginning with
the initial VISION 2020 long-range plan adopted in 1990
that linked land-use and transportation planning, the region
now has a more robust long-range plan in VISION 2040 that
brings together policies and an action agenda to address en-
vironmental restoration, resource protection, development
patterns, regional design, health and wellness, housing, eco-
72 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
nomic development, mobility and accessibility, service provi-
sion, and conservation.
The Seattle region began to advance smart mobility (i.e.,
land use and transportation integration) a few years before
the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
was adopted, and its regional planning efforts have continued
to evolve into what is now a regional sustainability frame-
work. In addition to addressing a range of environmental is-
sues from clean water to climate change, the regional policy
framework also addresses issues including design, health,
housing for all, economic development, and conservation.
Both growth containment and the development of regional
growth centers are major focus areas. The regionally man-
aged distribution of federal transportation dollars is strate-
gically focused on supporting the development of region-
ally designated growth centers. While the Seattle region does
have requirements from state legislation which it must follow,
it has also opted to go beyond meeting basic federal and state
requirements to create a broader sustainability framework for
regional planning and decision making.
Regional Integrated Planning in California:
San Francisco Bay Area
California’s four largest urban regions—Los Angeles, San
Francisco Bay, Sacramento, and San Diego—have been in-
novators in regional integrated planning for many years. Be-
ginning in the 1990s they have adopted performance goals
oriented to sustainability outcomes, along with participa-
tory, smart-growth-oriented scenario planning practices and
implementation techniques. This orientation reflects a num-
ber of factors including the substantial authority provided in
California to regional planning bodies, specifically to met-
ropolitan planning organizations, and also the persistence
of growth-related problems such as air pollution and traffic
congestion that have put pressure on these regional agencies
to foster more efficient development patterns.
California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Pro-
tection Act (Senate Bill 375), adopted in 2008, ratified these
bottom-up strategies. SB 375 has gained widespread attention
as the first U.S. law to link the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions to curbing suburban sprawl. The law directs the
state’s 18 metropolitan planning organizations to develop re-
gional transportation plans capable of achieving state-man-
dated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through more
efficient development patterns.
SB 375 was adopted to help achieve California’s climate
policy goals, which are set forth in the state’s Global Warming
Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 32), adopted in 2006. AB 32 calls

Figure 6.3. The San Francisco Bay Area (yhelfman/Thinkstock photo)
for statewide reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 1990
levels by 2020 across all sectors of the economy. SB 375 estab-
lishes an environmental standard for metropolitan planning
agencies to achieve, namely to reduce greenhouse gas emis-
sions by a set amount through changed land-use patterns and
improved transportation. More specifically, in its regularly
updated regional plan, each organization must include
. . . a forecasted development pattern for the region,
which, when integrated with the transportation net-
work, and other transportation measures and policies,
will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from automo-
biles and light trucks to achieve, if there is a feasible way
to do so, the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets
approved by the state board. (§65080(b)(2)(B)(vii))
Procedurally, the heart of SB 375 is the requirement that
each metropolitan planning agency develop and implement,
through outreach to stakeholders and the public, a sustain-
able communities strategy incorporating population growth
and land-use projections as part of its periodically updated
long-range regional transportation plan. The sustainable
communities strategy for each region is designed to achieve
specific, mandated greenhouse gas reduction targets for
2020 and 2035 for automobiles and light trucks. Following a
two-year consultation process, the California Air Resources
Board—the agency tasked with administering programs to
achieve the state’s climate policy goals—adopted official tar-
gets in 2010 for each of the state’s 18 metropolitan planning
organizations to apply in their regional transportation plans.
SB 375 also established a requirement that the same
growth forecasts be used for regional transportation plans
and for the regional housing needs assessment process, Cali-
fornia’s method for ensuring that localities accommodate ad-
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 6
equate housing for all income levels. In this fashion, the law
not only promotes planning coordination for transportation
and land use, but it also indirectly links smart growth goals
for efficient development to social equity goals. Finally, SB
375 also requires that projected workforce growth over each
plan’s duration be accommodated in housing located within
each region’s borders, rather than allowing for spillover.
SB 375 does not radically alter existing planning process-
es, so much as it builds upon prior innovations and processes
and aims to better coordinate and align them. The decision
process under this law builds explicitly upon blueprint plan-
ning, the style of regional transportation plan development
adopted by the state’s largest urban regions during recent de-
cades, which aimed to achieve closer coordination of trans-
portation with land use. The regions that used this approach
generally adopted plans calling for more compact develop-
ment patterns, more spending for transit and nonmotorized
modes, and other smart growth strategies rather than busi-
ness-as-usual or continuing-trends scenarios. They also often
included performance objectives addressing wider impacts
upon economic, equity, and environmental criteria.
Working within tightening fiscal and environmental
constraints, the regional planning bodies have been seek-
ing to operationalize land-use strategies to help foster
more efficient transportation and thereby achieve their
mandated responsibilities for helping reduce air pollu-
tion and traffic congestion. In California, however, as in
most states, regional planning bodies lack land-use au-
thority. While regions can orient their programs and in-
vestments to encourage supportive land uses—and some
have done so in innovative ways, as described below—
this strategy is limited to resources under their control.
California regional planning bodies directly control only
a portion of total transportation funds in regional trans-
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 73
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 6
Figure 6.4. Plan Bay Area (Metropolitan Transportation Commission)  housing in a walkable, mixed use context. Plan Bay Area
portation plans (15 percent of capital funds, on average).
Given that local governments, not regional agencies, con-
trol land-use decisions, the desire to coordinate land-use
and transportation policies has turned the regional plan-
ning bodies into more outreach-oriented agencies than
they were in the past, as they seek to engage more closely
with local planners and elected officials to coordinate
land-use policies in conjunction with regional transpor-
tation planning goals.
The San Francisco Bay Area Response: Plan Bay Area
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the As-
sociation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) jointly adopted
the region’s first regional plan under SB 375: Plan Bay Area
(MTC & ABAG 2013) (Figure 6.4). This plan is structured
to focus growth in a manner that will reduce vehicle miles
traveled and per capita greenhouse gas emissions. Plan Bay
Area builds upon long-term regional strategies to support
transit-oriented development; limit sprawl; improve jobs-
housing balance; and support equity, environmental quality,
and economic growth.
As part of the process prescribed by SB 375, ABAG,
which serves as the council of governments for the San Fran-
cisco Bay Area, produced its regional housing needs plan in
coordination with the regional transportation plan (ABAG
2013). The regional housing needs allocation process directs
a housing allocation to every local jurisdiction for inclusion
in its general plan housing element concurrent with the re-
gional sustainable communities strategy. Plan Bay Area pro-
vides a strong nexus between the eight-year regional hous-
ing allocation and the long-term sustainable communities
strategy. Among the regional plans developed under provi-
sions of SB 375, the Bay Area’s plan took the strongest steps
to integrate rewards for local affordable housing production
with ambitious smart growth criteria for compact, transit-
proximate housing locations.
74 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
Urban Growth Areas and Regional Centers
Plan Bay Area’s compact growth framework has two primary
components. First, more than 170 priority development areas
have been nominated by local governments and adopted at
the regional level. Priority development areas must be located
within existing communities (they cannot be greenfield ar-
eas) and near existing or planned fixed transit (or served by
frequent bus service), and they must have adopted or plan
to adopt a neighborhood-level plan to accommodate more
forecasts a growth pattern through 2040 with priority devel-
opment areas accommodating more than two-thirds of the
region’s future housing and employment growth. In addition
to the priority development areas, the plan retains the urban
growth boundaries or similar policies that exist in every Bay
Area county outside of the City and County of San Francisco,
and it designates priority conservation areas, or regionally
significant areas prioritized for permanent protection.
In putting together Plan Bay Area, several alternative
regional scenarios were developed: core concentration, fo-
cused growth, and outward growth. A project performance
assessment was also conducted to prioritize transportation
projects that were cost effective and supported the plan’s fo-
cused growth pattern, including transit capacity expansions
in the core of the region, new bus rapid transit lines, and new
infill transit stations serving key priority development areas.
The preferred scenario was a variation of the tested scenar-
ios. Overall, the adopted scenario directs two-thirds of job
growth and 70 percent of new housing to the targeted zones.
Livable Communities Funding Programs
In addition to the designation of priority development areas,
the second main strategy that solidifies the Bay Area plan’s
strong commitment to promoting compact growth is its in-
novative One Bay Area Grant program (http://mtc.ca.gov/
our-work/invest-protect/focused-growth/one-bay-area-
grants), which funnels resources to targeted growth zones
(i.e., the priority development areas) and provides funding
for priority conservation area projects. The program builds
upon decades of effort by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC), the region’s metropolitan planning or-
ganization, which has been a pioneer since the late 1990s in
the use of federal transportation funding and other revenue
sources for implementing regional livable communities strat-
egies. Since 1996, MTC has implemented the Transportation
for Livable Communities program, which provides funding
to support station area planning, streetscape improvements,
and other livable communities efforts.

In conjunction with the development of Plan Bay Area,
MTC combined a number of funding programs, including
the Transportation for Livable Communities program and a
local streets and roads program, to fund the One Bay Area
Grant program. The program is administered by county
transportation agencies and provides these agencies with
greater flexibility for certain investment categories adminis-
tered regionally in the past, such as bicycle and pedestrian
improvements, investments for safe routes to school, and
planning activities. The county agencies can also fund prior-
ity conservation area projects.
However, in exchange for this greater role and flexibility
in allocating funds, the county agencies also must follow new
restrictions regarding which jurisdictions get funding and for
what purposes. Funding is distributed according to a formula
based upon population, housing production, and regional
housing allocations. In the region’s five heavily urban coun-
ties, a minimum of 70 percent of funding must be invested
in priority development areas. In the four more suburban or
rural North Bay counties, a minimum of 50 percent of fund-
ing must be invested in the priority development areas. To be
eligible for any funding, a local jurisdiction must update its
general plan housing element in accordance with state hous-
ing law, and must also have a locally adopted complete streets
policy resolution.
Observations
The San Francisco Bay Area example shows the important
role that state-level planning initiatives can play in advancing
integrated regional planning. This performance constraint
monitored by the state helps identify a “regional good” to be
achieved through collaborative planning among localities
and regional agencies. SB 375 builds on work already under-
way in California’s urban regions to integrate land-use and
transportation planning and take on more issues—especially
environmental issues and housing—in more comprehensive
regional planning frameworks. The One Bay Area Grant
program demonstrates the innovation capacity of regional
agencies in designing programs to help local jurisdictions put
regional policy into action.
Certain aspects of SB 375 do present new planning chal-
lenges, including the greenhouse gas reduction performance
mandate, the consistency requirements for aligning the re-
gional housing needs allocation with regional transportation
plans, and the mandate to accommodate each region’s entire
projected workforce growth in housing located within each
region’s borders. These performance mandates proved espe-
cially challenging for the San Francisco Bay Area—for which
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 6
early-stage plan scenario modeling indicated that achieving
the greenhouse gas reduction target and no-spillover-growth
mandate would be difficult. In turn, this situation helps ex-
plain why the Bay Area regional plan emphasizes location
efficiency, where areas require less overall household expen-
ditures on transportation because of easy access to transit or
destinations within walking distance.
The most current regional transportation plans of the
four large metropolitan planning organizations also em-
phasize sustainable transportation objectives—for example,
spending more money on transit and nonmotorized modes
of transportation than on roadways. In terms of transporta-
tion performance, nonautomobile mode share is projected
to rise, while per capita vehicle-miles traveled is expected to
decline and to do so more rapidly than in previous plans, in-
dicating positive trends for sustainability.
The regional organizations’ strategies have not been
without controversy. For example, the new One Bay Area
Grant program in the San Francisco urban region provoked
some challenges from stakeholders coming from various
perspectives. Some local governments expressed concerns
about perceived intrusion into their land-use authority.
Meanwhile, homebuilder organizations expressed frustra-
tion about targeting development mainly to infill zones, and
social equity activists prodded the metropolitan planning
organization to address potential threats of displacement
from gentrification in the growth zones. In this fashion, the
sustainability aspects of the statewide mandate bring to the
surface certain tensions and dynamics pertaining to smart
growth and housing policy.
Denver’s Mile High Compact and Metro Vision
Faced with issues such as degraded air quality, loss of open
space, increasing demands on water supply, and increased
infrastructure costs, there was a push in the 1990s by com-
munity groups, environmentalists, and a number of elected
officials to revisit statewide growth management legislation
in Colorado. The state had adopted growth management pol-
icies in the early 1970s, but when the legislature changed from
Democratic to Republican political control later that decade,
the growth management provisions were significantly weak-
ened in state law. By the end of the 1990s a compromise was
advocated to advance smart growth planning without adopt-
ing new legislation. In the Denver urban region (Figure 6.5,
p. 76), this spirit resulted in the creation of the Mile High
Compact (DRCOG 2000), a voluntary bottom-up approach
to managing metropolitan growth and development through
an interlocal agreement.
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 75
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 6
Figure 6.5. Denver region (Fred_Bartholomew/Thinkstock photo)
Urban Growth Boundary/Urban Growth Area
Under the compact, the Denver Regional Council of Govern-
ments (DRCOG), which serves as the metropolitan planning
organization for the greater Denver region, allocates growth
amounts to local jurisdictions in the Denver metropolitan
area, and the jurisdictions commit to accommodating their
allocations. DRCOG also tracks development and annexa-
tion in the urban region.
The urban growth boundary/urban growth area frame-
work, in place since 1997, helps shape growth and develop-
ment within metropolitan Denver. There are other urban
growth boundary programs throughout the nation, but the
voluntary nature of the Denver process, independent of a
state or federal mandate, is one of a kind.
The purpose of the urban growth boundary/urban
growth area is to help implement the region’s long-range
growth management and transportation strategy, called
Metro Vision (DRCOG 2014), by:
• Anticipating and directing growth;
• Phasing development to maximize infrastructure invest-
ment, saving taxpayer money and resources;
• Stimulating infill and redevelopment activity; and
• Increasing overall regional density to meet growth targets.
Jurisdictions have the flexibility to postpone committing
their allocated growth until specific development plans are in
place. Under DRCOG’s board-adopted rules, these are urban
growth area communities. Those that map their entire alloca-
tion of urban growth are urban growth boundary communi-
ties. At any time, under either approach, a jurisdiction has the
flexibility to revise its own growth map, as long as the revi-
sions have no regional impact and the community remains
within its overall allocation.
76 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
The compact calls for participating cities and counties to
create master plans that align with the region’s shared vision
for the future. It is a self-imposed growth management strat-
egy, rather than one imposed by the voters or the state leg-
islature. The compact frames the importance of the regional
context in local decisions regarding growth and development
and creates a shared understanding that these decisions have
implications for neighboring jurisdictions and throughout
the region. Signing the agreement commits communities to:
• Adopt a comprehensive land-use plan that includes a com-
mon set of elements;
• Use growth management tools such as zoning regulations,
urban growth boundaries and development codes;
• Link local comprehensive plans to Metro Vision, which
outlines regional growth management; and
• Work collaboratively to guide growth and ensure plan-
ning consistency.
In the years since the original signing event, more com-
munities have voluntarily signed on to the compact. Today,
45 communities, which represent nearly 90 percent of the re-
gion’s total population, have signed the agreement.
Metro Vision and Regional Centers
With regional cooperation as its keystone, Metro Vision pro-
motes a high-quality metropolitan setting that embraces the
physical and cultural diversity of the many communities that
comprise the Denver region. To advance and sustain this fu-
ture, the region functions as an association of interrelated
communities, each of which has a stake in planning for the
health of the region as a whole. Metro Vision promotes re-
gional collaboration by focusing attention on the long-term
benefits and costs associated with decisions and their rela-

tionships to desired outcomes, and its ultimate success de-
pends on implementation by many partners, particularly the
region’s local governments. Metropolitan Denver has ambi-
tious goals to direct 50 percent of the region’s new housing
units and 75 percent of new jobs to urban centers.
Sustainable Communities Initiative
The region received a grant from HUD to work on crafting
strategies to direct growth and future development into rail
transit station areas. The program has produced (1) a regional
housing strategy, (2) a regional economic strategy, (3)  cor-
ridor profiles for rail lines currently under construction, (4)
catalytic projects and technical assistance, and (5) a compre-
hensive assessment of development opportunities at stations
along currently operating rail lines. Strategic recommenda-
tions, action steps, and monitoring programs are being put
into place to create healthier and more complete communi-
ties at rail transit stations throughout the metropolitan area.
The Denver region has received national attention for
its 2004 voter referendum to approve a massive expansion of
the area’s high-capacity rail system, called FasTracks. Policies
crafted for the Gold Line Corridor address environmental
restoration, smart growth development patterns, first- and
last-mile connections to rail stations, economic development,
and adequate infrastructure and services, including access to
healthy food (Reconnecting America 2014).
The Denver Region’s Boomer Bond
As the area agency on aging for the Denver region, DRCOG
plans and funds the delivery of services to the region’s older
Figure 6.6. The Denver area’s Boomer Bond program addresses planning and
services for a growing population of senior citizens (Creatas/Thinkstock photo)
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 6
adults. The swelling ranks of older adults in the region—a
major trend occurring in other urban regions as well—are
resulting in increased demands for aging services. To support
healthy, independent aging, the Denver region is considering
how the design of communities, services, and infrastructure
must evolve to meet this growing population’s needs.
DRCOG’s Boomer Bond initiative (https://drcog.org/
services-and-resources/boomer-bond) provides education and
support to local governments around the region in the form of
strategies and tools that can be employed at the local level to
ensure that older adults can age successfully in their homes and
communities (Figure 6.6). Working closely with stakeholders
around the region, the DRCOG developed the Boomer Bond
Assessment Tool. The tool is a resource local governments can
use to evaluate how well the community’s existing resources,
programs, and physical design serve older adult residents. Ju-
risdictions from around the region have used the assessment
tool to assist staff and policy makers in determining effective
ways to meet the needs of existing and future older residents.
Observations
As with other urban regions highlighted among the profiles
in this chapter, Denver has experienced an evolution in re-
gional planning. From working within a framework of link-
ing transportation and land-use planning, the regional plan-
ning efforts in Denver have evolved to address contiguous
and orderly growth and compact urban form, and have called
attention to the impacts of the built environment on healthy
and successful aging.
Denver’s major investment in the FasTracks regional ur-
ban rail transit system is attracting infill and redevelopment
in a manner comparable to the compact development strat-
egies in other urban regions planning under state growth
legislation frameworks. As with Seattle and San Francisco,
Denver is accommodating a significant percentage of its new
development through infill and redevelopment, including
development at high-capacity transit station areas. The Den-
ver region’s investment in rail transit is providing many of
the benefits associated with sustainability principles, includ-
ing less reliance on automobile travel, more jobs and housing
around station areas, and increased opportunities for walk-
ing and bicycling.
Integrated Regional Planning in the
Minneapolis–Saint Paul Region
In 1967, the Minnesota Legislature created the Metropolitan
Council of the Minneapolis–Saint Paul region (Figure 6.7) at
the urging of a broad coalition of government, business, and
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 77
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 6
Figure 6.7. Minneapolis–Saint Paul region (benkrut/Thinkstock photos)
civic leaders to address several problems that called for re-
gional solutions:
• Failing septic systems and serious water pollution in the
region’s many rivers, streams, and lakes
• Disintegration of a privately owned bus system
• Vital natural areas despoiled by rapid development
• Fiscal disparities among the myriad local governments of
the region
Originally, the council was given two basic responsi-
bilities: (1) to prepare a comprehensive development guide
for the region, and (2) to make recommendations regard-
ing plans of operating agencies and local governments. The
move toward a stronger system of regional governance be-
gan in 1971 when the state legislature created a new system
of property tax revenue sharing for the region. This system
not only helped ensure broad access to basic public financial
resources by all communities in the region, it functioned to
discourage intraregional “smokestack chasing” and encour-
age development patterns based on market efficiencies rather
than special local incentives.
In 1976, the Minnesota state legislature passed the Met-
ropolitan Land Planning Act, which made the council an
agency with enforcement powers. Statutes require the council
to submit “system statements” to local governments whenev-
er a major policy change occurs. Local governments are also
required by statute to ensure that their comprehensive plans
conform to regional system plans. In 1994, the legislature de-
termined that efficiencies and consistencies could be gained
by consolidating the formerly separate wastewater and transit
agencies into the council itself.
Under the state statute, the council’s work is framed by
a ten-year planning cycle. In the first half of each decade, it
78 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
prepares a 30-year development framework and long-range
plans for each of its four regional systems: (1) transportation,
(2) aviation, (3) wastewater, and (4) regional parks. System
statements are sent to local communities at the end of the
fifth year, with instructions to complete comprehensive plan
updates by the end of the eighth year of the decade.
The council also advises local communities regarding
additional council policies that fall outside of system plans
(most prominently, housing and water supply). Adherence to
nonsystem policies is not required to the same degree but of-
ten determines eligibility or preference for Livable Commu-
nities funding (see below) or other council funds.
While the statutory foundation for council work has
changed little since the mid-1990s, new issues are changing
the complexion of that work. Along with other major met-
ropolitan areas in the United States, the Twin Cities area is
experiencing a renaissance of life in the central cities, com-
plementing the continuing growth of its suburbs. Along with
this shift, the council has inherited greater responsibilities
for planning a multimodal twenty-first century transit sys-
tem that includes light rail, commuter rail, bus rapid transit,
walkways, and bicycle paths, as well as the core components
of regular bus routes, highways and streets, and freight facili-
ties. In addition, all of this is occurring within the context of
rapidly growing demographic diversity, an increasingly com-
petitive global economy, and issues of climate change.
As a result, the region’s latest 30-year planning frame-
work, Thrive MSP 2040 (Metropolitan Council 2014b) (Figure
6.8), has a significantly different focus from anything that the
council has produced previously. Rather than articulating
policy principally within functional categories (e.g., trans-
portation, wastewater, and so on), the council now emphasiz-
es five cross-cutting outcomes and three guiding principles to
structure its work. The outcomes of stewardship, prosperity,

Figure 6.8. Thrive MSP (Metropolitan Council)
equity, livability, and sustainability are to guide all council
work, performed with attention to the principles of integra-
tion, collaboration, and accountability.
Livable Communities Funding Program
Minnesota’s 1995 Livable Communities Act provided the
council with the ability to grant support to local projects fea-
turing brownfield cleanup, affordable housing, and walkable
mixed use development. The council works with local gov-
ernments to accommodate growth and development within
its urban service area, prioritizing investment in infrastruc-
ture focused in existing activity centers and along transit
corridors that supports high-density, mixed use, pedestrian-
friendly development. More specifically, it plans and invests
in infrastructure to support growth, particularly job growth
where employment centers already exist, and in nodes along
regional transportation corridors (either highway or tran-
sit). Local governments are encouraged to plan for improved
local street connectivity and use of complete streets design
principles, as well as a complementary mix of land uses along
corridors and in centers. The success of the region’s policies is
shown by regional employment and growth patterns concen-
trated in job centers on less than two percent of the region’s
land area, with most located along transit corridors.
The council has encouraged growth and development
of livable communities over many years in various ways,
including through transit-oriented development. The Liv-
able Communities program is further broken down by its
three components:
• The Demonstration Account has provided nearly 300
grants to more than 60 cities to help create walkable
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 6
neighborhoods, creating a full range of jobs, housing, and
other supporting land uses.
• The Local Housing Incentive Grant Program has provided
direct funds that in turn leveraged hundreds of millions of
dollars in grants to more than 50 cities.
• The Tax Base Revitalization Account has provided direct
funds and leveraged almost three times more dollars for
pollution cleanup grants in 45 cities.
In addition to the three main component programs, 40
transit-oriented development awards have been made using
tax base revitalization funds in combination with demon-
stration account funds for the purposes of leveraging invest-
ment near light rail transit, high-frequency bus routes, and
bus rapid transit corridors.
While the Livable Communities program is supported
by state property tax base funds, the council has also used
federal transportation funds for the program. Although these
funds have not specifically been allocated to activity centers,
projects for transit, roadways, and bicycle and pedestrian
projects are awarded on a regionally competitive basis. Also,
the council used some of its planning funds from federal
transportation funding for early station area land-use plan-
ning and development market studies associated with plan-
ning for an additional light rail transit line, which includes
plans for loop segments in downtown Minneapolis.
Observations
Similar to the other urban regions highlighted in the profiles
in this chapter, the Twin Cities area has witnessed an ongoing
evolution and transformation of regional planning to become
more integrated and cross-cutting. Coordinated systems ap-
proaches have become part of the planning and decision-
making process.
The perspective offered by the adoption of Thrive MSP
2040 is yielding new methods of planning that simultane-
ously are more data-driven and more reliant on deep engage-
ment with the wide varieties of communities that make up
the region.
Vision North Texas: The Dallas–Fort Worth Region
Vision North Texas (www.visionnorthtexas.org) is a public-
private-academic partnership that was formed to help the
North Texas region accommodate anticipated growth in
a successful and sustainable way. The North Texas region,
anchored by Dallas on the east and Fort Worth on the west,
includes 16 counties and more than 200 cities and towns
(Figure 6.9, p. 80). Managing that growth has important im-
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 79
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 6
Figure 6.9. The Dallas–Fort Worth region (Veni/Thinkstock photo)
plications for the environment, infrastructure location and
cost, quality of life, and economic desirability. The partner-
ship sought to engage, inform, and enable decision makers
to ensure that individual choices contributed to the region’s
long-term success.
The Vision North Texas partnership began in late 2004,
when several organizations began discussing ways to address
the pattern of sprawl and address anticipated growth in the
region. The newly formed North Texas District Council of the
Urban Land Institute sought an initiative that could make a
difference to the region. The University of Texas at Arlington
wanted to expand its role in shaping the region. The North
Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), through
its Center of Development Excellence, had established pro-
grams to describe and recognize desirable growth patterns
and was interested in opportunities to apply these ideas at a
variety of public-sector decision-making levels. These three
entities—the Urban Land Institute, the University of Texas at
Arlington, and NCTCOG—became the charter sponsors for
Vision North Texas (Figure 6.10).
Engaging the Region
Initially, the partnership had only one objective—to hold
a one-day regional visioning workshop with leaders from
around the region to consider the region’s choices for ac-
commodating growth. A volunteer planning committee was
formed and a project manager was contracted to organize the
workshop and manage the efforts of NCTCOG staff and uni-
versity faculty and volunteers.
For the first workshop, a diverse group of about 200 par-
ticipants was recruited through outreach to cities, counties,
and the development community, as well as organizations
focused on arts, housing, the environment, and other is-
sues. The workshop included presentations and work in small
groups. Following presentations of each group’s future sce-
80 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
nario, electronic keypads were used to gain insights about the
group’s priority issues. Feedback from participants strongly
supported continuing the dialogue and engaging the region
more broadly.
As a result of this this stakeholder support, a more for-
mal partnership was created, including establishment of a
management committee to provide direction for continu-
ing activities, and creation of a larger advisory committee to
connect with diverse interests and organizations throughout
the region. During this phase, similar visioning workshops
were held in each of the four quadrants of north Texas. A
leadership summit brought together the elected officials and
senior staff from partner organizations to discuss the contri-
butions needed to create a more successful and sustainable
region. The use of multiple communication tools (online,
print, and presentations) expanded the discussion to many
interested individuals and organizations.
Creating a Regional Vision for North Texas
The Vision North Texas partnership began by focusing its
activities on creating a regional vision and plan. The process
combined regional civic engagement with assistance from
professional experts.
The first part of this effort was the assessment of existing
regional conditions and trends. The resulting report, titled
Regional Choices for North Texas (Vision North Texas 2008),
documented the region’s rapid growth and the implications
of continuing current trends. It also proposed a set of alterna-
tive scenarios for the future.
The second part of this effort was an evaluation of these
alternative futures. Teams of experts from private, public,
and academic organizations examined a variety of issues,
including demographics, economics, air and water qual-
ity, transportation, natural assets, health, urban design,
neighborhoods, housing, development patterns, education,

and climate change. Team reports were summarized and
presented at a regional North Texas Alternative Futures fo-
rum. The conclusion, summarized by one of the partnership
leaders, was to go in a future direction that was better than
“business as usual.”
In the third part of this effort, input from forum partici-
pants was used to create a preferred future scenario.
Centers and Sustainable Development Funding
The resulting plan, titled North Texas 2050 (Vision North
Texas 2010), was released and discussed at a regional sum-
mit and then approved by the partnership’s management
committee. The plan addresses regional mixed use centers,
metropolitan mixed use centers, and identifies five policy ar-
eas: natural, rural, separate community, inner tier, and outer
tier. Along with recommendations for these distinct geogra-
phies, topical recommendations were made for eight invest-
ment areas: regional ecosystem, community character and
form, economy, housing, mobility, climate resilience, educa-
tion, and health. This vision and action package received the
American Planning Association’s Innovation in Sustaining
Places award in 2011.
As part of the region’s sustainable development policy,
NCTCOG developed the Sustainable Development Funding
Program (www.nctcog.org/trans/sustdev/landuse/funding/
index.asp), which prioritizes projects within a half-mile of
rail stations and rail lines, as well as projects located in in-
fill areas, along Main Streets, or within historic districts.
The program provides funding for planning, infrastruc-
ture, and land banking projects. It has helped complete or
implement more than 80 sustainable development projects
including transit, streets, sidewalks, intersection improve-
ments, signals, pedestrian amenities, landscaping, and bi-
cycle and pedestrian trails. Of particular note, nearly 70
percent of program funding has supported transit-oriented
development projects.
The mechanism for delivering the above funds is un-
usual. Specifically, a portion of the funds from the U.S. DOT
and certain state funds are exchanged with toll revenue funds
from the North Texas Toll Way Authority (a state agency) for
city local funds. This allows NCTCOG’s Regional Transpor-
tation Council to administer the funding program with “lo-
cal money,” which has fewer administrative requirements. As
with all other programs mentioned in this chapter, local gov-
ernments are involved in two ways. First, they provide a local
match. Second, as a distinctive part of the program, imple-
mentation dollars are guided by local rules and regulations
which may vary from locality to locality.
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 6
Figure 6.10. Vision North Texas (Vision North Texas Partnership)
In pursuing the integration of land use and transporta-
tion, the Sustainable Development Funding Program also
took into account environmental justice areas. Beginning
in 2005, environmental justice scoring criteria defined
infill areas as a priority in a central city with a high con-
centration of unemployed persons, high-emitting vehicles,
or low-income households. Further environmental justice
scoring was provided for those mapped infill areas of the
Dallas–Fort Worth region, including “communities of con-
cern”: protected populations, including African Americans,
American Indians, Hispanics, disabled persons, female
heads of households, those below the poverty line, and pop-
ulations over 65 years of age.
Translating the Vision into Plans
Following completion of North Texas 2050, implementation
has taken place through action by many partners. Individual
cities consider these recommendations when they update
their own comprehensive plans. The Vision North Texas
partnership created an action agenda with 23 items. Results
included an online series of case studies demonstrating best
practices for development; completion of greenprint plans
for two major regional watersheds; and inclusion of Vision
North Texas recommendations in the region’s Mobility 2035
transportation plan update.
The individual partners now focus on their own initia-
tives that implement North Texas 2050. Vision North Texas
concentrates on providing opportunities for regional educa-
tion and dialogue, including a regional forum titled Design-
ing Healthy Communities.
Other Regional Planning Efforts
Mobility 2035: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for
North Central Texas (NCTCOG 2011) is adopted and imple-
mented by the NCTCOG’s Regional Transportation Coun-
cil. Mobility 2035 is the federally required regional transpor-
tation plan that allows the 12-county jurisdiction to receive
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 81
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 6
federal transportation dollars. As such, it is periodically
amended. The third regional policy and planning instru-
ment is a sustainable development policy. It is part of Mobil-
ity 2035 and is also put together by the Regional Transporta-
tion Council. This policy has four focus areas: (1) promote
mixed land use, (2) utilize existing transportation system ca-
pacity, (3) improve transportation access management, and
(4) improve rail mobility.
Observations
The Vision North Texas partnership began because organiza-
tions in the public, private, and academic sectors identified
a shared objective: to help this region accommodate future
growth successfully and sustainably. It produced a regional
vision and action package that can guide the region’s many
autonomous decision makers and investors.
As with many other regions, North Texas does not have
a single entity with authority over the wide range of issues
that contribute to regional sustainability. Rather than focus
energy on creating such an entity, this region used a unique
partnership to create a forum for interaction, dialogue, and
collaboration on important issues. The result is a guide that
each partner can use within its own institutional investment
and decision-making processes.
This approach has several advantages. First, it can be
tailored to the specific circumstances of a particular region.
Second, it explicitly relies on the expertise, contributions,
and participation of its partner organizations. As a result, re-
spected regional organizations and individuals develop the
recommendations and can then incorporate them in their
own future activities. Third, by including the private, public,
and academic sectors as equal leaders and partners, the proj-
ect’s results do not reflect or promote the perspectives of one
sector over another. Fourth, it does not require a new entity
with the need for continuing staffing, funding, and the po-
tential perception of duplication or overlap with other exist-
ing entities. Finally, the structure of a voluntary partnership
gives Vision North Texas the flexibility to modify its organi-
zational structure over time as the region’s priorities and the
partnership’s focus change.
This approach has some drawbacks as well. The fact
that the partnership does not have a permanent institutional
structure is a feature that supports flexibility, but this also
makes it harder to maintain a high level of consistent engage-
ment over time. Changing economic conditions have led to
varying levels of funding for Vision North Texas efforts, af-
fecting the range of programs the partnership can offer. Also,
the partnership has been very effective in part because of the
82 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
individual leaders who worked together and championed the
partnership’s initiatives. This approach would be less success-
ful, however, without the commitment of individual leaders
who, as strong champions, are able to actively engage their
organizations in the partnership. Finally, since the partner-
ship’s role is not mandated by state or federal legislative re-
quirements, it can work to persuade regional agencies and
local governments to act in a way that supports sustainabil-
ity—but it cannot require them to do so. The lack of such a
mandate is a strength in regions that prefer less government,
but it cannot enforce changes in practice as immediately as a
regulation would require.
CONCLUSION
Integrated approaches to regional planning are emerging in
a variety of settings and circumstances. Some approaches
have developed in response to specific federal or state re-
quirements, such as in states with growth management plan-
ning systems (such as Oregon or Washington) or legislative
mandates for specific aspects of regional planning (such as
Minnesota). Even in those settings, some regions take inte-
gration beyond mandates and requirements (for example, the
central Puget Sound region), and others develop innovative
programs to attain mandated performance goals (such as the
San Francisco region). In other situations, regions have devel-
oped more integrated approaches to regional planning in the
absence of a state mandate (such as the Denver region). There
are also examples of integrated regional planning efforts that
are more grassroots or ad hoc in nature, rather than institu-
tional (for example, North Central Texas).
The Seattle urban region reflects regional integrated
planning in the context of a state growth management frame-
work, but the profile shows a willingness by regional planners
and local officials to go beyond mandates and take on addi-
tional issues that allow for a more comprehensive approach to
advancing regional sustainability planning.
The state planning context can significantly affect
the success of integrated regional planning strategies, as
witnessed in California. With state initiatives on climate
change prodding regional sustainability plans that integrate
transportation and land-use planning with housing objec-
tives, urban regions in California are developing planning
initiatives that are more comprehensive in both detail and
performance. While Minnesota lacks statewide growth
management legislation, the statutory authority granted to
the Minneapolis–Saint Paul Metropolitan Council by the
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 6

legislature achieves many of the same results with regard to and expanded partnerships, and the use of new tools and
integrated regional planning. techniques, including scenario planning.
Denver and North Central Texas do not perform region-
al planning under the type of statewide planning initiatives
featured in the other cases. However, the voluntary natures
of their agreements have also been successful in creating in-
tegrated regional plans that incorporate aspects of sustain-
ability, including more efficient use of land, more complete
approaches to mobility, green infrastructure solutions for
environmental issues, and better attention to livable commu-
nities that are vibrant places in which to live, work, and play.
Seattle—along with Portland—is seeing success in fo-
cusing nearly all urban growth within existing defined urban
growth areas, without the need to adjust growth boundaries.
The urban growth area systems in both of these regions in the
Pacific Northwest have a dual intent of preserving agricultur-
al and resource lands, along with directing growth into exist-
ing urbanized areas with the capacity for infill and redevel-
opment. In the case of Denver’s urban growth boundary and
urban growth area more territory has been added. A primary
reason has been the addition to DRCOG’s regional planning
system of a portion of a neighboring county that previously
was outside of its planning area. According to regional plan-
ners, the vast majority of growth has taken place within the
regionally established boundary.
Urban regions with identified centers for focusing new
housing and jobs have wrestled with the issue of how many
such centers are appropriate to have. In the Denver region,
for example, there are concerns among planners, elected of-
ficials, and other observers that there are too many centers
in the metropolitan area (approximately 100), which results
in some significant challenges in guiding development to all
these locations. The Seattle area had more of a self-identifi-
cation approach to urban centers until the early 2000s, when
it put criteria in place for regionally designated centers to be
identified by PSRC decision-making boards. Local jurisdic-
tions can continue to identify locally significant centers, but
only those that now meet regional criteria receive the regional
designation. There are around three dozen regionally desig-
nated centers in the Seattle area, and dozens more locally des-
ignated central places.
The regions profiled in this chapter illustrate that there
is no one-size-fits-all approach to integrated regional plan-
ning. All of the regions profiled desired a change from the
business-as-usual approach to growth and development to a
more compact form. The regions profiled also reflect emerg-
ing trends in regional planning through their focus on sus-
tainability issues, the importance of inclusive engagement

www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 83

CHAPTER 7
TECHNIQUES FOR
IMPLEMENTING
REGIONAL PLANS
Earlier chapters have looked at different innovative approaches that regional planning councils, metropolitan planning or-
ganizations, and other regional planning bodies are taking to develop integrated long-range plans and to focus on complex
regional issues, such as water quality and supply, housing, and climate change. In this chapter, the focus is on two of the
emerging trends presented in the introduction: new approaches for implementation (Trend 4) and new tools and techniques
for regional planning (Trend 6).

One of the common challenges for those working at the
regional scale is ensuring implementation of these plans,
since in most instances these planning agencies have little di-
rect authority over land use, economic development, housing
decisions, or even local infrastructure investment. In some
instances, regional planning bodies do have authority to
implement their own regional land-use plans, such as Metro
in Portland (a directly elected regional government with au-
thority under state law to regulate land use), or other region-
al governmental bodies, such as consolidated city-county
governments in Florida, Indiana, and Kentucky. However,
the dominant pattern for regional plan implementation is
through local member jurisdictions.
Five groupings of regional plan implementation tech-
niques are presented here: (1) funding programs to localities,
(2) collaboration with implementation partners, (3) consis-
tency review of local plans or policies, (4) technical assistance,
and (5) performance monitoring.
FUNDING FOR REGIONAL PLAN grams—perhaps as little as eight percent of the region’s
IMPLEMENTATION
One of the most common approaches taken by regional plan-
ning agencies to promote local implementation of regional
plans is the distribution of regionally managed funds from
federal, state, or regional sources to specific projects and pro-
grams in local jurisdictions that support regional planning
goals and policies.
In several of the urban regions examined in Chapter 6,
a growing trend is to identify specific geographic areas, such
as urban centers, transit station areas, or other growth ar-
eas, as priority locations for directing population and jobs.
To create on-the-ground traction for implementing centers-
focused regional plans and visions, these locations are des-
ignated as top priorities for funding resources. The regional
plans in these areas define specific place types—such as
metropolitan centers, neighborhood centers, or small town
centers—typically in coordination with localities that iden-
tify areas of local significance and special transportation,
employment, or land-use attributes, which then creates a
framework for prioritizing investments.
The central Puget Sound region is a prime example of
this focus on directing regional growth to centers through
its regionally managed distribution of federal funding. At
one time, the region’s transportation improvement pro-
gram had multiple categories for distributing federal dol-
lars, including categories for maintenance, nonmotorized
mobility, and safety. Issues of geographic equity around
the region were also considered in the funding formula.
However, to be more strategic with what were determined
to be very limited dollars from federal transportation pro-
overall expenditure on transportation in any given year—
the executive board of the Puget Sound Regional Council
decided to narrow the focus of regionally managed expen-
ditures to projects and programs serving designated re-
gional growth centers.
As noted in Chapter 6, half of those federal dollars are
now directed to the 29 regional growth centers, plus eight
regionally designated manufacturing and industrial cen-
ters. The other half is distributed to four county-wide plan-
ning bodies, which also focus on funding projects in regional
growth centers, as well as more local centers and areas of

www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 85

 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 7
Figure 7.1. Town center planning in Suwanee,
Georgia, supported by the Atlanta Regional Com-
mission’s Livable Centers Initiative (photo City of
Suwanee; logo Atlanta Regional Commission)
compact development. The eligible centers for this regional
pot are located in only about a quarter of the 86 local gov-
ernments in the central Puget Sound region, but there is
acceptance of the fact that these centers play important re-
gional roles and therefore should receive the regionally man-
aged funds rather than spreading the limited dollars around
broadly without being strategic.
Regionally managed transportation funding programs
in San Diego, San Francisco, Denver, Philadelphia, Atlanta,
and Portland, Oregon, also include investments in urban
centers—among other projects and programs that are eligible
for regional funding as well—but none of these has gone as
far as the Seattle region in investing regional dollars exclu-
sively in projects that support centers.
Regional Livable Communities Funding Programs
A number of regions have created some type of local assis-
tance program in addition to their transportation improve-
ment programs to provide incentives to local jurisdictions
to better coordinate housing, economic development, and
transportation in compact urban communities. Among the
most common of these types of programs are regional livable
communities programs. (Chapter 6 includes a discussion of
regional livable communities funding programs in the San
Francisco Bay Area, Minneapolis–Saint Paul region, and
North Central Texas.)
There are various names for regional livable communi-
ties programs, including “Transportation for Livable Com-
munities” and “Livable Centers Initiative.” These programs
vary in size and many have evolved over time to address
broader issues beyond transportation. In general, these pro-
grams include the following characteristics:
86 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
• They are managed by regional planning agencies, includ-
ing those designated as metropolitan planning organi-
zations. These agencies are responsible for developing
regional policies, plans, and strategies that support invest-
ments in regional centers, transit station areas, or other
designated areas of focused activity, job or housing den-
sity, or other land-use classification.
• The land-use concentrations of designated centers or
station areas are characterized by mixed uses as well as
walkability, access to transit, community design includ-
ing transit-oriented development, and a range of housing
types including affordable housing. Planning for these ar-
eas involves all levels of government as well as the private
and nonprofit sectors, although the main planning focus
is at the local governmental level.
• Typically, these types of programs provide planning and
capital grants, technical assistance, or some combination
of funding to localities to undertake integrated planning,
update local zoning, or provide seed funding for place-
making initiatives and community improvements.
Examples include those programs established by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission of the greater San
Francisco Bay area and the Atlanta Regional Commission.
Both initiated their regional livable communities programs
in the late 1990s using federal highway funds. Slightly ear-
lier, the Metropolitan Council of the Minneapolis–Saint Paul
region launched a Livable Communities program that was
authorized and funded by the state legislature. Other regions
have since followed suit, including the North Central Texas
Council of Governments in the greater Dallas–Fort Worth
region, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission

in the interstate greater Philadelphia region, and the South-
ern California Association of Governments.
Atlanta’s Livable Centers Initiative
The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) has a Livable Cen-
ters Initiative (www.atlantaregional.com/land-use/livable-
centers-initiative) that funds small-area master plans, known
as Livable Center Initiative studies, as well as programs
implementing these plans through both policy changes and
transportation projects. These small-area master plans are
concentrated in areas identified as centers through the re-
gional planning process (Figure 7.1). In addition, a few select
corridors are eligible for participation in the program, pro-
vided that such corridors connect two or more centers and
are focused on multimodal connectivity, not just vehicular
throughput. Additionally, centers located in equitable target
areas (determined by indices developed by ARC based on so-
cioeconomic data) receive priority consideration for funding
and technical assistance.
ARC ties the selection and eligibility of the centers
identified through the initiative back to the region’s unified
growth policy map and regional development guide, which
are based on local land-use policy and regional planning
goals. Only those places targeted for dense, mixed use growth
and expanded multimodal networks are eligible for the pro-
gram. Primary funding considerations include jobs-housing
balance, support and facilitation of increased multimodal
transportation, street connectivity, and improved air quality.
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 7
Regional Funding for Environmental Mitigation
Environmental mitigation programs are frequently funded
at the local jurisdictional level, often with money provided
through federal and state programs. In many instances,
these programs are site specific and somewhat piecemeal.
The example of the San Diego region’s transportation sales
tax (TransNet) program for environmental mitigation for a
40-year period demonstrates how a regional approach can
be more holistic and integrated (see Chapter 3). The program
is used to purchase open space containing sensitive habitats
that are designated for preservation in the region’s Multiple
Species Conservation Programs that have been adopted by
San Diego County and several cities within the region. The
mitigation program also provides funding for habitat man-
agement and monitoring activities that would otherwise be
difficult to fund from available local government revenue
sources. The funding is tied to environmental mitigation for
transportation projects that are included in the region’s long-
range transportation plan, thereby allowing this funding to
be included as part of a transportation sales tax measure.
Regional Funding to Promote Quality of Life
In some regions, planning agencies and other stakeholders
have built support for regional funding for quality-of-life ini-
tiatives. For example, the Denver region’s multijurisdictional
Scientific and Cultural Facilities District described in Chap-
ter 4 is an approach for directing regional dollars to localities
to support museums and attractions that benefit the popula-
Figure 7.2. The Denver Performing Arts Complex,
one of many organizations supported by Scientific
and Cultural Facilities District funding (photo Mark
Goebel/Flickr (CC BY 2.0); logo used with permission
of SCFD)
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 87
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 7
tion of the entire urban region (Figure 7.2, p. 87). The district
distributes funds from a one-tenth of one percent sales tax
in the seven-county Denver metropolitan area to support
more than 500 organizations for art, botany, cultural history,
dance, music, natural history, theater, and zoology.
Regional Funding for Local Economic tive transportation, health, economic development, social
Development Initiatives
The majority of multistate, substate, and regional economic
development planning initiatives are coupled with funding
programs for local jurisdictions and member agencies. The
Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission, the regional plan-
ning body for the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, oversees
funding for coordinated business assistance. Through a state-
level initiative called the Partnership for Regional Economic
Performance (www.spcregion.org/plan_prep.shtml), fund-
ing is distributed among local development districts and oth-
er related organizations. The partnership has provided fund-
ing for shared client services for small and medium-sized
firms, such as business plan development assistance, loans for
business expansion, export and government contracting, site
location assistance, and manufacturing process consultation.
COLLABORATION WITH IMPLEMENTATION
PARTNERS
As regional plans become more integrated and take on more
interrelated issues, often there are partners beyond the re-
gional planning body who are responsible for one or more as-
pects of implementation. These partners may be governmen-
tal or quasi-governmental bodies, including special districts
set up for providing transit, water, or parks; nongovernmen-
tal organizations, including housing authorities or economic
development enterprises; or academic institutions.
In the Seattle region, the University of Washington took
the lead with other partners and agencies in working on the
development and implementation of the regional open space
strategy called for in the integrated regional long-range sus-
tainability plan, VISION 2040. In Idaho, regional economic
development efforts in rural and tribal areas were led by a
local university, the University of Idaho. More partnerships
are emerging with local universities and schools in carrying
out implementation of various aspects of regional planning.
Collaboration to Acquire Funding
As discussed earlier in this report, several regions across the
country organized collaborative efforts to obtain funding
88 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
through HUD and its partner federal agencies for Sustain-
able Community Initiative grants, which were offered start-
ing in 2007. (Several of these projects are highlighted in this
report.) These collaborations often included not only regional
and local planning bodies, but also other partner agencies
and organizations with specializations in housing, alterna-
justice, and other areas. The outcomes focused on creating
more complete and vibrant communities in both growing re-
gions and shrinking regions.
Similarly, in 2009 the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services launched the Communities Putting Pre-
vention to Work grant program (www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/
dch/programs/communitiesputtingpreventiontowork). This
program, which was administered by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), provided millions of dol-
lars in grant funding to 50 communities across the country.
Between 2011 and 2014, additional money was allocated by
the CDC through the Community Transformation Grant
Program (www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dch/programs/community
transformation). Both the San Diego County and King
County regional public health planning efforts highlighted
in Chapter 5 received substantial funding from the CDC for
their planning and implementation projects. In the Boston
region, various foundations help to fund initiatives of the
Metropolitan Area Planning Council.
Public Agency Engagement in Advancing
Implementation
An effective way for regional planning agencies to translate
regional initiatives into local action is frequent engagement
of local planning managers—and their counterparts in local
departments of public works and economic development—in
the planning processes of regional agencies. Local directors
and staff that participate in the development of regional plans
best understand opportunities for local implementation on
the ground.
San Diego: Collaboration with Local and Regional
Planning Agencies
For many years, SANDAG has been guided in the develop-
ment of regional plans by its Regional Planning Technical
Working Group. The membership of this group includes the
planning and community development directors of the 19
local jurisdictions in the region (or their alternates). Repre-
sentatives of Caltrans (California Department of Transpor-
tation), Local Agency Formation Commission, San Diego
Unified Port District, San Diego County Water Authority,

San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, San Di-
ego County Regional Airport Authority, U.S. Department of
Defense, North County Transit District, and Metropolitan
Transit System are advisory members.
The group makes recommendations on key regional
planning and implementation activities. In the recent past,
these tasks have included the preparation of San Diego For-
ward: The Regional Plan, and the development or update of
the Smart Growth Concept Map (www.sandag.org/smart-
growth), the Smart Growth Incentive Program, land-use
and transportation performance indicators and targets, the
regional housing needs assessment, and other related items.
The group also assists with associated public outreach activi-
ties and helps inform and encourage active public participa-
tion by citizens and groups throughout the region. In general,
the group’s focus is on land-use and environmental planning
activities of regional significance.
Minneapolis–Saint Paul: Collaboration with Local program. In regions in Florida and New Jersey, regional
Governments on Regional Plan Implementation
In response to state law, the Metropolitan Council for the
Minneapolis–Saint Paul region has established a specific
approach to collaboration between council staff and local
government staffs. Following the adoption of any update to
the council’s regional system plans, each of the 188 cities,
townships, and counties in the seven-county metropoli-
tan area within the council’s jurisdiction receives a “system
statement”—a document that is required by state law and in-
tended to help communities review and, if necessary, amend
their local comprehensive plans.
The system statement is a customized document explain-
ing the effect of the Metropolitan Council’s policy plans for
regional systems—transportation, aviation, wastewater, and
regional parks and open space—on each community. Receipt
of this system statement and the metropolitan system plans
triggers a community’s obligation to review and, as necessary,
amend its comprehensive plan within the subsequent three-
year period. For example, council staff transmitted system
statements to each of its local governments following the 2015
adoption of its Thrive MSP 2040 regional plan and associated
regional system plans, and will be working with the local gov-
ernments to assist in the review of local plans and drafting of
plan amendments as needed. Minnesota statutes also require
that local comprehensive plans must conform to regional sys-
tem plans, with conformance including land-use patterns to
ensure the efficient functioning of the regional systems. In
the event a proposed local plan does not conform to regional
system plans, the council is empowered to modify local plans.
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 7
The chief benefit of the Metropolitan Council model is
its success in ensuring the orderly and efficient development
of the region. Basic infrastructure performs at a high level of
quality with a low cost due to economies of scale. There is
strong alignment between system plans and system opera-
tions because the council owns and operates both the waste-
water and transit systems for the region. In addition, there
is assurance that local development is well coordinated with
regional infrastructure.
CONSISTENCY REVIEW
Consistency review is a process whereby local plans or pro-
grams are evaluated according to whether they adequately
address adopted regional plans and policies. The process may
be formal or informal and may be required under planning-
related statutes or official provisions, or through a voluntary
bodies review local plans for consistency with certain state
requirements. In Florida, the regional review of local plans
has been part of a consistency evaluation process with the
statewide growth management plan. The regional review re-
quirement has been relaxed under the current state adminis-
tration. In New Jersey, the process is called cross-acceptance.
Counties review local plans with a focus on whether state
fair-housing requirements are addressed.
In Washington State, consistency review is conducted by
regional planning bodies (the metropolitan planning orga-
nizations) for certain elements in local comprehensive plans.
The regional review focuses on transportation elements in
local comprehensive plans and transportation-related provi-
sions. Factors for review include a number of land-use and
economic development provisions, including urban design,
residential density, and job retention. With the Seattle region
developing an integrated sustainability strategy for its long-
range growth management, economic development, and
transportation plan, its consistency review process focuses
on the comprehensive set of multicounty planning policies
in VISION 2040. Local plans are reviewed for how they ad-
dress a broad array of issues, including environmental res-
toration, climate change, centers development and compact
urban form, economic development, transportation demand
management, health and active living, and adequate services.
Through the Mile High Compact, the Denver region cre-
ated a consistency review process. The Denver Regional Coun-
cil of Governments reviewed local plans for consistency with
Metro Vision, the regional development and transportation
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 89
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 7
strategy. Council staff then provided comments to local staff
regarding provisions in their local comprehensive plans to im-
prove coordination between local and regional planning efforts.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
As noted previously, implementation of regional planning
commonly occurs through actions taken by local jurisdic-
tions. In the 1960s and 1970s, it was common for councils
of governments receiving federal funding to help localities
with various types of planning. In many regions, regional
planning bodies continue to provide technical assistance to
jurisdictions for implementation. In Atlanta, ARC’s Livable
Centers Initiative does more than award grants to locali-
ties. ARC staff also provides technical assistance, including
troubleshooting delays and hurdles in acquiring approvals,
providing design input or technical assistance, and facilitat-
ing meetings between the sponsors and the state transporta-
tion department. Finally, ARC evaluates progress on Livable
Centers Initiative plan implementation through its biannual
sponsor surveys, its Livable Communities Initiative imple-
mentation report, and its annual Breaking Ground report that
tracks construction project implementation.
Toolkits
The Puget Sound Regional Council has developed a number of
toolkits to assist its member jurisdictions with tools and prac-
tices to implement many of the policies and provisions in its
VISION 2040 regional long-range plan. For example, PSRC’s
Housing Innovations Program (www.psrc.org/growth/hou
sing/hip) provides useful information on nearly 50 practices
to support the retention and production of affordable hous-
ing. The toolkit describes different types of housing, along
with regulatory tools, incentive programs, project-level tools,
outreach, and partnership programs. PSRC has also pro-
duced toolkits for urban centers, urban design, and parking.
The San Diego Association of Governments has created
a Smart Growth Tool Box (SANDAG n.d.). This resource in-
cludes urban design guidelines, parking management strate-
gies, and visualization tools that help local jurisdictions con-
sider various ways in which development might occur.
PERFORMANCE MONITORING
Regional planning bodies are often best equipped for de-
veloping and maintaining data and information related to
90 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
monitoring planning outcomes. Regional monitoring pro-
grams typically include implementation monitoring, which
involves tracking actions and steps committed to as part of a
regional planning process. Implementation monitoring an-
swers the question, “Have we done what we said we were go-
ing to do?” These programs also often include performance
monitoring, which relates to tracking whether established
goals have been achieved as a result of actions taking place.
Performance monitoring addresses the question, “Did we
produce the desired results or outcomes we were expecting?”
The information gained through such programs is not only
useful for monitoring actions and outcomes, it also has value
in refining forecasting efforts and models.
Information from monitoring performance helps plan-
ners, decision makers, and the community to understand
whether objectives are being met and whether implementa-
tion efforts are effective. This information is useful in deter-
mining whether additional actions such as changing housing
or transportation policies, adding areas to an urban growth
boundary, or revising zoning codes may be needed to achieve
planning goals and objectives. Performance monitoring is
becoming a feature of a number of federal programs, includ-
ing the current federal transportation funding program.
Several regional planning agencies across the United
States cited throughout this report, including SANDAG,
Portland’s Metro, PSRC, and King County, Washington, pro-
duce regional performance monitoring reports on a regular
basis and present the findings from these reports to their pol-
icymakers. For example, King County Performance (https://
performance.kingcounty.gov) is a data-driven dashboard in-
tended to help the public understand the county’s progress
toward four priorities: best-run government, equity and so-
cial justice, climate change, and regional mobility. The data
and metrics are a combination of community-level outcome
indicators and King County performance measures (King
County 2016). PSRC has published a report evaluating the
performance of its 29 regional growth centers and eight man-
ufacturing/industrial centers in accommodating population
and employment growth. The report also describes the cen-
ters’ physical characteristics including housing and employ-
ment, evaluates their potentials for accommodating growth
in the future, and assesses how center subarea plans address
regional expectations (PSRC 2014). As part of its regional
comprehensive planning efforts, SANDAG tracks progress
toward meeting the goals of its regional plan by reporting
on several areas: urban form and transportation, housing,
healthy environment, economic prosperity, public facilities,
and borders (SANDAG 2013).
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 7

CONCLUSION

While implementing planning at the regional scale can be

challenging, regions continue to find various ways to carry
out their area-wide plans and policies. In the examples pro-
vided, assistance to local jurisdictions—whether through
funding programs or through technical guidance and con-
sultation—has helped to achieve implementation of regional
planning goals and objectives. Yet the examples also show
that more can be done and more work is needed in addition
to providing financial incentives.
Information sharing helps with regional plan implemen-
tation. Providing data, developing indicators, and measuring
performance give regional and local planners, elected offi-
cials, and citizens the information needed to implement ac-
tions and to determine whether they are getting the desired
results. Consistency review, especially when tied to incentives
or requirements, such as eligibility to compete for regionally
managed federal funds (as in the central Puget Sound region),
continues to be a useful tool for ensuring implementation of
regional planning policies at the local level.
Also of interest is the crossover between implementa-
tion tools and techniques and the other emerging trends
highlighted in this report. For example, implementation
steps often require engagement of new partners (Trend 3) to
advance regional and local actions to achieve regional plan-
ning goals. More regional planning bodies are finding effec-
tive ways to work with a number of partners, in additional to
local governments, to implement regional plans. Implemen-
tation techniques are also contributing to improvements in
forecasting to better account for changing demographics and
changing regional land-use patterns (Trend 5). Finally, many
of the implementation approaches cited in this chapter sup-
port sustainable development (Trend 1) and more integrated
planning (Trend 2), through better integration of land use
and transportation with other regional issues (such as envi-
ronmental restoration and economic development).

www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 91

CHAPTER 8
THE FUTURE
OF REGIONAL
PLANNING
Regional planning in the United States is dynamic and evolving. This report has offered an overview of how regional planning
has changed over recent decades. The ways in which certain regional topics—including water planning, open space and habitat
preservation, economic development, and housing—are addressed is being transformed. New planning issues, such as climate
change and public health, are emerging in the regional planning arena. New tools have come into play, enabling a more refined
approach to planning in regions both large and small. More attention is being given to implementation and strategic actions
to bring regional planning from vision to reality.

It is noteworthy that the American Planning Association
has selected regional plans and projects to receive many of its
National Excellence Awards over the past several years.
• In 2011, the Vision North Texas regional planning program
(discussed in Chapter 6) received the National Planning Ex-
cellence Award for Innovation in Sustaining Places.
• In 2013, the 2040 Comprehensive Regional Plan: A Vi-
sion for Northwest Indiana received the Daniel Burnham
Award for a Comprehensive Plan.
• In 2014, the Ridges to River Open Space Network Vision
Plan for Mid-Columbia Basin, Washington, received
the National Planning Excellence Award for a Grass-
roots Initiative.
• In 2015, Vibrant NEO 2040: Regional Plan for Northeast
Ohio (discussed in Chapter 3) received the Daniel Burn-
ham Award for a Comprehensive Plan.
This recognition suggests that the practice of regional
planning continues to make significant contributions to
planning overall in the United States.
AN ACTION AGENDA FOR REGIONAL Regional plans should be crafted in a manner that
SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING
Many of the standards and principles that are applied to
local planning initiatives across the country also have ap-
plication for regional planning. A current example is the
sustainability planning standards developed as part of the
American Planning Association’s Sustaining Places initia-
tive. For more information on this initiative and the result-
ing planning standards, see Sustaining Places: The Role of
the Comprehensive Plan, PAS Report 567 (Godschalk and
Anderson 2012), and Sustaining Places: Best Practices for
Comprehensive Plans, PAS Report 578 (Godschalk and
Rouse 2015).
The following agenda—based on the principles and
process standards advanced in APA’s Comprehensive Plan
Standards for Sustaining Places—is offered for the scoping,
content, and development of regional plans. (A summary of
the comprehensive plan standards appears in the appendix.)
Livable Built Environment
More and more regional plans have evolved to address devel-
opment patterns and land use. While the specifics of address-
ing zoning and land-use regulations continues to remain a lo-
cal purview, regional planning—as demonstrated in Chapter
6—has been advancing the development of mixed use, tran-
sit-oriented urban centers. In addition, regional planning has
been a vehicle for addressing both growth containment and
contiguous development patterns that contribute to protect-
ing resource and agricultural lands and creating more orderly
development patterns.
addresses various aspects of vibrant and complete re-
gions and complete communities within the region. This
includes development patterns that prioritize infill and
redevelopment, housing choices for all, comprehensive
mobility planning and transportation choices (including
complete streets for all users), historic preservation, and
alternative energy solutions.

www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 93

 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 8
Harmony with Nature
Past practices in most (if not all) regions of the United States
have resulted in damage to the natural environment. In
Chapter 3, a number of regions were highlighted where steps
have been taken to address aspects of better planning within
the natural environment, including restoring watersheds,
preserving habitat, and setting aside open space.
Regional plans should have as a foundation an objective
to conserve natural areas, restore damaged ecosystems, and
steward natural resources. Systems planning—that is, plan-
ning comprehensively for an entire network or ecological en-
vironment—should become the accepted practice in regional
planning activities. The Regional Open Space Strategy in the
Puget Sound region (see Chapter 3) is an example of an initia-
tive that works at a regional scale, focusing on natural wa-
tersheds in planning for open space preservation. Regional
planning should be mindful of clean soils, clean water, and
clean air—and the need to protect our shared climate—in all
aspects of long-range planning, implementation actions, and
overall decision making. Moreover, the local food movement
presents an opportunity to allow urban regions to reconnect
with their natural environments and areas within the region
that are appropriate for food production. Both the Delaware
Valley Regional Planning Commission of metropolitan Phil-
adelphia and the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission
have developed regional food systems plans (DVRPC 2011;
MORPC 2010).
Resilient Economy
Chapter 4 explored the growing trend among regional plan-
ning bodies to incorporate economic development into re-
gional development and mobility planning. Economic de-
velopment—whether taking place in a shrinking region or a
growing region—should be linked to all aspects of making
communities all they can be.
Regional plans should be attentive to balancing land
uses, advocating for systematic approaches to improving
mobility and accessibility, and promoting job creation and
retention strategies that emphasize living wages. Such plans
should also make the case for efficient and environmentally
sensitive infrastructure, provide fiscal transparency, and pro-
mote local businesses and entrepreneurship.
Interwoven Equity
A continuing challenge for regions is how to address social
equity and environmental equity. In the review of regional
housing planning efforts in Chapter 4, particularly notewor-
thy were area-wide strategies or programs that focused on
94 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
affordability and social equity. Yet in many instances, equity
remains a lowest-common-denominator issue in regional
planning, resulting in spreading regionally managed dollars
to jurisdictions based on simple population counts, rather
than on an assessment of social need or impact. Strategic
prioritization, ensuring benefits for disadvantaged popula-
tions, or correcting previous harm inflicted on distressed
neighborhoods are concerns often left unaddressed. Each re-
gion should be attentive to regional planning that advances
housing for all, protects vulnerable populations from nega-
tive impacts, supports individuals and groups who are at
greater risk for chronic disease and other health concerns,
and makes sure that each community has access to services,
jobs, and amenities.
There are regional planning efforts and projects now
underway that are expected to ensure benefits for environ-
mental justice communities affected by negative impacts. For
example, in California’s urban regions where climate change
mitigation is taking place, there are efforts to ensure that at
least one-quarter of the investments in climate change miti-
gation and adaptation are directed into environmental justice
communities (California Strategic Growth Council 2015).
Regional plans should intentionally work with federal
directives to explicitly address social and racial equity issues.
Such directives include the 1994 Executive Order on Environ-
mental Justice (59 FR 7629), which directs federal agencies to
identify and address adverse human health or environmental
effects of their actions on minority and low-income popula-
tions, and the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule
(24 CFR part 5), which requires certain planning agencies
receiving HUD grant funding to conduct an assessment of
fair housing planning processes. Within this context, equity
is more than each member jurisdiction getting a share of re-
gional funding. Equity also takes on aspects of social justice.
Where past plans, actions, or projects have harmed disadvan-
taged or minority communities, there is now an expectation
that actions will be taken to heal the damage through both
the process of planning and public engagement and also in
where regional investments are made.
Healthy Communities
Those regions that have incorporated health into area-wide
planning efforts have discovered that health and wellness do
indeed encompass many issues and disciplines. Examples
from Seattle and San Diego show that regional planning for
healthy communities (see Chapter 5) touches on not just mo-
bility and active living, but also on land-use patterns, urban
design, environmental restoration, and more.

Regional plans and regional decisions should ensure that
health and wellness are improved as the result of every plan
action, project investment, or decision. Each and every com-
munity in a region should be a healthier place in which to
live, work, and play as the result of regional planning initia-
tives and implementation. Healthy regions start with healthy
natural environments, and communities should be complete
places with access to healthy foods, recreation, safe built envi-
ronments, cultural amenities, and strong schools.
Responsible Regionalism
A primary objective of responsible regionalism is to recog-
nize that contemporary issues transcend local jurisdictional
boundaries and that local actions have regional consequenc-
es, and vice versa.
Regional planning should be a vehicle for ensuring that
neighboring jurisdictions within the same region develop
plans, projects, and actions that support regional objectives
and complement planning goals and objectives of adjacent
neighborhoods and communities. In particular, during times
of scarce resources for localities, efficiencies and cost-effec-
tiveness can be gained by sharing resources as well as projects
and programs that are mutually beneficial.
Authentic Participation
There are growing efforts to expand partnerships and active
engagement in regional planning. In some instances, there
are new arrangements between existing agencies—at the
regional, state and regional, or local and regional levels—to
work together on complex regional issues. In other instanc-
es, new partnerships have formed between the public and
private sectors that may also incorporate nongovernmental
organizations. The regional table is also providing more and
more room for interest groups, topical experts, and members
of the public.
There is plenty of literature that challenges governance
structures in the country’s regions and the mismatch of
political boundaries with modern urban and regional ge-
ographies. It is acknowledged that there is not much of an
appetite for modifying historic and current jurisdictional
boundaries. It is common for local elected officials to guard
the authority they have over matters they see as impacting
their jurisdictions and constituencies. In some cases, state
legislation or court action has caused more regional ap-
proaches to be put in place to address common issues that
transcend local political borders.
Grassroots efforts to advance regional problem solving
and action are occurring, especially around planning for sus-
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 8
tainability and climate change. Of note is the emergence of ad
hoc regionalism to take on issues or regional planning initia-
tives outside the traditional regional framework of a council
of governments or other existing regional organization. One
example is the Vision North Texas effort in the greater Dal-
las–Fort Worth metropolitan area presented in Chapter 6.
This endeavor created a vision and framework for a variety
of regional planning and sustainability initiatives beyond the
existing regional governmental and agency structures. An-
other example is the Regional Climate Collaborative in San
Diego described in Chapter 5. The collaborative is advancing
a coordinated approach to climate change mitigation and ad-
aptation across a variety of regional and local public agencies
and organizations.
Regional planning should engage all segments of the re-
gion in establishing a common vision, engaging individuals
and groups in development plans, and monitoring outcomes
by sharing information openly and transparently. Chapter 7
presented tools that not only provide for improved regional
planning, but also provide techniques for engaging citi-
zens, regional leaders, and various stakeholders and interest
groups in public participation, with very positive results. New
technologies are creating fresh opportunities for information
sharing and engagement in planning processes both large
and small. The participation of engaged citizens who have
invested in regional planning and desired outcomes can go a
long way to ensure success.
Accountable Implementation
More regions, including a number of the examples presented
in Chapter 6, are supplementing their planning initiatives
with implementation strategies that identify steps to be
taken, responsible parties for carrying out implementation
actions, and programs to monitor performance. Planning
adds the most value when specific actions and steps are car-
ried out in a manner where responsibilities are clearly stated,
resources are understood and committed, and priorities are
set. Using indicators and metrics helps planners evaluate
progress in achieving desired outcomes. Regional monitor-
ing efforts can be designed to track implementation actions,
as well as to assess performance in making progress toward
achieving established goals.
Just as every region has its own issues and challenges,
the most effective approaches to regional planning are also
specific to each region. Major issues facing growing regions
include gaps in housing, inadequate infrastructure, and pres-
sure to convert rural and resource lands to new development.
In shrinking regions, the major issues include stabilizing the
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 95
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 8
economy, repurposing surplus developed land, and upgrad-
ing aging infrastructure. Using sustainability principles not
only for planning, but also for implementing actions, offers
a path forward for ensuring that regions of all types are vi-
brant, healthy, and livable for generations to come.
FURTHER EVOLUTION OF THE REGIONAL competitive economic advantages by addressing megare-
PLANNING AGENDA
APA’s Comprehensive Plan Standards for Sustaining Places
provide a workable framework for transforming regional
planning in the United States to a planning framework for
sustaining places. In addition, based on the major trends for
regional planning offered in Chapter 1, the following topics
are presented for inclusion in a regional planning agenda.
Toward More Comprehensive Regional Plans
Chapter 6 presented a sampling of urban regions that have
advanced their linkage of land-use and transportation plan-
ning to include regional environmental planning and other
sustainability topics. Yet there are also many regions which
continue to have only partially integrated regional plans.
Just as local plans continue to evolve to become more
comprehensive—that is, to include more integrated strate-
gies for guiding growth, prioritizing infrastructure invest-
ments, restoring the environment, creating more vibrant and
healthy places, and improving overall quality of life—so too
should regional plans also become more comprehensive. In-
deed, a number of regional planning agencies have now de-
veloped comprehensive regional plans that address the same
range of topic areas that are contained in local comprehensive
plans. The sustainability principles offered by APA’s Sustain-
ing Places initiative can help to create a framework for com-
prehensive regional plans that can be integrated across both
topical areas and geographic scales.
The Emergence of Megaregional Planning
A newly evolving issue is the topic of megaregional planning.
Megaregions are geographically interconnected networks
of metropolitan areas that share economic, environmental,
and cultural features, as well as infrastructure connections
(Georgia Tech CQGRD 2016). The megaregional framework
adapts regional planning to recognize the existence of “re-
gions among regions.” Examples of megaregions include the
Northeast Corridor that extends from Boston to Washing-
ton, D.C.; the Cascadia megaregion that runs along the Pa-
cific Ocean north of California, composed of parts of Oregon,
96 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
Washington, and British Columbia; and the Texas Triangle
that connects the Houston, San Antonio, Austin, and Dal-
las–Fort Worth metropolitan regions (Figure 8.1).
Increasingly, regional planning agencies are examining
their locations within megaregions and the issues and ac-
tivities that are impacted by trends and actions in neighbor-
ing regions. Regions are recognizing opportunities to gain
gional trends. Additionally, there is an increasing degree of
collaboration at the regional level around issues that cross
jurisdictional lines, including transportation, air and water
quality, open space, and resiliency. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) has launched a megaregional plan-
ning initiative in which APA has worked to develop planning
guidance for incorporating interregional and megaregional
considerations into local and regional long-range plans
(www.planning.org/nationalcenters/green/megaregions).
Regional Action Plans as Organizing Frameworks
In looking at the wide range of topics that are being addressed
at a regional scale, it is clear that there is no one-size-fits-all
approach that can be offered to planners challenged with
such issues in their own regions. However, there does ap-
pear to be convergence around climate change planning and
green infrastructure planning as providing useful integrated
frameworks for topical regional planning around key themes.
Climate change is a complex, multifaceted issue that
touches both on the protection and restoration of the nat-
ural environment and on the development patterns, con-
sumption, and infrastructure of the built environment. The
current generation of climate action plans brings together
strategies for addressing mobility, housing, pollution reduc-
tion, and habitat protection. In some regions, there is now a
greater focus on the vertical integration of regional and local
climate action plans and strategies. These multidisciplinary
plans lend themselves well to further integration of other
regional issues, including economic resiliency, water quality
and supply, and the provision of other services. However, it is
important to recognize that climate action plans are not yet
common across the United States and the political climate
in a number of states and jurisdictions creates challenges for
using climate change as a common organizing framework
throughout the country.
Another emerging movement in the United States is a
more sustainable approach to planning for water in a more in-
tegrated and comprehensive manner. Such efforts to address
integrated water planning and management are commonly
referred to as One Water initiatives (U.S. Water Alliance

Figure 8.1. U.S. megaregions (Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2016)
2016). Green infrastructure plans, which typically incorpo-
rate natural resource and water conservation approaches,
urban water quality improvement strategies, and state-of-
the-art stormwater treatment methods, have expanded their
purview to also address public health and local food systems.
Planning for water in a comprehensive manner provides an
opportunity to integrate water planning with land-use plan-
ning, open space planning with other aspects of smart growth
and economic development, and housing planning with job
creation and retention, as well as with smart mobility.
Changing Demographics and Changing Regions
For regional planning agencies, the forecasting and analy-
sis of demographic and economic trends brings increased
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 8
responsibilities to keep the public and policy makers in-
formed of the social and economic changes occurring in
their regions. In many cases, regional planning agencies are
the first to observe changing demographics—more single-
person households, more seniors, more start-ups, more sin-
gle-parent households—and changing ethnic compositions;
many regions are moving to “majority minority” composi-
tions very quickly.
Regional planning agencies are also being called upon
to update forecasts more frequently than in the past and to
make them available in a variety of formats that can be used
by various public agencies and other stakeholders to produce
plans and analyses based on consistent growth assumptions.
In addition, there is a growing interest in the use of scenario
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 97
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 8
planning techniques, which rely on methodologically con-
sistent growth forecasts in order to produce more integrated
planning results.
These responsibilities have led many regional planning
agencies to take leadership roles in addressing social justice
and environmental justice issues within their regions, espe-
cially with regard to housing supply and production. With
these responsibilities come very challenging resource allo-
cation and governance issues that are just beginning to be
understood. In addition, regional planning agencies are well
positioned to take a leadership role in advancing age-friendly
planning for communities within their planning areas.
New Tools and Techniques
The evolution of integrated land-use and transportation plan-
ning into the broader realm of sustainability planning over
the past twenty years has brought with it a significant shift
in resources toward computer-based models and scenario
planning tools for both planning and effective public engage-
ment. Where scenario development occurs through rigorous
discussion and debate and yields plausible stories of the fu-
ture, these tools may produce key indicators or targets that
are important in the implementation and evaluation stages of
performance-based planning.
These tools not only generate scenarios, they also pro-
duce a wealth of indicators from those scenarios that go well
beyond transportation metrics. In theory, their results can
be measured against ongoing monitoring and evaluation of
plans, thus moving these scenario tools well along the perfor-
mance planning spectrum of stages. A number of these are
currently conceived and structured to support the normative
(end-state) approach to scenarios in which users (experts,
committees, or the public) select their desired future land-use
patterns and infrastructure improvements and can evaluate
their impacts via the selected indicators.
Tools that facilitate the evaluation and display of scenar-
ios are making great strides. They are becoming more visual-
ly appealing and accessible and are moving toward common
standards. They are interfacing better with exterior models
and incorporating new research findings into less simplistic
formulas.
A key concern, not only for regional planning but also
for urban planning and analysis in general, is to raise the
value of qualitative evaluation. Many analytical tools and
technologies find it easier both to take in and to put out
quantitative information (i.e., data and information that
lends itself to counting). Quality-of-life issues and other
facets of both environmental and human health and well-
98 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
being that are very important—if not most important—can
be very challenging to quantify. However, a growing number
of urban forums across the globe are starting to address this
challenge—for example, by emphasizing the value of craft-
ing and measuring “happiness” indices.
FUTURE WORK FOR UNDERSTANDING AND
ADVANCING REGIONAL PLANNING IN THE
UNITED STATES
As this report has demonstrated, the emerging trends in
regional planning strongly suggest that there is a bright fu-
ture for regional planners and regional leaders in the United
States. This concluding chapter has outlined a robust agenda
for continuing the evolution and transformation of regional
planning. This following section identifies areas for addi-
tional research, work, and information sharing in the field
of regional planning.
Regularly Update the “Go-To” Publications
for Regional Planning
In the past the American Planning Association and the In-
ternational City Management Association have produced a
series of “green books” oriented to the professional develop-
ment needs of urban planners and managers in local govern-
ment. Both associations collaborated in producing a volume
in the series titled The Practice of State and Regional Plan-
ning (So et al. 1986). However, this document has not been
updated since 1986. This resource should be updated on a
regular basis.
Provide Funding and Other Assistance
Historically, regional planning has been enabled and funded
by the  federal government and by numerous state and lo-
cal  governments. The largest source of federal funding has
come through the FHWA and the Federal Transit Adminis-
tration. Earlier in this decade, the U.S. Department of Hous-
ing and Urban Development  (HUD) provided innovative
regional planning assistance. And over the years the  Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) has provided technical
and other types of assistance. In  extensive rural and small
metropolitan areas, both the federal Economic Development
Administration (EDA) and the Appalachian Regional Com-
mission have provided assistance for regional planning and
related activities.
Specifically, the federal transportation agencies should
continue their  efforts and remain open to innovation as
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, C H A P T E R 8

they have over the last 20 years. In addition, there is a defi- improving the natural environment and the role it plays in
nite need for HUD and the EPA to become more engaged health, and improving social and economic well-being for all.
in sustainable regional planning. And the EDA and other
similar federal agencies should, at a minimum, maintain
their current efforts.
It is also pivotal  that the states play an increasing role
in adopting enabling legislation and providing financial as-
sistance. Each state is different. However, they all benefit by
promoting sustainable planning and development at regional
and local levels. The APA and  its individual  divisions and
chapters should work toward these ends.

Deliver More Information on Best Practices

in Regional Planning
APA has recognized its Regional and Intergovernmental
Planning Division for its ongoing initiative related to regional
livable communities programs in urban regions. Several of
the urban regions discussed in Chapter 6 have such programs
in place, along with a growing number of regions beyond the
scope of this report which the division is tracking. Along
with continued tracking of the regional livability communi-
ties programs, it would be valuable to expand and maintain
information on other emerging implementation mechanisms
that advance regional planning.
In addition, further research on best practices for region-
al planning agencies in the areas of water planning, climate
change, bioregional planning, and innovative collaboration
would greatly advance state-of-the-art regional planning
across the United States. This information gathering and
sharing could be pursued in collaboration with universities to
produce research and training related to a variety of planning
and modeling topics that are relevant to regional planners.

THE FUTURE IS WHAT WE MAKE OF IT

Regional planning in the United States has historically faced

and continues to face many challenges. There have been and
continue to be political pressures against “regionalism.” Ded-
icated funding has been a significant challenge and continues
to hamper the broadening of regional planning efforts and
initiatives. Yet regional planning continues to make a re-
markable contribution to places large and small, metropoli-
tan and rural, and continues to evolve and renew itself.
There is both promise and excitement regarding the
future of regional planning. It has been and no doubt can
continue to be a game changer in improving the built en-
vironment and the infrastructure necessary to support it,

www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 99

 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, A P P E N D I X

APPENDIX: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STANDARDS FOR SUSTAINING PLACES

Sustaining Places is an initiative of the American Planning
Association to define the role of comprehensive planning
in addressing the sustainability of human settlements.
The Comprehensive Plan Standards for Sustaining Places
are organized into a framework of related components: (1)
six principles, (2) two processes, and (3) two attributes.
Each of these components is implemented through a set
of best practices.
Collectively, these principles, processes, attributes, and
supporting best practices provide a framework for planning
for sustaining places. For more information, see Sustaining
Places: Best Practices for Comprehensive Plans, PAS Report
578 (Godschalk and Rouse 2015).
REQUIRED PRINCIPLES
6. Responsible Regionalism. Ensure that all local propos-
als account for, connect with, and support the plans of
adjacent jurisdictions and the surrounding region.
REQUIRED PROCESSES
1. Authentic Participation. Ensure that the planning pro-
cess actively involves all segments of the community in
analyzing issues, generating visions, developing plans,
and monitoring outcomes.
2. Accountable Implementation. Ensure that responsi-
bilities for carrying out the plan are clearly stated, along
with metrics for evaluating progress in achieving desired
outcomes.

1. Livable Built Environment. Ensure that all elements of REQUIRED ATTRIBUTES

the built environment, including land use, transporta-
tion, housing, energy, and infrastructure, work together 1. Consistent Content. Ensure that the plan contains a
to provide sustainable, green places for living, working, consistent set of visions, goals, policies, objectives, and
and recreation, with a high quality of life. actions that are based on evidence about community
2. Harmony with Nature. Ensure that the contributions conditions, major issues, and impacts.
of natural resources to human well-being are explicitly 2. Coordinated Characteristics. Ensure that the plan in-
recognized and valued and that maintaining their health cludes creative and innovative strategies and recommen-
is a primary objective. dations and coordinates them internally with each other,
3. Resilient Economy. Ensure that the community is pre- vertically with federal and state requirements, and hori-
pared to deal with both positive and negative changes zontally with plans of adjacent jurisdictions.
in its economic health and to initiate sustainable urban
development and redevelopment strategies that foster
green business growth and build reliance on local assets.
4. Interwoven Equity. Ensure fairness and equity in pro-
viding for the housing, services, health, safety, and liveli-
hood needs of all citizens and groups.
5. Healthy Community. Ensure that public health needs are
recognized and addressed through provisions for healthy
foods, physical activity, access to recreation, health care,
environmental justice, and safe neighborhoods.

100 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org


REFERENCES
AARP. 2014. “What is a Livable Community?” Available at www.aarp.org/
livable-communities/about/info-2014/what-is-a-livable-community
.html.
American Planning Association, Connecticut Chapter (APA CT). 2016.
“Eastern Highlands Health District Community Health Action Re-
sponse Team.” Plan4Health. Available at http://plan4health.us/plan
4health-coalitions/eastern-highlands-ct-eastern-highlands-health-
district-community-health-response-team/.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2013. Regional Housing
Needs Plan: San Francisco Bay Area 2014–2022. Available at http://abag
.ca.gov/files/ABAG_Final_RHNA_Publication.pdf.
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). 2014. Mon-
terey Bay 2035: Moving Forward Plan. Available at http://ambag.org/
programs/met_transp_plann/documents/Final_2035_MTP_SCS/
MovingForwardMontereyBayFinal.pdf .
California Strategic Growth Council. 2015. Affordable Housing and Sustain-
able Communities Program: 2015–2016 Program Guidelines. Available at
www.sgc.ca.gov/resource%20files/FINAL15-16AHSCGuidelines&QM
.pdf.
Cape Cod Commission. 2015. Cape Cod Area Wide Water Quality Man-
agement Plan Update. Available at https://sp.barnstablecounty.org/ccc/
public/Documents/208%20Final/Cape_Cod_Area_Wide_Water_
Quality_Management_Plan_Update_June_15_2015-Printable.pdf.
Center for Economic Competitiveness and West Virginia University for the
Appalachian Regional Commission. 2015. Appalachia Then and Now:
Examining Changes to the Appalachian Region Since 1965. Available at
www.arc.gov/research/researchreportdetails.asp?REPORT_ID=113.
Clearwater Economic Development District (CEDD). 2014. Pathways to
Accelerate North Central Idaho. Available at www.clearwater-eda.org/
regional-resourcesdownload-my-file/.
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC). 2011. Eating
Here: The Greater Philadelphia Food System Plan. Available at www
.dvrpc.org/Products/10063/.
Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). 2000. “Mile High
Compact.” Available at https://drcog.org/planning-great-region/metro-
vision/mile-high-compact.
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, R E F E R E N C E S
———. 2014. “Metro Vision 2035.” Available at www.drcog.org/planning-
great-region/metro-vision/metro-vision-2035.
Feiden, Wayne, and Elisabeth Hamin. 2011. Assessing Sustainability: A
Guide for Local Governments. Planning Advisory Service Report 565.
Chicago: American Planning Association. Available at www.planning
.org/pas/reports/archive.htm.
Georgia Tech Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development (Geor-
gia Tech CQGRD). 2016. “Megaregions.” Available at www.cqgrd.ga
tech.edu/research/megaregions/overview.
Godschalk, David R., and William R. Anderson. 2012. Sustaining Plac-
es: The Role of the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Advisory Service
Report 567. Chicago: American Planning Association. Available at
www.planning.org/pas/reports/archive.htm.
Godschalk, David R., and David C. Rouse. 2015. Sustaining Places:
Best Practices for Comprehensive Plans. Planning Advisory Service
Report 567. Chicago: American Planning Association. Available at
www.planning.org/pas/reports/archive.htm.
GroWNC. 2013. GroWNC Regional Plan. Available at www.gro-wnc.org/
regionalplan.html.
Hinshaw, Mark, 2007. True Urbanism. Chicago: Planners Press.
Holway, Jim, C.J. Gabbe, Frank Hebbert, Jason Lally, Robert Matthews, and
Ray Quay. 2012. Opening Access to Scenario Planning Tools. Cambridge,
Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Available at www.lincolninst
.edu/publications/policy-focus-reports/opening-access-scenario-
planning-tools.
Institute for Sustainable Communities. 2015. Regional Resilience Primer.
Montpelier, Vt.: Institute for Sustainable Communities. Available at
www.iscvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Regional-Resilience-
Report-FINAL1.pdf.
King County (Washington). 2005. A Study of Land Use, Transportation, Air
Quality, and Health (LUTAQH) in King County, WA: Executive Summa-
ry. Available at kingcounty.gov/~/media/transportation/HealthScape/
Publications/exec_summary_092705.ashx.
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 101
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, R E F E R E N C E S
———. 2014. “Policy Brief: Confronting Climate Change.” 2014 State of the
County. Available at www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/elected/executive/
priorities/state-of-the-county/2014-sotc/policy-briefs/Policy_Brief_-_
Confronting_Climate_Change_2014-02-10.ashx?la=en.
———. 2015. Strategic Climate Action Plan. Available at http://your.king
county.gov/dnrp/climate/documents/2015_King_County_SCAP-Full_
Plan.pdf.
———. 2016. “Performance Reporting: Measuring Progress Toward
Our Priorities.” Available at www.kingcounty.gov/depts/executive/
performance-strategy-budget/performance-strategy/performance-
reporting.aspx.
Lancaster County (Pennsylvania). 2006. Balance—The Growth Man-
agement Element. Available at www.lancastercountyplanning.org/
DocumentCenter/View/232.
———. 2009. Greenscapes. Available at www.lancastercountyplanning.org/
DocumentCenter/View/23.
Lancaster Farmland Trust. 2009. “Farming in Lancaster County.” Available
at www.lancasterfarmlandtrust.org/heritage/farming-lancaster.html.
Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change. 2015. “Health and
Climate Change: Policy Responses to Protect Public Health.” The Lan-
cet Commissions, June 22. Available at www.thelancet.com/journals/
lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60854-6/abstract.
Lange, Greg. 1999. “Billboard reading ‘Will the Last Person Leaving SEAT-
TLE — Turn Out the Lights’ appears near Sea-Tac International Airport
on April 16, 1971.” HistoryLink.org, June 8. Available at www.history
link.org/File/1287.
Metro. 1992. Metropolitan Greenspaces Master Plan. Available at www
.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/metropolitan_greenspaces_
master_plan.pdf.
———. 2016. Parks and Nature System Plan. Available at www.oregon
metro.gov/sites/default/files/Parks%20and%20Nature%20System%20
Plan%20020416.pdf.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). 2008. MetroFuture. Avail-
able at www.mapc.org/sites/default/files/MetroFuture_Goals_and_
Objectives_1_Dec_2008.pdf.
———. 2014. Fair Housing and Equity Assessment for Metropolitan Boston.
Available at www.mapc.org/sites/default/files/Fair_Housing_and_
Equity_Assessment.pdf.
Metropolitan Council. n.d. “Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
Grants.” Available at https://metrocouncil.org/Communities/Services/
Livable-Communities-Grants/Transit-Oriented-Development.aspx.
———. 2014a. 2040 Housing Policy Plan. Available at https://metrocouncil
.org/Housing/Planning/2040-Housing-Policy-Plan.aspx.
102 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org
———. 2014b. “Thrive MSP 2040.” Available at https://metrocouncil.org/
Planning/Projects/Thrive-2040.aspx.
———. 2015. Regional Parks Policy Plan. Available at https://metrocouncil
.org/METC/files/40/40d78518-295b-474e-a26c-e85f62b9e706.pdf.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area
Governments (MTC & ABAG). 2013. Plan Bay Area. Available at http://
files.mtc.ca.gov/pdf/Plan_Bay_Area_FINAL/Plan_Bay_Area.pdf.
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC). 2010. Central Ohio
Local Food Assessment and Plan. Available at www.morpc.org/pdf/
CentralOhioLocalFoodAssessmentAndPlan2010.pdf.
Mid-South Regional Greenprint Consortium. 2015. GREENPRINT
2015/2040. Available at http://midsouthgreenprint.org/greenprint-2015
2040/greenprint-final-plan/.
North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). 2011. Mobility
2035: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for North Central Texas.
Available at www.nctcog.org/trans/mtp/2035/index.asp.
Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Consortium (NEOSCC). 2014.
Vibrant NEO 2040: A Vision, Framework, and Action Products for
Our Future. Available at http://vibrantneo.org/vibrantneo-2040/vneo-
2040-full-report/.
Opportunity Collaborative. 2015. Baltimore Regional Plan for Sustainable
Development. Available at www.opportunitycollaborative.org/assets/
RPSD_Final_June_2015.pdf?x19060.
Reconnecting America. 2014. Gold Line Corridor Profile and Recommenda-
tions Report: A Guide to Implementing Sustainable Communities Along
the Gold Line. Denver Regional Council of Governments Sustainable
Communities Initiative. Available at https://drcog.org/sites/drcog/files/
resources/Gold%20Corridor%20Profile%20Report%20v1a_0.pdf.
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). 1995. VISION 2020. Available at
www.psrc.org/assets/259/v2020.pdf.
———. 2007. A Regional Design Strategy in Support of VISION 2040 for the
Central Puget Sound Region. June. Available at www.psrc.org/assets/
1988/designstrategy.pdf.
———. 2009. VISION 2040. Available at http://www.psrc.org/growth/
vision2040/pub/vision2040-document.
———. 2010. Transportation 2040. Available at www.psrc.org/assets/4847/
T2040FinalPlan.pdf.
———. 2012. Regional Economic Strategy for the Central Puget Sound Re-
gion. Available at www.psrc.org/assets/8558/RegionalEconomic
Strategy.pdf.
———. 2013. “Growing Transit Communities Strategy.” Available at www
.psrc.org/growth/tod/growing-transit-communities-strategy/.

———. 2014. Regional Centers Monitoring Report, 2013 Edition: Regional
Summary and Comparison. Available at www.psrc.org/assets/10190/
Centers_Monitoring.pdf.
Randolph County Housing Authority (West Virginia). 2012. Randolph Coun-
ty Housing and Transportation Study. Prepared by Renaissance Plan-
ning Group. Available at http://rchawv.org/uploads/RCHA_housing
study071612_v2.pdf.
Rouse, David, and Ignacio Bunster-Ossa. 2013. Green Infrastructure: A
Landscape Approach. PAS Report 571. Chicago: American Planning
Association. Available at www.planning.org/pas/reports/archive.htm.
Rue, Harrison, Lisa McNally, Kathleen Rooney, Pepper Santalucia, Mary
Raulerson, Jane Lim-Yap, Joel Mann, and Dan Burden. 2009. Livabil-
ity in Transportation Guidebook: Planning Approaches that Promote
Livability. FHWA-HEP-10-028. Washington, D.C.: US Department of
Transportation. Available at www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/case_studies/
guidebook/.
Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG). 2004. “The Blueprint Vi-
sion.” Available at www.sacregionblueprint.org/adopted/.
———. 2008. “Rural-Urban Connections Strategy.” Available at www
.sacog.org/rural-urban-connections-strategy.
———. 2016. Sacramento Region Blueprint. Available at www.sacregion
blueprint.org.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). n.d. “Smart Growth
Tool Box.” Available at www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=334&fus
eaction=projects.detail.
———. 2006. The Regional Comprehensive Plan: Establishing a Baseline
for Monitoring Performance. Available at www.sandag.org/uploads/
publicationid/publicationid_1264_6072.pdf.
———. 2010. Climate Action Strategy. Available at http://www.sandag.org/
uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1481_10940.pdf.
———. 2011. 2050 Regional Transportation Plan. Available at www.sandag
.org/uploads/2050RTP/F2050rtp_all.pdf.
———. 2012a. San Diego Regional Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan.
Available at www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_
1665_14448.pdf.
———. 2012b. Healthy Communities Atlas. Available at www.sandag.org/
uploads/projectid/projectid_482_17468.pdf.
———. 2013. The Regional Comprehensive Plan 2012–2013 Biennial Per-
formance Monitoring Report. Available at www.sandag.org/uploads/
publicationid/publicationid_1887_18212.pdf.
———. 2014. Regional Complete Streets Policy. Available at www.sandag
.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1909_18570.pdf.
———. 2015. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. Available at www
.sdforward.com/pdfs/RP_final/The%20Plan%20-%20combined.pdf.
EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, R E F E R E N C E S
San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA). 2016a. “Urban Water Man-
agement Plan.” Available at www.sdcwa.org/uwmp.
———. 2016b. Final 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at
www.sdcwa.org/sites/default/files/files/water-management/water_
resources/2015%20UWMP%20Final%2006222016.pdf.
Schwab, James C., Editor. 2013. Planning and Drought. Planning Advisory
Service Report 574. Chicago: American Planning Association. Available
at www.planning.org/pas/reports/archive.htm.
———. 2014. Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery: Next Generation.
Planning Advisory Service Report 576. Chicago: American Plan-
ning Association. Available at www.planning.org/pas/reports/
archive.htm.
So, Frank S., Irving Hand, and Bruce D. McDowell, Editors. 1986. The Prac-
tice of State and Regional Planning. Chicago: International City Man-
agement Association and the American Planning Association.
Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC). 2011. 2040 Transporta-
tion and Development Plan. Available at www.spcregion.org/pdf/
lrp2040/2040Plan.pdf.
State of New Jersey Pinelands Commission. 1991. Pinelands Comprehensive
Management Plan. Available at http://nj.gov/pinelands/cmp/CMP.pdf.
Trust for Public Land. 2015. “The Trust for Public Land Releases 2014
ParkScore® Index.” May 20. Available at https://www.tpl.org/media-
room/trust-public-land-releases-2014-parkscore%C2%AE-index.
U.S. Conference of Mayors. 2008. “U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Pro-
tection Agreement.” Available at www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/
agreement.htm.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). n.d. “Six
Livability Principles.” Available at https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/
HUD?src=/program_offices/economic_development/Six_Livability_
Principles.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Economic
Resilience (HUD OER). 2015a. “Access to Opportunity.” Sustainable
Communities Initiative Factsheet. Available at https://portal.hud.gov/
idc/groups/public/documents/document/access-opportunity.pdf.pdf.
———. 2015b. “Economic Resilience.” Sustainable Communities Initiative
Factsheet. Available at https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/
huddoc?id=economic-resilience.pdf.
———. 2015c. “Equity and Inclusion.” Sustainable Communities Initiative
Factsheet. Available at https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/
huddoc?id=equity-inclusion.pdf.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy De-
velopment and Research (HUD PD&R). 2015. “Moving Toward a Sus-
tainable Future: Three Models of Regional Planning.” Evidence Matters,
Summer/Fall. Available at www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/
fall15/highlight3.html.
www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 103
 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, R E F E R E N C E S

U.S. Water Alliance. 2016. One Water Roadmap: The Sustainable Man-
agement of Life’s Most Essential Resource. Available at http://uswater
alliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/Roadmap%20
FINAL.pdf.
Vision North Texas. 2008. Regional Choices for North Texas. Available at
www.visionnorthtexas.org/regionalchoices/regionalchoices.html.
———. 2010. North Texas 2050. Available at www.visionnorthtexas.org/
regional_summit/North_Texas_2050.pdf.
Zimmerman, Mariia. 2014. The Innovative MPO: Smart Planning, Strong
Communities. Washington, D.C.: Transportation for America. Avail-
able at http://t4america.org/maps-tools/the-innovative-mpo/.

104 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org

 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, A D D I T I O N A L R E S O U R C E S

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Avin, Uri. 2007. “Using Scenarios to Make Plans.” In Engaging the Future: Leiter, Robert A., and Elisa Barbour. 2012. “Regional Planning in Southern
Forecasts, Scenarios, Plans, and Projects, edited by Lewis D. Hopkins California.” In Planning Los Angeles, edited by David C. Sloane, 162–70.
and Marisa A. Zapata, Chapter 6. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute Chicago: Planners Press.
of Land Policy. Margerum, Richard, Susan Brody, Robert Parker, Gail McEwan, and
Barbour, Elisa, and Elizabeth Deakin. 2012. “Smart Growth Planning for Terry Moore. 2012. Regional Transportation and Land Use Decision
Climate Protection.” Journal of the American Planning Association Making in Four Metropolitan Regions: Findings from Four Case Stud-
78(1): 70–86. ies, Portland, Ore.: Oregon Transportation Research and Education
Boarnet, Marlon, Editor. 2009. Transportation Infrastructure: The Chal- Center. Available at http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent
lenges of Rebuilding America. Planning Advisory Service Report 557. .cgi?article=1066&context=trec_reports.
Chicago: American Planning Association. Available at www.planning Montgomery, Carleton, K. 2011. Regional Planning for a Sustainable Ameri-
.org/pas/reports/archive.htm. ca: How Creative Programs are Promoting Prosperity and Saving the En-
Benedict, Mark, and Ed McMahon. 2006. Green Infrastructure: Linking vironment. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
Landscapes and Communities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Seltzer, Ethan, and Armando Carbonell. 2011. Regional Planning in Amer-
Chakraborty, Arnab, Nikhil Kaza, Gerrit-Jan Knaap, and Brian Deal. 2011. ica: Practice and Prospect. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land
“Robust Plans and Contingent Plans.” Journal of the American Planning Policy.
Association 77(3): 251–66. Wheeler, Stephen. 2013. Planning for Sustainability: Creating Livable, Eq-
Daniels, Thomas. 2009. “A Trail Across Time: American Environmental uitable and Ecological Communities, Second Edition. New York: Rout-
Planning from City Beautiful to Sustainability.” Journal of the American ledge.
Planning Association 75(2): 178–92.
Daniels, Thomas. 2014. The Environmental Planning Handbook for Sus-
tainable Communities and Regions. Second Edition. Chicago: Planners
Press.
Frank, Lawrence, and Jared Ulmer. 2014. “Bridging to Public Health: Using
Scenario Planning in Broader Ways.” Planning, October.
Foster, Kathryn. 2011. “A Region of One’s Own.” In Regional Planning in
America: Practice and Prospect, edited by Ethan Seltzer and Armando
Carbonell, Chapter 3. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy.
Godschalk, David R. 2004. “Land Use Planning Challenges: Coping with
Conflicts in Visions of Sustainable Development and Livable Commu-
nities.” Journal of the American Planning Association 70(1): 5–13.
Hopkins, Lewis D., and Marisa A. Zapata.  2007.  Engaging the Future: Fore-
casts, Scenarios, Plans, and Projects. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Insti-
tute of Land Policy.

www.planning.org  AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 105

 EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING
PA S 586, AC K N O W L E D G M E N T S

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The editors wish to thank all contributors to and reviewers of this Planning Advisory Service report, whose names and affili-
ations are listed on the inside front cover of the report.
The editors also wish to thank the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for providing case studies
on the Western North Carolina Land of Sky GroWNC consortium; the Memphis region’s Mid-South Regional Greenprint
consortium; the Northeast Ohio Sustainable Communities Consortium; the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission; the
Baltimore Opportunity Collaborative; the Lane Livability Consortium in Lane County, Oregon; and the Randolph County
Housing Authority in West Virginia.
Finally, the editors wish to thank the Institute for Sustainable Communities for allowing the use of material written by
Mariia Zimmerman, “Forms of Regionalism,” in Regional Resilience Primer (2014), Montpelier, Vt.: Institute for Sustainable
Communities.
In addition, this report would not have been possible without the ongoing support of the American Planning Associa-
tion’s Regional and Intergovernmental Planning Division. In particular, we wish to thank the Division’s Executive Committee
for 2015–2016:

Daniel J. Reuter, faicp, Chair

Sharon J. Rooney, aicp, First Vice Chair
Mariia V. Zimmerman, Vice Chair for Metropolitan and Regional Planning
Sandra L. Pinel, aicp, Vice Chair for National Planning
Richard E. Hall, aicp, Vice Chair for State Planning
Alexander T. Bond, aicp, Secretary/Treasurer
Rocky E. Piro, Phd, faicp, Immediate Past Chair
Peter G. Conrad, aicp, Membership Coordinator
Robert A. Leiter, faicp, Director of Communications
Lee A. Schoenecker, aicp, Board Member

106 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION  www.planning.org


APA RESEARCH MISSION
APA conducts applied, policy-relevant re-
search that advances the state of the art in
planning practice. APA’s National Centers for
Planning—the Green Communities Center,
the Hazards Planning Center, and the Plan-
ning and Community Health Center—guide
and advance a research directive that ad-
dresses important societal issues. APA’s re-
search, education, and advocacy programs
help planners create communities of lasting
value by developing and disseminating infor-
mation, tools, and applications for built and
natural environments.
Since 1949, APA’s Planning Advisory Service has provided planners with
expert research, authoritative information on best practices and innovative
solutions, and practical tools to help them manage on-the-job challenges. APA
membership includes access to all PAS publications, including PAS Reports,
PAS Memo, and PAS QuickNotes. Learn more at www.planning.org/pas/.
James M. Drinan, jd, Chief Executive Officer; David Rouse, faicp, Director
of Research; Meghan Stromberg, Editor in Chief; Ann F. Dillemuth, aicp,
Editor.
PAS Reports are produced in the Research Department of APA.
For recipients of print editions of PAS Reports, replacements for miss-
ing and damaged print issues may be obtained by contacting Customer
Service, American Planning Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite
1200, Chicago, IL 60601 (312-431-9100 or customerservice@planning.org)
within 90 days of the publication date.
© January 2017 by the American Planning Association, 205 N. Michigan
Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601–5927. The American Planning
Association also has offices at 1030 15th St., NW, Suite 750 West,
Washington, DC 20005–1503.
ISBN: 978-1-61190-190-0
E-mail: pasreports@planning.org
ABOUT THE EDITORS
Rocky Piro, phd, faicp, is executive director of the Colorado Center
for Sustainable Urbanism and associate professor at the University of
Colorado Denver. He is past chair of the Regional and Intergovernmen-
tal Planning Division of the American Planning Association (APA) and
is on the board of directors of the International Urban Planning and En-
vironment Association. He served as manager of Denver’s Department
of Planning and Community Development, program manager in the
Growth Management Department of the Puget Sound Regional Coun-
cil, and chair of the Shoreline Planning Commission in Washington.
MEMBERSHIP
Robert A. Leiter, faicp, is a lecturer in the Urban Studies and Plan-
ning Program at the University of California San Diego. He previously
served as planning director in four California cities from 1978 to 2003.
From 2003 to 2009, he served as director of land use and transportation
planning for the San Diego Association of Governments, the regional
planning agency for San Diego County and its 18 cities. He has served on
the board of APA’s Regional and Intergovernmental Planning Division
for over ten years, including four years as board chair.
Now includes PAS publications!
The following individuals assisted with this report as contributors and
All APA members now get digital access to every new Planning
reviewers: Elisa Barbour, University of California Berkeley; Uri Avin,
faicp, University of Maryland; Ben Bakkenta, aicp, Puget Sound Re- Advisory Service publication—each one filled with expert guidance
gional Council; John Bridges, faicp, retired, San Diego; Brad Calvert, on big planning challenges, relevant research, and best practices.
Denver Regional Council of Governments; Camille Fink, phd, Ameri-
can Planning Association; Amy Goodwin, aicp, Atlanta Regional
Council; Jim Hassinger, Southwest Pennsylvania Commission; Juli Previously available only to subscribers, these authoritative resources
Beth Hinds, aicp, Orion Design and Planning; Ken Kirkey, Metropoli- are now included with APA membership.
tan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area); Robert Leit-
er, faicp, University of California San Diego; Carleton Montgomery,
Digital PAS publications include:
New Jersey Pinelands Alliance; Sandra Pinel, aicp, Antioch University
New England; Rocky Piro, phd, faicp, Colorado Center for Sustain- PAS Reports I PAS Memo I PAS QuickNotes
able Urbanism; Jennifer Raitt, Town of Arlington, Massachusetts; Dan PAS Essential Info Packets
Reuter, faicp, Atlanta Regional Council; David Rouse, faicp, Ameri-
can Planning Association; Sharon Rooney, aicp, Cape Cod Commis-
sion; Anais Schenk, Dudek and Associates; Lee Schoenecker, aicp, And, there’s more! Members also get unlimited access to the
retired, Washington, D.C.; Mark VanderSchaaf, Minneapolis–Saint entire PAS online archive. Hundreds of resources are available for
Paul Metropolitan Council; Karen Walz, faicp, Strategic Community
Solutions LLC; Karla Weaver, aicp, North Central Texas Council of
download—right now.
Governments; Karen Wolf, faicp, King County; and Mariia Zimmer-
man, MZ Strategies.
APA membership. Always good. Now even better.
ON THE COVER
Learn more at planning.org/pas
Boston sunrise (TCKPhotography/Thinkstock photo)
 PAS REPORT 586  EMERGING TRENDS IN REGIONAL PLANNING |  Piro, Leiter, and Rooney        
American Planning Association
205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200
Chicago, IL 60601-5927

planning.org

p a s r e p o r t 586

EMERGING TRENDS
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
IN REGIONAL
PLANNING
Rocky Piro, phd, faicp, and Robert Leiter, faicp, Editors, with Sharon Rooney, aicp