Scenario Planning for

Charlotte County

Dr. Tim Chapin

Department of Urban & Regional Planning

Florida State University

Presentation to the Project Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC)

Charlotte County, Florida

December 10, 2009

What is Scenario Planning? There is no single, widely accepted definition of this planning tool.

• Bartholomew (2007) characterizes scenario planning as “a series of scenarios to gauge possible future conditions…[with] the expectation that through the process of conceiving, crafting, and evaluating a series of scenarios, an appropriate course of action can be identified.”

• Myers and Kitsuse (2000) describe scenario writing as a process by which “planners invent a number of stories about equally plausible futures, study the implications of each future for their organization, then strategize their organization's response as though each of these scenarios had in fact come to pass.”

• The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines scenario planning as a collaborative process involving transportation professionals and stakeholders from the community to develop a long range policy plan for future transportation systems.

What is Scenario Planning?

At its core, scenario planning involves:

• the delineation and comparison of at least two different versions of a future state for the area of interest;

• investigation of the implications of each of the scenarios;

• an evaluation of the scenarios by stakeholders;

• the identification of a preferred scenario (or future state); and

• the articulation of a set of policies, programs, and/or investments intended to move towards this preferred scenario.

MPO-Led Initiatives

• The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has been very supportive of scenario planning as a means of guiding transportation planning within metropolitan areas.

• FHWA has financially supported scenario planning efforts throughout the nation and developed best practices to help guide these efforts.

• These efforts are typically undertaken by Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) as part of the development of their required long range transportation plans (or LRTPs).

Notable MPO-Led Scenario Planning Examples

Metro Portland’s

2040 Growth Concept Jefferson Area (VA)

Eastern Planning Initiative

Greater Philadelphia’s

What-If Scenarios Project

Metro Sacramento’s

Region Blueprint

Olympia’s (WA) 2025

Regional Transportation Plan

Metro Pittsburgh’s

Project Region

Metro Chicago’s 2040

Regional Framework Plan

Our Scenario Planning Process

Scenario #1 Business as Usual

(aka Trend)

Scenario #2 Safe and

Smart Growth

Scenario #3 Resilient Growth

Primary Data Inputs Land Use, Transportation,

Hazards

Baseline Assumptions • All three scenarios draw upon a baseline set of assumptions:

1. Charlotte County’s 2050 total population will be 323,243 with 178,579 dwelling units in the county.

2. Charlotte county’s 2050 employment will be 134,986, broken down as follows

• Service employment: 97,139

• Commercial employment: 23,804

• Industrial employment: 14,043

3. Babcock Ranch will proceed as planned, capturing a fixed amount of the net increase in population and employment in the county.

4. Allocations of population, dwelling units, and employment are made at the TAZ and sub-TAZ level.

Primary Unit of Analysis: TAZ

Scenario #1: Business as Usual

• The BAU Scenario is based upon the Glatting-Jackson county comprehensive plan update and the existing Punta Gorda comprehensive plan extended through the 2050 horizon year.

• While this scenario predicts some modest densification of the county, development will continue to occur in a scattershot fashion throughout the Urban Service Area.

• Development at suburban or exurban densities, usually in the form of detached single family homes, continues to predominate in the housing stock.

• Commercial development occurs along corridors and in some key urban centers in a pattern that is oriented to automotive travel.

• While development continues to be directed away from environmentally sensitive lands, there is little response to issues related to natural hazards and sea level rise.

Glatting Jackson CC FLUM and PG FLUM

Current USA Boundary

Scenario #2: Safe and Smart Growth • The Safe and Smart Growth scenario reflects the implementation of a

range of transportation/land use policies and infrastructure investments that promote growth in identified Urban Centers and accommodate new development in ways that recognize the risks related to hurricane storm surge and longer-term sea level rise.

• Development is constrained to a smaller Urban Service Area, generally speaking areas currently served by centralized water infrastructure.

• While single family homes continue to dominate the housing stock, a range of housing types (apartments, townhomes, mid-rise mixed-use developments) are developed in or near identified Urban Centers and along transportation corridors.

• Commercial development is directed into major transportation corridors and identified Urban Centers in a pattern supportive of a range of transportation modes (automobile, transit, bike/ped).

• New residential development is directed away from the CHHA and development is deemed less likely in the Category 2 + ½ meter storm surge zone.

Identified Urban Centers

Constricted USA Boundary

CHHA Boundary

Cat 2 Storm Surge Plus ½ Meter SLR

Scenario #3: Resilient Growth

• The Resilient Growth scenario is a further extension of Scenario #2, with an even stronger emphasis upon smart growth outcomes and on community resiliency in the face of natural or manmade disasters.

• Development remains largely constrained to the smaller Urban Service Area.

• The attractiveness of identified Urban Centers is increased, with a larger proportion of the projected growth located in these centers.

• Any residential or non-residential development located within ½ meter SLR zones will be relocated to more suitable areas (excludes Punta Gorda).

• There will be no new non-residential development within 1 meter SLR zones (excludes Punta Gorda).

• There will be no incremental residential development in the Category 2 plus ½ meter storm surge zone (excludes Punta Gorda).

Constricted USA Boundary

½ Meter and 1 Meter SLR

Cat 2 Storm Surge Plus ½ Meter SLR

Comparison of the Three Scenarios

Criteria

Scenario #1 Bus. as Usual

Scenario #2 Safe & Smart Growth

Scenario #3 Resilient Growth

Urban Centers

Weak (BAU share of incremental

growth ‘20-50)

Strong (70% of incremental

growth ‘20-50)

Very Strong (90% of incremental

growth ‘20-50)

Urban Service Area (USA)

Existing Constrained USA Constrained USA

Base Densities Assume Buildout at 80% of FLUM

Assume Buildout at 100% of FLUM

Assume Buildout at 120+% of FLUM

Natural Hazards Policies

Current Policies -No New Res in CHHA -Less attractiveness in

Cat 2 + ½m areas

-Retreat from ½m SLR -No new non-res in

1m SLR areas

Transit share 0.5% for

selected TAZs 1.0% for

selected TAZs 2.0% for

selected TAZs

Comparison of the Three Scenarios

Criteria

Scenario #1 Bus. as Usual

Scenario #2 Safe & Smart Growth

Scenario #3 Resilient Growth

Level of Sprawl High: Low

Density, Lack of Mixed Uses

Low: Promotion of Urban Centers

Mixed: Promotion of Centers Mixed with Inland Development

Urban Centers Weak:

Dominated by Commercial Uses

Strong: Promotion of Existing and New

Mixed Use Centers

Mixed: Promotion of PG and Inland Centers

Level of Displacement

Minimal Moderate: Some Limit

to Development on Coast

Substantial: Limited Development on Cape

Haze Peninsula

Project Tasks Moving Forward: Allocating Population and Employment

• With the finalization of the three scenarios, the next step in the project involves an allocation of population and employment to the TAZ and sub-TAZ level.

• The project team is working with Tindale-Oliver and Associates (TOA) on this task.

• The allocation is performed by translating the principles for each of the scenarios (described earlier) into decision rules for distributing population and employment.

• Using these rules, TOA will allocate the projected incremental population and employment growth to specific TAZs.

Example: Draft Scenario #1 Allocation

Project Tasks Moving Forward • Once these allocations have been completed, the FSU project

team and TOA will be undertaking three separate analyses on each scenario:

1. HAZUS: An assessment of the property damage that can be expected from ½ meter and 1 meter sea level rise.

2. Transportation Demand Model: An assessment of the performance of the transportation system along a number of dimensions.

3. Evacuation Clearance Model: An assessment of the evacuation time and time to shelter for different storms.

• These analyses will then be utilized as inputs in the development of a “Preferred Scenario” for Charlotte County.

• We hope to have these analyses completed by the March 2010 Project Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) meeting.

Our Scenario Planning Process

Scenario #1 Business as Usual

(aka Trend)

Scenario #2 Safe and

Smart Growth

Scenario #3 Safer and

Smarter Growth

Primary Data Inputs Land Use, Transportation, Hazards

Final Preferred Scenario -As an input into the LRTP

-As an input into the CC Comp Plan and the PG Comp Plan

Evaluation --HAZUS --TDM --ECM

Evaluation --HAZUS --TDM --ECM

Evaluation --HAZUS --TDM --ECM