TransportationTransportation infrastructure was the primary land use on approximately 8,700 acres in1995. This included approximately 6,500 acres for roads 3 , 1,900 acres for airports, and200 acres for railroads.Future transportation system components are the subject of several State Guide Planelements, including Transportation <strong>2025</strong> – The Long Range Ground TransportationPlan, the State Airport Systems Plan, the State Rail Plan, and the Waterborne PassengerTransportation Plan. These plans note that the State’s basic transportation infrastructureis largely in place, and the addition of major new highways and other facilities is notcontemplated, other than periodic upgrading and expansion of what already exists.InstitutionalInstitutional uses, such as government buildings, hospitals, libraries, schools, collegesand universities, and similar public facilities, occupied 8,700 acres in 1995. While muchof the future growth needs for governmental and institutional uses may be accommodatedon existing sites and campuses, some expansion of the land devoted to this category canbe anticipated. The amount of land likely to be required cannot be precisely predicted,but standards and siting criteria and/or market conditions that favor rehabilitation ofexisting sites over new construction could minimize the need for additional land.Overall, an estimate for added land for the institutional category through <strong>2025</strong> might beon the order of a ten to fifteen percent increase – i.e., 870 to 1,300 acres; but thisestimate, admittedly, could be conservative, especially if a high level of reutilization ofexisting institutional sites is not stressed or attained.4-5 Summary of Future <strong>Land</strong> <strong>Use</strong> NeedsAbsent dramatic policy shifts, our forecasts estimate that if development continues at thedensities and intensities of recent trends, 110,000 additional acres of developed landcould be required for residential, industrial, commercial, and other development needsthrough <strong>2025</strong>.4-6 What Are the Choices?In the previous section, we quantified what our need for land would be in <strong>2025</strong> basedupon maximum growth in residential units and accommodating that growth at densitiesthat reflect current trends. But is that the way we want to develop? To understand whatour choices are we need to visualize and quantify the alternatives.3 Likely a considerable undercount due to the nature of the 1995 land use study. As the study was based onaerial photo interpretation, most two-lane highways and local streets and roads were generally categorizedand counted within the surrounding land usage.4-6<strong>Land</strong> <strong>Use</strong> <strong>2025</strong>: Rhode Island State <strong>Land</strong> <strong>Use</strong> Policies and Plan (April 2006)
This section describes the process using geographic analysis to develop the recommended<strong>2025</strong> Future <strong>Land</strong> <strong>Use</strong> Plan Map. A summary of the inputs, stages of analysis, factorsconsidered, decision rules, and results for each major component of the analysis isprovided. A more extensive description of the analysis methodology is provided inTechnical Appendix D. The geographic analysis consisted of several interrelated parts:• <strong>Land</strong> Availability Assessment – identified committed and available land withinthe State;• <strong>Land</strong> Suitability Analysis – combined data on resource values and constraints toidentify the varying suitability of lands for development;• <strong>Land</strong> Intensity Potential Classification – combined suitability assessment withadditional water resource and infrastructure considerations to assess an optimumdevelopment intensity potential for land in the State, especially undeveloped,unprotected areas;• Development and Conservation Area Prioritization – introduced proximity factorsto prioritize undeveloped, unprotected areas for development or conservation;• Alternative <strong>Land</strong> <strong>Use</strong> Patterns or “Scenarios” – defined four options for futureurban form of the State and constructed generalized geographic patternsillustrating these alternatives in terms of intensity and distribution of futuredevelopment;• Evaluation and Scenario Selection – assessed each scenario in terms of landavailability by intensity requirements and for policy conformance, and selected apreferred scenario as a basis for the recommended future land use map;• Selected Scenario Refinement as Recommended Future <strong>Land</strong> <strong>Use</strong> Map –analytical and cartographic refinement of the selected scenario to produce arecommended future land use map.Data Sources <strong>Use</strong>d in the AnalysisThe Rhode Island Geographic Information System (<strong>RI</strong>GIS) database provided most ofthe data used in the geographic analyses. The 1995 <strong>RI</strong>GIS <strong>Land</strong> <strong>Use</strong>/<strong>Land</strong> Cover datasetserved as a primary data source for identifying land committed to development andseveral other land characteristics; other data included in the analysis were <strong>RI</strong>GIS-licensedand published, and are documented in the <strong>RI</strong>GIS Data Catalog available on the <strong>RI</strong>GISdata distribution website.While the <strong>RI</strong>GIS database is an excellent compendium of statewide geographic data, it isrecognized that due to the varying ages of individual <strong>RI</strong>GIS datasets (1995 to 2002),actual land cover/use or other conditions may have changed. For this reason, the analysesof this plan are useful for statewide land use planning purposes only. Analyses presentedare intended as a general guide for directing development, not as local or sitedevelopment decision-support tools. The generalized data herein may, however, serve asindicators for where more detailed local site data should be gathered when a specific land<strong>Land</strong> <strong>Use</strong> <strong>2025</strong>: Rhode Island State <strong>Land</strong> <strong>Use</strong> Policies and Plan (April 2006) 4-7
- Page 2:
The Statewide Planning Program, Rho
- Page 5:
Advisors to the Technical Committee
- Page 8 and 9:
objectives is the only way we can p
- Page 10:
In addition, there are four technic
- Page 13 and 14:
Institutional .....................
- Page 15:
LIST OF TABLESTable 121-03(1) Perce
- Page 19 and 20:
PART ONE: WHERE ARE WE AND WHERE AR
- Page 21 and 22:
distinction between historic urban
- Page 23 and 24:
constructed on larger lots than in
- Page 25 and 26:
major pubic investments, such as re
- Page 27 and 28:
and also included a continuation of
- Page 30 and 31:
Geographically, the Current Trend S
- Page 33:
PART TWOWHERE DO WE WANT TO BE IN 2
- Page 36 and 37:
Gauging Public Perceptions of Land
- Page 38 and 39:
etween the historic urban centers a
- Page 40 and 41:
to provide guidance for the (vast m
- Page 42 and 43:
LUO 4C: Utilize infrastructure to a
- Page 44 and 45:
LUP 12: Encourage development patte
- Page 46 and 47:
commercial, and institutional devel
- Page 48 and 49:
comprehensive plans and supporting
- Page 50 and 51: Urban Services BoundaryAs noted pre
- Page 52 and 53: Conservation/open space-style devel
- Page 54 and 55: Narragansett Indian Tribal LandsThi
- Page 57 and 58: PART THREE: WHAT ISSUES DO WE NEED
- Page 59 and 60: need of replacement), expanded faci
- Page 61 and 62: • wastewater system design and ca
- Page 63 and 64: • Less than five percent of Rhode
- Page 65 and 66: To help address its housing needs,
- Page 67 and 68: - needs to be upgraded, the advanta
- Page 69 and 70: How This Land Use Plan Supports Sta
- Page 71 and 72: industry has resulted. Since the 19
- Page 73 and 74: municipal plans as future commercia
- Page 75 and 76: The Future Land Use 2025 map identi
- Page 77 and 78: modifications, the capacity of floo
- Page 79 and 80: Restoration and maintenance of the
- Page 81 and 82: The best locations for redevelopmen
- Page 83 and 84: 3-6 Open Space and RecreationThe te
- Page 85 and 86: • How much land overall should be
- Page 87 and 88: Providence to Warwick and Wickford,
- Page 89 and 90: Another disincentive to walking and
- Page 91: Designers and the community at larg
- Page 95 and 96: PART FOUR: HOW DO WE GET THERE?4-1
- Page 97 and 98: density or medium-high density deve
- Page 99: Table 121-04(2)COMPOSITE OF FUTURE
- Page 103 and 104: wetlands comprised about 18 percent
- Page 105 and 106: Table 121-04(5) defines the five la
- Page 107 and 108: For undeveloped areas, the analysis
- Page 109 and 110: 4-8 Scenario Analysis: Assessing Al
- Page 111 and 112: A major variable in distinguishing
- Page 113 and 114: The land need projections for the f
- Page 115 and 116: Land Use 2025: Rhode Island State L
- Page 117 and 118: Land Use 2025: Rhode Island State L
- Page 119 and 120: Table 121-04(10)QUANTITATIVE* COMPA
- Page 121 and 122: The concentration of development in
- Page 123 and 124: 4-10 Scenario SelectionIn August 20
- Page 125 and 126: Table 121-04(12)COMPARISON OF COMPO
- Page 127: PART FIVEWHAT MUST BE DONE TOACHIEV
- Page 130 and 131: 5-2 State InvestmentsAs noted in Pa
- Page 132 and 133: land use plan must contain an analy
- Page 134 and 135: Table 121-05(1)GOALS, OBJECTIVES, A
- Page 136 and 137: Strategies12Support the participati
- Page 138 and 139: Community DesignLeadAgenciesTimeFra
- Page 140 and 141: 7Locate small-scale convenience sho
- Page 142 and 143: InfrastructureLeadAgenciesTimeFrame
- Page 144 and 145: 4Limit the proliferation of treatme
- Page 146 and 147: 3Coordinate transportation and land
- Page 148 and 149: 3Promote establishment of electroni
- Page 150 and 151:
AbbreviationCRMCDEMDOADOHDOTEDCGAGO
- Page 152 and 153:
Source Management Plan, State Guide
- Page 154:
41. Office of Federal Housing Enter