HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 04 Scenario Planning Update AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 4/27/2015 Meeting Type: Work Session Staff Contact/Dept.:
Anette Spickard/DPW
Staff Phone No: (541)726-3697
Estimated Time: 20 minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Mandate
ITEM TITLE: SCENARIO PLANNING UPDATE
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review proposed preferred scenario for cooperative selection to complete
the Scenario Planning process.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The Councils of Springfield, Coburg and Eugene as well as the Lane County
Board of Commissioners are required under the Jobs and Transportation Act
of 2009 to cooperatively select a preferred scenario to meet State goals for improved air quality by 2035 and to submit a report on this effort to the Legislature by close of the 2015 session. The selected scenario is not binding
and does not have to be implemented by the jurisdictions.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report
2. Draft Legislative Report
3. Public Input Results summary 4. LTD Board Comments
5. PowerPoint presentation
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
Since the last update to Council on the Scenario Planning process on
October 13, 2014, staffs from all four agencies and ODOT have developed a preferred scenario that meets the requirements of the Jobs and Transportation Act of 2009. Based on the feedback received from Council
in October, the scenario includes a set of seven strategy areas under which
the City can choose some or all of the actions to achieve the State’s scenario
planning goals. This cooperative approach reflects that each community is different and will have different needs and policy desires to achieve the overall goal.
Project Manager, Kristin Hull of CH2M Hill, will present highlights of the
preferred scenario and be available to answer questions. If the Council is comfortable with the preferred scenario there is no formal action required to be taken by the Council, such as passing a resolution, to complete the
project. Instead, to demonstrate “cooperative selection” of the preferred
scenario, the report to the legislature will note the date the scenario was
reviewed with each Council and the Board of Commissioners. There is no financial impact to the City for conducting this project; all
expenses were reimbursed by ODOT. While the City is not required to
implement the preferred scenario, the final report to the legislature will
identify funding as the major barrier to implementation and concludes that it is not realistic to expect implementation without a substantial state investment in the identified strategy areas.
April 10, 2015
CENTRAL LANE SCENARIO PLANNING
DRAFT preferred scenario for review and discussion
Kristin Hull
Ryan Farncomb
Josh Roll
The preferred scenario
In 2009, the Oregon Legislature passed the Jobs and Transportation Act (House Bill 2001). The
Jobs and Transportation Act requires the local governments in central Lane County to conduct
scenario planning and cooperatively select a “preferred scenario” that accommodates planned
population and employment growth while achieving a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
from passenger vehicles. The preferred scenario is comprised of strategies in seven policies
areas, described below. With the preferred scenario, the region could expect a 20% per capita
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from light vehicles over 2005 levels, meeting the state’s
reduction target for the region. The region can expect about a 3% reduction in per capita
emissions if current plans and policies are implemented (the “reference scenario”).
The local governments – Lane County and the cities
of Coburg, Eugene and Springfield – are not
required to implement the preferred scenario and
are not mandated to select any particular set of
strategies that support the preferred scenario. The
preferred scenario refers to levels of investment in
seven strategy areas – active transportation
(bicycling and walking), transit, fleet and fuel
changes, pricing, parking management, education
and marketing, and roads – that could meet
regional goals and the state’s greenhouse gas
target.
The preferred scenario is accompanied by land use
and transportation strategies that could be
employed by one or more jurisdictions to move in
the direction of the preferred scenario. The
strategies are intended to be flexible and should be
reconsidered over time. Most importantly, the
preferred scenario is not a statement of regional
How much does the preferred scenario
reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 14
policy and the strategies are not intended to be directive and are not regulatory.
The elements of the preferred scenario are interrelated. For example, expansion of the transit
system can result in more walking and biking and greater public health benefits. In addition,
encouraging drivers to switch to other travel modes only works if they have viable options such
as robust transit, walking, and bicycling infrastructure.
Preferred scenario: a balanced approach
The preferred scenario represents a balanced approach toward investment in seven areas. The
recommended level of investment for each area is shown in Table 1. The preferred scenario
includes:
• A significant investment in transit, active transportation and education and marketing
programs.
• Some change in the way drivers pay to use the system.
• Continued investment in optimizing roadways in the region.
• Continued support for the state’s assumptions about changes to vehicle and fuel
technology.
• Continued policies related to parking pricing and availability.
The preferred scenario is most aggressive in “education and marketing” strategies, which are
relatively inexpensive, but magnify benefits from investments in other areas like active
transportation and transit. The preferred scenario assumes modest investment in roadway
optimization strategies which feature strongly in current plans and policy. Investment in other
strategies lies in between these two. The preferred scenario does not rely too heavily on any one
policy area, but is instead a realistic and balanced mix of investments that would make significant
progress toward regional goals.
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 14
Preferred scenario outcomes
The preferred scenario would help the region make progress in several different regional goal
areas. The preferred scenario is compared to both current conditions and a “reference
scenario.” The reference scenario represents what is expected to occur if existing plans and
policies are implemented and makes significant progress toward regional goals. The preferred
scenario would make further gains in the goal areas listed below.
Public health
The preferred scenario would significantly improve public health outcomes across the region as
compared to today. Chronic disease, premature death, and health care costs would all decline
due to more residents using active transport modes, like cycling and walking. Some of this
benefit also comes from residents driving less and therefore experiencing fewer crashes.
Transportation
Even with a 25% expected increase in population over the next 20 years, with the preferred
scenario, congestion would not increase over today’s condition. Freight delay would be less with
Change as compared to today
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 14
the preferred scenario than with the reference scenario. The number of miles driven per person,
on average, would decrease by about 11% over today.
Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions
Air quality would improve, with common air pollutants decreasing by two-thirds as compared to
today. Per capita greenhouse gas emissions would decrease significantly. Emissions would
decrease significantly due to improved fuel efficiency, new vehicle technologies and
transportation fuels becoming less carbon intensive. Additional policy actions included in the
preferred scenario would reduce emissions even further.
Economy
Time lost to congestion would stay about the same as today, but would decrease as compared to
the reference scenario. Household driving costs, as a percentage of income, would stay about
the same as today. Freight delay would be less than in the reference scenario. The preferred
scenario could save more than $50 million in annual fuel expenses. With no petroleum,
production or refining facilities in the region or the state, it is possible that much of these saving
would stay in the local economy.
Equity
Equity outcomes would be dependent on how policies and strategies might be implemented. For
example, if cycling and walking facilities are constructed in low-income parts of the region,
equitable access to active transportation is likely to improve. Pricing and parking strategies
included in the preferred scenario can have neutral effects on equity if mitigation measures –
like ensuring access to transit – are implemented
Challenges to advancing the preferred scenario
While the preferred scenario would achieve positive outcomes by many measures, current
funding for transportation programs, infrastructure, and operations would not support the
preferred scenario’s increased level of investment. New revenue sources – local, regional or
federal – would be required to make the necessary investments to support the preferred
scenario. While, the strategic analysis that supported the scenario planning process represents a
sophisticated way of understanding how polices interact, the analysis was conducted at a
regional level and considered policy areas broadly. Before changing policy, jurisdictions may
want to explore tradeoffs not included in this analysis such as developing cost estimates, a
detailed cost-benefit analysis or targeted analysis of the geographic distribution of benefits and
impacts.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 14
Achieving the preferred scenario
While the preferred scenario is intended to be a broad statement of shared goals, it is important
to understand what it might take to get to those goals. The following sections describe the
desired level of investment in each strategy area and potential strategies that support that level
of investment. These strategies are intended to be flexible and to allow each jurisdiction to
choose how to support the goals defined in the preferred scenario.
Active transportation: Invest beyond existing
plans
Bicycling and walking (along with other “active” ways of
getting around) are important ways for residents of
central Lane County to get around the region. Eleven
percent of regional trips are made by bicycling and
walking today. The preferred scenario calls significant
investments in active transportation. Changing
demographics including lower car ownership rates
among Millennials may contribute to this shift.
However, the magnitude of change called for in the
preferred scenario will require behavior change as
well as new infrastructure and creative uses of fixed
rights-of-way. For this reason, education and
marketing strategies may be as important as active
transportation strategies in achieving the levels of
biking and walking envisioned in the preferred
scenario.
Active transportation strategy #1: Build bicycling and
walking projects in local 20 year plans.
The recently updated Coburg and Springfield
Transportation System Plans and the Eugene Pedestrian and Bike Master Plan includes biking
and walking investments. To achieve the biking and walking mode shift envisioned in the
preferred scenario, the 20 year plans for biking and walking improvements would need to be
fully implemented. Special focus should be directed toward “separated” bicycle facilities, like
cycle tracks and off-street paths. These types of facilities are the most comfortable for riders to
use.
Active transportation strategy #2: Dedicate a larger share of local transportation dollars to
constructing and maintaining biking and walking projects.
Emissions reduction effectiveness
Active transportation: What would it
take?
The preferred scenario could be
supported by major increases –
between 3 and 5 times current rates –
in biking and walking in all cities in the
region. Achieving this would require a
combination of new biking and walking
facilities and supportive programs to
educate people about active
transportation opportunities and make
active modes more convenient. It
might require creative use of available
rights-of-way to accommodate all road
users.
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 14
Currently, less than 5% of regional transportation funds are spent on biking and walking projects
that are not associated with a roadway project. To fully implement local plans, additional
funding would need to be spent on biking and walking projects. In addition to capital funding to
build new infrastructure, local governments will also need to identify additional funding for
maintenance and operations of active transportation facilities. This may require identifying new
funding sources, using a greater share of existing funds for biking and walking projects, or
expanding existing programs like ConnectOregon that fund multimodal projects. Depending on
the funding source, this may mean working with state officials to remove barriers to using some
kinds of transportation funding on active transportation projects.
Active transportation strategy #3: Implement a bike share program.
To provide residents with more transportation choices, particularly for short trips, the region
could implement a bike share program. Bike share programs enable more people to choose
bicycling for some trips by providing easy access to bikes in areas where bike trips might make
sense because parking is tight or distances are short.
Active transportation strategy #4: Developer incentives to construct high quality bike and
pedestrian infrastructure.
As new areas are developed, Eugene, Springfield, Coburg and Lane County could choose to
require or encourage (through incentives) developers to build high quality bike and pedestrian
infrastructure like off-street paths, cycle tracks, buffered/protected bike lanes and wide
sidewalks in new master planned areas.
Active transportation strategy #5: Expand Safe Routes to Schools programs.
Safe Routes to Schools programs encourage students to bike and walk to school. Currently,
Eugene and Springfield partner with Eugene 4J School District, Bethel School District and
Springfield School District to encourage students to choose active options for getting to and from
school. With this strategy, local governments would expand this program by supporting partners
in applying for Safe Routes to Schools grants, constructing infrastructure projects that make
biking and walking near schools safe, or increasing funding for Safe Routes to Schools programs
in the region.
Active transportation strategy #6: Encourage development of healthy, walkable neighborhoods.
Local land use plans call for the development of healthy, walkable neighborhoods where
residents can meet many of their daily needs by walking or biking. Local governments can
encourage development of these types of neighborhoods consistent with their current
comprehensive plans through developer incentives such as tax exemptions, reduced parking
requirements, restructured system development charges, and density bonuses.
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 14
Fleet and fuels: Invest in existing plans
A key strategy for reducing light-duty vehicle fuel
consumption and subsequent GHG emissions is for the
vehicle fleet become more fuel efficient. Federal fuel
efficiency standards have already increased fuel economy
and will continue to do so into the future. Advanced vehicle
technologies like electric and plug-in electric are making up a
greater share of vehicle sales each year. This trend is being supported by a multi-state effort
which includes Oregon through the Multi-State Zero Emissions Vehicle Action Plan1. In addition,
the state of Oregon’s Low Carbon Fuel standard seeks to decrease the carbon intensity of
conventional gasoline and diesel fuel helping to reduce emissions.
Transit: Invest beyond existing plans
The communities of central Lane County benefit from
accessible, frequent, and convenient transit service. Transit
service provided by the Lane Transit District (LTD) is more
productive than most of its peer agencies. Improving transit
service provides many community benefits. As part of the
preferred scenario, Lane County and the cities of Coburg,
Eugene, and Springfield would support major investments in the transit system to achieve an
increase in per capita transit service and in ridership.
Transit strategy #1: Support a stable source of funding for transit capital investments.
As state and federal dollars become scarcer, LTD may need to rely more heavily on local sources
of revenue for major capital investments. Federal grant funding is becoming more competitive,
meaning LTD may need to provide up to 50% matching funds for capital projects (instead of 10
or 20%). If implemented, the local governments in the region would support LTD in identifying a
stable source for future capital funding.
1 http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/orlev/
Emissions reduction effectiveness
Emissions reduction effectiveness
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 14
Transit strategy #2: Support a stable source of funding for transit operations and maintenance.
The payroll tax, in addition to fare revenue, funds most of LTD’s operations and maintenance
costs. To achieve the level of transit ridership envisioned in the preferred scenario, LTD would
need a stable, sustainable source of funding beyond the current payroll tax. If implemented, the
local governments in the region would support LTD in identifying a stable source for future
operations and maintenance funding.
Transit strategy #3: Support full implementation of the Frequent Transit Network (FTN) described in
LTD’s Long Range Transit Plan.
LTD’s “Frequent Transit Network” consists of transit routes with service frequencies of every 15
minutes or better all day, have service at least 16 hours of the day, and other distinct features.
The FTN is the backbone of LTD’s system, providing high-quality, high-frequency service. To
achieve the level of transit ridership envisioned in the preferred scenario, LTD would need to
implement the FTN as illustrated in Figure 1. This includes seven EmX lines and improved transit
service on other high performing routes as well as redesigned local transit service.
Transit strategy #4: Encourage new development along FTN corridors.
Eugene and Springfield each have existing policies that support employment and residential
development along the FTN. To encourage redevelopment in these areas and to achieve needed
densities to support increased transit and commercial services, Eugene and Springfield could
provide incentives such as tax exemptions, reduced parking requirements, restructured system
development charges, and density bonuses for new housing, retail or employment in designated
corridors. Both cities are already implementing many of these strategies. Additionally, design
considerations like wide sidewalks, landscaping, street lighting, and others contribute to
successful transit streets. These programs and design considerations are likely to encourage
walking and biking as well as transit use.
Transit strategy #5: Improve transit access by focusing bicycling, walking, and safety improvements
near transit stops and enhancing options for linking biking and transit trips.
For transit service to work in the region, residents need safe access to transit stops on foot or
bike. Local governments can support this access by focusing bicycling and walking investments
such as new bike facilities, wayfinding signage, sidewalks, and improved pedestrian crossings
near transit stops. LTD and local governments can also work together to enhance opportunities
for community members to link biking and transit trips by offering secured bike storage at transit
stops or more capacity for carrying bikes on buses. Integrating bike share programs with transit
can also help bridge the “last mile” for transit users.
Transit strategy #6: Support increased service frequencies and support expanded service hours.
LTD currently has limited weekend and evening service on many routes and operates some
routes with limited frequency. With this strategy, local governments would support LTD in
identifying building partnerships to support transit, and identifying funding sources for transit
operations to allow for new routes and increased service hours and frequencies.
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 14
Transit strategy #7: Improve rider experience.
Transit amenities like comfortable shelters, real time traveler information and electronic fare
collection can make transit use easier and more comfortable. Other strategies, like adequate
lighting, improve rider perceptions of safety. Local governments can support LTD in improving
rider amenities by creating land use codes that allow LTD to place shelters along routes and
supporting other LTD initiatives.
Pricing: Invest beyond existing plans
Changing the way residents pay for driving by charging a
different combination of taxes and fees could provide
increased revenue for investing in the multimodal
transportation system. The central Lane County region,
along with most other jurisdictions in Oregon and the US,
have long relied on federal and state revenues to fund
construction of the transportation system. However, revenues from both sources (which in large
part come from user fees like fuel taxes) are stagnating or declining. Funds for operating and
maintaining the system are even more constrained.
New vehicle technologies like plug in hybrid and electric vehicles become more common,
traditional user fees like fuel taxes will become less viable and less equitable. Restructuring the
way we pay for maintaining and improving the transportation system can support the
investments that would be required to realize the preferred scenario. In addition to enhancing
revenues, restructuring transportation user fees can also encourage drivers to use other
transportation modes for
more of their trips, and can
ensure that everyone pays for
their use of the
transportation system. The
preferred scenario may be
supported by a gradual
change from the existing gas
tax to a vehicle miles traveled
fee as well as new taxes and
fees that provide additional
local revenues to pay for
transportation projects.
Parking pricing is considered
separately as its own
strategy.
Emissions reduction effectiveness
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 14
Pricing strategy #1: Support state efforts to
implement a vehicle miles traveled fee.
The State of Oregon has been exploring a vehicle
miles traveled fee through the Road Use Charge
program. While local governments in the region
cannot implement a vehicle miles traveled fee, they
can support the state’s implementation efforts.
Pricing strategy #2: Support Lane County’s efforts to
raise the vehicle registration fee.
Counties, under Oregon law, are able to enact a local
vehicle registration fee. Lane County should seek an
increase in the vehicle registration fee to increase funds available for maintenance and operation
of the region’s transportation system. As of late 2014, all local governments in the region have
endorsed an increase in the county’s vehicle registration fee.
Pricing strategy #3: Support the private sector in fuller roll-out of pay-as-you-drive insurance.
Pay-as-you-drive (PAYD) insurance is a newer
form of automotive insurance that bases
premiums on miles traveled instead of charging
customers a lump sum each month. This
flexibility allows drivers an incentive for choosing
non-driving options resulting in cost savings for
people who drive fewer miles.
Pricing strategy #4: Support increases in the state
and local fuel tax.
While replacing the state and local gas tax with a
vehicle miles traveled fee is a long-term goal, local governments should support increases to the
state fuel tax including indexing the state fuel tax to inflation. In addition, local governments
should consider increasing local fuel taxes and indexing local fuel taxes to inflation to increase
funding for roadway operations and maintenance.
Pricing: What would it take?
Without changes to the current fuel tax
system and rate, Oregon will have less
to invest in our transportation system
in the future. Introduction of a vehicle
miles traveled fee is one way of
maintaining a user fee for our
roadways as electric and plug-in hybrid
cars become more ubiquitous on the
state’s roadways.
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 14
Parking management: Invest in existing plans
Managing parking for both commuters and for other trips
(like shopping downtown) is an effective tool for making
more efficient use of the limited parking supply and reducing
the need for additional parking. Parking management is
implemented through local development codes.
Managing parking works best when used in a
complementary fashion with other strategies; it is less effective in areas where transit or bicycle
and pedestrian infrastructure is lacking. The preferred scenario calls for managing parking
consistent with existing plans.
Parking management strategy #1: Increase fees for long-term parking in some areas.
Commuters already pay to park in downtown Eugene and the area around the University of
Oregon. Eugene and Springfield may choose to expand the areas where commuters pay to park
or to raise parking fees for publicly owned parking.
Parking management strategy #2: Allow developers greater flexibility in providing parking.
Local governments generally require developers to provide on-site parking for new
development. Local governments may choose to revise development codes to remove minimum
parking requirements or to encourage developers to decouple parking costs from rent costs for
both residential and commercial properties. These changes would allow developers to respond
to market demand for parking and reward households and businesses that do not need parking.
Emissions reduction effectiveness
Attachment 1, Page 11 of 14
Education and marketing: Invest beyond existing
plans
Education and marketing programs are effective ways to
change driver behavior and to make other investments, such
as those in transit and active transportation, more effective.
Education and marketing programs could include workplace
commuting programs, individual marketing programs (like SmartTrips), as well as encouraging
expansion of car sharing programs. Other education programs will encourage “eco driving”
practices (like keeping tires inflated and accelerating slowly from stops) to reduce vehicle fuel
consumption and emissions.
Education and marking strategy #1: Expand individual marketing programs like SmartTrips.
Eugene and Springfield have already launched effective SmartTrips programs. These programs
could be expanded to more households and possibly targeted to new populations like Spanish-
speaking households.
Education and marketing strategy #2: Support eco
driving practices.
Eco driving practices like choosing low rolling
resistance tires, keeping tires properly inflated,
choosing to drive the household’s most efficient
vehicle for most trips, and accelerating slowly from
stops all help to reduce emissions. The local
governments in the region can support widespread
adoption of these practices through education and
marketing campaigns.
Education and marketing strategy #3: Expand car sharing in the region.
Many residents need access to a car for some trips. Expanded car sharing, implemented by the
private sector, could reduce the need for vehicle ownership and encourage residents to use
biking, walking, transit and ridesharing for more trips. Expanded car sharing could include
support for peer-to-peer car sharing or for traditional car sharing in dense areas.
Education and marketing strategy #4: Expand participation in workplace commute reduction
programs.
Workplace commute reduction programs can include incentives for walking, biking and taking
transit to work, or encouraging compressed work weeks or telecommuting. The region can
support businesses in expanding workplace commute reduction programs by providing
information to employers and possibly incentives to employers that participate.
Education and marketing: What would
it take?
With the preferred scenario more than
half of households and employees
would participate in trip reduction
programs. This would require
expanding programs as well as
improving the effectiveness of those
programs.
Emissions reduction effectiveness
Attachment 1, Page 12 of 14
Education and marketing strategy #5: Expand transit pass program.
Currently, 65% of LTD riders have some sort of transit pass or pay an otherwise reduced fare.
Transit pass programs are an effective way to increase transit ridership. For example, youth
passes promote transit use habits that make them more likely to be adult transit riders. Local
governments can support expanded transit pass programs by supporting residential pass
programs or student pass programs.
Education and marketing strategy #6: Support implementation of the Regional Transportation
Options Plan and the state’s Transportation Options plan.
The Regional Transportation Options Plan defines regional goals and strategies to support
walking, biking, transit, ridesharing. The state’s Transportation Options plan sets a similar policy
context for state support of transportation options. Local governments can support these plans
by adopting supportive policies in transportation system plans, funding projects and programs to
support transportation options and encouraging employees to explore alternatives to driving
alone to work.
Roads: Invest in existing plans
Many people in the region will continue to get around
primarily by driving. State, regional and local transportation
plans call for optimizing the existing transportation system
before expanding roadways in the region. The preferred
scenario calls for implementing these existing plans and
implementing roadway optimization projects such as:
• Installing ramp meters on limited access highways
• Improving intersections by replacing signals with roundabouts or linking signals to allow
for better traffic flow
• Managing access from private properties to arterial roadways
• Improving incident response to reduce congestion
Emissions reduction effectiveness
Attachment 1, Page 13 of 14
Figure 1. Current frequent transit network
Attachment 1, Page 14 of 14
<Date> 2015
CENTRAL LANE SCENARIO PLANNING
2015 Report to the Oregon Legislature
Kristin Hull, CH2M HILL/CLSP Project Manager
Introduction
In 2009, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 2001, the Jobs and Transportation Act (JTA). Section
38a of the JTA directs the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to undertake scenario
planning, and for the local governments in the Central Lane MPO boundary – the cities of Springfield,
Eugene and Coburg and Lane County – to cooperatively select a preferred land use and transportation
scenario. 38a(7)(b) of the JTA1 directs the Central Lane MPO report to the 2015 legislature on the
implications of implementing the selected land use and transportation scenario. This report fulfills that
requirement.
The Central Lane Scenario
Planning process included three
major steps: understand, test and
learn, and refine and select. The
steps are shown in Figure 1. The
public was engaged at each step
through public workshops, an
online scenario building tool called
Future Builder, and a telephone
survey.
Implications and
outcomes
The preferred scenario meets the
state’s greenhouse gas reduction target by reducing per capita greenhouse gas emissions from light
vehicles by 20%. The preferred scenario would result in the following benefits (as compared to the
reference scenario):
• Improved economic vitality. The preferred scenario shows in a 37% reduction in hours of
congestion.
• Improved public health. The preferred scenario could save the region $22 million in health care
costs.
1 Chapter 865, Oregon Laws 2009.
Figure 1. Central Lane Scenario Planning process
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 2
The cooperatively selected preferred scenario is described at www.clscenarioplanning.org. The region
identified the following key lessons from this process:
1. Implementing the preferred scenario would not represent a dramatic shift in the region’s transportation
and land use policy. The process highlighted successful polices and reinforced that local and regional
plans already support state greenhouse gas reduction goals.
2. Achieving the preferred scenario – and in many cases achieving policies in existing plans – would
require substantial additional funding for education and marketing programs, transit and active
transportation infrastructure, and operations and maintenance for the entire system.
a. Funding for transit operations and maintenance is particularly important in the region. Current
funding mechanisms, which focus on capital development, not operations, have placed Lane
Transit District (LTD) in a position where they struggle to operate the existing system. Even if
LTD could identify funding for system expansion, the agency would need additional funding to
operate and maintain that system.
b. Further changes to state funding programs to create more opportunities for competitive,
multimodal grants would help local governments achieve state goals.
3. Outcomes related to economy, public health and equity were more important to some local decision
makers than greenhouse gas reduction benefits.
4. The scenario planning process allowed local governments to look beyond existing plans and
understand what the implications would be of making changes without requiring implementation.
Partners tested new ideas and set aspirations that could inform future decisions.
5. The scenario planning process was limited to the MPO boundary. Because transportation issues are
not contained by the MPO boundary, this artificial limit made it difficult to fully understand the impacts
and benefits of scenarios to the rural areas that surround the MPO.
6. Implementation of the preferred scenario should remain voluntary to allow each governments in the
region to use the results of the process to inform future planning processes.
7. The preferred scenario is necessarily flexible. The scenario would allow each community to select
actions that maximize co-benefits like an improved economy, public health and equity in addition to
greenhouse gas reduction. The process also allowed culturally different communities in the region to
find tailored policies that met local needs and regional goals.
8. Because the process was complex and time consuming, the region is not likely to undertake a similar
effort without state support.
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 2
April 17, 2015
CENTRAL LANE SCENARIO PLANNING
Online tool and survey results summary
Kristin Hull, CH2M HILL
Ryan Farncomb, CH2M HILL
The online scenario planning tool (Future Builder) and survey were available online from
November 21, 2014 through the end of January 2015. The online tool allowed users to explore
different levels of investment in four different action areas. The tool showed different outcomes
for each scenario users created, including greenhouse gas emissions, traffic delay, and others.
Users could select and submit their favorite scenario to the project team. After using the tool, a
survey followed that explored values and opinions around scenario planning issues.
There were 108 unique users of the online tool and 28 submitted scenarios (users were not
required to submit a scenario). 26 users completed the survey.
Online tool results
The online tool allowed users to select different levels of investment in four different policy
areas (active transportation, transit, parking, and pricing). Users could choose any combination
of levels (1 through 4) for each policy area. Level 1 was equivalent to the level of investment
anticipated with the Reference Case. Levels 2 through 4 represented increasing levels of
investment. Level 4 represented the maximum amount of investment in the region. The table
below displays the assumptions that underlie each level.
Input Level 1 (Reference Case) Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Active Transportation
Coburg 0% 10% 20% 30%
Eugene 15% 27% 38% 50%
Springfield 6% 16% 25% 35%
Weighted regional % 12% 23% 34% 45%
Transit
Revenue miles per capita 18 23.3 28.6 34
Parking
Work Trips w/ Charged Parking
Coburg 4% 4% 5% 5%
Eugene 8% 14% 19% 25%
Springfield 5% 7% 8% 10%
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 4
Other Trips w/ Charged Parking
Coburg 0% 1% 1% 2%
Eugene 5% 10% 15% 20%
Springfield 1% 2% 4% 5%
Average Cost to Park ($2005) $3.19 $4.12 $5.06 $6.00
Pricing
Gas Tax $0.52 $0.98 $0.18 $0.18
VMT Fee per mile 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03
Carbon Fee per ton $0 $0 $0 $50
For the 28 submitted scenarios, the average level chosen for each policy area was:
• Active transportation: 3.1
• Transit: 3.3
• Parking: 2.3
• Pricing: 2.9
Users chose more aggressive levels of investment in active transportation and transit, but less
aggressive levels of investment for parking and pricing policies. Level 1 was the most frequent
choice for parking policies. Level 4 was the most frequently chosen level of investment for
transit.
The online tool showed the results of each user’s scenario across 8 different outcomes. Users
could see how outcomes changed with different levels of investment in different policy areas.
The “minimum possible” change for each outcomes is based on outcomes from the Reference
Case, which is the level of investment expected under existing policies and plans. The table
below lists the online tool outcomes and the average outcome value of all submitted scenarios.
Outcome Max. possible Min. possible User average
Greenhouse gas emissions reduction (%) -26% -12% -21%
Cost of driving (as a % household income) 20% 15% 16%
Miles driven per person -22% -7% -16%
Freight truck delay (% increase) +68% +31% 46%
Increase/decrease in traffic delay +23% -23% -5%
Increase in biking and walking +357% +74% 273%
Revenue (qualitative scale) 5 1 3.0
Government cost (qualitative scale) 5 1 3.7
Only one submitted scenario reached the maximum percent decrease in greenhouse gas
emissions. Nine scenarios had maximum government cost, but only two scenarios maximized
government revenue.
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 4
Survey results
Once users submitted their favorite scenario to the project team, they were asked to complete a
brief survey. Of the 28 people who submitted a scenario, 26 completed the survey. The first part
of the survey asked for general demographic information. Results showed that:
• 30% of respondents commute to work by bicycle; 40% drive alone or in a carpool.
• Only one user did not have access to a car. 50% used their car daily.
• 1/3 were 55-65 years in age.
• 2/3 lived in 2-person households.
• 2/3 had a master’s degree or higher education.
• Most respondents live and work in Eugene.
Next, respondents were asked about their attitudes toward the different goals of the scenario
planning process. Of the four goals (economic vitality, equity, public health, and greenhouse gas
emissions reductions), 40% of respondents indicated “greenhouse gas emissions” was the most
important goal, followed by “public health” with 35%.
Respondents were also asked about their feelings toward different investments and policies:
• Parking: about 60% were supportive or very supportive of managing parking to make
efficient use of land.
• Driving taxes and fees: a majority of respondents felt that tying fees to the amount of
driving, to fuel economy, and to physical wear and tear on the roadway are all important
when considering changes to driving taxes and fees. Respondents felt that tying fees to
vehicle ownership through registration fees was not an important consideration.
o Overall, respondents were strongly supportive of raising taxes or fees of all kinds
(VMT, gas taxes, or spending existing funds differently) to fund transit and active
transportation projects.
o Nearly 80% wanted to see “a lot more” investment in transit and active
transportation.
• Transit investments: respondents were most strongly supportive of investments that
make it easier to bike or walk to EmX stops. Nearly half thought that building new EmX
routes was an “important” investment. Most respondents were supportive of other
investments as well, including adding new regular bus routes, making existing bus service
more frequent, and reducing transit fares. Close to half were “neutral” toward making it
easier for riders to buy bus tickets.
• Cycling investments: nearly all respondents felt that investing in new bike lanes or cycle
tracks is a “very important” or “important” investment. A majority also support building
off street trails, providing more bike parking, and providing signage. About 40% felt
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 4
thought bike share was “somewhat” or “not important,” or felt neutral toward the
program.
• Nearly 50% said “transit” was the most important area to invest in to meet regional goals,
while 30% said “biking and walking.”
Finally, respondents were asked for their opinions about the online tool (Future Builder) and
experiences using it:
• About half spent 5 to 10 minutes using the tool.
• Almost all respondents used the tool once (not in multiple sessions).
• 50% indicated they learned “a little” from using the tool; 17% learned “a lot.” 17% of
respondents thought the tool was somewhat confusing and suggested some changes:
o One person suggested unbundling the policies somewhat – “transit” and “active
transportation” include many actions and could be subdivided.
o One person had trouble using the tool interface.
o One person did not understand what the scenario tool intended to illustrate.
• Most respondents felt that the tool did not change their opinions toward investment in
transit, biking, walking, and parking.
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 4
Draft
LTD Board Advice on Central Lane Scenario Planning Draft Preferred Scenario
Scenario Transit Element Feasibility
We find that the seven transit strategies included in the preferred scenario are all generally supportive of, and consistent with, LTD’s Long-Range Transit Plan. The 2035 preferred scenario
would envision a significant increase in revenue miles of service per capita over current levels. The feasibility of the transit element of this scenario rests on the financial resources available for
operational purposes. In a context where this level of transit was deemed necessary to meet state-wide objectives in the Eugene-Springfield area, it could be reasonably assumed to be
necessary in other parts of the state, and likely the country as a whole. From that standpoint, the
scenario’s transit element may only be feasible through a partnership involving significant state and federal assistance.
Community Livability Benefits of Implementing the Preferred Scenario
In a number of policy areas, the preferred scenario calls for investments beyond existing plans. As
a result, there are a number of community livability benefits that extend from the implementation
of the preferred scenario. As noted in the Preferred Scenario Report:
• The preferred scenario would significantly improve public health outcomes across the region as compared with today.
• Air quality would improve, with common air pollutants decreasing by two-thirds as compared to today. Per capita greenhouse gas emissions would decrease
significantly.
• The preferred scenario could save more than $50 million in annual fuel expenses.
• As noted below, additional livability benefits of the preferred scenario will depend on
potential equity outcomes.
These are important outcomes to pursue. A number of the policy areas described in the
preferred scenario come with a recommendation to “Invest beyond existing plans.” Given
the importance of these outcomes, the analysis in the preferred scenario document raises a
question as to whether we are under-investing in our future. We note that the report makes the point that “equity outcomes would be dependent on
how policies and strategies might be implemented.” For example, if cycling and walking
facilities are constructed in low-income parts of the region, equitable access to active
transportation is likely to improve. Pricing and parking strategies included in the preferred scenario can have neutral effects on equity if mitigation measures, such as ensuring access
to transit, are implemented.
Whether it is this scenario or other regional strategies, implementation of a regional strategy should have equity at its heart. One thing that we should take away from this effort should be the importance of being thoughtful and collaborative in the implementation of a balanced
set of strategies with the objective of improving the equity, health, and prosperity of the
region.
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 1
Scenario Planning
Update
Springfield City Council
April 27, 2015
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 9
Project Overview
–Future-focused exercise required by Jobs & Transportation Act of 2009
–Evaluates impact of local land use and transportation plans on 2035 outcomes
–Funded by ODOT
–Joint project of the MPO agencies (Springfield, Lane County, Eugene, Coburg)
–Report on preferred scenario due to legislature by close of 2015 session
–Implementation is not required
2 Attachment 5, Page 2 of 9
Where are we in the process?
3
•Understand existing policies
•Develop evaluation measures
•Determine baseline for comparison
Step 1:
Understand
•Develop alternative scenarios
•Evaluate and compare Step 2:
Test and learn
•Refine scenarios
•Tailor individual choices for each
jurisdiction
•Cooperatively select a preferred
scenario
Step 3: Refine
and select
Fa
l
l
20
1
3
Wi
n
t
e
r
-Su
m
m
e
r
20
1
4
Fa
l
l
2
0
1
4
/
W
i
n
t
e
r
20
1
5
Attachment 5, Page 3 of 9
4
Consider the preferred scenario that meets the
state’s GHG reduction goal of 20% by 2035
Consider public input
“Cooperatively select” this scenario with other
partners
Action requested tonight:
Lane County
Board of
Commissioners
Eugene City
Council
Springfield City
Council
Coburg City
Council
Local government partners as defined by HB 2001
Attachment 5, Page 4 of 9
Preferred Scenario is Scenario B
5
Scenario A
Existing Policy
Scenario B
Enhance Existing Policies
Scenario C
Create New Policies
State Target
for GHG
reduction
2010 GHG
level
Economy
Public health
Equity Cost of driving remains stable; other indicators cannot be evaluated at this level of detail.
Attachment 5, Page 5 of 9
Preferred scenario elements
A significant investment in transit, active transportation and education and marketing programs.
Some change in the way drivers pay to use the system.
Continued investment in optimizing roadways in the region.
Continued support for the state’s assumptions about changes to vehicle and fuel technology.
Continued policies related to parking pricing and availability.
Attachment 5, Page 6 of 9
Preferred scenario outcomes
Attachment 5, Page 7 of 9
Community involvement
Stakeholder
workshops
Future Builder
online tool
Telephone
survey
Targeted equity
outreach
6 Attachment 5, Page 8 of 9
Next steps
Preferred scenario presented to elected
officials of each jurisdiction
Submission of final report to legislature
by close of session 2015
Attachment 5, Page 9 of 9