HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023 03 21 AIS CFEC COMPLETE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 3/21/2023
Meeting Type: Work Session/Reg. Mtg
Staff Contact/Dept.: Sandy Belson/DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-736-7135
Estimated Time: 50 minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D
PLANNING COMMISSION
Mandate
ITEM TITLE: UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF CLIMATE FRIENDLY AND
EQUITABLE COMMUNITIES' RULES
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Review information presented.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
Comprehensive planning staff have been working to implement the Climate
Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) administrative rules passed in July
2022 by Oregon’s Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in
response to Governor Brown’s Executive Order 20-04. These rules include wide-
ranging requirements for metropolitan areas and the City is mandated to comply
with the rules that affect community engagement, land use, and transportation.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Briefing Memo
2. Springfield Implementation Schedule – February 2023 DRAFT
3. Central Lane Scenario Planning Final Report – June 2015
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The CFEC rules are broad reaching and complex. They are changing the basis for
land use and transportation in the metropolitan areas of Oregon. It is too early to
fully understand the full implications and effectiveness of the rules.
To assist with establishing Climate Friendly Areas, DLCD has contracted with
Lane Council of Governments to undertake technical analysis and, with Kearns and
West, to support community engagement. These contracts end in June but not all
the work to identify Climate Friendly Areas will be accomplished by that date. Any
additional funding to support this work or any other work to comply with CFEC
requirements will depend on funding from the legislature. The Governor included
no funding for this work in her budget.
The Oregon Department of Transportation has been working to determine what
resources it can provide to support the updating of Transportation System Plans. It
has currently scheduled assistance to the Central Lane area to start in 2027.
All work done by city staff thus far is being paid for by city funds. These rules
have a significant impact on the comprehensive planning work program. It is
estimated that it could require three staff people working full-time over the next
five years to fully implement these rules. The City recently added three staff
positions through Council’s approved use of American Rescue Plan Act funds.
However, these funds will no longer be available after June 30, 2025.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 2/27/2023
To: Planning Commission
From: Sandy Belson, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Subject: Update on Implementation of Climate-Friendly
and Equitable Communities Rules
ISSUE: Comprehensive planning staff have been working to implement the Climate-Friendly
and Equitable Communities (CFEC) administrative rules passed in July 2022 by Oregon’s
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in response to Governor Brown’s
Executive Order 20-04. These rules include wide-ranging requirements for metropolitan areas
and the City is mandated to comply with the rules that affect community engagement, land use,
and transportation.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Council Goals: Mandate
BACKGROUND
The CFEC rules aim to reduce carbon emitted by vehicles and to increase equity during
community engagement and when providing housing and transportation choices. Planning
Commission held a work session on October 18, 2022 to gain a high-level overview of the main
components of the rules.
This work session is to provide an update as to where we are at with implementation of the rules.
These topics were also discussed by Council at its February 27, 2023 work session.
PARKING
The first set of timelines in the administrative rules apply to parking. The following bullet
points explain what has happened thus far.
10/10/22 The City Council held a work session and received a detailed overview of the CFEC
parking rules. They were presented with the three options for phase 2 implementation
and requested more analysis and information before making their decision.
10/18/22 The Planning Commission held a work session and received an overview of the CFEC
rules, including parking rules. They were also briefed on the results of the Council
meeting the week prior.
11/28/22 The City Council held a work session and directed staff to move forward with Option
1: eliminating parking minimums city-wide.
12/31/22 Resources were created for staff and the public to understand the different phases of
the parking rules and the phase 1 changes in effect.
Jan. 2023 Staff conducted a gap analysis identifying all areas necessitating code amendments in
the City of Springfield Development Code as well as the Springfield Transportation
System Plan.
1/27/23 City staff submitted a request for an alternative date (six-month extension) for
implementation of the Phase 2 parking requirements.
2/16/23 DLCD approved December 31, 2023 as the date by which to adopt comprehensive
plan amendments and land use regulations.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 7
2/27/23 Council provided direction to not include a requirement for ADA parking when on-
site parking is not otherwise provided as staff prepares amendments to the
Development Code to comply with the administrative rules.
Parking Changes to the City of Springfield Development Code
The administrative rules require the City to make two types of changes to parking requirements:
1. Eliminate Parking Minimums: The bulk of the code amendments will be made to eliminate
all requirements for on-site parking, in compliance with Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR)
660-012-0400.
2. New Parking Regulations: The City will amend the Springfield Development Code to
comply with regulations specified in 660-012-0405 that will apply when developers choose
to provide on-site parking. These include provisions that:
a. Designated employee parking areas in new developments provide preferential
parking for carpools and vanpools;
b. Property owners be allowed to redevelop existing off-street parking areas for
bicycle-oriented and transit-oriented facilities;
c. Retain access for emergency vehicles and adequate parking for truck loading;
d. Allow and encourage the conversion of existing underused parking areas to other
uses;
e. Regulate new development that includes more than one-quarter acre of surface
parking on a lot or parcel by requiring they provide:
i. Solar panels or contribute to a solar fund,
ii. Tree canopy covering at least 50 percent of the parking lot at maturity,
iii. Street trees along driveways, and
iv. Street-like design and features along driveways.
f. Require coordinating tree canopy plans with SUB; and
g. Set tree planting standards
Timeline for amendments to Springfield Development Code
Feb. – May 2023 Assemble internal Springfield CFEC code amendments project team,
obtain approval of the Community Engagement Plan from the
Committee for Citizen Involvement, and draft code amendments.
June – Aug. 2023 Conduct community engagement and Planning Commission public
hearing.
Sept. – Nov. 2023 City Council and Board of County Commissioners to hold a joint public
hearing and conduct deliberations.
December 2023 Notice of Adoption.
CLIMATE FRIENDLY AREAS
The CFEC rules require that Springfield designate Climate-Friendly Areas (CFA), defined as
areas where people can meet most of their daily needs without having to drive. These areas are
intended to be or become urban mixed-use areas that contain a greater than average mix and
supply of housing, jobs, businesses, and services, and a higher intensity of development.
The rules outline a two-phased process including technical analysis and community engagement
for local governments to: first study and identify potential locations for CFAs; and then adopt
applicable development standards for the areas selected to be designated as CFAs. In
conjunction with the Lane Council of Governments, Springfield has begun to identify where
these CFAs could be and will gather community input on potential CFAs throughout 2023.
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 7
Springfield is required to submit a CFA Study of potential CFAs (based on technical analysis
and community engagement) to DLCD by Dec. 31, 2023, per OAR 660-012-0135(4) and (5).
The CFEC rules require cities to adopt a community engagement plan and conduct an
engagement-focused equity analysis as part of the CFA study. To help inform the engagement
plan, consultants Kearns and West (hired by DLCD) worked with Eugene and Springfield staff
to identify and interview community leaders of underserved populations1 to better understand
how to best engage historically underrepresented communities in these efforts. The input from
these interviews will help center and elevate historically underrepresented communities to
inform decision-making and approaches for mitigating possible displacement, both as part of the
CFA work, as well as in future planning and transportation projects as funding and resources
permit. These conversations have potential to continue to strengthen our relationships with
community stakeholders and help establish better channels to gather meaningful community
input.
Kearns & West met with leaders from the following organizations:
• Springfield Eugene Tenants Association (SETA);
• Shelter Care;
• Asian Celebration and Disorient Film Festival;
• National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Lane County;
• Lane Independent Living Alliance (LILA);
• United Way of Lane County;
• AARP;
• TransPonder;
• Lane Educational Service District (ESD) Migrant Education Program; and
• Springfield School District.
Key Findings for Community Engagement
Interview participants repeatedly identified that fostering and maintaining trust and ensuring the
needs of the participating community members are met are critical components of meaningful
engagement. Key themes are listed below. A summary of each interview will be provided as
part of the Draft Community Engagement Plan that is projected to come before the Committee
for Citizen Involvement in May.
Setting Expectations & Explaining the Process
• When doing outreach, it is important to do a two-step process that begins with introductions
and then follow-up outreach. Doing this can foster and build trust in the community.
• Have clarity around objectives and expected outcomes of the engagement.
• Communicate the steps in the process and when/if progress has been made.
• Be transparent and clear on what the community is being asked to do, what will happen with
that information, and if there will be opportunities to participate further.
Follow-Up
• Follow-up with people to foster trust and encourage future participation.
Consider the Audience
• Messages must be tailored to get attention. Frame the issue/question in a way that is
relevant to the audience.
• Make it easy for people to participate.
1 OAR 660-012-0125 identifies underserved populations
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 7
• Ensure the needs of the participating community members and families are met.
o It is helpful if free food is provided at events as it usually leads to a good turnout.
o Provide some form of childcare at events if targeting families.
o Choose an accessible location.
o Ensure language is accessible and reflective of the community.
• It is important to remember that people have different disabilities, including physical, and
mental.
• Keep in mind parents who travel with kids in their strollers.
• Always consider who is and isn’t at the table, and make sure to bring people along who are
missing.
• Have more than one person representing their community at events or in processes to avoid
feelings of isolation or tokenization. Make sure groups are appropriately represented and
diverse.
• Trust is not always there, especially from historically underserved communities, so it is
crucial to bring on people who have trust with these communities and let them understand
the importance of their ambassadorship.
• Ensure a neutral safe space for people to share and make it clear that the intention is not to
add trauma to a situation.
Specific techniques
• Provide a map of Wards (or other geographic boundaries) and ask people for their Ward #
when filling out surveys to identify where input is coming from.
• Have ambassadors or staff at community events with flyers in Spanish and English.
Considerations when Engaging the Community
• If time allows, could use a focus group to shape a community engagement plan.
• Engage early and often.
• Fast turnarounds and deadlines for responses are problematic and should be avoided. Give
at least six weeks notification.
• Provide multiple ways for the community to provide input: verbal, in-person/zoom, written,
etc. Lots of groups identified surveys as helpful, but surveys won’t meet all needs.
• It is important to show up, have positivity, encourage, and find ways to bring people in so
they could provide their full voice. Community members must feel they have a sense of
ownership and agency.
• Requiring RSVP has been a challenge before the pandemic and especially in current times.
• Don’t make a single person or group feel like they have to fix a problem they didn’t cause.
• Don’t go to the community just for solutions but bring in information and co-create with the
community.
• Be prepared to tailor the meeting structure appropriately. For example, if sixty people are
expected and only five show up, be prepared to make the meeting more of an intimate
gathering.
• Adjust engagement in response to feedback/requested changes as the people involved need
to “buy in” to the process.
Relationships
• To foster successful collaboration within a long-standing committee, it is important to put
time and attention into getting to know the different engagement styles within the group,
establishing principles, and ensuring the group knows how to work together and feel
supported as members of a committee.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 7
• Establish relationships with key partners/contacts of the community and organizations.
Through these relationships, information can be shared, and the partners can then share the
information more broadly with their representative group.
• Relationships and information sharing with key contacts leverages credibility and trust with
the community.
Requesting an Alternative Date for CFA Implementation
Once the CFA Study is complete, the City will need to adopt the CFAs into our Comprehensive
Plan, rezone properties, and adopt regulations into our Development Code to implement the
requirements of CFAs. This work will also include a multi-modal transportation gap analysis.
As adoption of CFAs will affect the residential land supply, staff intends to propose that the
deadline for adoption of CFAs into our plans and Development Code be delayed by one year to
align with our upcoming Housing Capacity Analysis. A Housing Capacity Analysis includes a
Housing Needs Analysis that is compared with our Residential Buildable Lands Inventory to
identify gaps in the ability to accommodate our projected housing needs for the next 20 years.
The City must adopt measures to address any gaps to ensure that there is sufficient land that is
appropriately designated to accommodate the number and types of dwelling units that will be
needed. The City must have an adopted Housing Capacity Analysis by December 2026.
Springfield intends to request that the due date for adoption of the plan and land use regulations
for CFAs also be December 2026.
SCENARIO PLANNING
Scenario Plan Purpose
The purpose OAR 660-044 Metropolitan Green House Gas Reduction Targets is to significantly,
and as rapidly as possible, reduce climate pollutants that are causing climate disruption.
This division of OAR requires the cities and counties within a metropolitan area to prepare a
transportation and land use scenario plan that defines and implements a preferred scenario,
identifies performance measures for tracking progress, and works to not only avoid or mitigate
any impacts to underserved populations, but to improve outcomes for these communities over
time. Jurisdictions in Central Lane County completed a Scenario Plan in 2015 (see Attachment
3). This Scenario Plan was not adopted but intended to help guide future policy choices. The
CFEC rules allow the Central Lane area to build on the Preferred Scenario from 2015 rather than
creating a new scenario plan.
Excerpt from 2015 Scenario Plan
The Central Lane Scenario Planning (CLSP) process began in response to state legislation that
required scenario planning in certain metropolitan regions of Oregon. “Scenario planning” is a
process for considering alternative plausible futures, allowing for communities to understand
how different choices might affect different outcomes, like economic vitality or greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, among others. The communities within the Central Lane Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) boundaries looked at what might happen in the region if current
transportation policies are continued, and what might happen if different policies – like
encouraging greater use of transit – are considered
Scenario Plan Work Program
Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (CLMPO), including Springfield, Eugene,
Lane County, and Coburg, must submit a Work Program for implementing the preferred
Scenario Plan. The work program is due to DLCD by June 30, 2023 and must include a
proposed Governance Structure, Scope of Work, Community Engagement Plan, Funding
Estimate, and proposed Schedule.
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 7
Governance Structure
The purpose of a governance structure is to ensure regional cooperation, including transit
providers, that will make decisions and complete required tasks. Staff anticipates the governing
body will make decisions including, but not limited to adopting regional and jurisdictional
performance measures and target outcomes; overseeing implementation; and reviewing work
done by each jurisdiction as the local governments work towards required targets.
OAR 660-044-0100(1) states that “the governance structure may be an existing metropolitan
planning organization, a new regional inter-governmental entity, an intergovernmental
agreement for collaboration among local governments, or other mechanism. The governance
structure must describe how the entity or entities will make decisions and complete tasks. The
governance structure must, at a minimum, include cities and counties and describe how transit
providers will be involved in the planning process.”
Council provided support to use the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) as an existing
structure that could govern the implementation of this division. A stated purpose of the MPC is
to promote intergovernmental cooperation and coordination between and among local
governments. The bylaws of the MPC list one of the functions of the committee as fulfilling
intergovernmental functions as recommended by one or more of the three elected bodies and
formally accepted by MPC. The bylaws state that for consideration of metropolitan
transportation matters, the Board of the Lane Transit District shall appoint two of its members to
serve as voting members.
Scope of Work
The City of Springfield and Eugene completed a Scenario Plan in 2015 consistent with this
division. However, the administrative rule requires additional elements to be added to the
existing Scenario Plan which include:
• 660-044-0110.3 Policies and Strategies intended to achieve the applicable greenhouse
gas emissions reeducation target in OAR 660-044-0025.
• 660-044-0110.9 Performance measures and methodologies that cities and counties will
use to report on implementation of the preferred land use and transportation scenario,
including:
o Regional performance measures to determine whether outcomes are progressing
to achieve the projected reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The regional
performance measures must include actual performance for the data elements
used to project greenhouse gas emissions as described in OAR 660-044-0030.
o Local implementation performance measures to determine whether cities and
counties are taking the actions necessary to implement the preferred land use
and transportation scenario.
o Equity performance measures to determine whether implementation of the
preferred land use and transportation scenario is improving equitable outcomes
for underserved communities.
• 660-044-0110.10 The performance measures in section (9) must include:
o A set of performance measures including methods, details, and assumptions to
calculate the value;
o Baseline current data, or historical data, for each performance measure;
o A reporting schedule repeating every four or five years through the planning
period;
o A target for each performance measure for each reporting point; and
o Best available demographic information for underserved populations.
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 7
Community Engagement Plan
The 2015 Scenario Plan was developed with the involvement of the community. As noted
above, staff is currently working with Kearns and West to develop a community engagement
plan for Climate Friendly Areas that also requires the inclusion of underserved populations.
Staff will rely on the results of the stakeholder interviews when creating a community
engagement plan for any additional outreach needed for implementation of the Scenario Plan.
Funding Estimate
A general estimate of needs for each city and county to adopt local amendments to implement
the selected scenario. The funding estimate must include a schedule of request amounts in
current and future budget periods. Staff prepared an initial estimate in 2022 for implementation
of CFEC rules but may revise the estimates for scenario planning it based on a better
understanding of the rules.
Schedule Working Proposal
Required Work Due Date Proposed Due Dates
Work Program June 30, 2023 June 30, 2023
Preferred Scenario with Addition Elements Dec. 31, 2023 Dec. 31, 2024
Transportation Modeling Dec. 31, 2024
Performance Standards Dec. 31, 2025 Dec. 31, 2029
Scenario Plan Code Amendments Dec. 31, 2026 Dec. 31, 2029
Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update Dec. 31, 2026 2027 - 2029
ALTERNATIVE DATES
OAR 660-012-0012(3)(e) permits the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area to submit a
combined work program that meets the proposed alternative date requirements of both OAR
660-012-0012(3) (Transportation Planning Rule) and the work program requirements for
regional scenario planning of OAR 660-044-0015. The deadline for submission of the combined
work program is June 30, 2023. Springfield staff have begun meeting with staff from Eugene
and Lane Council of Governments to prepare a combined work program with an implementation
schedule that is more realistic and better aligns with each city’s deadline for adopting a Housing
Capacity Analysis. A draft of this schedule is included as Attachment 2.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review information presented.
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 7
Springfield Implementation Schedule – February 2023 DRAFT
Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities Rules
* Denotes that DLCD may approve an alternative date under the Regional Scenario Planning
work program
Required Proposed
12/31/22
Notify DLCD of comprehensive plan amendment for interim
Transportation System Plan (TSP) updates to meet requirements in
OAR 660‐012‐0015; only required if City chooses to do interim
amendments to TSP
12/31/22
Implement: Stop parking mandates for certain development types
and near transit corridors per OAR 660‐012‐0430 and ‐0440 for
development applications submitted after this date
3/31/23
Implement: Start electric vehicle charging infrastructure
regulations for multi‐ unit permits and mixed use permits of multi‐
unit with commercial, per OAR 660‐ 012‐0410 [local adoption not
required but is assumed]
6/30/23
Submit Scenario Plan work plan in OAR 660‐044‐0100, including
scope of work, engagement plan, funding, timeline, etc.
May also include alternative dates proposal for effective dates or
deadlines elsewhere in this table; eligible dates/items are listed in
OAR 660‐012‐0012(4) (a‐g) and OAR 660‐012‐0012(3)(e) for 660‐
044‐0015
[not eligible items are listed in OAR 660‐012-0012(5)(a‐e)]
6/30/23* 12/31/23
Adopt city‐wide parking amendments to comprehensive plan, land
use regulations, and parking programs per OAR 660‐012‐0400, ‐
0405 and ‐0415 through ‐0445:
• Parking regulation improvements per OAR 660‐012‐0405
(e.g., employee parking areas, parking lot redevelopment,
shared parking, surface parking, parking area trees and
standards)
• Parking maximums in CFAs/centers/transit corridors for
certain uses per OAR 660‐012‐0415
• Parking mandates (minimums) options:
o Option A: Eliminate parking mandates citywide
(Option Chosen by City Council)
12/31/23* 12/31/24
Submit Scenario Plan land use and transportation plan in OAR 660‐
044‐0110; scenario plan analysis, equity performance measures,
identify needed amendments, performance measures, etc.
12/31/23
Submit Climate Friendly Area (CFA) study of potential CFAs
including technical analysis and engagement process, per OAR
660‐012‐0315(4) and (5)
5/31/24
Submit first monitoring report for year 2022 per OAR 660‐012‐
0900
6/30/24 12/31/25
Implement: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) transportation modeling
for land use decisions per OAR 660‐012‐0210
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 2
12/31/24* 12/31/25
Adopt CFA comprehensive plan and land use regulations per OAR
660‐012‐0315, including land use regulations in ‐0330, bicycle
parking in ‐0630, and either amending the TSP per a multi‐modal
transportation gap summary or developing a standalone gap
summary per ‐0325(2)
12/31/24*
N/A
(chose
Parking
Option 1)
Adopt CFA parking regulations and parking program amendments
with adoption of CFAs if using parking Option B (not eliminating
parking mandates), including:
• No parking mandates in CFAs and within ¼ mile or reduced
parking mandates and parking program amendments, per
OAR 660‐012‐0435
6/30/25* 12-31-29
Takes effect: rules requiring adoption of performance standards at
OAR 660‐ 012‐0215, TSP update after this date must include these
performance measures
12/31/25
Adopt Housing Capacity Analysis (HCA) including a 20‐year
buildable lands inventory and identification of any housing deficit
per OAR 660-008-0045, now includes planning for 30% of housing
in CFAs per OAR 660‐008‐0010
12/31/26
Adopt Housing Production Strategies report, now includes
additional provisions fair and equitable housing, housing location,
housing choice, homelessness, affordable housing, and
gentrification, displacement and housing stability, per OAR 660‐
008‐0050
By major
TSP update
12/31/26* 12/31/29
Adopt TSP update and adopt citywide walkability/mixed
use/parking land use regulations in OAR 660‐012‐0330, including
bicycle parking in OAR 660‐012‐0630 [assumed to be no later than
the TSP update to adopt the Scenario Plan]
12/31/26* 12/31/29
Adopt TSP update prioritizing projects for greenhouse gas
reduction targets, per OAR 660‐012‐0100, and ‐0105 through ‐
0200 [assumed to be no later than the TSP update to adopt the
Scenario Plan]
12/31/26* 12/31/29
Adopt Scenario Plan comprehensive plan, land use regulations,
TSP amendments in OAR 660‐044‐0130
12/31/26* 12/31/29
Adopt major TSP update in OAR 660‐012‐0105, including ‐0100(2)
and all other elements in ‐0100 (which includes adoption of
performance measures at OAR ‐ 0215), and engagement in ‐0120
[assumed to be no later than the TSP update to adopt the
Scenario Plan]
6/30/2027 CFAs must be incorporated into UGB expansions after this date
12/31/2027
Absolute deadline for completion of work program elements,
except major TSP update
12/31/2029
Absolute deadline to adopt major TSP update and all related
components
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 2
Central Lane Scenario Planning
Final Report
June 2015
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 32
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 32
Table of contents
Acronyms and abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ v
Background ................................................................................................................................................... 1
Participants ............................................................................................................................................... 1
2009 Jobs and Transportation Act ............................................................................................................ 1
Scenario planning process and outcomes ................................................................................................ 2
What is scenario planning? ................................................................................................................... 2
Regional vision .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Scenario planning goals ........................................................................................................................ 3
Evaluation criteria ................................................................................................................................. 4
Timeline..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Public outreach and stakeholder engagement ......................................................................................... 6
Modeling the future .................................................................................................................................. 7
Scenario development ............................................................................................................................ 10
The preferred scenario ............................................................................................................................... 13
A balanced approach .............................................................................................................................. 14
Challenges to advancing the preferred scenario ................................................................................ 14
Achieving the preferred scenario........................................................................................................ 15
Active transportation: Invest beyond existing plans .............................................................................. 15
Fleet and fuels: Invest in existing plans .................................................................................................. 16
Transit: Invest beyond existing plans ...................................................................................................... 17
Pricing: Invest beyond existing plans ...................................................................................................... 18
Parking management: Invest in existing plans........................................................................................ 20
Education and marketing: Invest beyond existing plans ........................................................................ 21
Roads: Invest in existing plans ................................................................................................................ 22
Preferred scenario outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 23
Outcomes in 2035 ................................................................................................................................... 24
Public health ....................................................................................................................................... 24
Transportation .................................................................................................................................... 24
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 32
Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions .......................................................................................... 24
Economy .............................................................................................................................................. 24
Equity considerations .......................................................................................................................... 25
Outcomes in 2050 ................................................................................................................................... 25
Appendix A. Plans and policies reviewed
Appendix B. HUD Sustainable Communities grant work
Appendix C. Public involvement materials
Appendix D. Phone survey summary
Appendix E. Reference scenario summary memo
Appendix F. Initial scenario evaluation results
Appendix G. Scenario planning toolkit
Appendix H. Public health outcomes
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 32
Acronyms and abbreviations
CLSP Central Lane Scenario Planning
DLCD Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
FTN Frequent Transit Network
GHG Greenhouse gas
HACSA Housing and Community Services Agency of Lane County
HUD US Department of Housing and Urban Development
ITHIM Integrated Transport and Health Impact Modeling Tool
JTA Jobs and Transportation Act
LTD Lane Transit District
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation
PAYD Pay-as-you-drive
PMT Project Management Team
RSPM Regional Strategic Planning Model
SUV Sport utility vehicle
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
VMT Vehicle miles traveled
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 32
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 32
Background
The Central Lane Scenario Planning (CLSP) process began in response to state legislation that
required scenario planning in certain metropolitan regions of Oregon. “Scenario planning” is a
process for considering alternative plausible futures, allowing for communities to understand
how different choices might affect different outcomes, like economic vitality or greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, among others. The communities within the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) boundaries looked at what might happen in the region if current
transportation policies are continued, and what might happen if different policies – like
encouraging greater use of transit – are considered.
The CLSP project partners were tasked with selecting a preferred scenario for the region that
contains strategies for reducing GHG emissions from transportation. The region is not required
to implement the preferred scenario. (Only the Portland metro area is required to engage in
scenario planning, adopt a preferred scenario, and implement it.) However, through the scenario
planning process, the region explored different policies and strategies that could guide future
decisionmaking.
Participants
The CLSP process was carried out by and for the communities of the Central Lane MPO. The
cities of Eugene, Springfield, and Coburg; Lane County; the Lane Council of Governments; and
Lane Transit District (LTD) all participated in the project. Only the local municipal governments –
Eugene, Springfield, Coburg, and Lane County – were required to select a preferred scenario. The
government partners formed a Project Management Team (PMT) comprised of senior staff from
each jurisdiction to oversee the process.
2009 Jobs and Transportation Act
Oregon’s 2009 Jobs and Transportation Act (JTA) required the MPOs that serve the Eugene-
Springfield and Portland metropolitan regions to conduct scenario planning. The scenario
planning process is intended to explore ways that regions might reduce transportation-related
GHG emissions. The Eugene-Springfield region is not required to implement the preferred
scenario. This effort was supported with funds from the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT).
As part of rulemaking related to the JTA, the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) developed GHG-emissions-reduction targets for each metropolitan area.
Only the Portland metro region is required to meet the target reduction. The other metropolitan
regions, including the Central Lane MPO, must consider the GHG-emissions-reduction target
during the scenario planning process, but do not have to meet it.
Attachment 3, Page 7 of 32
The region’s GHG-emissions-reduction target for 2035 is a 20 percent reduction below 2005
emissions levels. There are several caveats that apply to the reduction rule:
The target only applies to emissions from passenger vehicles, light duty trucks, and sport
utility vehicles (SUVs). Freight, farm, and transit vehicles are excluded from the target.
Emissions reductions due to improvements in vehicle technology and vehicle fuel
economy may not be included in the region’s target. In other words, the region could not
count reductions associated with these improvements toward the 20 percent target.
At least one scenario developed during the process must meet the GHG-emissions-
reduction target, but the final selected scenario (the preferred scenario) does not have to
meet the GHG-emissions-reduction target.
The region’s target was set in pursuit of the state’s ultimate goal to achieve a 75 percent GHG-
emissions reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.
Scenario planning process and outcomes
What is scenario planning?
Over the next twenty years, the Central Lane MPO is likely to welcome more than 60,000 new
residents. Plans like those currently being developed or recently adopted – Envision Eugene,
Springfield 2030, Coburg Crossroads, and each community’s transportation system plan –
establish a local vision for how each community will accommodate new residents and jobs as
well as establishing a blueprint for how residents will get around the region. Scenario planning
does not predict the future, but is a process for looking at long-term community aspirations and
developing different paths for achieving them. Scenario planning, therefore, complements the
region’s established plans and policies by allowing for exploration of new paths toward the
region’s goals.
Regional vision
The communities of Coburg, Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County share a vision for an
equitable, prosperous, and sustainable future. The region’s vision provided the basis for
developing the alternative scenarios and for selecting the preferred scenario. The region is
notable for its compact urban form and protection of rural lands. One of the major goals of the
region – expressed in Metro Plan, the regional comprehensive plan – is to integrate
transportation and land use, and to provide a transportation system that supports choice in
travel mode. From this regional vision, the communities participating in the CLSP process
identified three major goals, in addition to the reduction of GHG emissions, that would be
addressed by the process. Though the region is already performing well with respect to these
goals, the scenario planning process provided an opportunity to explore new or enhanced
transportation strategies that could help the region do even better.
Attachment 3, Page 8 of 32
Scenario planning goals
As mentioned above, the scenario planning process goals were derived from land use,
transportation, and other plans that guide the region, which in turn represent the desired
outcomes for multiple stakeholders and the public. These goals are to:
Foster economic vitality
Improve public health
Enhance equity
A full listing of the plans that informed the goals of the process can be found in Appendix A.
Foster economic vitality
Transportation plays a critical role in the region’s economy. The ability to quickly and easily move
about the region is directly tied to the region’s economic competiveness. Residents already have
access to many transportation options, and the region’s compact growth over the last few
decades means that most destinations are not far from most residents. On the other hand,
congestion, traffic accidents, high healthcare costs associated with inactivity, and other
inefficiencies put a drag on the local economy. Although the region performs well with respect to
these issues, more congestion and a higher number of traffic fatalities are possible without
intervention. The CLSP process looked at transportation strategies that could help alleviate these
issues and in turn improve the economic well-being of the region.
The project team looked at four criteria to understand how different scenarios perform with
respect to economic vitality:
Driving costs as a percentage of household income
Average household income by housing type
Average parking costs
Value of time lost to congestion
Improve public health
Transportation and land use decisions have a demonstrated effect on public health outcomes.
Increasingly, the discussion around efforts to increase bicycling and walking in communities has
focused on the reduction in chronic disease and mortality that increased physical activity brings.
Improving public health was one of the most compelling goals explored during the CLSP process
– public input revealed that this goal was very important. The public health criteria evaluated
during the process focused on the link between increased use of active transportation modes
and positive health outcomes, including:
Physical activity per capita
Health benefits from increased walking and bicycling
Cost savings due to reduced disease burden
Change in the number of fatal or severe injury accidents
Attachment 3, Page 9 of 32
Enhance equity
“Equity” refers to the distribution of benefits and burdens of policies and projects across the
community – particularly vulnerable populations. The PMT convened a special technical advisory
committee early in the process to provide input on equity considerations. Equity can be difficult
to quantify. Even with the advanced modeling tools available during the CLSP process, it is
difficult to understand exactly where or who might be disproportionately benefited or burdened
by a policy. However, the project team evaluated two quantitative criteria related to equity
during the process:
Driving costs as a percentage of household income
Average household income by housing type
These measures provide a snapshot of how different scenarios affect different economic groups.
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
The state adopted a GHG-emissions-reduction goal that seeks to reduce emissions 75 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050. Each metropolitan region in the state was assigned a transportation
emissions-reduction goal, but only the Portland metro area is required to meet its goal.
According to the Central Lane MPO’s 2010 Regional Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 31 percent of
regional GHG emissions are produced from transportation in the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan area. GHG-emissions reduction was not the only goal of the process. However, it
served to frame much of the scenario planning work and aided in selecting policies that are not
only effective at reducing emissions, but also impart other benefits.
Evaluation criteria
The scenario planning process considered outcomes across a range of different evaluation
criteria. The table below shows the criteria used to evaluate different scenarios during the
project, all derived from the goals described above. The regional partners used these criteria to
evaluate initial scenarios, evaluate the draft preferred scenarios, and refine and select the final
preferred scenario.
CATEGORY CRITERIA UNIT OF MEASURE
Economy and
prosperity
Driving costs as percentage of
household income1
% of average household
income
Average household income by
housing type
2005 $
Parking costs Average regional daily
parking cost (2005 $)
Value of time lost to congestion2 $ per person per year
(2005 $)
1 Includes both average annual vehicle ownership and operating costs.
2 Value of time for personal trips is assumed to be $12.50 per hour. From US Department of Transportation (2011).
Attachment 3, Page 10 of 32
CATEGORY CRITERIA UNIT OF MEASURE
Energy
consumption and
GHG emissions
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per
capita
Tons CO2 per year
State GHG-emissions-reductions
target
Meets or does not meet
target
Petroleum fuel consumption Gallons per capita per year
Transportation
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) VMT per capita (daily)
Transit service Revenue miles per capita
(daily)
Bicycle travel3 Bicycle miles traveled per
capita (daily)
Pedestrian travel Walk trips per capita (annual)
Transit ridership Total annual ridership
Vehicle ownership Average no. of vehicles per
household
Hours of congestion Hours per capita per year
Air quality Criteria air pollutant emissions % reduction or increase in
pollutants (compared to
Reference Case)
Feasibility
Legal, legislative, or regulatory
barriers to implementation
Qualitative assessment
Public/private infrastructure costs Qualitative assessment
Local revenue from VMT fee or gas
tax
Annual $ per capita
Political or public acceptability Qualitative assessment
Health
Physical activity per capita Number of walk and bike
miles per week
Health benefits from increased
walking and biking
Annual number of premature
deaths avoided due to
physical activity
Chronic illness incidence % reduction or increase
Annual cost savings due to reduced
disease burden
$
Annual change in fatal or injury
accidents
Increase in number of fatal or
injury crashes over base year
Equity
Driving costs as percentage of
household income
% of average household
income
Average household income by
housing type
$
3 This criterion represents the number of miles “diverted” from car travel and instead travelled by bike.
Attachment 3, Page 11 of 32
Timeline
The CLSP process began in 2011, with convening of the PMT and technical advisory committees
(TACs) that provided guidance on specific topics, like equity and public health. The PMT,
comprised of representatives of all local governments participating in the process as well as staff
from LTD and the Central Lane MPO, guided the project and made key decisions throughout the
process. A parallel public process that included public workshops, a project website, a scenario
planning tool, and surveys provided key input that helped regional decisionmakers understand
community desires and needs.
Parallel to the CLSP process, the region received a Sustainable Communities grant through the
US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The grant allowed the region to
explore best practices and develop a “toolkit” for addressing scenario planning goals – like equity
– and explore issues around transportation and land use. This work helped to inform the goals
for the process and provided a valuable foundation for the CLSP process. The products resulting
from the HUD work are included in Appendix B.
Public outreach and stakeholder engagement
The CLSP project partners worked to involve interested stakeholders and the general public at
each major step of the CLSP process. Appendix C contains sample public involvement materials.
Outreach methods included the following:
Public workshops: the project team hosted three workshops to gather public input on the
three main phases of the project. The initial workshops focused on explaining the CLSP
process and goals and engaged the public on brainstorming strategies for reducing GHG
emissions from transportation. The final workshop asked for input on the level of effort
the region should take in each of the four major policy areas considered during the
process. An online survey was also created for each workshop for those who were unable
to attend in person.
Attachment 3, Page 12 of 32
Project website: early on in the process, the project team established a project website to
provide general information on the project. The website provided information about
upcoming public events, links to online surveys, and the Future Builder scenario planning
tool.
Future Builder online
scenario planning tool
(right): in the later stages of
the project, the team
developed an online tool
that allowed the public to
explore different
transportation strategies.
The tool showed the
predicted impacts of
different scenarios across
eight outcomes, like
regional GHG emissions and
public cost. Users could
submit their favorite
scenario, which provided the team valuable input on what strategies and outcomes
people were most interested in.
Social service community engagement: to understand more fully the potential impacts,
both positive and negative, to communities of concern, the project team met with
several social service organizations, including Lane County Public Health, St. Vincent
DePaul, and the local housing authority (Housing And Community Services Agency
[HACSA] of Lane County). The team discussed policies and strategies with these social
service providers to hear their perspectives on what impacts to vulnerable populations
might occur, and what could be done to mitigate any potential negative impacts.
Telephone survey: a telephone survey asked respondents in the region about their
attitudes toward policies and strategies under consideration, and their interest in
potential new revenue ideas to implement the strategies. The survey used a random
sample of regional residents and produced statistically significant results on residents’
attitudes toward different policies. Appendix D contains full telephone survey results.
Modeling the future
The CLSP process made use of powerful new modeling tools that aided in understanding the
impacts different transportation policy choices might have on the region.
Attachment 3, Page 13 of 32
Regional Strategic Planning Model (formerly “GreenSTEP”)
ODOT developed the Regional Strategic Planning Model (RSPM) as a way to forecast GHG
emissions from transportation. RSPM, which performs high-level, strategic assessments of
potential GHG-emissions-reduction strategies, was used extensively during the CLSP process. The
model assesses the likely transportation sector GHG effects (as well as effects on congestion,
household travel spending, air quality, and others) of a large variety of policies and factors. RSPM
provided information on the potential impacts of different scenarios during the CLSP process and
was the primary tool used to evaluate scenarios. RSPM can evaluate strategies in the following
subject areas:
Community design: includes households living in mixed-use areas, transit use, miles
traveled by bike, etc.
Pricing: includes different methods for paying for one’s driving, including per-mile fees,
license registration fees, and gas taxes.
Education and marketing: includes programs that educate citizens about travel options
and programs that provide incentives to change travel behavior.
Roads management: includes strategies like access management on arterial streets and
ramp metering on highways.
Vehicle fleet and technology: includes assumptions about average fleet fuel economy and
fleet mix (e.g., number of electric vehicles). In setting the GHG-emissions-reduction
target for both the state and metropolitan areas, the DLCD accounted for vehicle fleet
and technology changes at the state level, so the CLSP process focused on the impacts
and benefits of other policy changes.
These five policy areas framed the policies and strategies considered during the scenario
planning process. More information on RSPM can be found in Appendix B.
Integrated Transport and Health Impact
Modeling Tool (ITHIM)
ITHIM is a tool for evaluating the morbidity and
mortality effects of different transportation policies.
ITHIM, developed by the United Kingdom Public Health
Research Center, was used to model the public health
outcomes related to physical activity, safety, and air
pollution. Changes in physical activity through policies
supporting active transportation provide many health
benefits to users, including reductions in chronic
diseases (heart disease, cancer) and reduced mortality. Safety benefits are realized from policies
that decrease vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Chronic diseases related to air pollution are also
What is “active transportation?”
Active transportation refers to any
form of human-powered
transportation – walking, cycling,
skating, etc. Public transit is also often
included as an “active” mode because
users typically walk or bike to and from
their bus or train stops.
Attachment 3, Page 14 of 32
reduced with less fossil fuel combustion. ITHIM estimates the combined effects of these public
health factors and monetizes4 the total health care cost savings.
Sensitivity testing
To understand how effective different policies are at reducing GHG emissions, the project
technical team conducted sensitivity testing with RSPM. Sensitivity testing was conducted with
respect to only one variable – GHG emissions. Other impacts – public health, equity, or the
economy – were not quantified with RSPM or other models. Sensitivity testing gave the PMT a
sense of how policies interact to reduce GHG emissions from transportation, and what level of
aggressiveness is needed to achieve state emissions targets.
This testing showed that Pricing strategies (changing the way residents pay for driving and/or
increasing the cost of driving) are very effective by themselves at reducing GHG emissions.
Community Design strategies, like increasing transit service, bicycling, and walking, were also
effective when applied alone. The testing found that only Roads Management strategies were
not very effective at reducing emissions. This testing showed that the region cannot meet its
GHG-emissions-reduction goal without applying a mix of strategies.
4 “Monetization” means that the value of health benefits and reduced mortality – in terms of reduced health care
costs, willingness to pay for reduced mortality risk, and other factors – are added up to produce the total dollar
benefits to the region.
The project team tested different policy scenarios to understand which combinations of policies were most
effective in reducing regional greenhouse gas emissions. It also showed which combinations of policies
reached the region’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction target.
Attachment 3, Page 15 of 32
Scenario development
Reference scenario
As part of the first step of the scenario planning process, the project team developed and refined
a 2035 reference scenario.5 The reference scenario is the baseline by which alternative scenarios
are compared; it approximates the future if current policy direction is carried out without
significant changes. The reference scenario represents the best representation about how
current policy direction could be implemented over the next 25 years6. This work formed the
baseline against which alternative future scenarios were compared.
The technical team initially developed the reference scenario assumptions based on policies in
current and recently completed land use and transportation plans in the region. The project
team translated the vision, goals, and objectives from these plans – as well as assumptions about
future levels of funding – into specific inputs for use in RSPM. The project team used state
assumptions from a similar planning effort for the future vehicle fleet, fuel mix, and other
technologies. RSPM was then used to estimate future GHG emissions, miles driven per capita,
hours of vehicle delay, and other performance measures.
The reference scenario revealed that the region is making progress in many areas. Key findings
include the following:
Under current policy direction, the region’s per capita GHG emissions from light vehicles
decrease by 3 percent from 2005 levels (the state target is 20 percent).
Biking and walking increase, and air pollution and fuel consumption decrease. The project
team used existing community goals for walking and biking to model rates of biking and
walking in 2035.
While vehicle ownership and maintenance costs increase, vehicle operations costs for
households decrease.
Per capita vehicle miles traveled stays about the same and delay increases on the
transportation system.
A memo describing full reference scenario results is included in Appendix E.
Alternative scenario development
The reference scenario provides a baseline for comparing alternative scenarios. The project team
initially created alternative scenarios based on several themes. The “themes” were created by
the project team to organize different strategies and understand how different policies interact
5 The Department of Land Conservation and Development chose 2035 as the target year in establishing GHG-
emissions-reduction targets. The 2035 reduction targets are intended to help the state reach 2050 emissions-
reduction goals.
6 The CLSP team used 2010 as the “current year” to coincide with the data inputs in the modeling software used
for the process.
Attachment 3, Page 16 of 32
to reduce GHG emissions. The themes, like “individual action” and “transit friendly, walkable
communities,” added more context to the sensitivity testing and helped to organize the policies
into more realistic packages.
Each of these themes contained a mix of strategies. For example, the “transit friendly, walkable
communities” theme contained strategies that increased transit service and improved bicycling
and walking infrastructure. The results of these themes were instructive, and allowed the PMT to
craft two alternative scenarios to
fully test with the RSPM and ITHIM
tools. The two alternative
scenarios – Scenario B (Enhance
Existing Policies) and Scenario C
(Explore New Policies) – represent
maximizing actions consistent with
current policy direction and
implementing new policies,
respectively. The reference
scenario (Scenario A) and
Scenarios B and C were evaluated with respect to a full range of evaluation criteria.
Scenario B met the state’s GHG-emissions-reduction target and Scenario C exceeded the target.
Both Scenarios B and C would generate considerable public health benefits. For example, both
scenarios resulted in an excess of $30 million in reduced health care spending due to decreases
in the prevalence of some chronic diseases. Full evaluation results are contained in Appendix H.
The results of analyzing Scenarios A (reference scenario), B, and C – in addition to public input –
provided the full context needed for decisionmakers in the Central Lane MPO to develop the
preferred scenario.
Attachment 3, Page 17 of 32
Attachment 3, Page 18 of 32
The preferred scenario
The JTA requires the local governments in the Central Lane MPO to cooperatively select a
“preferred scenario.” The JTA also requires local governments to consider at least one scenario
that accommodates planned population and employment growth while achieving a reduction
in GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. The preferred scenario was developed based on
testing a variety of scenarios, comparing those scenarios to local goals, and gathering input from
local decisionmakers and the public. The preferred scenario is comprised of strategies in seven
policy 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 GHG-emissions-reduction target. With the preferred scenario, the region
could expect a 20 percent per capita reduction in GHG emissions from light vehicles over 2005
levels, meeting the state’s GHG-emissions-reduction target for the region. The region can expect
about a 3 percent 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.
Within each policy area, there are 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
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).
How much does the preferred scenario
reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Attachment 3, Page 19 of 32
A balanced approach
The preferred scenario represents a balanced approach toward investment in the following
seven areas:
Active transportation
Fleet and fuels
Transit
Pricing
Parking management
Education and marketing
Roads
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 that feature strongly in current plans and policies. Investment in other
strategies lies in between these two. The preferred scenario does not rely too heavily on any one
policy area. Instead, it is a realistic and balanced mix of investments that would make significant
progress toward regional goals.
Challenges to advancing the preferred scenario
While the preferred scenario will support positive outcomes, 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 policies 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 a targeted
analysis of the geographic distribution of benefits and impacts.
Attachment 3, Page 20 of 32
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 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 for 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 would 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 include 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 would need to be directed toward
“separated” bicycle facilities, like bicycle 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.
Currently, less than 5 percent 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 would also need to identify additional
funding for maintenance and operations of active transportation facilities. This may require
Active transportation: What would it
take?
The preferred scenario could be
supported by major increases –
between three and five 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
making active modes more convenient.
It might require creative use of
available rights-of-way to
accommodate all road users.
Attachment 3, Page 21 of 32
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 limited 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, bicycle 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 could 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 could
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 programs that allow additional
density for development that meets certain requirements.
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 to 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
Attachment 3, Page 22 of 32
Multi-State Zero Emissions Vehicle Action Plan.7 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 the Central Lane MPO benefit from accessible, frequent, and convenient
transit service. Transit service provided by the 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 need to 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 percent matching funds for capital projects (instead
of 10 or 20 percent). If implemented, the local governments in the region would need to support
LTD in identifying a stable source for future capital funding.
Transit strategy #2: Support LTD in identifying 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 need to support LTD in identifying a stable source for
future transit 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 (FTN) consists of transit routes with service frequencies of every
15 minutes or better all day, 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. 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
7 http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/orlev/
Attachment 3, Page 23 of 32
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. In addition, 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 could support this access by focusing on bicycling and walking
investments such as new bike facilities, wayfinding signage, sidewalks, and improved pedestrian
crossings near transit stops. LTD and local governments could 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. In other words, bike
share can allow transit users to quickly span the last part of their journey to their destination
once they have gotten off the bus.
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 could support LTD in
identifying how to build partnerships to support transit, and identifying funding sources for
transit operations to allow for new routes and increased service hours and frequencies.
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 could 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 these sources (which, in large part, come from user fees like fuel
taxes) are stagnating or declining.
Attachment 3, Page 24 of 32
Funds for operating and maintaining the system are even more constrained. As 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 help 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.
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
could support the state’s implementation efforts.
Pricing strategy #2: Support Lane County’s
efforts to raise funds for transportation
operations and maintenance.
Counties, under Oregon law, are able to enact a local vehicle registration fee. Lane County could
seek an increase in the vehicle registration fee or other means to increase funds available for
maintenance and operation of the region’s transportation system.
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 3, Page 25 of 32
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. Prior to
implementation, this strategy would need to be
evaluated in terms of the impact on the state’s
insurance market.
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 could support increases to the state fuel tax, including indexing the state fuel
tax to inflation. In addition, local governments could consider increasing local fuel taxes and
indexing local fuel taxes to inflation to increase funding for roadway operations and
maintenance.
Parking management: Invest in existing plans
Managing parking both for 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.
Attachment 3, Page 26 of 32
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 encourage “eco driving” practices (like keeping tires inflated and
accelerating slowly from stops) to reduce vehicle fuel consumption and emissions. (ODOT
currently has a program called “EcoDrive” to encourage these habits.)
Education and marketing 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 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) help to reduce emissions. The local
governments in the region could 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 could include incentives for walking, biking, and taking
transit to work, or for encouraging compressed work weeks or telecommuting. The region could
support businesses in expanding workplace commute reduction programs by providing
information to employers and, possibly, incentives to employers that participate.
Education and marketing strategy #5: Expand transit pass programs.
Currently, 65 percent 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
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.
Attachment 3, Page 27 of 32
passes promote transit use habits that make them more likely to be adult transit riders. Local
governments could 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, and ridesharing. The state’s Transportation Options plan sets a similar
policy context for state support of transportation options. Local governments could 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 the following:
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
Attachment 3, Page 28 of 32
Preferred scenario outcomes
The investments and strategies in the preferred scenario are likely to have many positive impacts
on the region. The CLSP team used sophisticated modeling tools to understand the potential
effects of implementing the preferred scenario across a range of different outcomes. Appendix G
contains a summary of different tools that pair with the preferred scenario to help achieve these
outcomes.
This section reviews the anticipated outcomes of the preferred scenario, compared to outcomes
expected if current plans and policies were carried forward. Though the preferred scenario
produces many benefits, the preferred scenario could also result in potential negative impacts
related to equity. However, these negative impacts can be mitigated or prevented entirely,
depending on implementation of the preferred scenario. See the “equity considerations” section
below for further discussion of this issue.
Change as compared to today (2010)
Attachment 3, Page 29 of 32
Outcomes in 2035
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, which represents what is expected to occur if existing plans
and policies are implemented, makes significant progress toward regional goals. The preferred
scenario would make further gains in the following goal areas:
Public health
Transportation
Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions
Economy
Equity considerations
Public health
The preferred scenario would significantly improve public health outcomes across the region
compared to today. Chronic disease, premature death, and health care costs would all decline
due to more residents using active transport modes, like bicycling and walking. Some of this
benefit also comes from residents driving less and therefore experiencing fewer crashes. For a
detailed discussion of public health methodology and results, see Appendix H.
Transportation
Even with a 25 percent 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 the preferred scenario than with the reference scenario. The number of miles driven
per person, on average, would decrease by about 11 percent over today.
Air quality and greenhouse gas emissions
Air quality would improve, with common air pollutants decreasing by two-thirds compared to
today. Per capita GHG 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 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
savings would stay in the local economy.
Attachment 3, Page 30 of 32
Equity considerations
Equity outcomes would be dependent on how policies and strategies might be implemented. For
example, if bicycling 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 could have neutral or positive effects on equity if mitigation
measures are implemented.
“Equity” involves the fair distribution of benefits and harms from an action. Equity is a concern
with transportation projects, programs, and policies. The preferred scenario is likely to have a
variety of equity impacts – good, bad, and neutral. Some of the positive or neutral impacts
expected include the following:
The overall cost to drive is unlikely to increase much under the preferred scenario. The
cost to drive, as a percentage of household income, is unlikely to change significantly.
Physical activity is likely to increase for all residents in the region, due to greater
investment in bicycling and walking facilities. This would lead to a reduction in chronic
illness and death for the entire region.
The number of residents who have access to frequent transit service is likely to increase.
However, these benefits are not guaranteed. Implementation is very important for ensuring that
disadvantaged groups receive their share of these benefits and do not receive a disproportionate
share of harms. Some important implementation considerations include the following:
The location of new transportation improvements in the community is critical. New
projects and programs should be distributed equitably throughout the community to
ensure equal access and mobility for vulnerable populations.
Ensuring the availability of transportation options in all communities will mitigate for any
potential increases in the cost to drive.
The distribution of affordable housing in the community affects how far vulnerable
populations need to travel to meet their daily needs. Special attention should be given to
the siting of new affordable housing within the region for this reason.
Outcomes in 2050
The preferred scenario includes policies and strategies intended to achieve a reduction in GHG
emissions from transportation by 2035. Even though 2035 is 20 years in the future as of this
writing, many strategies are unlikely to reach peak effectiveness (in terms of both GHG-
emissions reductions and other outcomes) for years after that. The project team looked at how
outcomes might change in 2050 to get a fuller picture of how the preferred scenario might affect
the region. The project team created a 2050 reference scenario to see how the future might look
if current policies are carried forward to 2050, and a 2050 preferred scenario to project what
would happen if the strategies in the preferred scenario are carried forward to 2050. For
Attachment 3, Page 31 of 32
reference, the region is expected to grow by over 80,000 residents by 2050, compared to the
60,000 new residents expected by 2035.
The 2050 reference scenario results in a 23 percent decrease in per capita GHG emissions
over today. The 2050 preferred scenario goes further, with an expected 35 percent
reduction compared to today (2010).
With the 2050 reference scenario, annual passenger vehicle traffic delay is expected to
increase by 57 percent compared to today. Delay is expected to increase with the 2050
preferred scenario as well, but by a lesser amount – about a 20 percent increase over
today.
Per capita air pollution (like ozone and other criteria air pollutants8) would stay about the
same for both the 2050 reference scenario and the 2050 preferred scenario. Both would
result in nearly a two-thirds decrease in per capita pollutants compared to today.
The number of miles driven per day per person would increase slightly (by about
6 percent) compared to today for the 2050 reference scenario, while the 2050 preferred
scenario would result in a 10 percent decrease in miles driven per day per person.
8 “Criteria air contaminants” are those air pollutants regulated by the federal Clean Air Act.
Attachment 3, Page 32 of 32