Conversations - June 2011
June 30 - Transit
At the June 30th Transportation Community Resource Group (TCRG) meeting, the group discussed transit’s role in Eugene's long-range transportation vision. Tom Kloster from Portland's Metro and Tom Schwetz from Lane Transit District helped shared experiences and best practices from Portland and Eugene.
- Presentation Discussion (PDF, 106KB)
June 1 - Climate Change and Energy Uncertainty
On June 1st, the Transportation Community Resource Group (TCRG) met to talk about how to include climate change and energy uncertainty into the long-range planning process. The group played a game in small groups to determine which transportation changes should take place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
- Small Group Discussions (PDF, 945KB)
Join in the conversation at the bottom of this page to let us know what you think an integrated land use and transportation system would look like. You do not need to have attended the TCRG meeting to participate in this online conversation.
Summary of Greenhouse Gas Strategies
The participants favored starting with incentives instead of regulations or fees & taxes.
To reach a 5-10% reduction in GHG emission by 2010, the most commonly selected strategies were:
• Bike Facilities
• Pedestrian Facilities*
• Car Sharing*
• Transit Service
• High Capacity Transit
* Pedestrian facilities and car sharing were paired together by 4 of the 5 groups.
To reach a 15% GHG emissions reduction, the most commonly selected strategies were:
• Intelligent Transportation System
• Car Sharing
• Dense Land Use
To reach a 20% GHG reduction by 2035, the most commonly selected strategy by the TCRG was:
• VMT Fees
The following strategies were selected at some point by at least 3 out of the 5 groups. However, the strategies were placed at different points in the implementation timeline, between now and 2035.
• EcoDriving
• Electric Vehicle Mix
• Employer Based Commute Strategies
• Gas Tax Restructuring
With sincere thanks to Larissa Varela for providing this summary.
Kurt Yeiter
Thinking clearly about "density"
I don't know how other folks might feel, but I'd value an opportunity sometime to have a large group discussion on the many facets of "density" and how that term and what's behind it play into "sustainability," "livability" and transportation.
It's always surprising to me how so many folks seem to still have very simplistic ideas about "density" and what it implies to support "increased density."
Two examples from the June 1 TSP CRG meeting:
* A participant's comment that "density means more trees." Wow! The recent clear-cutting of large trees on two quarter-block development sites in SUNA in order to build more student "warehouses" provides evidence otherwise. And, as we know, Eugene exempts multi-family (apartment) projects from the "open space" requirement if the project exceeds a certain density.
* A comment from a staff person that "of course we assume 'good' projects when we're encouraging more dense development." The evidence; however, is that assumption isn't borne out by multi-family development in Eugene. Given the reality, it's just as important to emphasize the necessity of ensuring denser development is located and designed in ways to enhance livability. This is the case, not just for the benefit of the residents impacted by nearby dense developments, but also because poorly sited or designed dense projects can have large unintended consequences, such as driving economically mobile households away from areas, particularly areas close to the urban center. There are concrete examples of this in Eugene, and what's happening in SUNA is increasing this kind of "flight."
I think it would really help address a serious, if latent, division among people if there were a well-moderated discussion (please NOT a "Bob Chadwick" contentless "group hug"!) in which people could develop a more sophisticated understanding of how to approach "density."
A cautionary point: The typical way staff approaches a discussion about density is to "educate" the "NIMBY's" that density isn't necessarily bad. That should not be the primary focus of the kind of discussion I'm suggesting.
Instead, there should be an acknowledgement at the beginning that most everyone knows there are good and bad dense developments. The educational focus should be on the critical requirement to ensure dense development respects the neighborhood community where it's proposed and delivers a positive impact for that community from the community members' perspective, as well as for the "greater good." With this in mind, then, the discussion can explore how one determines a neighborhood community's perspective on "character," "livability," "negative impacts," etc.
As many of us know, an all-too-frequent response to advocates for protecting and enhancing "livability" is: "Well, who determines 'livability'?", as if such a task is an impossible hurdle for compatibility standards. This is another dimension that it would be valuable to discuss. Obviously, someone already is determining "livability" -- the code writers and the developers. What needs to be explored is how to best discover and then act upon the "essential positive characteristics" of a neighborhood community and the "significant potential negative impacts." There are reasonable approaches to these tasks.
Anyway, food for thought ...