[WEC-Coord] WEC Coordinating Committee (land use and multiway boulevard)

[Kevin Matthews]

Interesting thoughts, Larry!  Perhaps this level of policy detail is best suited for the whole-WEC discussions coming up?  (Or, I might suggest the Analysis Committee, but for now at least it really has its hands full already, in terms of WEC main meeting preparation...)

While anticipating the outcome of a TIA at this stage seems perhaps a bit over-wonky, I too have been wondering along similar lines, about how transportation demand in West Eugene gets balanced out, in the case of a multiway boulevard - and even how it might fare with such eventual regulatory tests.

This new article in the New York Times about legislation in California shows how this kind of integrated thinking is getting increasing traction in the mainstream:
   California Moves on Bill to Curb Sprawl and Emissions
   http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/us/29sprawl.html?ref=science

	"...The bill yokes three regulatory and permit processes. 
	One focuses on regional planning: how land use should be split
	among industry, agriculture, homes, open space and commercial 
	centers. Another governs where roads and bridges are built. 
	A third sets out housing needs and responsibilities ― for 
	instance, how much affordable housing a community must allow.
	
	"Under the pending measure, the three regulatory and permit
	processes must be synchronized to meet new goals, set by the
	state’s Air Resources Board, to reduce heat-trapping gases..."

And, of course, there's more than one way to work the apparent contradiction.  The re-zoned area of mixed-use commercial/residential development that should inherently accompany a W11th multiway boulevard has the capacity for a great deal of new residential units - probably somewhere in the range of five to ten thousand.  

So rather than a development moratorium, I think what we may see is more like a development redistribution - away from natural resources that should be protected anyway, and the outer urban edge, into walkable transit-oriented high-value real estate, denser and closer in.  The inherent down-zoning needed to protect key resources is more than balanced by the dramatic upzong in the 1000 foot prime walkable radius from the MWB. 

This kind of positive redistribution, relative to the old plans on the books, is just what we're looking for in terms of integrating land use planning with transportation planning... which our traditional agencies have such a hard time pulling off.

By focusing and hosting high-quality density in just the right places, the multiway boulevard has the potential to be not just a direct traffic solution to congestion, with smooth-flowing through lanes, but in addition, a land use solution to congestion, moving the growth allocation closer in where it produces less traffic and less emissions, too.

This is just the kind of planning approach the TPR is designed to encourage, so on reflection I find I'm confident that, as long as we do the land use part as well as the direct-traffic part, we'll ultimately be able to get state approval for the right kind of W11th MWB with flying colors.

With best wishes,

Kevin


On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:48:07 -0700, Larry Reed wrote:
> I'll be able to attend next Wednesday's meeting. 
> 
> I support the Multi Way Blvd and land use concepts but continue to be
> concerned about our proposal not achieving compliance with Oregon
> Transportation Planning Rule (TPR Findings). I've attached a copy of
> this OAR. I believe the required Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA
> Calculations) will show that without more traffic carrying "lanes";
> 1. There will be a continued worsening of the performance of West
> 11th/126 and Beltline HWY below the minimum acceptable ODOT performance
> standards.
> 2. And/or a reduction in the performance of West 11th/126 and Beltline
> HWY below the minimum identified performance standard. 
> 
> If the TPR findings in a TIA find the existing and planned streets in
> the City's adopted TransPlan are not adequate the City will have no
> choice but "alter" (down zone) significant areas of west Eugene in order
> to keep traffic generated from the designated land uses from over
> loading the City's transportation system. This will create a 'defacto'
> development moratorium in west Eugene. This will including prevention of
> the 'good' things needed in the area like high density mixed use/nodal
> development, Multi Way Blvds, new "green" employment/ industrial uses,
> family wage jobs, etc.
> 
> Therefore, I believe our proposal must (To achieve TPR compliance)
> include more "lanes" more than just improving Beltline Roosevelt south
> to West 11th and more than just improving & signing Roosevelt Blvd. Here
> are the options;
>   A. Six-7th connection to First Street over to Beltline HWY (Most of
> 1st Street exists)
>   B. Six-7th connection improvements to Fifth Street and on west out to
> Beltline HWY north of drainage channel & wetland areas.
>   C. Six-7th connection improvements to Fifth Street, improvements south
> to Bailey Hill, improvements west Stewart Road, improvements south on
> Berenson Road, and improvements on West 11th to Beltline HWY. 
> 
> If these 'additional lanes' are not included as major key stones and
> "prominently" put forward in our proposal, we will have failed. And I
> don't want the WEC to fail.!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Larry    
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim McCabe [mailto:tmccabe at pdx.edu] 
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 9:25 AM
> To: carolyn at oregonlegalteam.com; dennisdonald at earthlink.net;
> emily.a.proudfoot at ci.eugene.or.us; emilyproudfoot at comcast.net;
> gerry at oregonlegalteam.com; jack at lanemetro.com; jackrobby at aol.com;
> jdamon at jlainvolve.com; johnhuyler at earthlink.net; Larry Reed;
> margaret.f.harter at ci.eugene.or.us; matthews at artifice.com;
> mceweng at pdx.edu; mob at uoregon.edu; pat_johnston at blm.gov;
> rick at duncanbrown.com; rzako at efn.org; sban at sheltercare.org;
> tmccabe at pdx.edu; tomschwetz at ltd.lane.or.us
> Cc: tmccabe at pdx.edu
> Subject: Re: WEC Coordinating Committee
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Hi all,
> The call in number for the Coordinating Committee meetng next Wednesday
> is 541-682-4087.  Talk to everyone soon.  
> Have a great weekend!
> Tim
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> 
> To view complete details about your meetings and events, visit
> http://www.meetingwizard.com to create a free account.
>