Posted by Kevin Matthews on May 09, 2001 at 12:29:25:
Thank you for sending this summary to our elected officials. Hopefully it will help them to have complete and accurate information on a timely basis, and also -- for them to know that we know all this too.
It was fascinating to see the issue of anemic bicycle funding in TransPlan surface at our Southeast Neighbors annual meeting last night. Diane Bishop explained that bike lanes will be painted in on East and West Amazon this summer (with strong neighborhood support, voted 48 for, 1 against), but a safer, cleaner stand-alone bikeway through the Amazon greenway itself is planned but not expected to get built -- despite even stronger neighborhood support -- because of the low funding priority for bikeways in TransPlan. Do they want to help people get out of their cars, or not? It really is all connected...
And good luck at the MPC meeting tomorrow at 11:30am, where elected officials (mostly) will be continuing finalization of this anemic TransPlan. The MPC tends to be a real eye-opener. I will try to join in progress, if a prior business meeting wraps up soon enough.
On 5/9/01 at 11:22 AM, Rob Zako
] Dear Mayor Torrey and Eugene City Council,
] Gary Rayor wanted an advance determination from LCDC on whether TransPlan
] complies with the TPR. I think LCDC's decision last Friday is as close as
] were are going to come to such a determination.
] As the MPC meeting is on Thursday and you might not yet have received a
] report on what was decided, I wanted to provide an unofficial summary. I
] trust you will receive a more authorative report shortly. (If you have
] already received such a report, I apologize for the duplication.)
] Note that LCDC did not merely rubberstamp the DLCD staf recommendations.
] They spent an entire morning listening to testimony, asking questions,
] debating the recommendations, amending the work from staff and generally
] making the recommendations their own. They also requested an *annual*
] review of the adoption and/or implementation of TransPlan in making
] satisfactory progress towards cmplying with the TPR.
] Please let me know if you have any questions.
] LCDC REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
] 1) On Friday, May 4, LCDC unanimously approved the proposed alternative
] performance measures for TransPlan subject to the following *conditions*:
] LCOG must include in TransPlan policies or other requirements that
] accomplish the following:
] a) Assure that the methodology for calculating non-auto mode split is
] adjusted to account for improved counting of non-auto-trips to assure
] that results in achieving this standard are not the result of improved
] counting of non-auto trips.
] b) Develop a definition of qualifying dwelling units and employment
] in nodes that include only those dwelling units and employment that are
] clearly consistent with implementing the nodal development strategy.
] c) Revise the "interim benchmarks" for dwellings and employment in
] nodes to be clearly consistent with achieving the 20-year performance
] 2) In addition, LCDC unanimously approved issuing *guidelines* to
] Eugene-Springfield for making satsfactory to implement the nodal
] development strategy. (LCDC determined that it had the legal authority
] under the TPR to turn these guidelines into conditions, but declined to
] do so.):
] a) LCOG should amend TransPlan to include a schedule for
] implementation of the nodal development strategy. This schedule should
] incorporate the items listed below and the requirements for an
] "integrated land use and transportation plan" over the next three years.
] b) Eugene and Springfield need to *select* specific areas for nodal
] development within one year [from May 4, 2001]. TransPlan identifies
] approximately 50 areas as having potential for nodal development. Eugene
] and Springfield need to move quickly to determine which of the 50 areas
] to *select* as nodes and to set general boundaries to guide subsequent
] detailed planning.
] c) Eugene and Springfield need to adopt *Metro Plan amendments and
] zoning changes to designate nodal development areas* within 2 years of
] the adoption of TransPlan. [I'm not sure of the exacty wording.]
] d) Eugene, Springfield and Lane County need to review plan amendments
] and zone changes _outside_ nodes to assure that they are consistent with
] the nodal development strategy. The success of the nodal development
] strategy depends on attracting most of the higher density employment and
] residential development in nodes. Certain uses, such as neighborhood
] shopping centers, are critical to the success of nodal development. Plan
] amendments that allow uses outside of nodes undermine the nodal
] development strategy and hurt prospects for development in nodes.
] LCDC request an annual review of the progress that Eugene-Springfield is
] making towards following these guidelines.
] 3) LCDC considered but did *not* approve a recommendation from Friends of
] Eugene to issue guidelines related to implementing the transit (BRT)
] strategy. These recommendations were supported by Bob Cortright. Both Tom
] Schwetz and Pat Hocken indicated there would be no problem in following
] these guidelines as the information already exists:
] a) LCOG should amend TransPlan to include a schedule for
] implementation of the transit strategy on congested corridors.
] b) Eugene and Springfield need to designate (select?) specific
] congested corridors for increased transit mode share within one year [of
] May 4, 20001], and these corridors must pass through [selected] nodal
] development areas.
] | Rob Zako |
] | 1280-B East 28th Ave., Eugene, OR 97403-1616 |
] | (541) 343-5201 (voice) |
] | (541) 683-5828 (fax) |
Citizens Nature Project http://www.NatureProject.org/nature.html
Neighbors Forum http://www.SoutheastNeighbors.org/sen_forum.html
FoE Forum http://www.FriendsofEugene.org/friendly.html
Kevin Matthews, email@example.com
541-345-7421 vox, 541-345-7438 fax, P.O. Box 1588, Eugene, OR 97440