At the Crux of Transportation and Land Use


So here’s a paradox. In Portland we attempt to build Transit-oriented Development near Light Rail stations. But the LRT corridors often parallel freeways (both because that’s where the demand is, and because we often find right-of-way we can use next to freeways).

As a result, these developments are often near freeway interchanges. But the “Transportation Planning Rule” (TPR for short) often restricts our ability to build near interchanges, in an attempt to protect the capacity of freeways for longer trips. The TRP does not do a good job of recognizing that a lot of the demand for travel will be accommodated by transit.

According to this note from our Eugene correspondent, Rob Zako (via the OTRAN list), it appears that the Land Conservation and Development Commissions and Oregon Transportation Commission may be getting ready to tackle this:

Dear OTRAN friends,

Another important round of changes is statewide transportation policy is getting underway. The following information is taken from the report referenced below.

The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) established a joint subcommittee in response to concerns from local governments and others, and a recognition that existing rules and plans are having unintended consequences. Specifically, the interaction of Section 0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) with the mobility standards in the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) can complicate the local process to balance multiple objectives. These objectives include economic development, compact urban development and the need for additional transportation infrastructure to keep highways functioning, which brings benefits to the state overall and especially to traded?sector business activity. The discussion about balancing, clarifying and streamlining TPR 0060 and OHP mobility standards was organized around three questions:

(1) Whether to initiate formal rulemaking on OAR 660-012-0060 and/or whether to request that the OTC consider amending related provisions of the Oregon Highway Plan.

The committee recommends that LCDC initiate rulemaking on TPR 0060 (OAR 66?12?0060). The committee recommends that OTC initiate amendments to the mobility standards in the OHP and associated guidance documents (e.g. OHP Mobility Standard Guidelines).

(2) What are the highest priority issues that should be addressed?

The committee recommends that the topics listed below be included in the scope for an initial phase (approximately 6 months) of amendments. Including a topic on the list does not indicate that the committee has reached a conclusion on the merits of any specific proposed amendment, but rather that the committee believes it is an important and potentially fruitful topic to pursue. The topics are divided into two categories based on whether it would be primarily addressed through the TPR or through the OHP; however, many topics will involve both TPR and OHP.

A. TPR Amendments
A1. Exempt rezonings consistent with comprehensive plan map designations
A2. Practical mitigation for economic development projects
A3. Exempt upzonings in urban centers
A4. Address traffic at time of urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion
A5. Technical clarifications: transportation system plan (TSP) update and multiple planning periods

B. OHP Amendments & Guidance Documents
B1. Exempt proposals with small increase in traffic
B2. Use average trip generation, not reasonable worst case
B3. Streamline alternate mobility standard development
B4. Corridor or area mobility standards
B5. Standardize a policy framework for considering measures other than volume to capacity ratios (v/c)

(3) How should the process be structured to recognize the joint authority of LCDC and OTC concerning these issues?

The committee recommends that these two lists be addressed in parallel coordinated processes with several check?in points, including further meetings of the committee. Draft amendments would go to the respective bodies for formal hearings with a target date of December 2011.

In particular, LCDC will need to appoint a rulemaking advisory committee (RAC) consisting of 12-15 members representing a wide range of interests including:

* City planners (a variety of sizes and regions)
* County planners
* Metropolitan planning organizations
* Developers
* Consultants
* Freight
* Advocacy organizations
* Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee (CIAC)
* Small business representative (especially important for the fiscal impact statement)
* State agencies: DLCD, ODOT, Business Oregon

The RAC would be chaired by an LCDC commissioner. The RAC would meet monthly to prepare draft amendments and to review the fiscal impact statement.

For more info, see:
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/rulemaking/2009-11/TPR/Recommendation-Final.pdf


26 responses to “At the Crux of Transportation and Land Use”

  1. I think very soon there is going to be an explosion of growth happening just beyond the control of Metro – think Yamhill County, i.e. Newberg, McMinnville, the French prarie south of Wilsonville and such areas. Portland is becoming so overpriced and unaffordable. Add to that a bad economy and them forcing high density and making it difficult to get around. Don’t get me wrong, I love coming into town but I think their obsession with controlling things is going to end up in a revolt and unexpected things.

  2. Greg,

    Even with high gas prices? Do people even consider commuting costs when they look at houses?

  3. Greg,

    Keep in mind that Oregon’s land use laws are OREGON’s land use laws, not something conjured up by Metro. None of the cities in the French Prairie area are going to be permitted to build waves of subdivisions. The city of Molalla was recently rebuffed in an attempt to expand its city limits by about a square mile, on the grounds that it had an adequate housing supply already. Newberg and McMinnville are more likely candidates for growth, but they, too, are subject to state land use law.

  4. EngineerScotty ,

    I can speak from PERSONAL experience….. People are totally disregarding the stupid Oregon growth laws and building on THEIR property anyway. . . The state has zero right to dictate what people can do on their own property. And just look what the wineries are getting away with …. raping and pillaging the land by cutting down the trees and holding huge public gatherings out in the rural areas — totally illegal, too, but they are doing it!

  5. Portland’s housing prices continue to fall, so all hope is not lost for affordable housing within the Portland UGB.

  6. The only way housing is going to become affordable in our area is like in other areas will be if they increase the supply of areas, bring in more companies, kick out every single one of the illegals who are taking up jobs and driving down the wages, sucking off welfare, and taking up space on the bus, and massively cut headcount at the government at every level by at least 33%

  7. Greg, your argument is inconsistent. On the one hand, you decry the state telling people what they should do on their property, then you compare what wineries are doing on their properties to “raping and pillaging”. A little less hyperbole, please.

  8. Take the “illegals”-bashing elsewhere. And taxes and the number of government employees per capita are at historic lows. If you’re perceiving problems in the world, I suggest that you’re experiencing them due to some other cause. Taxes and government employees aren’t it.

    Now stick to the topic. This is not a “rant and rave” blog.

  9. GregT;

    There’s a big difference between building a granny-flat in your back 40 (which may be illegal in certain areas but rural residents may indeed be able to get away with) and massive subdivisions. And no, turning undeveloped land into housing developments is not an example of “swinging ones fist but without hitting someone else’s nose”–massive property development of that sort has significant impacts on the environment and on neighboring infrastructure–especially in rural areas without sewer systems. Thus, regulation of such activities is well within the rights of the people.

    Quite a few wineries have been likewise legally restrained in their attempts to add infrastructure (beyond what is needed for the growing of grapes and the making of wine). Do you have a specific example in mind of a winery ignoring land-use laws and getting away with it?

    And yes, there’s plenty of affordable housing within the UGB. Suburban homes can be had for around $100/square foot, depending on the location. Urban properties in nicer neighborhoods go a bit more than that… but if anybody tells you that there’s a housing shortage in the Portland area, chances are they are either a developer, or a suburban public official looking for a quickie infusion into their local tax base.

    (That said, there has been a noticeable uptick of banks and investors buying out distressed and foreclosed properties, and keeping them off the market in inventories, perhaps waiting for prices to rise…)

  10. A little less hyperbole, please.

    ——————————————————————————–
    You haven’t seen it up close, so you’d obviously have a different personal view living outside of the urban areas. It’s ugly. I can send you photos if you want me to substantiate my seemingly hyperbolic stance.

  11. i also take issue with the concept that housing in portland is unaffordable. you can get a perfectly nice 3br right now for around $150k-$200k. payments right around $1000 or so (or significantly less if you put down 20%).

    how is that overpriced?

  12. A little less hyperbole, please.

    You haven’t seen it up close, so you’d obviously have a different personal view living outside of the urban areas. It’s ugly. I can send you photos if you want me to substantiate my seemingly hyperbolic stance.

  13. I’ve lived in Oregon my entire life, so I have an idea what I’m talking about — maybe hyperbole if you don’t happen to agree with me. My family owns around 5,000 acres in the McMinnville/Lafayette/Dayton/Carlton/Yamhill/Salem area. I’ve seen a lot of radical changes just in the last 20 years alone – most of it not good. It used to be “out in the country” was just that, it was peaceful and quiet. Now it seems the “country” is just an extension of Portland, there is a LOT more traffic and huge operations – nurseries, wineries and the like and since the state forbids people from “living” in the country, traffic is even worse because you have the equivalent of factory operations and thousands of (mostly illegals from South of the border) commuting back and forth clogging up the rural roads. The Californians who have brought their problems with them over the years and trying hard to clone the experience here. Out here in Yamhill County they have bought out hundreds of acres and clearcut firs and oak stands along the whole sides of beautiful rolling hills. They hold gatherings where thousands of people come, have loud parties and litter the landscape. I went to one on Sunday which was holding a brunch for Mother’s Day. There were probably 400 people there but it was clearly outside ANY UGB and they were running the equivalent of a booming restaurant. I guess if you happen to be rich and have alcohol to drunken the public officians then different rules are applied to you, huh? It doesn’t sound very sustainable, does it?

  14. Urban infrastructure and politics are responsible for decay, blight, and depression in rural areas? That’s a hoot, considering how gerrymandered US politics are in favor of rural interests and how thoroughly rural lifestyles and economies are subsidized.

    At any rate, as Bob indicates, this is getting a bit off topic.

  15. There is a double standard when it comes to DLCDC. This is why I think their attempts to “control” growth and confine it to this mythological UGB is just laughable. They bully and give a small family who owns a few hundred acres a real hard time if they want to subdivide their property to keep it in the family, but turn a blind eye to Californians building wineries who bring blighted wineries. Alcohol and money talks, thouh! Growth is inevitable – we have a nice climate and it’s pretty here. Instead of wasting a lot of money trying to quash growth, they should spend taxpayer money on more important priorities like creating GOOD jobs, and allowing growth industries.

  16. I keep getting errors, I tried to fix my poor grammar in the last post and accidently hit enter before I was done. Sorry about that.

  17. Could someone unpack the bureaucratic legalese in this announcement?

    I’m very interested in changes to the mobility standard that focus on the movement of people and goods rather than an abstract calculation of engines or car bodies in v/c ratios.

    But are changes to OAR 660-012-0060 quite limited in scope or is this potentially something of broader significance?

  18. I’ve lived in Oregon my entire life, so I have an idea what I’m talking about — maybe hyperbole if you don’t happen to agree with me. My family owns around 5,000 acres in the McMinnville/Lafayette/Dayton/Carlton/Yamhill/Salem area. I’ve seen a lot of radical changes just in the last 20 years alone – most of it not good. It used to be “out in the country” was just that, it was peaceful and quiet. Now it seems the “country” is just an extension of Portland,

    You think this is bad, you should visit other cities without urban growth boundaries and land-use laws (Phoenix comes to mind). You actually can leave downtown Portland, travel 20 miles in any direction, and be in rural country–many other city’s (sub)urban footprints extend well beyond that.

    there is a LOT more traffic and huge operations – nurseries, wineries and the like and since the state forbids people from “living” in the country, traffic is even worse because you have the equivalent of factory operations and thousands of (mostly illegals from South of the border) commuting back and forth clogging up the rural roads.

    Are you seriously suggesting that agriculture ought to be discouraged in the countryside? Agriculture is business, my friend, and it involves bad smells, big machines, dust, chemicals, and for some crops–lots of farmworkers. If you have 5,000 acres, you got plenty of room for peace and quite if that’s what you like.

    And what do you have against Mexicans, and how do you know that they are illegals? (There are many from south of the border living in the Willamette Valley perfectly legally).

    The Californians who have brought their problems with them over the years and trying hard to clone the experience here. Out here in Yamhill County they have bought out hundreds of acres and clearcut firs and oak stands along the whole sides of beautiful rolling hills. They hold gatherings where thousands of people come, have loud parties and litter the landscape. I went to one on Sunday which was holding a brunch for Mother’s Day. There were probably 400 people there but it was clearly outside ANY UGB and they were running the equivalent of a booming restaurant. I guess if you happen to be rich and have alcohol to drunken the public officians then different rules are applied to you, huh? It doesn’t sound very sustainable, does it?

    The word “sustainable” doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. I won’t defend the particulars of what many wineries do (some of which has attracted the negative attention of environmental organizations–particularly various attempts to build a large-scale wine tourism industry like you’ll find in the Napa Valley), but you seem to be asserting that you have the right to not be bothered by economic activity you disapprove of.

    You do bring up one legitimate question though–whether state land-use laws are overly restrictive concerning housing for agricultural workers. Labor-intensive agriculture needs people to do the work, some of which is seasonal, some of which is not. Expecting them all to live in cities and then commute to the farms may not be reasonable, and current restrictions–designed to prevent farmland from turning into subdivisions–may go to far and have negative impacts on rural infrastructure. But that’s a fine-tuning of land-use law, not something which justifies a full-scale attack on it.

  19. Greg, you happen to be speaking to someone who has lived in Oregon his entire life, and not just the Portland metro area, whose family also has farmland. You’re making way too many incorrect assumptions. Drop the attacks and the rants. You’ve had your say, shape up or go away.

  20. The state has zero right to dictate what people can do on their own property.

    Man, I wish I had known that when my application to build an aluminum smelter in Irvington was rejected – I might have appealed.

  21. ok, this is the last I’ll say and I’ll “go away” with regard to this concern, anyway. I think my point is that the heavy handed way the regulators in Oregon (be it DLCDC, Metro, et al) operate and how they are so inconsistent in how they apply their rules – I mean, yeah agriculture is manually intensive, but yet you can’t LIVE in the area where you work or have your operation unless its a grandfathered in clause from before they were so particular about people living in the rural areas? It’s nearly forbidden (you have to have one building per 80 acres and have to proove you make a certain amount to qualify). So it just encourages more town – country and back trips.

    As far as Grant’s Irvington Aluminum smelter – I think the property would be less expesnsive out in the areas where they are prohibiting such an operation – maybe next to a windmill farm would be appropriate? Smelters use a lot of power. I also hear that here in the NW we have huge overages of power during the winter months but then hardly any during the dry summers. Maybe it would make sense to buy all the overage during the winter months and run your smelter full power during these times and scale down in the summer?

    Now, I have something related to trains…. I saw on the news they are taking some money from Florida to do some track work in Vancouver. What is this blather you hear about “shovel ready” this and that all the time coming from the Obama regime? I hardly consider 2013 start date as shovels are ready…..

  22. The work being done in Vancouver is something that will a) improve the existing infrastructure, and b) improve conditions for a future HSR line; but it isn’t HSR.

    And don’t complain about us getting Florida’s money–Florida’s governor turned it down.

  23. And don’t complain about us getting Florida’s money–Florida’s governor turned it down.

    I wasn’t “complaining” about it, I just thought it was incredible to be saying a project two years away is “shovel ready”. A lot will happen between now and then, we might not even exist as a country by then buckling under our massive debt. Maybe China will have annexed us over by then and will be parceling up the land for themselves after sending us to the gulags?

  24. Greg, the rail project money has ZERO to do with this topic. Drop it. (And “shovel-ready” means planned, approved, and ready to bid. It doesn’t mean guys are literally standing around with shovels. That would be a waste of taxpayer money, right? Sheesh.)

    sending us to the gulags?

    No, but I’m sending you away. You were warned to behave and drop the hyperbole, and to stay on topic, and you just couldn’t do it. You are now on “Comment Vacation” for the rest of the month.

  25. I looked around and I couldn’t find anyone claiming that Vancouver project is “shovel ready”, period. You’re refuting a strawman. Plus it’s not like there hasn’t been rail work done in WA.

    Since you’re supposedly done commenting, I anticipate your response might be to set the goalposts to something along the lines of HSR in general. I don’t believe most of these HSR endeavors had that stipulation under ARRA, nor were pitched as shovel-ready stimulus. I rewatched Obama’s initial HSR announcement from 2009, and the phrase was not uttered. He mentions there will be jobs created with the first round of funding on some of the easier, already planned projects, but emphasized that this is a mostly a long-term project, and even pointed out that we hadn’t decided on what the corridors would ultimately be yet.

    The money that was parceled out this week probably could have been put to better use had it all been focused on a more cohesive project that perhaps could have had the benefit of being on the drawing boards in years prior to this one. That was going to happen up until politicians in Florida decided to help their constituents out the way they did.

Leave a Reply to george Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *