ICS-TT Subdivisions and Edge Development Committee/Infill and VMT

From Eugene Neighbors

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Infill, Climate Change, and Eugene Neighborhoods

An in-progress working paper of the ICS-TT Subdivisions and Edge Development Committee

[edit] Summary

Infill and other increases in residential density around the urban edge - in outlying, high-VMT parts of the urban growth area - are counterproductive, in the sense that they create substantial negative impacts while failing to achieve the positive planned objectives of infill. Given that negative cost-benefit of this type of infill, as a matter of planning policy and implementation, it should be avoided.

[edit] Overview

Since the land use code update (LUCU) of 2000, our local land use regulations in Eugene have encouraged residential infill. But we know that as well as accommodating some amount of growth, residential infill also causes impacts on established neighborhoods. Clearly we are not encouraging infill for its own sake, but for specific stated reasons.

Map illustrating the geography of VMT in Eugene/Springfield (LCOG data)
Map illustrating the geography of VMT in Eugene/Springfield (LCOG data)

Infill is encouraged in Eugene in order to meet particular community goals - especially, for the benefits of densification, and compact growth. In the Oregon statewide land use planning framework, these benefits are led and to a degree even organized by the measurable goal of reducing vehicles miles traveled (VMT).

Thus, locating and regulating infill is a balancing act between some general community benefits on one hand, and some local and cumulative impacts on the other hand.

What if there are significant areas of Eugene where it can be shown systematically that infill doesn't contribute to most of the general community benefits of compact growth, and even has negative effects? If there are such areas, what purpose would be served by encouraging or allowing infill in them?

The goal goal of reducing VMT can be further understood in the context of climate change.

It is well known in the smart growth community that residential density tends to encourage walkable, reduced-VMT. Our community needs to understand the basis of this phenomenon, and use effective land use planning to direct and design growth to help reduce rather than increase greenhouse gas emissions.

[edit] Discussion

Plans, planning policy, and land use code we develop in Eugene today should be aimed, along with other objectives, at meeting the state adopted goals for greenhouse gas emissions as enacted in Oregon last year (HB3543, signed on 7 August, 2007) of a 10% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020, and a 75% reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.

While the latest climate science suggests that a 75% reduction is probably not a deep enough cut to stabilize the global climate, that goal is far enough away that inherent planning uncertainties make the difference relatively unimportant in the short term. If we can plan now for effective steps to reach state-adopted 2020 and 2050 goals, we will at least be headed in the right direction.

A broadly accepted guiding principle for greenhouse gas emissions is that each sector should plan to accommodate its own share of emissions reductions. Following this principle, the transportation sector itself should target emissions reductions matching the state-adopted percentages.

The transportation sector, heavily dominated by private motor vehicles, represents about 1/2 the total emissions in Eugene. Specifically, according to "Eugene Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report" (July, 2007), "Over half of the community’s current GHG emissions are related to the use of gasoline (41% of total emissions) and diesel fuel (11%)."

All credible analyses suggest that predictable emissions reductions through the combination of innovations in vehicle technologies, bio-fuels, and other energy source and distributions developments will contribute substantially, but not nearly enough to reach the adopted goals.

Substantial additional reductions in vehicle emissions will be needed. The primary additional source or emissions reductions is reduced driving - i.e. reduced VMT, in both the per capita and overall total sense. In fact, the Governor’s Climate Change Integration Group reported that, "...Reducing VMT is simply the single most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions". (Final Report to the Governor: A Framework for Addressing Rapid Climate Change, State of Oregon, January 2008, p46)

The "Governor’s Vehicle Emissions Workgroup Report" notes that, "The Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) projection for the next ten years is 1.95% average annual VMT growth, non-compounded. VMT growth is a combination of population growth and growth in VMT per capita." (, November, 2005, p16)

To achieve emissions reductions, we need to reduce per-capita usage, i.e. VMT, deeply enough to counteract the effect of increasing population.

There is a very strong interaction of land use distribution with VMT. The largest single land use component of VMT with regard to residential land use is the distance between each dwelling and the metropolitan center. Residential density as such, and walkable access (1000 feet) to full-service fixed transit are important secondary components.

LCOG traffic studies have confirmed the geographic pattern of VMT in terms or residential locations. The VMT per capita in the city center of Eugene is less then half the metro average. There is an average VMT contour about midway between the city center and the urban growth boundary. Out at the urban growth boundary, VMT varies from 150% to 200% or more of the metro average.

This presents a huge and vital opportunity to reduce per-capita VMT, even as our metropolitan area continues to grow in population. As since, has been widely observed by climate experts, we need to do EVERYTHING that we feasibly can to lower our emissions, we need to take advantage of this opportunity.

More specifically, residential infill, and subdivisions and other edge development in particular, which are located OUTSIDE the average VMT contour, and farther than 1000' from full-service fixed transit, will tend to INCREASE average VMT per capita.

And in contrast, residential infill, and other development such as multi-story residential/commercial mixed use, which is located INSIDE the average VMT contour, will tend to DECREASE the overall average VMT per capita.

Calculations show that VMT reduction through directing growth to within the average VMT contour will be essential in realistic planning to meet the state-adopted emissions reductions goals.

And, in fact, many opportunities for large and small subdivisions and residential infill remain in the large area within the average VMT contour. With full and appropriate measures to safeguard existing neighborhoods, these opportunities can be developed while actually improving the community's carbon footprint.

However, much of the land inside the average VMT contour is zoned commercial, while the great majority of that land zoned residential is already developed [can staff provide numbers?]. Residential infill represents a relatively small opportunity for accommodating growth, while residential/commercial mixed use in existing commercially-zoned areas represents a relatively large opportunity.

[edit] Additional information

Additional information that would help clarify these issues includes:

  • detached versus multifamily demographics [realtor's smart growth conference numbers]
  • areas and percentages of land/lot types inside and outside the AVMTC.
  • A quick review of the historical context provided by Oregon statewide planning Goal 12
  • Somewhat parallel legislation on land use and VMT recently enacted in California

[edit] General Recommendations

  • As such, we should recommend actions to minimize and prevent additional densification and development outside the average VMT contour (AVMTC), such as a prohibition on further subdivisions and additional restrictions on infill in that area.
* Outside the AVMTC, limit density to R-1 except for exception areas
* Outside the AVMTC, prohibit further partitions and subdivisions except for exception areas
* Retire nodal development plans for areas outside the AVMTC
* Exception areas are those outside the AVMTC, but within 1000 feet of a full service transit corridor
  • We should focus stringently on infill protection measures for established traditional neighborhoods and for all remaining natural resources, as these irreplaceable community assets will be at risk of further impacts as core density increases.
  • In terms of fulfilling the need for residential development opportunities, and to accommodate ongoing population growth in Eugene, we should focus on realizing appropriate and intensive residential/commercial mixed-use, in existing commercially-zoned areas.

[edit] Task Team Discussion 2008.1013

Truncated by time constraints.

  • MUPTI or other positive approach to fund the closer-in dense mixed-use development
  • Talk to other commercial realtors about what really goes on in commercial zones
  • What about the supply of single family housing, and the demographics of aging, etc.?

[edit] References

Retrieved from "http://wiki.eugeneneighbors.org/wiki/ICS-TT_Subdivisions_and_Edge_Development_Committee/Infill_and_VMT"
Personal tools