JerryShechter on "Transportation Work Group MInutes - 12.14.06"

JerryShechter — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 22:39:06 +0000

Kansas City Climate Protection Plan
Work Group Meeting Notes
December 14, 2006

Transportation Work Group

Summary of Work Group Activities

The following question was posed to the work group: What are the 3 most important measures we must implement in Kansas City to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020?

Participants were instructed that preference should be given to the following criteria:

• Build on existing initiatives
• Identify Low Hanging Fruit
• Economically viable options
• Options with partnership opportunities across the community
• Measures that have been successfully implemented in other cities

Participants were given three “sticky” notes on which to write their recommendations. The notes from the group were posted on a wall, and organized in columns by similar topic.

The work group reviewed the results and adjusted some of the placements after discussion. When there was general agreement on the groupings, the “dot” exercise was performed.

Each participant was given three sets of colored dots and asked to place them by the columns to help prioritize the initiative recommendations. Dot colors and definitions were:

• Green – “Early Victories” – Implementation can begin before April 2007
• Blue – Critical & Strategic, but Long Term – Will take more than 2 years
• Yellow – Need more information to determine priority level

Results

Results of the exercise are summarized on the following pages. Each heading represents a column or grouping of responses; these groupings may need to change over time, but served their purpose in this initial meeting. Each bullet under that heading is a suggestion from the work group that was placed in that grouping. The number of green, blue, and yellow dots placed on the grouping is also listed. Duplicates or similar suggestions are taken out.

The Transportation Group indicated some concern over making any decisions based on a swift prioritization exercise. They were assured that subsequent meetings would allow for refinement and discussion. Overall, the responses were positive about the process and goals of the City. Participants were encouraged to bring new thoughts and ideas to the next meeting.

One step that must be added in future work is to pair predicted emissions reductions with the group's suggestions. One weakness of the exercise is that they were working without the benefit of data that indicated which methods are the most effective at reducing greenhouse gases. The group will not be able to make informed decisions without more details about their suggestions.

Another concern was using the term "behavioral change" when talking about the public, which may, to some people, sound like "social engineering." We don't believe we have the intent or resources to force people to change their way of living, but we do intend to support choices that are better for the environment and to expect those who choose otherwise to pay the cost of those choices. It's not about limiting lifestyle options, but about making the costs and benefits more visible and realistic. The majority of the people in the group seemed to understand this purpose and goal, but it may be worthwhile to explain it to the group as a whole in the next meeting in order to clarify the direction. It's possible to make good environmental choices appealing.

Transportation Work Group

The underlined headings are the general categories or groupings of recommendations. Bulleted items beneath each heading are the specific comments received.

G = # of green dots, B = # of blue dots, Y = # of yellow dots

CARPOOLING

• Car pool clubs – 1 Y
• Encourage carpooling – 1 G
• Create incentives for car and van-pool programs – 5 G
• "Rentable" cards (Fords), follow lead of Chicago and San Francisco – 1 Y
• Car-share program – 5 Y, 1 B

Total for section: 6 G, 1 B, 7 Y

INCENTIVES

• Make parking more expensive (and don't build new parking facilities) – 2 G, 1 Y
• Development tax incentives targeted to infill only – 1 G
• Employer incentives for biking/walking/transit/carpool to work – 3 G
• Tax commuters living outside of city and driving into city (i.e., London, England) – 2 B, 2 Y
• Preferred parking for small and energy-efficient vehicles – 1 G
• Less parking, more expensive, not on the surface – 3 B
• Economic incentives for local auto manufacturers to produce green solutions – 1 G, 1 B
• Pay people not to drive to work
• Tax incentives for living close to work
• Incentives for purchase of smaller, fuel-efficient cars or hybrid or alternative fuel cars – 1 G
• Enforce red-alert days
• Competitions among businesses for green transport/commuting (like Corporate Challenge but about alternatives to driving, carbon savings, etc.) – 1 G, 1 B
• Green construction: retrofits, repowers, policy/contracts
• Charge daily access fee for SOV use of the region's highways – 1 B, 2 G
• Incentives for increased usage of alternative fuels – 1 Y
• Create incentives for the use of vehicles with less emissions, i.e. hydrid taxi program; more utilization of energy-efficient vehicles in mass transit programs; more renewable fuel infrastructure

Total for section: 12 G, 8 B, 4 Y

TREES/GREEN

• Tree survey and complete replacement by developments

Total for section: 0
SPRAWL

• Create a Smart Growth plan and policies to support implementation – 1 G, 1 B
• Stop sprawl, stop spreading out – 4 B
• Fewer big-box stores, more retail locations closer to home
• Live near work – 1 B
• Discourage urban sprawl – 3 B

Total for section: 1 G, 9 B, 0 Y

FUELS

• Natural gas powered vehicles – 3 B
• Idle reduction; truck stop electrification; no-idle policy
• Plug-in hydrids – 1 G, 1 Y, 2 B
• Challenge all governments to use bio-diesel
• Government to lead way to use fuel cell power – 1 Y, 2 B
• Promote energy-efficient vehicles – 1 G
• Increase use of alternative fuels – 7 G
• Work with trucking/locomotive companies to improve fuel efficiency (Smartway, EPA voluntary program)
• Alternative fuels locator system – 1 G, 1 Y

Total for section: 10 G, 7 B, 3 Y

EDUCATION/OUTREACH

• More and better public communications, publicize bike-to-work days
• TV shows/media activities to explain/promote green transportation, walking, transit, bicycles, carpooling, etc.
• Programs to encourage walking/biking to school and work
• Educate the public about the impact of driving everywhere – 2 B
• Trip reduction tips, printed, Internet, media
• Free tire gauge promotion – 1 G, 1 B
• Generate public support for metro green
• Auto service vehicle efficiency program – 1 G
• Help and teach families to reduce their driving by 30% (eg. kids walking to school, bus to work, trip sharing, etc.) – 1 Y

Total for section: 2 G, 3 B, 1 Y

BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN

• Provide free bikes in core business districts and universities – 1 G, 1 Y
• Lend-a-bike for city employees to encourage biking on short errands (plus incentives to use it) – 1 Y
• Promote bike on bus system – 1 B
• Bicycle edcation – 2 B, 1 G
• Double amount of walking and bicycling in 10 years – 3 Y
• Trails systems but also on-street bike/ped network – 2 B

Total for section: 2 G, 5 B, 5 Y

TRANSIT

• Expand current bus service in region – 2 B, 1 Y
• Require all city businesses to participate in TRIP program (subsidized bus passes) – 2 G
• Develop regional public transportation system
• Provide adequate alternative transportation to prevent driving individually – 1 Y
• Regular free transit days or weeks to get people to try it
• Standard/required emissions testing – 2 G, 1 Y
• Reduce number of SOV trips, implement a multi-modal transportation system that includes light rail, BRT, bikes, peds – 1 B
• More transit (light rail?) and walkable, mixed-use nodes along transit lines and reduced parking – 8 B

Total for section: 4 G, 11 B, 3 Y

SCHOOLS

• Help schools develop bikes and walking to school programs – 1 Y
• Implement a regional safe routes to school – 2 Y

Total for section: 0 G, 0 B, 3 Y

TRAFFIC

• Fees/tolls for freeway use, especially at peak periods – 1 G, 1 Y
• Retrofit/adjust traffic signals to make them bike/ped friendly
• Pedestrian/bike/public transit corridors
• Reduce peak-hour travel – 1 Y
• Reduce highway speed limits
• HOV lanes – 1 Y, 1 B
• Traffic signal coordination (Operation Green Light is not enough) – 1 Y, 4 G
• Lesson peak travel (reduce congestion) – 1 Y, 1 G
• Make all traffic signals activated (demand response)
• Synchronize traffic signals (remove some?)
• Bike lanes
• Use minimal intersection control: yield instead of stop signs; roundabouts instead of traffic signals; remove unwarranted traffic signals – 1 G

Total for section: 7 G, 1 B, 5 Y

Addendum

Added later, after dots exercise, from one individual:

Things I noted missing/not on list yet.

1. Need to look at city/regional road building practices and policies. Are they encouraging sprawl? Walking? Bicycling? Transit? Some of this could be covered by upcoming citywide trails plan, should be in the scope of this plan.
2. Encourage telecommuting/other non-transportation solutions. This is an area of strength right now in KC—so if we can capitalize on it even more....)
3. Beyond just sprawl, land use in the sense of, "Can I walk/bike/transit to work/school/shopping/park, etc.?"

Received by e-mail after first meeting from one individual:

In our Transportation Work Group you were asking for ideas that are not on the list or "outside the box".

Here is an interesting one I have been thinking about.

Sprawl is one of KC's major problems that causes its high dependence on single-automobile travel and other problems that lead to greater pollution and higher energy use. The idea is:

* Create a "sprawl trading" system, similar to carbon trading.

The idea is to link activities that increase sprawl with those that decrease it. If you do an activity that increases sprawl then you can do simultaneous offsetting activities to reduce sprawl--or pay a sprawl tax.

We know that certain actions will increase sprawl. Widening arterials, increasing traffic flow, building/widening highways, even synchronizing stop lights. If people can drive into work 10 minutes quicker it encourages them to build 10 minutes further out.

In KC right now there is never a balance. There is always a tendency build greater highway/roadway capacity to help people get there faster and with less congestion and rarely to never anything done to offset the bad effects this has on locations close to the urban center.

There is also a disconnection. "This project is funded by highway tax dollars and you bike/ped people need to get your own funding source."

The funding is always with the project that increases sprawl and never with the one that solves the problem.

Examples: If the Paseo Bridge is widened to reduce congestion then lower congestion encourages people to live further out. And it reduces people's interest in transit, walking, and bicycling on those trips because you can do them so much faster by car. When there is congestion there is interest in alternative ways of getting there! Less congestion means, by definition, less interest in the alternatives.

When 71 Hwy was built, it encouraged more people to live out the the area of Lee's Summit/Grandview because now they can just zip downtown easily.

If 350 Hwy is widened it will encourage more people to live out in Lee's Summit and drive in--at the expense of creating greater problems for local traffic and for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit users in the areas it goes through.

In all these cases we "improve" the road in order to encourage "development" on the outer fringes. But this is always done at the expense of the places further in.

By the same token increasing the bike/ped/transit connectivity of core areas encourages in-fill development, work, shopping, and housing to built in close proximity, etc.

So the proposal is to create a kind of trading system whereby if you do something to increase sprawl you also have to do something to offset it.

A perfect example is the Paseo Bridge. You widen the bridge which encourages sprawl up north. But you also built a bike/ped river crossing and create complete bike/ped connectivity in the areas near the bridge. Now you are encouraging sprawl but at the same time you would be simultaneously encouraging infill development and making the urban core more attractive. So there is a balance.

If you put in a "71 Hwy" type project then you also go the extra effort to create bike/ped transit access all along that corridor and at numerous crossing points across the corridor. No money to do all that "extra" work? Well then, don't do the project.

Or if you built a single-use type development then you have to do something to offset that. It could be as simple as making the area completely bike/ped accessible and including commercial/shopping areas within walking/biking distance (and making sure they are bike/ped accessible). Or even doing something in a different area of town to offset. Or if you don't want to do that then you pay $X into the sprawl fund which is used to build projects to ameliorate the sprawl problem.

If you synchronize stop lights then you also simultaneously adjust and program them so they detect bicyclists and work WELL for pedestrians. And you paint and maintain crosswalks and bicycle slots for the intersections. And you make sure the traffic signal detects bicyclists and has the needed software etc. to accommodate buses and facilitate transit movement. (Right now the rush is to adjust stoplights to reduce "stop time" for motorists, but often this is done at the expense of pedestrians and bicyclists, who need longer cycle times to safely cross.)

KC Climate Protection Forums Topic: Transportation Work Group MInutes - 12.14.06

JerryShechter on "Transportation Work Group MInutes - 12.14.06"