Idaho State-Wide Mobility Plan Visions

The Idaho Department of Transportation is working on a state-wide mobility plan and is gathering visions for the Bike/Pedestrian mobility portion of the plan.

These are due to Mark McNeese at ITD by Jan 31, 2008

Local
I'd start with the vision of BicycleCity.com

"Bicycle City is a planned car-free communities project. Our vision is a future with sustainable cities and communities that are eco-, people- and animal-friendly.

We are interested in promoting bicycle- and walkable-friendly cities anywhere in the world and see the importance of the energy, land and ecosystem saving city at this crucial and auspicious time in history."

I continue by saying, energy security is an important goal which can be assisted by reducing the energy used in transportation systems, and at the same time reducing the alienation produced by large scale auto use (road rage, large parking lots, pedestrian unfriendly spaces, neighborhoods where people don't know their neighbors) .

Moscow is working on revising its Comprehensive Plan and we have been discussing the mobility chapter and moving the language away from "streets" to "thoroughfares" with the intention of recognizing multiple and mixed modalities of transportation. So, just as there is a street hierarchy, street, collector, arterial, I am wanting a hierarchy of non-motorized thoroughfares, and that these be given equal priority in the language and organization or the Comp Plan.

My vision extends to the notion that bike paths are used for multiple purposes. They are linear parks and as well as transportation corridors, and need to be treated in both ways by planners -- recognizing that, just as with car travel, we have multiple goals and values in planning a trip: pleasure, exercise, transportation, etc. Consequently, in addition to planning being multi-modal (park & transportation) signage and public understanding needs to meet multi-modal uses.

In addition to routes, destinations need to be part of the planning. Specifically, parking/storage for bikes is needed, and this should not be second-class "chain-to-a-tree" solutions but offer amenities that are incentives to bike use (such as covered bike parking or secured bike storage (both of which are seen in many european cities))

Destination planning needs to occur at all major employment and commercial destinations and at mode-transfer places, such as bus stops and rail stations.

Snow removal needs to be considered in this planning as well. There are days in Moscow when bike/ped activities would be pleasant enough, but due to poor snow/ice maintenance of the routes is too hazardous.

Regional
Many of the comments above I would apply to my regional vision. Inter-city trails need to be seen as multi-modal (ped/bike) and multi-purpose (recreation/transportation)


State
If the visions above are well implemented, the state-wide vision is probably to have uniform and rich information available online about each regions bike/ped systems and how the regions articulate.

Scoring Moscow's Walkability

I just found Walkscore, a tool that uses Google maps and data to calculate a walkability score for a street address. You need to put in a complete address, eg, 900 Travois Way, Moscow, Idaho and then it looks at the kinds of services around you and the distances and calculates a score.

Imagine if this were part of the process included in the SmartGrowth scorecard. Take a measurement from the center of the proposed development and score the walkability. (I went Googling for Idaho Smart Growth because I know their scorecard and found that the US EPA has a more extensive Smart Growth Scorecard site.)

The other day I pointed to Green Chain Stores and highlighted a quote about the problem driving to a green store and suggested a vision for greening Moscow. Add this tool to the list of thinking for that greener city. Probably need to fold in a more complex analysis for bike-ability -- distance is a little less important, but gradients matter and amenities along the way and at the destination (eg good paths and parking) matter.

Bike Boluvards and New Moscow Comp Plan

I was describing my disappointment with the Mobility chapter of the new Comp Plan to a bicycle enthusiast this AM. It turns out that, based on 2000 Census, Moscow is in the top 1% of cities in terms of bike/walk to work.

I was saying that we have this elaborate scheme for classifying arterials, collectors and local streets, which is all about auto use, and we need some 21st century language rather than bringing assumptions from the past. (See previous Bicycle City post for more vision.)

He mentioned Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/newsletter/99-4/bicycles.php concept.

Very cool idea and fairly simple set of requirements. P&Z had a good conversation last night about shifting the focus of the Mobility chapter to put the ‘alternative’ modes more on par with the vehicular mode and reduce the implicit bias of the document. Its going to Transportation now with P&Z comments.

Phillip Cook supplied these additional links.
From the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (Oregon’s large bike advocacy organization):
http://www.bta4bikes.org/at_work/bikeboulevards.php

From Portland Department of Transportation:
Clinton Street Bike Boulevard project
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=46371
Portland Bicycle Master Plan
http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?a=71843&c=34812

From Berkeley CA Office of Transportation
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/transportation/bicycling/bb/BicycleBoulevard.html

From Streetfilms (out of NY) about bike boulevards in Berkeley CA:
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/berkeley-bike-boulevards/

Water and Legacy Crossing URA Project

Wed (4-9) saw a presentation by the Moscow Urban Renewal Agency of the Legacy Crossing Project at P&Z. Gary Reidner laid out the ways in which the Project was generally consistent with the 1999 Comprehensive Plan. You can see the URA materials here.

What troubled me about the document was there was no mention of water conservation as a infrastructure or utility issue that the URA would include in its goals. This post puts my concern in context.

Consequently, here are my notes on the motion passed unanimously relative to the URA request:

We find the URA proposal generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, contingent on the URA bringing back to P&Z for approval the following modifications to the URA plan:
1. addition of a new section that addresses the URA’s infrastructural strategies to conserve municipal potable water.
2. inclusion of Hogg Creek as a waterway to be preserved/ enhanced
3. inclusion of enhanced emphasis on multi-modal transportation infrastructure (rights of way, facilities, etc) as a goal of the URA

And we request that Staff draft the appropriate reasoned statement for our review.

My Rationale: A project of this scale cannot fit under the PBAC cap. Given that the URA mechanism funds infrastructure related activities that are for municipal benefit I would like to see in their proposal for infrastructure development by the project structural approaches to water conservation (this would give project activities a municipal benefit in addition to econonmic development).

I don’t want to suggest either a mechanism the URA would choose or an amount of conservation the URA would target, I’d rather they come back with a proposal and convince P&Z of the merits and feasibility of their idea.

I was instructed at the last P&Z meeting by my fellow Commissioners that water conservation could not be taken out on the back of a single developer. I understand that, but if we do not plan for, and make, infrastructural changes impacting water use, the difficulty of conserving is greater. The URA is a great opportunity to make a public-private partnership to steward our resources.

I think P&Z's planning responsibility is to look at these infrastructural issues and plan for long term strategies to impact the city’s efficiency (water, energy, garbage). I'm looking for suggestions.

Council can look at policy mechanisms like price or rationing irrigation to meet specific goals within the constraints that the infrastructure imposes.

Legacy Crossing and PBAC Cap

Back in March I posted about a small annexation going through P&Z and the water budget questions it raised. Joel Hamilton commented with a resource from the Army Corps looking at ways to divert surface water for municipal needs of Moscow and Pullman.

At the Feb 27 P&Z meeting, Nels Reece and students showed this Legacy Crossing Conceptual Model. (See the model at City Hall, very cool.) April 12 the Legacy Crossing URA redevelopment plan will be the subject of a public hearing at P&Z. (Public notice as PDF). Nels' students' project addressed only the southern portion of the URL, south of 6th, and going SW to Hwy 95. They were assigned to see how much housing density the could create as part of a mixed use development in the area. The handout they had is part of the Feb 27 P&Z Minutes. It describes fitting 650 dwellings (6.5million sqft) on the ~20 acre site.

I've been reading the PBAC 2006 annual report (PDF) (PBAC home) which has these two graphs on the historic water pumping by Moscow. (Graphs for other entities are in the report as well).


This is the pumping rate (blue) compared to the agreed PBAC rising cap. Only recently have we gotten our conservation efforts in line with our pledge.

In addition to the 1% rate of increase pledge, we have also pledged to stay below an absolute cap of 875 million gallons.


This graph shows our actual pumping (bars) compared to the 875 ceiling (line). This difference is the 30-50 million gallon "headroom" that Bill Belknap described in the March 26 P&Z minutes. The available headroom in Moscow's pledge for 2006 was 875-856 = 19 million gallons.

Here is the problem. The Council committed 2% of our total pumping allowance to Hawkins (and 111% of the available headroom). There was a furor (for multiple reasons). Nels Reece's students' ideas for just part of Legacy Crossing would commit 8% of our pumping allowance, see table below and 363% of the headroom.

Project	use	gal/yr	acre ft	% headroom	% of ceiling
Moscow Ceiling (125% baseline)	all uses	875,000,000	2685	-	-
Moscow 2006 pumping	all uses	856,000,000	2627	-	-
Moscow Headroom	all uses	19,000,000	58	-	-
Hawkins	Potable	14,663,295	45	77%	2%
Hawkins	Irrigation	6,517,020	20	34%	1%
Hawkins	all uses	21,180,315	65	111%	2%
Macrch 27 1 ac rezone	all uses (1 dwelling estimated)	106,000	0.3	1%	0%
Legacy Crossing	all uses (650 units estimated)	68,900,000	211	363%	8%

Latah County Comp Plan Revision

I attended (briefly) a meeting gathering input on aspects of Latah County that were valued by the community. This is part of a process to revise the county Comp Plan.

Two points struck me:
1. Several people spoke to the idea of valuing the unique character and qualities of the various communities in the county -- Moscow being just one of those communities. As part of that, they sought to preserve the community schools, business core, history and other attributes that make the towns unique. I think there is something in this idea that connects to my recent post on cultural sustainability.

2. There were also several mentions of the desire for urban densities (including housing (Legacy Crossing was mentioned by location)) without causing sprawl. Virtues that were listed in support of this (in addition to urban amenities) were preserving farming, open space, avoiding McMansions on hilltops, and concentrating commercial/industrial activities (another way to avoid sprawl). A virtue not mentioned might be that urban densities make the provision of utilities relatively cheaper and lower the multiple costs associated with transportation in low-density communities.

Moscow Water Budget Questions

The issue on the table tonight at P&Z was a request to annex a 1.04 acre parcel and to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone the parcel to R4.

The current (1999) Comprehensive plan says this about water:

"Future planning decisions concerning any new development in the Moscow area should consider the amount of water to be used by the development, the nature of the water use, and the source of the water supply. The city should establish guidelines for water usage based upon the nature of the new development."

I asked, Does the city have a water budget that would help P&Z think about these "guidelines for water usage?"

Mr Belknap indicated that the 1992 PBAC agreement is the closest thing we have to a water policy, its the only action the city has taken relative to the issue.

I asked how much water will be used by this new parcel in either the SR or R4 zoning

Mr Belknap indicated that in SR zoning (which staff recommended), one dwelling/acre would amount to 106,000 gallons/year and R4, guestimating 15 dwellings/acre wold be 1.6 million gallons/year. This is rule-of-thumb data, not based on observed water consumption patterns in Moscow.

The Comprehensive Plan goes on to say this about water: "Finally, the city should develop mechanisms to insure that new developments continue to meet the established guidelines as set forth in the management plan."

Mr Belknap had previously indicated to me that the only "Management Plan" as referenced in the Comprehensive Plan is the Ground Water Management Plan September 1992, the so called, PBAC agreement. In that plan the City agrees that it will "require developers to project water use."

I asked Mr Belknap when this water use projection should happen: annexation time, rezone time, or plat time? and he indicated at the time of rezone. He also indicated that while this is effectively City policy, it is not adhered to in practice.

Which brings me to the real focus for this post. If the PBAC pumping limit is the closest thing we have to a water policy and we have a 30-50 million gallon headroom (in recent years) between consumption and the cap (and the margin of variation year to year is large enough to drive the City over the cap) how do we proceed to manage our water budget?

My good colleagues on the Commission could see the direction this questioning was headed and argued that we could not take this issue out on any one land owner, that it was a policy question, and that as a community we needed a solution to the problem. To which I agree -- but there is no policy-making action and the PBAC agreement, which is the closest thing we have to a water policy, is not adhered to.

Which begs the question -- if we don't like implications of the line of reasoning above, how do we develop a water budget that spreads the burden around the community and yet not abdicate actually addressing the issue of a scarce resource?

Here are two ideas that come to mind:
1. Approach it like carbon credits, allow a would-be new developer to buy water capacity for their project by implementing structural changes that lead to conservation in other areas of town, for example, buying low flush toilets to replace existing, installing xeriscape to replace water intensive landscape, etc.

2. Adjust water rates based on the previous year's pumping experience. If pumping exceeded the PBAC cap, prices would rise the following year by an amount calculated to reduce water demand to the cap level. (There should be some life-line usage level that is exempted from this.) This would lead water users to develop more conservative practices to the extent that they feel market pressure. It might also raise additional revenue to be used to augment the supply.

The former approach hits the developer, and requires organizations and mechanisms that presently do not exist. The latter will hit the resident and create a new inflationary pressure on the cost of living. Is there another mechanism I'm not thinking of?

If the PBAC cap is not really the carrying capacity of our aquifer, is there a plan that would help us gracefully transition to the level of usage and types of sources that would be sustainable?

---
Note. Per suggestion of Commissioner Shilberg, I have replaced my term "de facto" in the first version of this post with the phrase "the closest thing we have to a water policy is" which is closer to the language used by Mr Belknap.

Creating Community Character

I'm reading the minutes of P&Z for Feb 27 where Bret Keast was holding forth on ideas in the new Comprehensive Plan. The term he was using is "community character" and it strikes me now that creating/maintaining community character is an element in boyd's "cultural sustainability" that I noted previously.

What Keast was driving at was to move away from the Euclidean approach to zoning and toward a more forms-based model where the desired character is specified and the specific use(s) are allowed to range more widely. We get a first chance to look at these ideas in the Legacy Crossing URA (final plan in huge PDF) and the overlay zone currently making its way through P&Z. What we saw at the previous P&Z meeting was ideas about setting the form for the development but being more open to the use(s). In fact, mixed use is the expectation for the area, with rentals, condos, and commercial (and structured parking) all expected on th site.