Central Lane Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)

Objective

BEST and our partners are working to revise the 2022–2045 Central Lane Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to better advance goals to support economic vitality, improve public health safety, shift away from drive alone trips, increase equity, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In January 2022, the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) adopted this transportation framework for the Eugene-Springfield-Coburg region in order to continue to be eligible to receive federal transportation funding. But they did so with no meaningful discussion of how to invest an estimated $1.65 billion over the next 20 years to better advance regional goals.

Upcoming events and opportunities

Overview

Federal law requires the RTP to be updated every four years in order to be continue to be eligible for federal transportation funding.

First released as a draft in late October 2021, key elements of the 2022–2045 RTP include:

  • Goals and objectives (Chapter 2): These generally reflect community priorities for economic vitality, public health, safety, transportation options, equity, and slowing climate change.
  • Financial framework (Chapter 4): The region is projected to receive $1.65 billion for projects over the next 20 years. Additional funding is projected to be available for operations, maintenance, and preservation of the transportation system.
  • Financially constrained list of projects (Chapter 5): A list of projects totaling $1.65 billion.
  • Plan outcomes (Chapter 6): In general, by its own estimation the plan fails to achieve some of its own goals, including to limit traffic congestion and avid increases in travel times. It is unclear if and to what extent the plan advances other goals, in particular, related to safety, equity, and climate change.
  • Illustrative list of projects (Appendix J): Additional projects totally $1.28 billion, to be built after 20 years or when additional funding became available.

But when it comes to planned investments (Chapter 5), the 2022–2045 RTP is more of a backward-looking compilation of older projects identified by different jurisdictions in older plans. What is needed is a forward-looking plan that prioritizes investments most likely to advance regional goals.

Based on our initial analysis, BEST recommended moving 4 lower priority roadway projects to the illustrative list and 16 bicycle/pedestrian projects to the financially constrained list.

Although two public hearings were held in November and December 2021, MPC has not yet been given a meaningful opportunity to incorporate such recommendations into the plan, nor to decide which projects to prioritize.

Rather on January 6, 2022, MPC adopted the 2022–2045 RTP — as we see it, provisionally — in order to continue to be eligible for federal transportation funding.

In response to issues raised by BEST and others, MPC directed staff to:

  • Have on the agenda every month an item on the RTP.
  • Aim to develop and adopt a revised plan by the end of 2022.

Moreover, in the coming months BEST and our partners are looking to provide meaningful opportunities for officials and the interested public to engage around the goals and major investments in the plan. We will collect and summarize everything we hear and provide it to MPC to inform a revised RTP.

Resolution for a Better Central Lane RTP

Sign Resolution

February 7, 2022

WHEREAS, people and businesses depend on the transportation system to get around;

WHEREAS, transportation impacts the economy, the health and safety of people, social equity, the environment, and our quality of life;

WHEREAS, the Central Lane Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is the framework for the transportation future of the Eugene-Springfield-Coburg region;

WHEREAS, the RTP should include goals to provide for the needs of the region today and in the future;

WHEREAS, the RTP should prioritize investments that better advance regional goals, as funding for transportation is limited, recognizing that funding might not become available to implement all that is planned;

WHEREAS, federal law requires that the RTP be updated every four years via a process that is continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive to the degree appropriate;

WHEREAS, the RTP should respond in meaningful ways to public input, as the transportation system is constructed, maintained, and operated with substantial public funding;

WHEREAS, as representatives of the public, officials on the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) policy body—the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC)—should actively engage in reviewing and approving the RTP;

WHEREAS, although it isn’t possible to please all the people all the time, public officials should explain the choices they make on the public’s behalf; and

WHEREAS, on January 6, 2022, MPC approved an updated RTP to satisfy federal requirements, but did so without sufficient time to respond meaningfully to public input or to review investment priorities.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the undersigned as follows:

  1. PROVISIONAL PLAN — As the RTP adopted by MPC on January 6, 2022, does not meet the principles outlined above, we consider it to be provisional, not to be relied upon to justify adding investments to the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP).
  1. REVISED PLAN — We call on the Central Lane MPO to commit to revising the RTP by the end of 2022.
  1. ENGAGEMENT — We the undersigned commit to working together, as resources permit, with other members of our region, including government officials and staff, to engage the public in better linking the RTP’s goals to investment priorities and to provide meaningful input to the Central Lane MPO to inform the revised RTP.
  1. 3C PROCESS — We call on the Central Lane MPO to follow a process to revise the RTP that is continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive, as required by federal law:
  • Continuing means never being satisfied with old plans but continually responding to new information, new technology, and changing needs.
  • Cooperative means that different jurisdictions, while each representing their own interests, should also work together to find better ways to advance regional interests, especially when it comes to federal and state funding not earmarked to a particular jurisdiction.
  • Comprehensive means not being limited to a transportation silo but also examining what drives transportation demand (economy, land use, etc.) and the impacts of the transportation system (economy, health, safety, equity, environment, quality of life, etc.).
  1. ACCOUNTABILITY & TRANSPARENCY — We call on the Central Lane MPO to explain its decisions to the public:
  • Projects: The RTP should explain how officials decided to include some projects in the plan and not others, and to include some on the financially constrained list and others on the illustrative list.
  • Splits: The RTP should explain how officials decided how much to invest in each mode, project type, program type, or jurisdiction.
  • Summary: The RTP should summarize all projects and other investments by mode, project type, program type, and jurisdiction.

See also

Further reading

External links

  • Metropolitan Policy Committee (Lane Council of Governments)
    • May 5, 2022 meeting: agenda / packet / video
      • 5. Public Comments
      • 6a. Addendum to MPO Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)
      • 6b. Regional Primary Funding Considerations
      • 6e. MovingAhead Locally Preferred Alternative
      • 6f.2. MTIP Administrative Amendments
    • March 3, 2022 meeting: agenda / packet / video / minutes
      • 5. Public Comments
        • Rob Zako (video @ 11:10) presented a Resolution for a Better Central Lane Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). He listed a number of organizations had already signed the resolution. He said the plan was headed in the right direction, but goals without action were meaningless and the MPC was not seen as a body that had yet discussed how to spend about $1.6 billion in the future. He recognized there were many technical federal requirements that staff was required to work on, but the MPC was a policy, not a technical committee, and its role was to set policy/priorities. He hoped to see a continuation of that work that could not be finished because of the federal deadline, but remained skeptical.
        • Sean VanGordon indicated he had reviewed the resolution and noted that the term “provisional” plan had been used. While the MPC would be working through a number of issues in the future, the RTP was the current plan and not provisional. He said the resolution also raised questions about projects included in the plan and hoped BEST would continue to engage with local jurisdictions when they conducted their project planning work as there were many opportunities to provide input on jurisdictions’ transportation priorities. He gave Springfield’s Main Street project as an example of a current project that would provide those opportunities for public involvement.
        • Lucy Vinis thanked Mr. Zako for his testimony and the many organizations that shared the MPC’s interest in exploring other ways to think about projects and regional planning.
        • Randy Groves also thanked Mr. Zako, BEST and other organizations for their offer of assistance. He agreed with the need to connect goals and objectives with action items and outcomes.
      • 6a. Central Lane Planning Through 2026 (video @ 17:50)
      • 6b. Regional Primary Funding Considerations
    • February 3, 2022 meeting: agenda / packet / video / minutes
      • 5. Public Comments
        • Rob Zako
          • Thanked staff for enabling the public to participate via Zoom video. Announced that the resolution would be delivered in March.
    • January 6, 2022 meeting: agenda / packet / video / minutes
      • 5. Public Comments
        • Sarah Mazze
          • “Said the RTP did not sufficiently advance regional goals related to climate, safety and equity. She urged the MPC to progressively work on an updated plan that could be submitted by the end of the year.”
        • Claire Roth
          • “Highlighted the importance of thinking about current issues as only the precursors of what future generations would face. The RTP should serve the public interest and not be passive or based on antiquated values and assumption. She called on the MPC to adopt a better plan by the end of 2022.”
        • Kaarin Knudson
          • “Stressed the need for better public engagement around development of the RTP. She said the RTP did not accomplish the goals identified by individual communities and broadly as a region regarding safety, traffic congestion, equity, sustainability, economic development or community vitality.”
        • Rob Zako
          • “Adopt the RTP as it satisfied federal requirements;
          • The plan was not fully vetted with respect to how well it served regional interests and some members of the public would consider it a provisional plan and not give it deference;
          • Every Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) amendment that came before the MPC would be scrutinized;
          • BEST and its partners were looking to engage the public regarding which investments did the most to advance shared goals since the MPO had not done so;
          • Direct MPO staff to support the MPC on public input to begin immediately as the plan was not yet fully vetted and complete a revised plan by the end of 2022 at the latest.”
          • Move projects between financially constrained and illustrative lists to better align Central Lane RTP with regional values and priorities (BEST, 12/10/21)
      • 6a. RTP Adoption
    • December 2, 2021 meeting: agenda / packet / video / minutes
      • 6a. RTP Public Hearing
        • Sarah Mazze
          • “Said a massive investment in the bicycle/pedestrian/transit network was needed and asked that those types of projects be given priority in local plans.”
        • Rob Zako
        • Patty Hine
          • “A 180-degree change in direction, with major investments in transit, walking and biking and a complete transition to hydrogen and electric powered vehicles was needed soon.”
    • November 4, 2021 meeting: agenda / packet / video / minutes
      • 6b. RTP Public Hearing
        • Rob Zako
          • Identified 10 initial questions and concerns with the draft RTP, but had not had enough time to review in detail.
        • Terry Parker
          • “Encouraged the MPO to increase its efforts to involve the public in the planning process. With respect to safety, she said the plan could save lives by truly addressing climate change and addressing safety, instead of taking a ‘roads as usual’ approach.”
        • Webb Sussman
          • “Organizations involved in developing the plan needed to rethink their ranking systems going forward. Listing long obsolete projects with longtime horizons seems to lock the plan into obsolescence. He said the outreach efforts for the RTP update process were inadequate.”
        • Sue Wolling
          • “She urged the MPC to closely review the plan and insist on one that looked forward to solving the problems of the future and not try to pave our way out of problems that resulted from the way things had been done in the past.”
    • April 1, 2021 meeting: packet / video / minutes (as part of 5/6/21 packet)
      • 5. Public Comments
        • Rob Zako
        • Claire Roth
        • Kevin Schaper
      • 6a. RTP Performance Measures Update
    • February 4, 2021 meeting: packet / video / minutes (as part of 3/4/21 packet)
      • 5. Public Comments
        • Rob Zako
        • Sarah Mazze
        • Carleen Riley
        • Steve Piercy
      • 6d. Draft RTP Performance Measures
    • December 3, 2020 meeting: packet / video / minutes (as part of 1/7/21 packet)
      • 5. Public Comments
        • Rob Zako
      • 6a. RTP Draft Objectives
    • November 5, 2020 meeting: packet / video / minutes (as part of 12./3/20 packet)
      • 5. Public Comments
        • Rob Zako
      • 6a. RTP Greenhouse Gas Emissions Goal
      • 6b. RTP Draft Goals
    • October 1, 2020 meeting: packet / video / minutes (as part of 11/5/20 packet)
      • 5. Public Comments
        • Matt McRae
        • Claire Roth
        • Kelsey Zlevor
        • Terry Parker
        • Corey Parrish
      • 6c. RTP Draft Goals
    • September 3, 2020 meeting: packet / video / minutes (as part of 10/1/20 packet)
      • 5. Public Comments
        • Bob Cortright
      • 7d. RTP Federal Requirements
      • 7f. Staff Response to Public Comments on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    • July 9, 2020 meeting: packet / video / minutes (as part of 8/6/20 packet)
      • 5. Public Comments
        • Rob Zako
    • June 4, 2020 meeting: packet / video / minutes (as part of 7/9/20 packet)
      • 6b. LCDC Report
    • March 5, 2020 meeting: packet / video / minutes (as part of 4/2/20 packet)
      • 6c. RTP
      • 6d. LCDC Meeting on Statewide Transportation Strategy
    • December 5, 2019 meeting: packet / video / minutes (as part of 2/6/20 packet)
      • 6c. RTP Update
    • November 1, 2018 meeting: packet / video / minutes (as part of 2/7/19 packet)
      • 6a. Performance Based Planning and Programming
    • April 5, 2018 meeting: packet / video / minutes (as part of5/3/18 packet)
      • 6e. Strategic Assessment
    • November 2, 2017 meeting: packet / video / minutes (as part of 1/4/18 packet)
      • 6b. Federal Transportation Performance Measures
    • October 5, 2017 meeting: packet / video / minutes (as part of 11/2/17 packet)
      • 6e. Federal Transportation Performance Measures
  • Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (Lane Council of Governments)
  • Federal Laws and Regulations (Cornell Legal Information Institute)

Google Group

If you would like to get more engaged in efforts around the Central Lane RTP, ask to join BEST’s ad hoc Google Group.