Resolution No. 4780 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chapter 4 of TransPlan contains an analysis of Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel Per Capita on page 7. It provides that "[u]nder the Financially Constrained TransPlan, VMT per capita decreases slightly showing no increase over the 20-year period. The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) seeks no increase in VMT per capita over ten years and a 5 percent reduction over 20 years." It also states "[a]mendments to the TPR require areas not meeting the VMT reduction target to seek approval from the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for the use of alternative measures in demonstrating reduced reliance on the automobile. This process is discussed further in Part Three: TPR Alternate Performance Measures ofthis chapter." Part Three: TPR Alternate Performance Measures of Trans Plan explains: 'lOregon's Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires that TransPlan comply with certain performance measures (either a Vehicle Miles Traveled per capita target or alternative measures). As described in Table 6 (Chapter 4, Page 5), VMT per capita is expected to remain virtually unchanged through 2015 (I-percent decrease). As a result, the region will not meet the reduction in VMT per capita called for in the TPR. The TPR provides that, should a plan not meet the VMT reduction targets, alternative measures can be developed to demonstrate compliance with the TPR. ((*** 'lAlternative Performance Measures were developed to address this requirement. While these measures have been incorporated into Table 6, a more detailed description of the measures and related interim benchmarks are presented in Table 7. These measures were approved by LCDC on May 4th, 2001. More specifically, Table 6 of TransPlan (Summary of Key Performance Measures) shows that VMT per capita is projected to decrease by 1 percent from 1995 levels. TransP1an then discusses the approved alternative VMT standard and addresses the conditions that LCDC attached to the alternative standards' approval. LCDC's Order approving the alternative standard is included in TransP1an's Appendix G. These provisions of TransPlan show that the local governments have an approved alternative standard established pursuant to OAR 660-012-0035(5). Therefore, TransPlan is not required to by OAR 660-012-055(1)(a) to include findings addressing OAR 660-012-0035(5)(c)(D). Further, the TransPlan provisions discussed above show that the adopted alternative VMT standard that is not "expected to result in an increase in VMT per capita." Therefore, TransPlan is not required by the express language. of OAR 660-012-0035(5)(c) to include policies addressing OAR 660-012-0035(5)(c)(D) even if OAR 660-012-0055(1)(a) could be interpreted to require actions addressing OAR 660-012-0035(5)(c). Since TransPlan was not required to (and did not) contain. a policy specifically intended to implement OAR 660-012-0035(5)(c)(D) at the time of the local government actions remanded by LUBA, petitioners subassignment of error 2( d) is without merit, as LUBA suggests. Attachment A to Resolution No. 4786 - 3