Oregon’s Transportation Planning Rule
MetadataShow full item record
Oregon’s Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012-000, was enacted to support Oregon’s Goal 12 (The Transportation Goal). Goal 12 seeks to “promote the development of safe, convenient and economic transportation systems” designed to reduce reliance on the automobile. The TPR serves to explain how local governments and state agencies are responsible for transportation planning. Section 0060 directs cities and counties to assess whether proposed plan amendments or zone changes will have a significant effect on the transportation system. Over the years, land use professionals, private developers, environmental advocates and other groups have argued that Section 0060 has presented unintended consequences for communities throughout Oregon. In particular, many argued that the most recent iteration of the TPR prohibited compact urban development and limited economic development. In response to the dissatisfaction with the Rule, the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 795, requiring the Land Conservation and Development Commission to adopt revisions to the rule prior to January 1, 2012. This paper explores the implications of the recent modifications of Transportation Planning Rule according to a range of professionals. Part I provides a background on Oregon’s Transportation Goal, Goal 12, and the Transportation Planning Rule. In Part II, I explore concurrency planning. Concurrency planning occurs when public facilities, such as transportation corridors, are required to be in place to serve any new development at the time the development is ready to be occupied. This part briefly describes concurrency planning in Washington and Florida, the only two states with state-mandated concurrency requirements, and then explains Oregon’s “concurrency planning” that occurs through Section 0060 of the TPR. Part III provides the methodology employed in collecting data and analyzing the recent changes. Parts III presents the findings from various professional regarding both of the most recent iteration of the rule and the new changes. The findings are divided to consider the former TPR Section 0060 as well as some of the recent changes. Finally, in Part V, the paper presents my conclusions of the implications of the TPR.