Submitted by Eddie DeMott (not verified) on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 12:29pm.
Re: Development /Future Land Use & Transportation
Future Land Use Scenarios – p24.
“All the scenarios consumed between 16% and 45% of the land when compared….”
In this sentence the reference for the percentage rang is unclear. 16-45% of the land in CC? of the land that would have been consumed if traditional trend persists?
Public Survey on Scenarios – p.29.
Third bulleted item re: urban green space – this also relates to health and well being. The effect of the natural environment, in this case pocket parks and the like, on the community aesthetic and the positive effect on mental health.
This comment also relates to the follow-up question and the response on access to green space. Here the green spaces are linked to more overt predictors of health recreational green space to increase opportunities for physical activity; green space designated for community gardens as means of augmenting the local food system.
As planning scenarios develop these are important considerations, especially since the kernel of each was garnered from direct public comment.
p.30
“…the new scenario builds a regional future land use (plan??) on the zoning established in municipals regulations.”
If current zoning is not examined and slated for revision how will the “what ifs” ever make it to the table? Basing the future on current Euclidean zoning standards is really just creating another business as usual scenario. The ECOS project represents an integrated look at planning – this comprehensive perspective is not de rigueur so depending on current zoning regulations to fashion this new vision may be difficult if not impossible.
2035 MTP and Regional Plan – p.31
Suggested addition:
In the first sentence “The 2035 land use scenario was developed…..and its associated impacts on travel, the environment and population health.”
2035 Transportation Scenario Analysis – p.33
Table 12:
#2 – Add “Health” to the Scenario name.
Fantastic that social equity and energy conservation are addressed by the common elements of the scenario. Many of these impact Health as well so it is a natural, concomitant addition.
Pg. 36
Figure 27 – When discussing greenhouse gas emission as a function of increased MT mentioning the link to air quality, respiratory health, increased asthma incidence in higher traffic areas – etc could be appropriate and integrate traditional transport and its association to health.
Somewhere in this section ( any other portion of the report ) inclusion of “Complete Streets” and how this addresses use of the latest design guidelines to balance user needs thus increasing alternate transport options, decreasing VMT, decreasing congestion, potential decrease in air pollutants and the overall impact on population health.
At some point in the report, perhaps at a point when denser development, transit usage, housing stats are being addressed it might be valuable to reference the Housing Needs Assessment p. 53 entitled Location of Homes which discusses the proximity of affordable housing to transit lines and other stats that are relevant to land use and transport planning.
Also, p.55 of the Housing Needs Assessment contains information on affordable housing and its proximity to jobs that should at least be referenced in the Land Use and Transportation Analysis.
What a great comprehensive report! Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
One last sideline – I think all the work groups have similar, overall visions for the county that are expressed in language and concepts specific to their particular topic or discipline. I think it’s essential to link all of the reports either through an executive summary and/or by frequent cross-referencing so that the united vision becomes apparent to anyone reading, but most importantly, to anyone planning to use the document in their town.
Interesting reference:
Many Pathways from Land Use to Health Associations between Neighborhood Walkability and Active Transportation, Body Mass Index, and Air Quality
Lawrence D. Frank, James F. Sallis, Terry L. Conway, James E. Chapman,
Brian E. Saelens, and William Bachman
Journal of the American Planning Association
Volume 72, Issue 1, 2006
Re: Development /Future Land
Re: Development /Future Land Use & Transportation
Future Land Use Scenarios – p24.
“All the scenarios consumed between 16% and 45% of the land when compared….”
In this sentence the reference for the percentage rang is unclear. 16-45% of the land in CC? of the land that would have been consumed if traditional trend persists?
Public Survey on Scenarios – p.29.
Third bulleted item re: urban green space – this also relates to health and well being. The effect of the natural environment, in this case pocket parks and the like, on the community aesthetic and the positive effect on mental health.
This comment also relates to the follow-up question and the response on access to green space. Here the green spaces are linked to more overt predictors of health recreational green space to increase opportunities for physical activity; green space designated for community gardens as means of augmenting the local food system.
As planning scenarios develop these are important considerations, especially since the kernel of each was garnered from direct public comment.
p.30
“…the new scenario builds a regional future land use (plan??) on the zoning established in municipals regulations.”
If current zoning is not examined and slated for revision how will the “what ifs” ever make it to the table? Basing the future on current Euclidean zoning standards is really just creating another business as usual scenario. The ECOS project represents an integrated look at planning – this comprehensive perspective is not de rigueur so depending on current zoning regulations to fashion this new vision may be difficult if not impossible.
2035 MTP and Regional Plan – p.31
Suggested addition:
In the first sentence “The 2035 land use scenario was developed…..and its associated impacts on travel, the environment and population health.”
2035 Transportation Scenario Analysis – p.33
Table 12:
#2 – Add “Health” to the Scenario name.
Fantastic that social equity and energy conservation are addressed by the common elements of the scenario. Many of these impact Health as well so it is a natural, concomitant addition.
Pg. 36
Figure 27 – When discussing greenhouse gas emission as a function of increased MT mentioning the link to air quality, respiratory health, increased asthma incidence in higher traffic areas – etc could be appropriate and integrate traditional transport and its association to health.
Somewhere in this section ( any other portion of the report ) inclusion of “Complete Streets” and how this addresses use of the latest design guidelines to balance user needs thus increasing alternate transport options, decreasing VMT, decreasing congestion, potential decrease in air pollutants and the overall impact on population health.
At some point in the report, perhaps at a point when denser development, transit usage, housing stats are being addressed it might be valuable to reference the Housing Needs Assessment p. 53 entitled Location of Homes which discusses the proximity of affordable housing to transit lines and other stats that are relevant to land use and transport planning.
Also, p.55 of the Housing Needs Assessment contains information on affordable housing and its proximity to jobs that should at least be referenced in the Land Use and Transportation Analysis.
What a great comprehensive report! Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
One last sideline – I think all the work groups have similar, overall visions for the county that are expressed in language and concepts specific to their particular topic or discipline. I think it’s essential to link all of the reports either through an executive summary and/or by frequent cross-referencing so that the united vision becomes apparent to anyone reading, but most importantly, to anyone planning to use the document in their town.
Interesting reference:
Many Pathways from Land Use to Health Associations between Neighborhood Walkability and Active Transportation, Body Mass Index, and Air Quality
Lawrence D. Frank, James F. Sallis, Terry L. Conway, James E. Chapman,
Brian E. Saelens, and William Bachman
Journal of the American Planning Association
Volume 72, Issue 1, 2006