• Better define the "cost-effectiveness" calculation (what does the number represent? i.e. savings from reduction of CO2 per ton less the cost of implementation? Does the timeframe of RoI matter?)
• Though not a legislative requirement, it might be good to identify when "GHG mitigation potential" might be reached (e.g. 5 years, 20 years, or 50 years after implementation)
• There are lifecycle considerations with the category "GHG mitigation potential." While supporting documents will likely lay out citations for figures included in the toolbox, there is potential that these get disconnected. The range of expected reductions will change for some strategies overtime as we learn more. There needs to be a mechanism in the toolbox or an explicit procedure for periodic review. Perhaps the database could include citations and the procedure point to wholesale review and update every five years.
• Consider revising the category on "co-benefits achieved by implementation of strategy" to something like "implementation considerations." Then you could add high-level information on the appropriateness of an action or program (e.g. this strategy is typically deployed for high-volume facilities. Research suggests it is most effective on facilities with an ADT of 15,000). In addition, that could help to flow into some of the bundles/synergistic strategies (e.g. this strategy is often paired with transit strategies to have optimal effects, or to help mitigate EJ considerations). Then keep the high-level list of co-benefits. Note: there is a happy medium in the amount and detail of information provided. Later iterations of the toolkit database can include these elements, but for now we need to consider which elements are essential in helping regions and locals consider strategies - this goes to a comment made about 'we know these strategies exist, they are not new, but we need more information.' Many bundles will depend on the specific community and only modeling can best determine which combination would be most effective, but hopefully we can find a good balance here by staying at the 10,000ft level.
• For the category "has this strategy been implemented before in Oregon," there are some lifecycle considerations. The answer is likely to change through time. Someone would need to gather this information continually or a mechanism for collecting this information would need to be created. Without either, this category will quickly become outdated and play against the credibility of the toolbox.

1. If you choose the “build your own” option you can choose as many tools as you need/want and the database tells you what the effectiveness of each of those actions are (this allows me to cater the actions to my local area);
2. However if I want something that’s proven effective elsewhere I would choose a “Combo” of pre-determined tools; lets say the database identified 5 “combos or bundles” proven by literature and case studies to be the best at reducing GHGs.

• Assessment of Current Situation- In the procedures manual encourage practitioners to reflect on the actions/programs they are already using.   Are they working the way they envisioned?  Why or why not?   Could planning for GHG reduction provide them with an opportunity to correct course or implement supporting policies that could  get them the results they want?

• International Examples- Is there anything to be gleaned from international sources?   While I know there are not necessarily the same governance/social constructs internationally, there may be things to learn.   This effort is inherently going to make us stretch our thinking.  Given this, it seems like the perfect time to look far and wide for ideas.

• Repetitiveness- Some actions/programs are duplicated within different categories.  Is this intentional?   If so, I suggest taking a more comprehensive look to make sure everything is cross referenced consistently and in a way that doesn’t unintentionally over or under emphasize one action/program over another.

• Regulatory– The majority  of the actions/programs in the toolbox are “regulatory”.  It seems odd to have a stand-alone category for this.  If it remains, then it needs to include a lot of cross-references to other actions/programs listed in other categories.

• Land Use and Smart Growth- In the “Land Use and Smart Growth” category there needs to be more detail included with the “Prioritize funding to support infill development” action.   This could include, but not necessarily be limited to, strategic public investment in streetscaping, walking, cycling, and transit infrastructure,  tax abatement, developer subsidies, etc.  

• Non-motorized Transportation- In the “Non-motorized Transportation” category there are many more actions like traffic calming, reducing crossing distances, increasing the number of crossings, etc. that should be included.   I would suggest expanding the description of a buffered sidewalk to include having a landscaped buffer between motorized traffic and pedestrians.  There needs to be a mention about constructing off-street facilities, like trails, to encourage bicycling and walking.  Perhaps more detail under the “construct new or connect existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities” would be sufficient.

• Public Transportation-  In the “Public Transportation” category three more actions need to be added.   1) transit priority treatments – meaning anything from exclusive ROW for transit vehicles, to queue jumps, to signal priority.   2) encourage more development near existinghigh frequency transit lines.   This is important because it goes beyond the traditional TOD station area model and expands it to all frequent service modes, including bus.  3)  Invest in high quality pedestrian and bike infrastructure that provides access to transit stops.  

• Dependencies & Tradeoffs- Many of the actions/policies are interlinked with one another.  These linkages need to be explicit.  The beauty of a database is that it allows for these linkages to be made relatively easily. 

• Motor Vehicle Congestion -  In particular, when discussing tradeoffs, there needs to be a discussion in the procedures manual about motor vehicle congestion – when is it ok?   For example, if the actions someone wants to take are to reduce traffic speeds and create complete streets and this results in a bottleneck, will you also suggest trying to mitigate for this, or do the actions run contrary to one another?   At the very least make these kinds of tradeoffs and choices transparent.  

• Increasing Frequency of Transit Service -  A prime example of where dependencies need to be brought to light is with the “increase frequency of transit service” action.   It’s imperative that people understand that it depends on a number of actions/policies listed in other categories, including parking pricing and supply, everything in the land use and smart growth section, a variety of TDM actions/policies , and complete streets to make this “increase in transit frequency” action fruitful and cost-effective.  Without these dependant actions, particularly in areas with already low ridership, the ridership will only marginally increase as transit frequency increases.    The degree to which benefits result from “increasing transit frequency” will be almost entirely dependent on other actions/programs.

• Fare Reduction Strategies– Likewise, another example where tradeoffs need to be highlighted is when someone considers using the “increase transit frequency”  and “decrease fares” actions in tandem.  Trying to induce transit ridership through lowering fares limits the financial resources available to an agency to increase service frequency, which will be needed to serve the induced demand the lower fares are intended to generate.

• Co-benefits & Resiliency- Acknowledge that some strategies have more co-benefits than others.  In addition to the cost-effectiveness, GHG reduction and other things that will eventually be listed in the database, it will be important to list the anticipated co-benefits  associated with actions/programs (e.g. people getting more recommended daily exercise, households not needing to spend as much on transportation, etc.).  Some actions/programs fare much better than others when you consider co-benefits.  Likewise, consider resiliency.   For example, if we accidently got the future fuel prices or fleet turn over forecasts wrong, will the action/program still have an effect on reducing GHGs?  If so, how strong?  And if not, will it help realize other community goals?

• Additional Lit Review Sources

• Oregon Global Warming Commission Roadmap 2020 Report (Transportation and Land Use chapter): http://www.keeporegoncool.org/sites/default/files/Integrated_OGWC_Interim_Roadmap_to_2020_Oct29_11-19Additions.pdf

• Growing Wealthier (for evaluating cost-effectiveness of smart growth strategies):

• A slightly longer description than is given in the current document (i.e. three or four sentences instead of one).
• Factors that indicate an action is more likely to be successful (i.e. for expanded transit, high densities and anchors at strong employment centers improve ridership)
• Factors that indicate an action is less likely to be successful (i.e. HOT lanes offer fewer operational benefits on highways where most trips are short and interchanges are closely spaced)
• Relational links to actions/programs that complement each other (i.e. travel options marketing and parking pricing)
• Relational links to actions/programs that contraindicate each other (i.e. road capacity increases and certain kinds of bike/ped facilities that result in greater mixing of modes)
• Possibly links to a best practices document or other piece of existing literature with a more in-depth description of the action/program and where/how to implement it

• Actions/programs of interest that complement each other
• Any contraindications among the actions/programs of interest
• Other actions/programs their jurisdiction should consider based on complementary relationships with the actions/programs they're interested in or on situational factors
• Maybe a tally of actions/programs of interest by category, so the user can see if they're omitting or over-emphasizing a certain category of actions/programs.

• Urban Land Institute Report: "Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change" (2007)
• Victoria Transport Policy Institute paper: "Win-Win Emission Reduction Strategies" (January 17, 2007)
• McKinsey & Company report: "Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?" (December 2007)
• McKinsey & Company: "Roads toward a low-carbon future: Reducing CO2 emissions from passenger vehicles in the global road transportation system" (March 2009)
• Center for Clean Air Policy, "Cost-Effective GHG Reduction through Smart Growth & Improved Transportation Choices" (June 2009)
• National Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies: "Confronting Climate Change: An early analysis of water and wastewater adaptation costs" (2009) - this might be a better resource for LCP
• Center for Clean Air Policy, Book "Growing Wealthier: Smart Growth, Climate Change and Prosperity" (November 2010)

• Oregon Governor's Advisory Group on Global Warming, "Oregon Strategy for Greenhouse Gas Reductions" (December 2004)
• Oregon Governor Kulongoski's Climate Change Integration Group, "Final Report to Governor: A Framework for Addressing Rapid Climate Change" (January 2008)

• At the risk of repeating myself:  how does this relate to existing or available programs in Oregon?  I understand that we want to encourage local government to create their own programs or actions for each tool, at the same time, there are resources in Oregon that many of them might want to know about.
• Along the same lines, I think examples for each of the tools would make them easier to digest.  This might not be needed for the MPO planners, but it would for public education.  Perhaps some of the Oregon examples from Cool Planning could be used. 
• There was a suggestion during the webinar by Jessica by TriMet to identify which tools conflict or work against each other, and which ones have synergistic effects.  On its face, it seems like a relatively easy thing to do.  But when I started to think about all the tools and how they would apply to potential transportation projects on the ground, the issue of conflict or synergy seems to be project-specific or area-specific.   For example, fright movement in one corridor is not necessarily conflicting to pedestrian travel if it goes through an industrial-zoned area, but it would if it went through a residential-zoned area.  It seems like a lot of assumptions would have to be made to identify conflicts and synergies.  Perhaps this problem could be overcome with case studies.  

• In the first box, add a new bullet that is something like:  "Change in the location of certain land use types and densities."  The concept is to reinforce that density alone in not enough, the density and the mix of uses  have to be in the right places, and that might require shifting densities and uses around, as well as increasing them.
• The second box is fine, but may be too limited. It seems directed at the outflow of money, but I am not sure it includes other incentives related to money, such as waiving or reducing fees for infill development or other desired development.
• 4th box: I recommend adding corridors and main streets to TODs.
• 5th box:  I recommend adding "and transportation" after "land use" and before "strategies."

Growing Wealthier: Smart Growth, Climate Change and Prosperity 
Capitol Hill briefing hosted by the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP)
Wednesday January 19^th: 3:30 - 5:00pm
 
You are invited to a public briefing at which Chuck Kooshian and Steve Winkelman will discuss how application of smart growth principles can help communities, businesses and individuals make money, save money and improve quality of life. Christopher Leinberger will provide private developer insights. Coffee and cookies will be served.
Free copies of Growing Wealthier will be available.
 
 
Click here to: RSVP for the Jan 19th Hill briefing 
 
Visit us at www.growingwealthier.info to purchase a high-resolution bound copy, and complete your wardrobe with a Growing Wealthier tie!  On January 19^th you can download a free copy of the report.
 
Location: Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Hearing Room
406 Dirksen Senate Office Building, 1^st Street NE and Constitution Ave NE, Washington DC (Metro: Union Station)
 
We will also hold a webinar on Thursday January 20^th 1:30 - 3:00pm (EST). Click here to register for the 1/20 webinar.                          
 
Some advanced praise for Growing Wealthier:
 
“Growing Wealthier cuts to the chase by defining the benefits of smart growth in dollars and cents.  This is long overdue and provides the framework for problem solving in a language everyone understands.”
      - John Inglish, CEO Utah Transit Authority  
 
“CCAP is a strong, credible, influential voice on issues of transportation and climate change. This is another must-read report.”
      - Dan Sperling, Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis
 
“Growing Wealthier will help equip communities to thrive in the emerging real estate market demanded by the knowledge economy.”
      - Christopher B. Leinberger, real estate developer, author of The Option of Urbanism