MARC wants to change growth trends

A long-range approach for greener development trends has met with skepticism and challenging questions from Overland Park leaders.

The Mid-America Regional Council, which does planning for the Kansas City metropolitan area, is trying to anticipate how and where growth will occur over the next 30 years so it better can anticipate future transportation system needs.

The agency’s Technical Forecast Committee has identified two paths for that growth. One of them, called the Baseline Scenario, envisions the area basically following past trends in which the vast majority of new development took place on open ground at the fringes of the metropolitan area.

The other possibility, termed the Adaptive Scenario, foresees much more new growth – 40 percent of it – involving redevelopment.

Frank Lenk, director of research services for MARC, met with Overland Park’s City Council, Planning Commission and department heads last week to explain the two scenarios and detail perceived virtues of the adaptive approach.

Among the key advantages he cited were less cost to expand the transportation infrastructure, less gasoline being consumed, and shorter commute times.

The audience proved to be a tough crowd. While city officials did not take issue with the goals of greater environmental sustainability, they questioned the practicality of the adaptive plan.

Overland Park City Manager John Nachbar said it would be unrealistic for his city to steer 40 percent of its new growth over the next three decades into areas already developed.

“You have to think through what it would take to make that happen,” Nachbar said. “Once this was adopted and we are failing, will there be pressure for us as a region to come up with new methods to influence the outcome? It’s not going to happen naturally. It’s going to take a lot of incentives or disincentives.”

It is anticipated that cities might need to adopt policies that would encourage redevelopment while discouraging “greenfield” development, or that which occurs on vacant land.

Lenk said past and current development patterns also are not natural or unsubsidized.

In prior presentations to other cities and civic groups, Lenk said the adaptive scenario has been well-received.

Lenk explained that individual communities already have done a lot of planning aimed at encouraging redevelopment such as that outlined in the adaptive scenario.

Various factors are pushing individuals and communities to gravitate toward that kind of development, Lenk said. Among them are concerns about climate change, the rising cost of fuel and a desire to preserve natural resources.

If the adaptive scenario were followed instead of the baseline model, MARC calculates that much more land would remain vacant. It would mean that from 2000 to 2040, almost 140,000 fewer acres would be developed.

Economic and fiscal constraints, Lenk said, could make it challenging for governments to pay for traffic systems to support continued outward expansion. Between now and 2040, the area would need to spend an estimated $8.7 billion on local infrastructure following the baseline approach. That cost could fall to an estimated $3.4 billion if the adaptive scenario were played out.

Average metrowide weekday trip travel time for both work and personal purposes would be 11.22 minutes under the adaptive plan and 13.66 minutes with the baseline model, MARC estimates.

It also was estimated that Overland Park’s growth in population and jobs created would stay almost the same under either approach.

Still, city officials remained unconvinced of the relative virtues and drawbacks of the two scenarios.

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Write comment