HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 03 Springfield Transportation System Plan Update - Updated Draft Policies Review AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 4/22/2013
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: David Reesor
Staff Phone No: 726-4585
Estimated Time: 30 minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Maintain and Improve
Infrastructure and
Facilities
ITEM TITLE: SPRINGFIELD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE – UPDATED
DRAFT POLICIES REVIEW – P41014
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Provide input to Staff on revisions to the draft policies and action items.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The Transportation System Plan (TSP) update will address long-range (20-year)
transportation needs for the City of Springfield in part by implementing goals,
policies and action items. As such, the focus of this work session will be on the
most recent updated version of these goals, policies and action items. This updated
version addresses comments and suggested edits received to-date. Of specific focus
are the newly updated transit policies and multimodal level of service policies.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft TSP Goals, Policies and Action Items in “track changes”
2. Outline of process for updating TSP goals, policies & action items
3. Project Schedule
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The Transportation System Plan (TSP) update is intended to serve as a blueprint to
guide future multi-modal transportation system improvements and investment
decisions for the City of Springfield. Goals, policies and action items help provide
guidance to decisions made in the Plan.
The draft goals, policies and action items in the draft TSP update have gone through
an extensive planning process, resulting in the attached edited document
(Attachment 1). Existing goals, objectives and policies found in TransPlan were
used as a basis to begin the update. Staff also used Council and Planning
Commission input from previous work sessions, as well as input from the
Stakeholder Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, Project Core
Team and the public to develop draft goals, policies and action items. As shown in
the attached process outline (Attachment 2), several revisions of the draft goals,
policies and action items have taken place over time. All input received to-date was
considered in developing the attached draft. Of specific focus for this work session
are the newly updated transit policies and multimodal level of service policies. A
brief explanation of where each proposed edit and/or addition came from and the
potential impact of these edits and/or additions are included in Attachment 1.
Staff will review highlights of the attached documents, and seek Council input and
potential revisions to the draft policies and action items. The goal of this work
session is to finalize the draft goals, policies and action items prior to the final
review of the draft Plan later this calendar year. Attachment 3 includes an updated
project schedule for reference.
1
Draft TSP Goals & Policies
Springfield’s Transportation System Vision
Create and maintain a safe, efficient and cost-effective multi-modal
transportation system
TSP Goals & Policies
o Goal 1: Community Development:
Provide an efficient, sustainable, diverse and environmentally sound transportation
system that supports and enhances Springfield’s economy and land use patterns.
o Policy 1.1: Manage Springfield’s street, bike, pedestrian, rail and transit
system to facilitate economic growth of existing and future businesses in
Springfield.
Action: When evaluating needed roadway improvements,
consider the economic viability of existing commercial and
industrial areas. (COMMENT: This action was added based on
public input. This addition was reviewed and tentatively agreed
upon by the Project Core Team; Planning Commission during the
5/1/12 work session, and; Council during the 11/13/12 work
session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: This action item provides
additional support for economic considerations).
o Policy 1.2: Consider environmental impacts of the overall transportation
system and strive to mitigate negative effects and enhance positive
features.
Action: Strive to reduce vehicle-related greenhouse gas emissions
and congestion through more sustainable street, bike, pedestrian,
transit and rail network design, location and management.
(COMMENT: This edit was added based on Project Core Team
input. It was reviewed and tentatively agreed upon by: Planning
Commission during the 5/1/12 work session and Council during the
11/13/12 work session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: This edit
provides a better clarification of nexus between congestion and
greenhouse gas emissions).
Action: Coordinate street the transportation network with new
alternative energy Infrastructure such as electric vehicle charging
stations, natural gas and hydrogen cell fueling stations. .
(COMMENT: These edits were added based on Core Team input. It
was reviewed and tentatively agreed upon by: Planning
Commission during the 5/1/12 work session and Council during the
11/13/12 work session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: These edits note
the importance of coordinating the entire transportation network
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 14
2
rather than just “streets” and provides additional examples of
alternative energy infrastructure).
o Policy 1.3: Provide a multi-modal transportation system that support mixed
use areas, major employment centers, recreation, commercial, residential
and public developments, to reduce reliance on single-occupancy
vehicles.
o Policy 1.4: Strive to increase the percentage of bicycle and pedestrian
system users by planning, designing and managing systems to support the
needs of diverse populations and types of users, including meeting
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) needs. (COMMENT: This edit was
added based on Planning Commission input at the 5/1/12 work session. It
was reviewed and tentatively agreed upon by Council during the
11/13/12 work session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: This edit clarifies and
emphasizes the importance of meeting ADA needs).
Action: Create a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes and
way-finding signage that guides users to destination points.
o Goal 2: System Management:
Preserve, maintain and enhance Springfield’s transportation system through safe,
efficient and cost-effective transportation system operations and maintenance
techniques for all modes.
o Policy 2.1: Manage the roadway system to preserve safety, longevity and
operational efficiency
Action: Evaluate, update and implement access management
regulations to roadways for new or modified access to the
roadway system.
Action: Monitor and adjust signal timing along key corridors as
needed to improve traffic flow and safety and reduce
congestion.(COMMENT: This edit was based on Project Core Team
input. It was reviewed and tentatively agreed upon by Planning
Commission during the 5/1/12 work session and Council during the
11/13/12 work session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: Clarifies action
item, as “reduce congestion” is somewhat redundant with “traffic
flow”).
Action: Evaluate and adjust traffic control systems to optimize
bicycle travel along strategic bicycle routes.
Action: Use motor vehicle level of service standards to evaluate
acceptable and reliable performance on the roadway system.
(COMMENT: This edit was based on Project Core Team input. It was
reviewed and tentatively agreed upon by Planning Commission
during the 5/1/12 work session and Council during the 11/13/12
work session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: The deleted action item
was a placeholder for a more expanded Level of Service (LOS)
policy. The expanded version of this is listed as Policy 2.8 below.
The impact of that expanded policy is also listed below.)
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 14
3
Action: Coordinate with LTD Lane Transit District and Oregon
Department of Transportation to provide auto, pedestrian and
bicycle connections to the transit network. (COMMENT: This edit
was based on Project Core Team input. It was reviewed and
tentatively agreed upon by Planning Commission during the
5/1/12 work session and Council during the 11/13/12 work session.
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF ADDITION/ EDIT: Clarifies acronym and adds
“ODOT” to coordination efforts.)
o Policy 2.2: Manage traffic operation systems for efficient freight/goods
movement along designated freight, truck and rail routes in Springfield.
Action: Adjust traffic control systems to discourage through truck
traffic through sensitive residential areason residential streets.1
(COMMENT: Removing the word “sensitive” was based on Project
Core Team input. Adding clarification / definition to “residential
streets” was based on Planning Commission and Council
feedback. It was reviewed and tentatively agreed upon by
Planning Commission during the 5/1/12 work session and Council
during the 11/13/12 work session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT:
Clarifies action item, as “sensitive” is very subjective, and
“residential streets” is now defined in footnote).
Action: Coordinate with rail provider to improve at-grade rail
crossing treatments to improve traffic flow and manage conflict
points; create grade separated rail crossings when possible
o Policy 2.3: Expand existing TDM programs related to carpooling, alternate
work schedules, walking, bicycling and transit use in order to reduce
peak hour congestion and reliance on single-occupancy vehicles.
Action: Coordinate with adopted strategies in the Regional
Transportation Options Plan (RTOP) to increase opportunities for
transportation options in Springfield. (COMMENT: This edit was
based on Lane Transit District input after the 11/13/12 Council work
session. This is a new addition since the last draft and should
specifically be reviewed and commented on by Council during
this 4/22/13 work session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: The RTOP has
been an ongoing regional planning effort by the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) partner agencies. The addition of this
action item will help with regional coordination between MPO
partner agencies and assist in implementing RTOP strategies. The
RTOP has not yet been adopted, and is still in draft format. City of
Springfield MPO representatives will have an opportunity to
provide direct input on the RTOP draft and participate in the future
adoption of that Plan).
o Policy 2.4: Maintain and preserve safe and efficient bike and pedestrian
system in Springfield.
1 “Residential Streets” are commonly defined as those with a street classification of “Local” passing through a residentially zoned
area. (COMMENT: See comment above (Action #1 under Policy 2.2)
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 14
4
Action: Coordinate with Willamalane to maintain and preserve the
off-street path system.
Action: Prioritize lighting in strategic areas with high pedestrian and
bicycle traffic.
o Policy 2.5: Coordinate with LTD to increase the transit system’s accessibility
and convenience for all users, including the transportation disadvantaged
population.
Action: When possible, manage traffic control systems to reduce
travel time for transit and other High Occupancy Vehicles (HOVs)
along key corridors.
Action: Monitor and adjust bus stop locations as needed to
support surrounding land uses and provide more efficient and safe
service.
Action: Coordinate with LTD to reflect LTD’s long range plans into
Springfield’s transportation system.
o Policy 2.6: Manage the on-street parking system to preserve adequate
capacity and turnover for surrounding land uses., while also assuring major
activity centers meet their parking demand through a combination of
shared, leased, and new off-street parking facilities and TDM programs.
(COMMENT: This edit was based on Project Core Team input. The Core
Team had suggested separating out the “on street parking” policy and
“off street parking” policy into two separate policies. It was reviewed and
tentatively agreed upon by Planning Commission during the 5/1/12 work
session and Council during the 11/13/12 work session. POTENTIAL IMPACT
OF EDIT: separating the two components helps distinguish differences
between on-street parking and off-street parking.
Action: Implement Springfield’s adopted July 2010 Downtown
Parking Management Plan.
Action: Develop a maximum parking requirement based on land
uses. The purpose of this action is to avoid the unnecessary use of
lands for off-street parking for new developments. (COMMENT: This
edit was based on Project Core Team and specific Council input.
This action item was deleted from this revised “on-street” policy,
reworded, and placed beneath Policy 2.7 below. This edit was
reviewed and tentatively agreed upon by Planning Commission
during the 5/1/12 work session and Council during the 11/13/12
work session. During the 11/13/12 Council work session, Council
also requested staff to relook at this action item, and to try not to
limit parking options. Council requested that the revised language
allow some flexibility. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: The proposed
rewording and partial deleting of some text from this action item
allows for more parking flexibility (deleted the phrase “maximum
parking requirement”) while still preserving the desire to update
parking requirements and refine based off of land uses).
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 14
5
Policy 2.7: Manage the off-street parking system to assure major
activity centers meet their parking demand through a
combination of shared, leased, and new off-street parking facilities
and TDM programs. (COMMENT: Similar to the comment above,
this edit was part of separating the “on-street” policy and the “off-
street” policy. This edit was based on Project Core Team and
specific Council input. This edit was reviewed and tentatively
agreed upon by Planning Commission during the 5/1/12 work
session and Council during the 11/13/12 work session. POTENTIAL
IMPACT OF EDIT: Separating the two components helps distinguish
differences between on-street parking and off-street parking).
Action: Modify parking requirements to assure that they are
appropriate for land uses. The purpose of this action is to reduce
parking requirements to utilize land for economic development.
(COMMENT: Similar to the comment above under Action #2, Policy
2.6, this edit was part of separating the “on-street” policy and the
“off-street” policy set. This edit was based on Project Core Team
and specific Council input. This edit was reviewed and tentatively
agreed upon by Planning Commission during the 5/1/12 work
session and Council during the 11/13/12 work session. POTENTIAL
IMPACT OF EDIT: Separating the two components helps distinguish
differences between on-street parking and off-street parking).
o Policy 2.7: Maximize the use and utility of existing infrastructure through
efficient management of traffic control devises.
o Policy 2.8: Use motor vehicle level of service (LOS) standards to evaluate
for acceptable and reliable performance on the roadway system. These
standards shall be used for:
Identifying capacity deficiencies on the roadway system.
Evaluating the impacts on roadways of amendments to
transportation plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans and
land-use regulations, pursuant to the TPR (OAR 660-12-0060).
Evaluating development applications for consistency with the
land-use regulations of the applicable local government
jurisdiction.
Under peak hour traffic conditions, acceptable and reliable performance
is defined as level of Service D.
Performance standards from the Oregon Highway Plan shall be applied
on state facilities in the Springfield metropolitan area.
In some cases, the level of service on a facility may be or may become
substandard. The local government jurisdiction may find that
transportation system improvements to bring performance up to standard
within the planning horizon may not be feasible, and safety will not be
compromised, and broader community goals would be better served by
allowing a substandard level of service. The limitation on the feasibility of a
transportation system improvement may arise from severe constraints
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 14
6
including but not limited to environmental conditions, lack of public
agency financial resources, or land use constraint factors. It is not the
intent of this policy to require deferral of development in such cases. The
intent is to defer motor vehicle capacity increasing transportation system
improvements until existing constraints can be overcome or develop an
alternative mix of strategies (such as: land use measures, TDM, short-term
safety improvements, private financing) to address the problem.
(COMMENT: This policy addition is related to the multi-modal policy listed
below in Policy 2.9. This policy (2.8) is almost verbatim from TransPlan TSI
Roadway Policy #2, regarding Level of Service (LOS). There are a few
minor edits in this from TransPlan TSI Roadway Policy #2 related to the
Eugene portion of the policy. This edit was based on Project Core Team
input. Staff have worked on several iterations of this and policy 2.9 below
with the Core Team between the 11/13/12 work session this current
4/22/13 work session. This is a new addition since the last draft and should
specifically be reviewed and commented on by Council during this
4/22/13 work session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: The specific vehicular
LOS policy is important to carry over from TransPlan until Policy 2.9 (below)
and its supporting action items can be implemented).
o Policy 2.9: The City of Springfield values a safe and efficient travel
experience for bicycle, pedestrian, transit, freight and auto travel. It is the
intent of the City to balance the needs of these modes through creation
of a multimodal LOS methodology for all modes and to facilitate and
encourage intermodal connections where most appropriate. Multimodal
LOS shall be generally defined as:
• Transit – The transit LOS is based on a combination of the
access, waiting , and ride experience, travel time,
frequency, safety and reliability
• Bicycle – The bicycle LOS is a combination of the bicyclists’
experiences at intersections and on street segments in
between the intersections. Safety is also a consideration.
• Pedestrian - The pedestrian LOS is based on a combination
of pedestrian experience on street segments & pedestrian
connections, density of land use and other factors
including efficiency, safety and pedestrian comfort level.
• Auto– The auto LOS is based on a combination of travel
time, delay, stops, safety and queues.
• Freight – The freight LOS is based on a combination of
travel time, delay, stops, safety and queues.
• Intermodal – The intermodal LOS is based on an evaluation
of the frequency and convenience of connections
between different travel modes.
(COMMENT: This policy addition is based off of extensive Project
Core Team input. The previous policy set draft that went before
Council on 11/13/12 had a placeholder for this policy to allow for
additional time to create this current draft. This is a new addition
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 14
7
since the last draft and should specifically be reviewed and
commented on by Council during this 4/22/13 work session. As
noted in the draft policy, the intent of creating a multimodal LOS
policy, and eventually a multimodal methodology is to balance
the needs of all modes in the transportation system. LOS provides a
way of measuring and evaluating the needs of the transportation
system. Historically, vehicular LOS has been the only LOS standard
measured in Springfield. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: The
multimodal LOS policy is important to consider balance the needs
of transportation modes in addition to vehicular needs. Such
ratings systems can be used to identify problems, establish
performance indicators and targets, evaluate potential solutions,
compare locations, and track trends between a variety of
transportation modes. Eventual implementation of this policy and
its supporting action items may create more flexibility for the City
when exacting for projects, by allowing a variety of system
improvements to occur rather than just focus on the vehicular
system. This is especially useful in potentially congested, higher
density, active areas such as Glenwood, downtown and
Gateway).
Action: Develop and adopt a multimodal LOS methodology
based on stakeholder input and considerations for land use
decisions. The pre-existing motor vehicle LOS standard adopted in
TransPlan (Policy 2.8 in this Plan) will apply until the new standard is
adopted and in areas where the evaluation of a multimodal LOS is
not necessary. (COMMENT: This Action item is based off of
extensive Project Core Team input. It is important to note that
development of a multimodal LOS methodology will have
extensive public input and Council review prior to adoption. This
action item is a new addition since the last draft and should
specifically be reviewed and commented on by Council during
this 4/22/13 work session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: This Action
item is written to provide implementation guidance to draft Policy
2.8 and 2.9. It provides a transition between the previous TransPlan
LOS policy implementation (policy 2.8 in this Plan) and the
eventual implementation of a new multimodal LOS methodology).
Action: Once developed, multimodal LOS methodology will apply
to Gateway, Glenwood and Downtown and may apply to other
specific geographic areas in the future subject to City Council
review and approval. The intent of this action is to encourage
diverse development types such as more mixed-use development
and higher densities in these high-priority economic growth areas
of Springfield and to provide a balanced approach of measuring
LOS beyond that of just motor vehicles. (COMMENT: This action
item is based off of extensive Project Core Team input. It clarifies
the geographic extent and intent of the multimodal LOS
methodology. This action item is a new addition since the last
draft and should specifically be reviewed and commented on by
Council during this 4/22/13 work session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF
EDIT: This action item is written to provide implementation
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 14
8
guidance to draft Policy 2.8 and 2.9. It will limit the initial extent of
the new multimodal LOS methodology to three specific
geographic areas in Springfield. These areas were identified by the
Project Core Team as having the most potential benefit from
implementing this multimodal LOS methodology).
Action 3: Develop a process to allow for alternative means of
meeting LOS standards as part of public project development,
and the land use decision making process. (COMMENT: This action
item is based off of extensive Project Core Team input. It allows
potential flexibility through the land use decision making process
beyond a future adopted multimodal LOS methodology. This
action item is a new addition since the last draft and should
specifically be reviewed and commented on by Council during
this 4/22/13 work session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: This action
item is written to provide greater flexibility of the new multimodal
LOS methodology.
o Goal 3: System Design:
Enhance and expand Springfield’s transportation system design to provide a complete
range of transportation mode choices.
o Policy 3.1: Implement planned vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle and transit
routes consistent with Springfield’s LocalAdopt and maintain a
Conceptual Street Map. (COMMENT: This edit was based on Project Core
Team and public input. It was reviewed and tentatively agreed upon by
Planning Commission during the 5/1/12 work session and Council during
the 11/13/12 work session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: Clarifies that the
Conceptual Street Map will be adopted and maintained. This provides
more clarity to the City, developers and others who use on the
Conceptual Street Map).
Action: Update and maintain Springfield’s Localthe Conceptual
Street Map to address transportation system deficiencies, goals
and policies. The Local Conceptual Street Map should provide
flexibility in connecting destination points, while also providing
assurance to adjacent property owners to the degree possible.
(COMMENT: This edit was based on Project Core Team and public
input. It was reviewed and tentatively agreed upon by Planning
Commission during the 5/1/12 work session and Council during the
work session 11/13/12. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: Provides minor
grammatical clarifications to the previous draft).
o Action: The Conceptual Street Map will indicate the approximate location
of planned “local” classified streets on the adopted map. These “local”
streets are not intended to be adopted on the map. Rather, they are
shown as reference. Streets classified as collectors and arterials will be
adopted on the map and are considered part of the TSP. (COMMENT: This
edit was based on Project Core Team and public input. It was reviewed
and tentatively agreed upon by Planning Commission during the 5/1/12
work session and Council during the 11/13/12 work session. POTENTIAL
IMPACT OF EDIT: Clarifies what will be on the Conceptual Street Map. This
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 14
9
provides more clarity to the City, developers and others who use the
Conceptual Street Map).
Action: Ensure that land use decisions conform to the Local
Conceptual Street Map. (COMMENT: This edit was a minor
clarifying edit. It was reviewed and tentatively agreed upon by
Planning Commission during the 5/1/12 work session and Council
during the work session 11/13/12. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT:
Clarifies title of the Conceptual Street Map).
Action: Develop a Pedestrian and Bike Master Plan that
incorporates Springfield’s complete street network to address
significant gaps and system deficiencies.
o Policy 3.2: Expand and enhance Springfield’s bikeway system and provide
bicycle system support facilities for both new development and
redevelopment/expansion.
Action: Require bike lanes and / or adjacent paths along new and
reconstructed arterial and major collector streets.
Action: Provide bike lanes on collector and arterial streets; provide
parallel routes and bike boulevards on adjacent streets where
appropriate.. (COMMENT: This is a minor clarifying edit suggested
by the Council during the 11/13/12 work session. POTENTIAL
IMPACT OF EDIT: Allows flexibility and discretion when evaluating
these needed facilities).
Action: Create frequent bike and pedestrian crossings on wide or
high speed streets using approved design techniques.
Action: Require bike lanes and paths to connect new
development with nearby neighborhood activity centers and
major destinations. Connectivity should include connecting bike
facilities to each other as well as to major destinations. (COMMENT:
This is a minor clarifying edit suggested by the Council during the
11/13/12 work session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: Emphasizes the
importance of connectivity when evaluating these needed
facilities).
Action: Install shared-roadway facilities, markings and/or signage
for bicyclists along roadways with slow vehicular traffic. On-street
pavement markings and traffic calming measures should be
considered along such routes.
Action: Create city-wide bike parking stations in strategic locations
such as along major transit routes and in Springfield’s central
business district.
o Policy 3.3: Street design standards should be flexible and allow
appropriate sized local, collector and arterials streets based upon traffic
flow, geography, efficient land use, social, economic and environmental
impacts
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 14
10
Action: Conduct a comprehensive review and update of
Springfield street standards and development code to address
transportation system deficiencies, goals and policies.
Action: Consider effects of storm water runoff in street design and
reduce runoff through environmentally sensitive street designs for
new and reconstructed streets.
Action: Incorporate traffic calming measures into street designs
and standards where appropriate and with consideration to
needs of emergency services vehicles. Traffic calming measures
should reduce vehicular speeds and bypass traffic while
encouraging safe bicycle and pedestrian travel.
Action: Integrate pedestrian amenities into street designs that
create pedestrian refuges and allow safe and continuous
pedestrian travel.
Action: Provide mid-block pedestrian crossings where appropriate
between major pedestrian destinations and along major
pedestrian corridors.
Action: Develop criteria in which to evaluate alternative street
design concepts.
o Policy 3.4: Provide for a continuous transportation network with reasonably
direct travel routes between destination points for all modes of travel.
Action: Design new streets to provide a connected grid network,
including alleyways, when technically feasible.
Action: Construct sidewalks or other suitable pedestrian facilities
along local streets and along urban area arterial and collector
roadways, except freeways.
o Policy 3.5: Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users,
bicyclists, pedestrians, freight and the needs of emergency vehicles when
planning and constructing roadway system improvements.
Action: Assure that current design standards address mobility
needs and meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.
(COMMENT: This is an additional action item suggested by the
Planning Commission during the 5/1/12 work session. It was
reviewed and tentatively agreed upon by the Council during the
11/13/12 work session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: Emphasizes the
importance of meeting ADA standards).
o Policy 3.6: Preserve corridors, such as rail rights-of-way, private roads, and
easements that are identified for future transportation-related uses.
o Policy 3.7: Provide for a pedestrian environment that supports adjacent
land uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and
convenience of walking by providing direct routes and removing barriers
when possible.
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 14
1
Action: Update and maintain the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) Transition Plan to address deficiencies in the existing system
and to assist in planning for new system improvements.
(COMMENT: This is an edit suggested by the Planning Commission
during the 5/1/12 work session. It was reviewed and tentatively
agreed upon by the Council during the 11/13/12 work session.
POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: Emphasizes the importance of meeting
ADA standards in the future).
Action: Utilize safety studies such as the Main Street Safety Study
and the City of Springfield Safety Study to improve pedestrian
conditions along major pedestrian corridors.
o Policy 3.8: Coordinate the design of Springfield’s Transportation System
with relevant local, regional and state agencies.
Action: Work with Oregon Department of Transportation, Lane
County and Lane Transit District to improve pedestrian and bicycle
facilities along state highways and major transit routes where
appropriate.
Action: Coordinate with Springfield Public Schools to provide key
bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities and near schools to ensure
safe and, convenient, and well connected routes to schools.
(COMMENT: This is a minor clarifying edit suggested by the Council
during the 11/13/12 work session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT:
Emphasizes the importance of connectivity when evaluating these
needed facilities).
Action: Partner with LTD Lane Transit District to provide BRT frequent
transit network2 connection along major corridors and connecting
with local neighborhood bus service and with major activity
centers. that provide viable alternatives to vehicle trips.
(COMMENT: These edits were based on Lane Transit District input
after the 11/13/12 Council work session. In addition, Council
suggested a portion of these edits during the 11/13/12 work
session. This is new since the last draft and should specifically be
2
The Frequent Transit Network (FTN) represents the highest orders of transit service within the region. The FTN represents
corridors where transit service would be provided, but does not presume specific street alignments. Street alignments will be
determined in future studies. FTN stops will be located closest to the highest density development within the corridor.
FTN Corridors will have the following characteristics:
• Enables a well-connected network that provides regional circulation
• Compatible with and supportive of adjacent urban design goals
• Operates seven days a week in select corridors
• Service hours are appropriate for the economic and social context of the area served
• Coverage consists of at least 16 hours a day and area riders trip origins or destinations are within ¼ of a mile-straight line distance
• Frequency is at least every 10-15 minutes in peak travel times
• Speed is no less than 40 percent of the roadway speed limit
• Coverage throughout the region is geographically equitable and serves Title VI protected populations
• Transit service is reliable and runs on schedule
• Transit vehicles are branded
• Transit stations are of high quality with amenities, including bicycle and pedestrian connections to stations and end-of-trip facilities,
such as bike parking. Park and rides are provided at key termini.
Attachment 1, Page 11 of 14
12
reviewed and commented on by Council during this 4/22/13 work
session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: MPO partner agencies,
including City of Springfield, have been working together on an
update to the Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP). The edits
to this action item introduce the concept of a “Frequent Transit
Network” rather than assuming these future routes as just “EmX”
bus rapid transit routes. The FTN definition and concept has been
developed with extensive regional input through the RTSP process.
The desire is to have the same definition and FTN reference in other
TSPs in the MPO region as well as in Springfield’s TSP).
Action: Coordinate existing and planned transportation system
and land uses with Lane Transit District to expand the Park-and-
Ride system when possiblewhere appropriate within Springfield.
(COMMENT: This is a minor clarifying edit suggested by the Council
during the 11/13/12 work session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT:
Emphasizes that discretion should be used during the expansion of
the park and ride system).
Action: Coordinate with Willamalane Park and Recreation District
to address bicycle and pedestrian system deficiencies and
address new transportation system goals and policies in the
Willamalane Comprehensive Plan, including providing improved
connectivity to parks and open space areas. (COMMENT: This is a
minor addition suggested by the Council during the 11/13/12 work
session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: Emphasizes the importance of
connecting to parks and open space areas).
Action: Develop and implement criteria that trigger jurisdictional
phasing and transfer of roads, highways and other applicable
transportation facilities.
Action: Coordinate with Lane County to assure transition between
rural and urban transportation facilities within the Springfield UGB..
(COMMENT: This edit was made based on public and Project Core
Team input. This addition was reviewed and tentatively agreed
upon by: Project Core Team; Planning Commission during the
5/1/12 work session, and; Council during the 11/13/12 work
session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: This edit provides clarification
of the boundary area).
Action: Coordinate with ODOT and the City of Eugene to ensure
regional transportation system connectivity. (COMMENT: This
action item was added based on public and Project Core Team
input. This addition was reviewed and tentatively agreed upon by:
Project Core Team; Planning Commission during the 5/1/12 work
session, and; Council during the 11/13/12 work session. POTENTIAL
IMPACT OF EDIT: This additional action item notes the importance
of coordinating with ODOT and City of Eugene).
o Policy 3.9: Support provision of rail-related infrastructure improvements as
part of the Cascadia High-Speed Rail Corridor project.
Attachment 1, Page 12 of 14
1
Action: In coordination with the ODOT Rail Divisionagency
partners, develop a Passenger Rail Plan in support of Springfield’s
Downtown District Urban Design Plan. Areas in Springfield outside
of downtown should be considered as appropriate. Action: Give
fFurther consideration and study of regional high speed passenger
rail needs – these needs should be coordinated with the
Springfield Downtown District Plan and Implementation Strategy.
(COMMENT: This edit was based on specific Council input during
the 11/13/12 Council work session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: This
edit clarifies that a future rail decision will ultimately be made
inclusive of multiple agency partners, including ODOT. It also
provides consideration for other areas in addition to downtown).
o Policy 3.10: When a project includes reconstructing or constructing new
intersections, a roundabout alternative is to be analyzed to determine if it
is a feasible solution based on site constraints, including ROW,
environmental factors, and other design constraints. When the analysis
shows that a roundabout is a feasible alternative, it should be considered
the City’s preferred alternative due to the proven substantial safety
benefits and other operational benefits. When a project includes
planning, reconstructing or constructing new intersections, all intersection
control types are to be evaluated including statutory control, sign control,
geometric control and signal control. The City’s preferred alternative will
be selected primarily on safety and operational efficiency in the context
of mobility needs for all users, adjacent existing and planned land uses,
access considerations, site constraints, availability of right-of-way,
environmental factors, phasing and future needs, safety, construction and
operational costs. (COMMENT: This action item was added based on
public and Project Core Team input. This addition was reviewed and
tentatively agreed upon by: Project Core Team; Planning Commission
during the 5/1/12 work session, and; Council during the 11/13/12 work
session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF EDIT: This edit notes that all intersection
control types are to be evaluated, not just roundabouts).
Action: When analyzing the appropriate treatment for a new or
reconstructed intersection, the City will consider mobility needs for
all users, adjacent existing and planned land uses, access
considerations, safety for all users, site constraints, availability of
right-of-way, environmental factors, phasing and future needs,
safety, construction costs and operational costs. (COMMENT: This
action item was added based on public and Project Core Team
input. This addition was reviewed and tentatively agreed upon by:
Project Core Team; Planning Commission during the 5/1/12 work
session, and; Council during the 11/13/12 work session. POTENTIAL
IMPACT OF EDIT: This action item helps define what items will be
considered when evaluating new intersection control types).
Attachment 1, Page 13 of 14
14
o Goal 4: System Financing:
Create and maintain a sustainable transportation funding plan that provides
implementable steps towards meeting Springfield’s vision.
o Policy 4.1: Support development of a stable and flexible transportation
finance system that provides adequate resources for transportation needs
identified in Springfield’s Transportation System Plan (TSP).
Action: Develop criteria that support adopted TSP goals and
policies and that help prioritize transportation maintenance,
preservation and construction projects.
Action: Give funding priority to bicycle and pedestrian projects
that address significant gaps in the network and that provide key
linkages to other transportation modes.
Action: Give funding priority to safety actions and operations to
maximize use and utility of existing system.
Action: Provide financing incentive to new and existing local
businesses that encourage multimodal transportation options to
employees and/or customers. discourage single occupancy auto
trips. (COMMENT: This edit was based on specific Council input
during the 11/13/12 Council work session. POTENTIAL IMPACT OF
EDIT: This edit clarifies that the City does not want to necessarily
discourage driving, but rather, to provide as many transportation
options as possible).
Action: Require that new development pay for its proportional
capacity impact on the transportation system through ongoing
rate updates of Springfield’s System Development Charge and
through proportional exactions as part of the land development
process.
Attachment 1, Page 14 of 14
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 1
1
Springfield Transportation System Plan
Outline of Process for updating TSP goals, policies & action
items
As of April 2013, the draft TSP goals, policies and action items were formed and refined with the
following input:
Staff review and evaluation of existing TransPlan goals and policies
September 21st, 2010, Planning Commission Work Session – TransPlan goal and policy
prioritization exercise
October 4th, 2010, Council Work Session - presented results of Planning Commission
prioritization exercise; discussed overview of goal and policy context and regional issues
October 18th, 2010, Council Work Session - discussed local values and issues
December 1st, 2010, Technical Advisory Committee meeting - presented and discussed
draft goals and policies
January 27th, 2011, Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting - presented and discussed
draft goals and policies
February 7th, 2011, Community Workshop - presented and discussed draft goals
March 2nd, 2011, Project Core Team meeting - reviewed and commented on draft goals
and policies
March 15th, 2011, Planning Commission – reviewed and commented on draft goals and
policies
March 2011 – present – Draft goals and policies posted on project website
April 4th, 2012 – Public Open House – draft policies available for public comment1
April 16th, 2012 – Project Core Team meeting – reviewed comments to-date and discussed
staff responses
May 1st,2012, Planning Commission – comments to-date and discussed staff responses
November 13th, 2012, City Council – Reviewed comments to-date and discussed Planning
Commission and staff responses.
November 2012 – April 2012 - Staff refined draft goals and policies based on previous input,
drafted new multi-modal Level of Service (LOS) policy, and coordinated with Lane Transit
District (LTD) to incorporate additional transit policy input.
1 In addition to public open houses, public comments have been welcomed and received throughout the planning process.
Springfield TSP: Draft TSP Schedule
TAC = Technical Advisory Committee
SAC = Stakeholder Advisory Committee Updated 4/12/13
Summer
2010
Fall
2010
Winter
2011
Spring
2011
Summer
2011
Fall
2011
Winter
2012
Spring
2012
Summer
2012
Fall
2012
Project
Meetings
Existing
Conditions
Funding &
Action Plan
Prepare TSP
Develop
& Evaluate
Alternatives
Refine Goals
& Policies
Travel
demand
modeling
TAC #1 TAC #2
SAC #1 SAC #2 SAC #3 SAC #4
Public
Workshop #1
Public
Workshop #2
SAC #6
Develop
Evaluation
Criteria
TAC #5
Winter
2013
Spring
2013
Public
Workshop #3
SAC #5
TAC #3 TAC #4 TAC #6
SAC #7
Summer
2013
TAC #7
Fall
2013
Winter
2013
Adoption
Attachment 3