HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Springfield Transportation System Plan - Review of Draft Plan AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 10/7/2013
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: David Reesor
Staff Phone No: 726-4585
Estimated Time: 40 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 – REVIEW OF DRAFT
PLAN
ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff seeks feedback from the City Council on the draft Transportation System Plan
(TSP). Subsequent public hearings are scheduled with the City Planning Commission,
City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners after this work session.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
After an in-depth and thorough planning process, the TSP is now available for City Council review and comment. On September 3, 2013, the attached draft Plan was recommended for approval by both the TSP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC). The City Planning Commission reviewed the draft Plan on September 17th, 2013, and made no additional suggested edits.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft TSP Executive Summary 2. Draft TSP
3. Draft TSP TAC, SAC and public comments
4. PowerPoint presentation
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) provides a 20-year blueprint
for how the City should maintain and improve the transportation network to meet
growth demands within Springfield’s existing Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). This
Springfield 2035 TSP will replace TransPlan (amended 2002), with respect to
Springfield. TransPlan has served as the adopted TSP for both Eugene and Springfield.
In 2007, House Bill 3337 was signed into law, requiring the two cities to develop
separate UGBs. With separate UGBs, the State of Oregon’s Transportation Planning Rule requires that Springfield and Eugene develop city-specific TSPs. While the Springfield 2035 TSP is an “update” of TransPlan, it is the City’s first independent TSP. Over the past several years, City and consultant staff have engaged the public, partner agency staff, and appointed and elected officials in an in-depth planning process to plan for Springfield’s future transportation system. Consistent with state law, this TSP
addresses all modes of transportation. It clearly outlines goals, policies and action items
to guide implementation of the Plan and contains project lists for 20 years and beyond.
The TSP SAC and TAC both recently reviewed the draft Plan and recommended
approval. Comments on the final draft TSP have been collected and summarized from
the TAC, SAC and public to-date, and are provided in Attachment 3 of this
memorandum. Springfield Staff met with the City Planning Commission on September 17th, 2013. The Planning Commission asked some clarifying questions, but did not
suggest any additional edits and passed the draft Plan to Council for review and comments. At this October 7th, 2013 work session, staff will present highlights of the TSP and facilitate a discussion to solicit Council input. After this Council work session, Staff will continue the adoption process with a Lane County Board work session scheduled for October 29th, 2013. Subsequent public hearings will follow with the City Planning Commission, City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
DRAFT Executive summary
for the
Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan
September 25, 2013
Purpose of the plan
The Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) provides a 20-year blueprint for how the
City’s should maintain and improve the transportation network to meet growth demands within
Springfield’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). This Springfield 2035 TSP replaces TransPlan
(amended 2002), which served as the adopted TSP for both Eugene and Springfield. In 2006,
House Bill 3337 passed requiring the two cities to develop
separate UGBs. With separate UGBs, the State of
Oregon’s Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) required that
Springfield and Eugene develop city-specific TSPs. While
the Springfield 2035 TSP is an “update” of TransPlan, it is
the City’s first independent TSP.
The 2035 TSP ensures the vision for the transportation
system meets community needs, communicates the City’s
aspirations, and conforms to state and regional policies.
In addition, recommendations
The 2035 TSP includes a recommended set of transportation improvements for the next 20 years
and beyond (more information is provided in the 2035 TSP, Volume 1, Chapter 5). The following
tables give a brief description of the recommended projects, which are as follows (maps of
these projects are included in the full TSP):
20-year projects (the 2035 TSP planning horizon): Projects needed to serve expected
transportation growth over the next 20 years. These projects have planning-level cost
estimates included in this Plan.
- Priority projects: (Table ES-1) Higher-cost and scale roadway, urban standards,
and pedestrian/bicycle projects that would generally require right-of-way.
- Opportunity projects: (Table ES-2) Lower-cost and scale roadway, urban
standards, and pedestrian/bicycle projects that would generally not require right-
of-way and the City could implement as opportunities arise.
- As Development Occurs projects: (Table ES-3) Roadway and pedestrian/bicycle
projects that the City would generally implement through a partnership with the
City, other agencies, and/or private enterprise to support new development or
redevelopment.
Beyond 20-year projects: (Table ES-4) Projects that may be constructed beyond the 20-
year planning horizon. These projects do not have planning-level cost estimates included
in this Plan.
- Study projects: (Table ES-5) Projects that need further study and refinement.
- Frequent Transit Network (FTN) projects: (Table ES-6) Frequent transit projects that
the City has developed through the ongoing Regional Transportation System Plan
process.
Intersection of Gateway Street and Beltline Road
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 10
DRAFT 09.25.13
2
TABLE ES-1
Priority projects in the 20-year project list
Roadway projects
R-3 Game Farm Road East to International Way (Construct a new collector with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-9 Laura Street to Pioneer Parkway
(Construct a new collector with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle facilities in or near the EWEB powerline corridor with a right-in/right-out intersection at Pioneer Parkway; coordinate with PB-7)
R-10 Q Street/Laura Street and Laura Street Interchange Area
(Construct traffic controls at Laura Street/Q Street intersection, extend the second westbound through lane through the Laura Street intersection, and construct a westbound right-turn lane; coordinate with S-3 and PB-
7; conduct study [S-3] prior to implementing project)
R-13 Franklin Boulevard Multi-modal Improvements (Construct multi-modal improvements on Franklin Boulevard from I-5 to the railroad tracks south of the
Franklin Boulevard/McVay Highway intersection, and construct a roundabout at the Franklin Boulevard/Glenwood Boulevard intersection)
R-14 Franklin Boulevard/McVay Highway Multi-lane Roundabout
(Construct a multi-lane roundabout)
R-19 McVay Highway and East 19th Avenue (Construct a two-lane roundabout)
R-20 McVay Highway from East 19th Avenue to I-5 (Construct a two or three-lane cross-section as needed with sidewalks and bicycle lanes and transit facilities consistent with Main Street/McVay Highway Alternatives Analysis and project T-3)
R-34 Centennial Boulevard/Industrial Avenue from 28th Street to 35th Street (Extend Centennial Boulevard/Industrial Avenue with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-36 42nd Street from Marcola Road to Railroad Tracks (Improve 42nd Street with a three-lane cross-section and construct a signal at Marcola Road/OR 126
westbound ramps)
R-39 Extend South 48th Street to Daisy Street (Extend South 48th Street with three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-40 OR 126/52nd Street Interchange Improvements
(Construct a grade separated interchange on OR 126 at 52nd Street with ramps and new signals at ramp terminals on 52nd Street consistent with the Interchange Area Management Plan)
R-41 South 54th Street from Main Street to Daisy Street
(Construct a new two-lane collector with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-43 OR 126/Main Street Interchange Improvements
(Construct a grade-separated interchange with ramps and traffic control at ramp terminals on Main Street consistent with the Interchange Area Management Plan; needs further study)
Urban standards projects
US-1 Game Farm Road South from Mallard Avenue to Harlow Road (Modify and expand the Game Farm Road South cross-section to include bicycle lanes)
US-3 Aspen Street from Centennial Boulevard to West D Street
(Improve Aspen Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
US-4 21st Street from D Street to Main Street
(Improve 21st Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 10
DRAFT 09.25.13
3
US-5 28th Street from Centennial Boulevard to Main Street (Improve 28th Street to include sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
US-6 South 28th Street from Main Street to South F Street (Improve South 28th Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
US-11 Clearwater Lane south of Jasper Road within UGB
(Modify and expand roadway cross-section to include sidewalks and bicycle lanes; coordinate with Lane County improvements)
US-14 Thurston Road from Weaver Road to UGB
(Improve Thurston Road to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
Pedestrian/bicycle projects
PB-2 Flamingo Avenue to Gateway Street
(Construct a 12-foot wide path south from Flamingo Avenue to Gateway Street south of Game Bird Park)
PB-17 Glenwood Area Willamette River Path – I-5 to Willamette River bridges
(Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from the end of the existing path east of I-5 to the Willamette River bridges)
PB-18 Glenwood Area Willamette River Path – Willamette River Bridges to UGB
(Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from the Willamette River bridges to the UGB)
PB-19 Bridge between Downtown and Glenwood or modify Willamette River bridges (Construct a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge between Downtown Springfield and Glenwood, or modify the
existing Willamette River bridges)
PB-29 Mill Race Path (Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from South 2nd Street to South 32nd Street/UGB)
PB-32 McKenzie River Path from McKenzie Levee Path to 52nd Street (Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from the existing McKenzie Levee path at 42nd Street to 52nd Street)
PB-37 Booth Kelly Road from South 28th Street to South 49th Place (Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from South 28th Street to South 49th Place )
PB-46 Haul Road path from South 49th Place to UGB
(Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from South 49th Place to the UGB)
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 10
DRAFT 09.25.13
4
TABLE ES-2
Opportunity projects in the 20-year project list
Roadway projects
R-2 Gateway Road/International Way (Construct five-lane cross-section consistent with National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [NEPA]
documentation)
R-11 5th Street/Q Street (Construct right-turn lanes to the eastbound and northbound approaches or a roundabout)
R-30 Marcola Road/19th Street
(Construct right-turn lane on westbound approach or a roundabout)
R-31 28th Street/Marcola Road
(Construct a roundabout)
R-32 42nd Street/Marcola Road (Construct a roundabout)
R-33 Centennial Boulevard/28th Street (Construct a roundabout)
R-38 South 42nd Street/Daisy Street
(Construct a traffic signal or a roundabout)
R-48 Mountaingate Drive/Main Street (Install a new signal)
Pedestrian/bicycle projects (all on-street)
PB-3 Oakdale Street/Pheasant Street/et.al. from Game Farm Road to Gateway Loop (Add signing and striping for a bicycle lane)
PB-5 Hartman Lane/Don Street south of Harlow Road to OR 126 with crossing of Harlow Road (Add signing and striping for a bicycle route and construct sidewalks to fill gaps)
PB-8 Hayden Bridge Way/Grovedale Drive, Hayden Bridge Way/3rd Street, Hayden Bridge Way/ Castle Drive
(Add a crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon)
PB-9 EWEB Path crossings of 2nd Street, 9th Street, 11th Street, Rose Blossom Drive, Debra Street, 15th
Street, 33rd Street, and 35th Street
(Improve path crossings to emphasize path priority and to improve safety)
PB-10 2nd Street/Q Street
(Add a crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon)
PB-13 Anderson Lane between By-Gully path and Centennial Boulevard (Add signing and striping on Anderson Street and Quinalt Street for bicycle route and construct 12-foot wide
multi-use path between Anderson Lane and Quinalt Street)
PB-14 Rainbow Drive from Centennial Boulevard to West D Street (Restripe for bicycle lanes with signing)
PB-15 West D from Mill Street to D Street Path (Add bicycle route signing and striping)
PB-16 West D from Aspen Street to D Street Path
(Add bicycle route signing and striping and construct sidewalks to fill gaps)
PB-20 Mill Street from Centennial to Main Street, south of Main Street to Mill Race Park
(Restripe for bicycle lanes with signing)
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 10
DRAFT 09.25.13
5
PB-21 Pioneer Parkway at D, E, and F Streets (Add crosswalks on Pioneer Parkway with signage)
PB-22 5th Street/Centennial Boulevard intersection (Add a bicycle lane through the intersection area)
PB-23 5th Street from Centennial Boulevard to A Street
(Add bicycle lane signing and striping)
PB-24 D, E, or F Streets from 5th Street to 28th Street (Add bicycle route signing and striping)
PB-25 5th Street/D Street (Add signing and striping to improve visibility)
PB-26 A Street from Mill Street to 10th Street
(Restripe for bicycle lanes with signing)
PB-30 33rd Street between V Street and EWEB Path
(Add shared-use signing and striping)
PB-33 Main Street between 34th Street and 35th Street (Add a mid-block crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon)
PB-34 Pedestrian crossing improvement on Main Street/38th Street
(Add a mid-block crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon)
PB-35 Main Street/ 41st Street
(Add a mid-block crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon)
PB-36 Virginia Avenue and Daisy Street from South 32nd Street to Bob Straub Parkway (Add bicycle route signing and striping)
PB-39 Main Street between 48th Street and 49th Street (Add a mid-block crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon)
PB-40 Main Street/ 51st Street
(Add a crosswalk with signing)
PB-41 Main Street / Chapman Lane
(Add a mid-block crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon)
PB-42 Main Street /57th Street (Add a mid-block crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon)
PB-43 Bob Straub Parkway/Daisy Street
(Add a pedestrian/bicycle signal and crossing)
PB-44 Mountaingate Drive from Mountaingate Entrance to Dogwood Street
(Add shared-use signing and striping and construct sidewalks and drainage improvements to fill gaps)
PB-45 Mt. Vernon Road/ Bob Straub Parkway (Add crosswalks at three or four approaches with signing and striping and install rapid rectangular flashing
beacon or pedestrian hybrid beacon on the north-south leg)
PB-47 Thurston Road and 66th Street (Add a crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon)
PB-48 Thurston Road and 69th Street (Add a crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon)
PB-49 South 67th Street from Ivy Street to Main Street
(Add shared-use signing and striping and construct sidewalks to fill gaps)
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 10
DRAFT 09.25.13
6
PB-50 Ivy Street from South 67th Street to South 70th Street (Add shared-use signing and striping)
PB-51 South 70th Street from Main Street to Ivy Street (Add shared-use signing and striping)
PB-52 City-wide Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
(Install mid-block crossings City-wide with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons)
TABLE ES-3
As development occurs projects in the 20-year project list
Roadway projects
R-1 North Gateway Collector from Maple Island Road/Royal Caribbean Way to International Way
(Construct a new collector with new a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-4 Maple Island Road from Deadmond Ferry Road to Beltline Road (Extend Maple Island Road with a two-lane cross-section with sidewalk, bicycle lanes, and an intersection at
Beltline)
R-5 Extend Riverbend Drive to Baldy View Lane (Extend Riverbend Drive with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-6 Improvements to serve Riverbend Hospital
(Improve Baldy View Lane/North link, construct a McKenzie-Gateway Loop connector/new collector and construct off-street path connections)
R-8 Mallard Avenue from Gateway Street to Game Farm Road
(Improve Mallard Avenue to a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes and extend Mallard Avenue to Gateway Street with a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-12 Franklin Boulevard Riverfront Collector (Construct a new collector as shown in the Glenwood Plan; two travel lanes with on-street parking, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes)
R-16 East 17th Avenue from Glenwood Boulevard to Henderson Avenue (Improve East 17th Avenue to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-17 Henderson Avenue from Franklin Boulevard to East 19th Avenue
(Improve Henderson Avenue with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-18 East 19th Avenue from Henderson Avenue to Franklin Boulevard
(Improve East 19th Avenue with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-24 19th Street from Hayden Bridge to Yolanda Avenue (Extend 19th Street with a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-25 Hayden Bridge Road from 19th Street to Marcola Road
(Improve Hayden Bridge Road to a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-26 Yolanda Avenue from 23rd Street to 31st Street
(Improve Yolanda Avenue to a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-27 Yolanda Avenue to 33rd Street (Connect Yolanda Avenue with 33rd Street with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-28 Marcola Road to 31st Street
(Construct a new collector with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-29 31st Street from Hayden Bridge to U Street
(Improve 31st Street to a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 10
DRAFT 09.25.13
7
R-37 Commercial Avenue from 42nd Street to 48th Street north of Main Street and North-South Connection (Extend Commercial Street and add a north-south connection; three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and
bicycle lanes)
R-42 Glacier Street from 48th Street/Holly to South 55th Street
(Construct a new collector with a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-45 Improvements within the Japser-Natron Area (Construct multiple roadways in the Jasper-Natron area between Bob Straub Parkway, Jasper Road, and Mt. Vernon Road)
R-46 Bob Straub Parkway to Mountaingate Drive (Construct a new collector with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-47 Haul Road from Mt. Vernon Road to UGB
(Construct a two-lane green street in the Haul Road right-of-way)
R-49 79th Street from Main Street to Thurston Road
(Extend 79th Street with a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
Pedestrian/bicycle projects (all off-street)
PB-1 McKenzie Gateway Path from Existing Path to Maple Island Road
(Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from the end of the existing Riverbend Hospital path to Maple Island Road)
PB-4 Wayside Lane/Ann Court to Riverbend Path
(Construct a new 12-foot wide path from Wayside Lane/Ann Court to the existing Sacred Heart Medical Center-Riverbend path)
PB-27 South 2nd Street to Mill Street
(Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from South 2nd Street to Mill Street)
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 10
DRAFT 09.25.13
8
TABLE ES-4
Beyond 20-year projects
Roadway projects
R-7 South of Kruse Way and east of Gateway Road (Construct a new roadway to improve connectivity in the general South of Kruse Way/east of Gateway Road
area)
R-15 Glenwood Boulevard from I-5 to Franklin Boulevard (Convert Glenwood Boulevard from three-lanes to five-lanes)
R-21 Pioneer Parkway to South 2nd Street (Construct a new collector between Pioneer Parkway and South 2nd Street)
R-22 Extend South 14th Street South of Railroad Tracks
(Extend South 14th Street south of the Union Pacific Railroad mainline with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-23 South B Street from South 5th to South B Street
(Extend South B Street with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-35 OR 126/42nd Street Interchange Improvements
(OR 126/42nd Street interchange improvements)
R-44 Daisy Street crossing of Bob Straub Parkway (Construct an at-grade crossing or undercrossing of Bob Straub Parkway)
Urban standards projects
US-2 Laura Street from EWEB powerline corridor to Game Farm Road (Improve Laura Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
US-7 South 28th Street from F Street to UGB (Improve South 28th Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
US-8 35th Street from Olympic to Commercial Avenue
(Improve South 35th Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
US-9 Commercial Avenue from 35th to 42nd Street (Improve Commercial Avenue to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
US-10 36th Street from Commercial Avenue to Main Street (Improve 36th Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
US-12 Jasper Road from South 42nd Street to northwest of Mt. Vernon Road
(Improve Jasper Road to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
US-13 Bob Straub Parkway from Mt. Vernon Road to UGB
(Improve Bob Straub Parkway to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
US-15 Main Street east of 72nd Street to UGB (Improve Main Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
Pedestrian/bicycle projects (all off-street)
PB-6 SCS Channel Path from Dornoch Street to Laura Street (Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from Dornoch Street to Laura Street)
PB-7 Extend EWEB Trail from Pioneer Parkway to Don Street
(Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path in the EWEB powerline corridor from Pioneer Parkway to Don Street with a crossing of Pioneer Parkway and Laura Street)
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 10
DRAFT 09.25.13
9
PB-11 By-Gully Path Extension from Pioneer Parkway to 5th Street
(Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from the existing By-Gully path at Pioneer Parkway to 5th Street)
PB-12 I-5 Path – Willamette River Area Path to By-Gully Path (Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path parallel to I-5 from Willamette River area path/Eastgate
Woodlands to the end of the By-Gully path)
PB-28 South 3rd Street to South 5th Street (Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from South 3rd Street to South 5th Street)
PB-31 Quarry Ridge Lane to Marcola Road
(Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path Quarry Ridge Lane to Marcola Road)
PB-38 Haul Road: Daisy Street to Booth Kelly Road
(Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path in the Haul Road right-of-way from Daisy Street to Booth Kelly Road)
TABLE ES-5
Study projects
Projects
S-1 Phase 2 of Beltline/Gateway improvements
S-2 OR 126 Expressway Management Plan
S-3 Pioneer Parkway/Q Street/Laura Street circulation study to improve Q Street/Laura Street/Ramp
safety, access, and capacity
S-4 Study a new crossing of OR 126 between 5th and 15th Streets
S-5 Centennial Boulevard from Prescott Lane to Mill Street operational improvements study
S-6 Pioneer Parkway/Centennial Boulevard intersection study to improve pedestrian safety
S-7 Centennial Boulevard from Mohawk Boulevard to Pioneer Parkway operational improvements study
S-8 Study safety and operational improvements in Mohawk Boulevard/Olympic Street/
18th Street/Centennial triangle
S-9 Study a new bridge from Walnut Road/West D Street to Glenwood Boulevard/Franklin Boulevard
intersection
S-10 Study Main Street/South A Street improvements from Mill Street to 21st Street
S-11 Refinement study for Glenwood industrial area
S-12 Pedestrian/bicycle bridge study between Glenwood and Dorris Ranch
S-13 Access plan study on Main Street between 21st Street and 48th Street
S-14 Study east-west connectivity between 28th Street and 32nd Street
S-15 Study a new crossing of OR 126 near Thurston High School
S-16 Connectivity study south of OR 126 and Jessica Street
TABLE ES-6
Frequent transit network projects
T-1 Transit on Centennial Boulevard from I-5 to Mohawk Boulevard
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 10
DRAFT 09.25.13
10
T-2 Transit on Franklin Boulevard/Main Street/South A Street to OR 126/Main Street (east-west)
T-3 Transit on Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway to 30th Avenue (north-south)
T-4 Transit on Mohawk Boulevard from Centennial Boulevard to 19th Street/Marcola Road to 28th Street/
Olympic Street to Mohawk Boulevard
Note: These projects are included in the current Regional Transportation System Plan. The final transit network will be developed through the Regional Transportation System Plan process.
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 10
City of Springfield
2035 Transportation System Plan
DRAFT
City of Springfield
225 5th Street
Springfield, OR 97477
September 25, 2013
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 93
iii iii
Table of contents
Volume 1
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
Plan overview ......................................................................................................................... 1
The City’s first TSP .................................................................................................................... 2
Regional coordination ............................................................................................ 2
Public and agency involvement .......................................................................... 3
Planning context .................................................................................................................... 3
Transportation planning environment.................................................................. 3
Economic development priority areas ............................................................................. 3
Financial environment ............................................................................................ 7
Organization of the 2035 TSP ............................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2: Goals and policies ..................................................................................................... 9
Creating goals, policies, and action items ....................................................................... 9
2035 TSP goals, policies, and action items ........................................................................ 9
Chapter 3: Transportation System Plan process ....................................................................... 17
Existing and future needs ................................................................................................... 17
Existing conditions analyses ............................................................................................... 17
2035 forecast analysis ......................................................................................................... 18
No Build transportation system assumptions .................................................................. 19
Traffic Volume Development ............................................................................................ 19
No Build analyses ................................................................................................................. 19
Evaluation process .............................................................................................................. 20
Evaluation framework ........................................................................................... 20
Project identification and screening .................................................................. 21
Project evaluation ................................................................................................. 22
Chapter 4: Transportation planning tool box ............................................................................ 23
Tool box ................................................................................................................................. 23
Land use .................................................................................................................. 23
Connectivity ............................................................................................................ 24
Enhancing and increasing non-auto travel modes ........................................ 24
Transportation demand management ............................................................. 28
Transportation system management ................................................................. 29
Neighborhood traffic management .................................................................. 31
Chapter 5: Transportation plan ................................................................................................... 33
Plan area ............................................................................................................................... 33
State and regional planning context .............................................................................. 33
Facilities .................................................................................................................... 34
Related plans and policies .................................................................................. 34
Coordination with plans and infrastructure ...................................................... 36
Guiding principles for street design and operations .................................................... 37
Functional classification of roadways ................................................................ 37
Street design standards ........................................................................................ 41
Truck routes ............................................................................................................. 41
Intersection performance standards ................................................................. 45
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
iv iv
Access management guidelines ........................................................................ 45
Transit service .......................................................................................................... 48
Parking ..................................................................................................................... 49
Safety........................................................................................................................ 49
Multi-modal improvement projects ................................................................................. 50
Beyond 20-year priority projects ......................................................................... 64
Study projects ......................................................................................................... 65
Transit projects ........................................................................................................ 66
Other travel modes................................................................................................ 66
Chapter 6: Funding and implementation ................................................................................. 78
20-year estimated revenue stream .................................................................................. 78
Cost of 20-year needs......................................................................................................... 79
Potential funding sources ..................................................................................... 79
Chapter 7: Code and policy updates ....................................................................................... 84
Tables
1 Land use estimates ................................................................................................................. 18
2 Evaluation framework ............................................................................................................ 20
3 Priority projects in the 20-year project list ........................................................................... 51
4 Opportunity projects in the 20-year project list ................................................................ 54
5 As development occurs projects in the 20-year project list ........................................... 56
6 Beyond 20-year projects ....................................................................................................... 64
7 Study projects .......................................................................................................................... 65
8 Frequent transit network projects ........................................................................................ 66
9 Springfield revenue assumptions ......................................................................................... 79
10 Project cost estimates ............................................................................................................ 79
11 Potential local funding mechanisms .................................................................................. 80
12 Potential state and federal grants ...................................................................................... 82
Figures
1 Plan area map ........................................................................................................................... 5
2 Functional classification map ............................................................................................... 41
3 Local truck routes map .......................................................................................................... 44
4 Priority projects in the 20-year project map ....................................................................... 58
5 Opportunity projects in the 20-year project map ............................................................. 60
6 As development occurs projects in the 20-year project map ....................................... 62
7 Beyond 20-year project map ................................................................................................ 68
8 Transit and study project map .............................................................................................. 70
9 Frequent transit network map ............................................................................................... 72
10 Roadway project map ........................................................................................................... 74
11 Pedestrian and bicycle project map .................................................................................. 76
Volume 2
Appendix I Plan implementation and recommended ordinance/code language
Appendix II Detailed cost estimates and funding analyses
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
v v
Volume 3
Appendix A Plans and policies review
Appendix B Existing conditions inventory and analyses
Appendix C No Build analyses
Appendix D 20-year needs analyses
Appendix E Alternatives evaluation process
Appendix F MetroPlan map
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 93
vi vi
Acknowledgements
Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC)
The City of Springfield wishes to acknowledge and sincerely thank the members of the
Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC), whose guidance was critical to the development of this
plan.
Kenneth Hill, freight interest
Brock Nelson, rail interest
Phil Farrington, Springfield Chamber
of Commerce
Richard Hunsaker, developer interest
George Grier, environmental interest
Allie Camp, bike and pedestrian
interest
Jim Yarnall, Pedestrian Interest
(former)
Neal Zoumboukos (former) and
Dave Roth, Bicycle Interest (former)
Michael Eyster, transit interest
Tim Vohs, City of Springfield Planning
Commission
Dave Jacobson and Diana
Alldredge, Metropolitan Planning
Organization Citizen Advisory
Committee
Bob Brew, City of Springfield City
Council
Mike Schlosser, Springfield Public
School District
Lane Branch, Downtown business
interest
Sean Van Gordon, Planning
Commission liaison (former)
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
George Walker, Chuck Gottfried
(retired), and Bill Hamann, City of
Springfield Environmental Services
Division
Richard Perry and Brian Barnett, City
of Springfield Traffic Engineering
Ken Vogeney City of Springfield City
Engineer
Matt Stouder, City of Springfield
Engineering Supervisor
Linda Pauly and Jim Donovan, City
of Springfield Development and
Public Works Department
Al Gerard, City of Springfield Fire and
Life Safety
Andrea Riner (former) and Paul
Thompson, Lane Council of
Governments
Celia Barry, Lydia McKinney, and
Sarah Wilkinson, Lane County
Kurt Yeiter, City of Eugene
Will Mueller, Sasha Luftig, and Mary
Archer (former), Lane Transit District
Greg Hyde and Rebecca Gershow,
Willamalane Park and Recreation
District
Chris Watchie, representing
Point2point Solutions
Ed Moore and Chris Cummings,
Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
vii vii
Project team
City of Springfield
David Reesor, Project Manager
Tom Boyatt
Molly Markarian
Brian Conlon
Len Goodwin
John Tamulonis
Ken Vogeney
Greg Mott
Brian Barnett
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Savannah Crawford, Project
Manager
Terry Cole
CH2M HILL
Kristin Hull, Project Manager
Darren Hippenstiel, PE
Brandy Steffen
Darren Muldoon, AICP
Kittelson and Associates
Julia Kuhn, PE
Joe Bessman, PE
Matt Kittelson, PE
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 93
1 1
Acronyms and abbreviations
2035 TSP Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
COPR Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad
DLCD Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
EWEB Eugene Water and Electric Board
FTN Frequent Transit Network
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
I-5 Interstate 5
LID Local Improvement District
LOS level of service
LTD Lane Transit District
Metro Plan Springfield’s current comprehensive planning document, 2004 update
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MUTCD 2009 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
NTM Neighborhood Traffic Management
ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation
OHP Oregon Highway Plan
OR 126 Oregon State Highway 126
ORS Oregon Revised Statutes
OTP Oregon Transportation Plan
RRFB rectangular rapid flashing beacon
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTSP Regional Transportation System Plan, currently being updated
SAC Stakeholder Advisory Committee
SDC Systems Development Charge
SOV single-occupancy vehicle
Springfield 2035 TSP Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TAP Transportation Alternatives Program
TDM Transportation Demand Management
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
2 2
TGM Transportation and Growth Management
TIF Tax Increment Financing
TPR Transportation Planning Rule
TransPlan Joint Transportation System Plan for Eugene and Springfield, last
amended in 2002
TSM Transportation System Management
TSP Transportation System Plan
UGB urban growth boundary
UP Union Pacific Railroad
v/c volume to capacity
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 93
1 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
The Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (2035 TSP) meets state requirements for a
transportation system plan and is a resource for future transportation decision making. The 2035
TSP identifies the preferred future multi-modal transportation system and the City’s policies
related to the transportation system. It also identifies the function, capacity, and location of
future facilities, and identifies planning-level costs for needed improvements to support
expected development and growth and possible sources of funding. This TSP provides the City
with flexibility as staff, the public, and decision makers prioritize and fund critical transportation
investments.
This TSP provides:
A blueprint for transportation investment
A tool for coordination with regional agencies and local jurisdictions
Information to ensure prudent and effective land use choices
Solutions to address existing and future transportation needs for bicycles, pedestrians,
transit, vehicles, freight, and rail
The 2035 TSP is the transportation element of and a
supporting document for Springfield’s current
comprehensive planning document (Metro Plan, 2004
update) as required by state law. The City updated the
2035 TSP goals and policies during the planning process
and fulfilled the Goal 12: Transportation element of the
Metro Plan. The primary purpose of the goals and
policies is to guide future transportation related decisions
in Springfield. Together with the Metro Plan, the
Springfield 2035 TSP helps the City accommodate new
growth, maintain, and rebuild infrastructure over the
next 20 years consistent with a long-term vision.
Plan overview
This TSP identifies the recommended future multi-modal transportation system and the City’s
policies related to the transportation system.
The recommended set of transportation improvements contained in this Plan are divided into
those projects that the City expects to construct in the 20-year planning horizon and those that
may not be constructed in this time. Because of uncertainty around transportation funding and
development, some longer-term priority projects could be implemented in the next 20 years.
20-year projects (the 2035 TSP planning horizon): Projects needed to serve expected
transportation growth over the next 20 years. These projects have planning-level cost
estimates included in this Plan.
- Priority projects: Higher-cost and scale roadway, urban standards, and
pedestrian/bicycle projects that would generally require additional right-of-way.
Intersection of Gateway Street and Beltline
Road
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
2 2
Cars, buses, bikes, and pedestrians all share the public roadway
- Opportunity projects: Lower-cost and scale roadway, urban standards, and
pedestrian/bicycle projects that would generally not require additional right-of-
way and the City could implement as opportunities arise.
- As Development Occurs projects: Roadway and pedestrian/bicycle projects that
the City would generally implement through a partnership with the City, other
agencies, and/or private enterprise to support new development or
redevelopment.
Beyond 20-year projects: Projects that may be constructed beyond the 20-year planning
horizon. These projects do not have planning-level cost estimates included in this Plan.
Study projects: Projects that need further study and refinement.
Frequent Transit Network (FTN) projects: Frequent transit projects that the City has
developed through the ongoing Regional Transportation System Plan process.
The City’s first TSP
In 2001, Eugene and Springfield adopted a shared TSP,
TransPlan (amended 2002), which guided transportation
decisions for both cities inside of their shared urban
growth boundary (UGB). In 2006, the Oregon Legislature
passed House Bill 3337 requiring the two cities to
develop separate UGBs. Within its own UGB, the State of
Oregon’s Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires
Springfield to develop its own TSP. While the Springfield
2035 TSP is an “update” of TransPlan, it is the City’s first
independent TSP.
The 2035 TSP ensures the vision for the transportation system meets community needs,
communicates the City’s aspirations, and conforms to state and regional policies. The City will
implement this plan flexibly over time to respond to changes in economic development needs,
community values, or regional, state or federal policies. The City will revisit this TSP when
conditions change; many cities update their TSPs every five to seven years.
Regional coordination
To ensure regional consistency as Eugene, Springfield, and Coburg develop their own TSPs, the
regional partners, through the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), will
develop a Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP). Because mobility needs, do not stop at a
city border, the RTSP will consider linkages between the cities’ transportation systems and ensure
that the transportation networks work together. The RTSP will also focus on performance
measures that address regional facilities in Springfield. The development of the RTSP, which will
replace TransPlan, is in process and the MPO will complete it once Eugene, Springfield, and
Coburg adopt independent TSPs.
In addition to the state-required Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP), the Central Lane
MPO is also responsible for maintaining a federally required Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
The Central Lane MPO updates the RTP every four years and represents the region’s stated
transportation investment priorities. The Springfield 2035 TSP must be consistent with the RTP.
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
3 3
Economic
development priority
areas
Four areas – Glenwood, Gateway,
Downtown, and the Main Street
Corridor – represent considerable
growth opportunities and
significant transportation
challenges.
Congestion is an issue for trips to,
from, and through these areas. For
this reason, the City is focused on
achieving mixed-used
development and investing in a
multi-modal transportation system
that supports transit, walking, and
biking in these areas.
Throughout the process of developing the 2035 TSP, the City of Springfield coordinated with the
City of Eugene, Lane County, Lane Transit District, Central Lane MPO, and Oregon Department
of Transportation (ODOT).
Transportation project development
This Plan includes projects that will support expected growth in the City. While the Plan does not
prioritize projects, the City will prioritize investments through annual updates to the Capital
Improvement Program. Once the City identifies a project for implementation through the
Capital Improvement Program and project development begins, the City will conduct project-
level planning, public involvement, and engineering to confirm the need, define the project
limits and develop a design for the project.
Public and agency involvement
The public and staff from other partner agencies were extensively involved in the development
of the 2035 TSP. Opportunities for engagement included:
Project website (including web-based surveys)
Seven Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) meetings
Seven Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings
Two public open houses and one listening booth at the Sprout! Farmers Market
Targeted outreach with local community, service organizations
Planning Commission, City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners public
hearings, as part of the adoption process
Through these public involvement activities, the City provided the citizens of Springfield with a
variety of forums to identify their priorities for future transportation projects. The City’s project
website, as well as an email list of interested citizens, businesses, City staff, boards/commissions,
and agencies, announced public meetings, disseminated
information, and solicited input and feedback from the
community. In addition, City staff met with the Planning
Commission and City Council at each major milestone
leading up to the 2035 TSP.
Planning context
The 2035 TSP opportunities and constraints provided by the
physical environment, community’s vision, City, regional,
and state policies, and the current and anticipated
financial climate have shaped the Springfield 2035 TSP.
The sections below describe how these characteristics
may influence the implementation of the projects,
programs, and policies included in the TSP.
Transportation planning environment
The City of Springfield is located within urban Lane County
and is part of the Central Lane MPO area. Springfield’s
current boundaries are generally defined by the McKenzie
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
4 4
Participants at the first workshop use an
interactive mapping tool to list issues and concerns
River to the north, Interstate 5 (I-5) to the west, the Willamette River to the south, and rural Lane
County to the east. Figure 1 presents a map of the Plan area that includes the City of Springfield
and sections of unincorporated Lane County that are part of the Springfield UGB. The TPR
requires inclusion of these urban unincorporated areas in the 2035 TSP.
The City of Springfield developed along an east-west spine between the McKenzie and
Willamette Rivers. Land use patterns in the City and surrounding areas are mostly suburban, with
relatively low-density and residential areas often separated from commercial areas. This
development pattern results in heavy travel to and from residential areas during morning and
evening rush hours.
The Springfield 2035 TSP supports land use strategies to mitigate the strain on the roadways by
shortening home-to-work trips, supporting transit service, and making walk/bike trips more
practical for working, shopping, and other activities. With Metro Plan’s focus on more compact
development, significant future residential development is likely to occur in the Jasper-Natron
area and along the Main Street corridor (see Appendix F).
Regional and local travel within Springfield’s UGB is shaped by three primary highways: OR 126
Expressway, OR 126 Business Route (Main Street), and Interstate 5 (I-5), which forms the western
boundary of the UGB. While these highways provide access to, from, and through Springfield,
they also create significant barriers and constraints. ODOT operates and maintains these
highways; the City has no direct operational authority over these highways or their ramp
interchanges. OR 126 Expressway and I-5 are both limited access highways. Running the length
of the City, OR 126 Business Route (Main Street) provides the primary route for continuous east-
west travel in Springfield providing access to hundreds of jobs and homes. Congestion is
commonplace along all of these highways and recorded crash rates on OR 126 Business Route
suggest potential safety-related challenges for bicyclists and pedestrians. More information is
included in Volume 3, Appendix B: Existing conditions inventory and analysis.
In Springfield, as in the rest of the country, officials, and
community members recognize the importance of
providing transportation options for local and regional
travel and better managing existing facilities. Both
providing for non-auto modes and managing existing
facilities prior to adding new and/or costly infrastructure
reduces congestion, saves money, and provides health
benefits for Springfield citizens and visitors. This
balanced transportation system with a range of
choices that includes both demand and system
management techniques can reduce the need for
roadway widening projects that can have high costs or
significant community impacts.
Attachment 2, Page 13 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
5 5
Attachment 2, Page 14 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
6 6
This page was intentionally left blank.
Attachment 2, Page 15 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
7 7
Financial environment
A combination of federal, state, county, city, and private funds have traditionally supported
transportation capital improvements. While this remains the case, the overall funding paradigm –
at both the state and national levels is currently in flux. The recent national recession, reduction
or elimination of federal subsidies for timber counties, state-legislated revenue dedicated to
discrete projects, the recent overhaul of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP),
and Congress’ move away from federal earmarks for infrastructure have all combined to make
revenue forecasting an uncertain exercise. Today, as in the past, revenue streams are insufficient
to address both the backlog of maintenance and preservation needs across Oregon and the
needs of future transportation investments that support the future economic, health, and well-
being of its communities.
Given these uncertainties, it is nearly impossible to forecast accurately how much funding is likely
to be available for transportation investments and what projects or programs will receive
funding. At one end of the financial spectrum, the nation could view future investments in
transportation infrastructure as paramount to ensuring America’s prosperity. Under this scenario,
an infusion of federal transportation funds, unseen since the freeway-building era of the 1950s,
could result in a substantial increase in dollars available for state and local projects. This could
allow for increased and broader investments in projects that enhance the “active”
transportation network as well as those that provide new capacity on the roadway system to
benefit freight and private automobile travel. Something similar, although at a much smaller
scale, occurred when Oregon received one of the last federal earmarks for the specific purpose
of bridge rehabilitation and replacement along the I-5 corridor. The recent Transportation
Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant funding is also reflective of this
approach.
At the other end of the financial spectrum, the federal government could choose not to invest in
transportation infrastructure. Should this be the case, funds available locally from the Highway
Trust Fund and other federal funding sources will continue to diminish. This approach will
materially affect the ability of state and local governments to make network and system
improvements that support all modes of travel.
The most likely financial future for the City, and the nation, likely lies between these two
bookends. It is unclear whether federal, state, and local governments find the means to reinvest
in transportation infrastructure in the future consistent with the vision and priorities in the Oregon
Transportation Plan (OTP). The level of uncertainty faced by local planners and decision makers
is unprecedented in the recent history of transportation planning. Recognizing this context, the
Springfield 2035 TSP includes the City’s best thinking about potential funding sources but
acknowledges that adequate funding to implement needed improvements over the next 20
years is unlikely to be available and that predicting the funding streams and types of projects
that can be funded is nearly impossible.
It is unlikely that the City will construct every project contained in the 2035 TSP in the next 20
years. While the 2035 TSP does prioritize planned projects, the City may choose to advance any
of the identified projects as opportunities arise. These opportunities present themselves as
changes in policy or funding at the federal, state, or local level; local development priorities; or
public-private or public-public partnerships. The categories of projects into a 20-year list versus
those that could occur beyond 20 years, is intended to be interpreted flexibly to allow the City to
make wise investments consistent with the overall vision contained in the 2035 TSP and to
leverage opportunities as they arise. The TSP goals and policies can serve as a guide when
making these decisions over the life of the Plan.
Attachment 2, Page 16 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
8 8
Organization of the 2035 TSP
The Springfield 2035 TSP is comprised of an Executive Summary, a main document (Volume 1),
and two volumes of technical appendices. Volume 1 (this document) is the “final report” and
includes items that will be of interest to the broadest audience. It is also the portion of the Plan,
which is officially “adopted.” The main volume includes:
Chapter 1: Provides a brief overview of the planning context for the 2035 TSP and the
public process that supported its development
Chapter 2: Discusses the goals and policies that express the City’s long-range vision for
the transportation system
Chapter 3: Summarizes the process undertaken to develop the 2035 TSP, including the
detailed analysis of existing and future conditions and the screening and evaluation of
transportation strategies and projects
Chapter 4: Provides a transportation planning “tool box” of principles and strategies that
can guide future project implementation
Chapter 5: Includes recommended policy guidelines and standards and multi-modal
improvement projects to address existing and forecast transportation needs
Chapter 6: Provides a summary of transportation revenues and expenses, past trends,
and forecasts of potential future trends
Chapter 7: Summarizes required changes in the Springfield codes and policies to needed
to implement the TSP.
Volume 2 includes technical information that directly supplements Volume 1, including the
specific implementing ordinances for the 2035 TSP and elements from related plans.
Volume 3 includes the technical memoranda that were prepared in the development of the
Springfield 2035 TSP as well as the detailed data and analysis used to prepare the final report.
Attachment 2, Page 17 of 93
Chapter 2: Goals and policies
Creating goals, policies, and action items
The 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) goals
reflect the community’s vision for Springfield’s
future transportation system and offer a
framework for policies and action items. The
goals are aspirational and are unlikely fully
attained within the 20-year planning horizon.
The policies, organized by goal, provide high-
level direction for the City’s policy and decision-
makers and for City staff. The policies will be
implemented over the life of the Plan.
The action items offer direction to the City about
steps needed to implement recommended
policies. Not all policies include action items.
Rather, action items outline specific projects,
standards, or courses of action for the City
and/or for its partner agencies to take to
implement the TSP. These action items will be
updated over time and provide guidance for
future decision-makers to consider. Many of the
action items respond directly to the needs and
deficiencies identified in the TSP (Volume 3,
Appendix C: No Build analysis and Appendix D:
20-year needs analysis). Other action items
reflect the need for future transportation
planning efforts, such as refinement plans,
updating ongoing studies, etc.
The City vetted the goals, policies, and action items through an extensive engagement process.
Previously adopted goals, objectives, and policies found in the joint TSP for Eugene and
Springfield (TransPlan; amended 2002) were used as a foundation to begin the update. Staff also
incorporated City Council and Planning Commission input from previous work sessions, as well as
input from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC), Technical Advisory Committee (TAC),
City staff, and the public to develop goals, policies, and action items. The City revised the goals,
policies, and action items several times during the planning process. Specific details of this
process are in Volume 3 of this Plan.
2035 TSP goals, policies, and action items
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.
Goals
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.
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.
Goal 3: System design - Enhance and
expand Springfield’s transportation system
design to provide a complete range of
transportation mode choices.
Goal 4: System financing - Create and
maintain a sustainable transportation
funding plan that provides implementable
steps towards meeting Springfield’s vision.
Attachment 2, Page 18 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
1
0
10
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 1: When evaluating needed roadway improvements, consider the
economic viability of existing commercial and industrial areas.
Policy 1.2: Consider environmental impacts of the overall transportation system and strive
to mitigate negative effects and enhance positive features.
- Action 1: Strive to reduce vehicle-related greenhouse gas emissions and
congestion through more sustainable street, bike, pedestrian, transit, and rail
network design, location, and management.
- Action 2: Coordinate the transportation network with new alternative energy
infrastructure such as electric vehicle charging stations, natural gas, and
hydrogen cell fueling stations.
Policy 1.3: Provide a multi-modal transportation system that supports mixed-use areas,
major employment centers, recreation, commercial, residential, and public
developments, to reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs).
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.
- Action 1: Create a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes and way-finding
signage that guides users to destination points.
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.
Policy 2.1: Manage the roadway system to preserve safety, longevity, and operational
efficiency.
- Action 1: Evaluate, update, and implement access management regulations to
roadways for new or modified access to the roadway system.
- Action 2: Monitor and adjust signal timing along key corridors as needed to
improve traffic flow and safety.
- Action 3: Evaluate and adjust traffic control systems to optimize bicycle travel
along strategic bicycle routes.
- Action 4: Coordinate with LTD and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
to provide auto, pedestrian, and bicycle connections to the transit network.
Policy 2.2: Manage traffic operation systems for efficient freight and goods movement
along designated freight, truck, and rail routes in Springfield.
- Action 1: Adjust traffic control systems to discourage through truck traffic on
residential streets.1
1 “Residential Streets” are commonly defined as those with a street classification of “Local” passing through a
residentially zoned area.
Attachment 2, Page 19 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
1
1
11
- Action 2: Coordinate with rail providers to improve at-grade rail crossing
treatments to improve traffic flow and manage conflict points; create grade-
separated rail crossings when possible
Policy 2.3: Expand existing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs related
to carpooling, alternate work schedules, walking, bicycling, and transit use in order to
reduce peak hour congestion and reliance on SOVs.
- Action 1: Coordinate with adopted strategies in the Regional Transportation
Options Plan to increase opportunities for transportation options in Springfield.
Policy 2.4: Maintain and preserve a safe and efficient bike and pedestrian system in
Springfield.
- Action 1: Coordinate with Willamalane Parks and Recreation District to maintain
and preserve the off-street path system.
- Action 2: Prioritize lighting in strategic areas with high pedestrian and bicycle
traffic.
Policy 2.5: Coordinate with LTD to increase the transit system’s accessibility and
convenience for all users, including the transportation-disadvantaged population.
- Action 1: When possible, manage traffic control systems to reduce travel time for
transit and other high-occupancy vehicles along key corridors.
- Action 2: Monitor and adjust bus stop locations as needed to support surrounding
land uses and provide more efficient and safe service.
- Action 3: Coordinate with LTD to reflect LTD’s long-range plans in Springfield’s
transportation system.
Policy 2.6: Manage the on-street parking system to preserve adequate capacity and
turnover for surrounding land uses.
- Action 1: Implement Springfield’s adopted July 2010 Downtown Parking
Management Plan.
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.
- Action 1: 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.
Policy 2.8 Maximize the use and utility of existing infrastructure through efficient
management of traffic control devises.
Policy 2.9: Use motor vehicle LOS standards to evaluate 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
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR; Oregon Administrative Rules [OAR] 660-12-0060).
Evaluating development applications for consistency with the land-use regulations
of the applicable local government jurisdiction.
Attachment 2, Page 20 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
1
2
12
Under peak hour traffic conditions, acceptable and reliable performance is
defined as LOS D.
Performance standards from the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) shall be applied on
state facilities in the Springfield metropolitan area and alternative mobility targets
will be sought as necessary.
Policy 2.10: 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 multi-modal LOS methodology for all
modes and to facilitate and encourage intermodal connections where most
appropriate. Multi-modal LOS generally is reflective of the following:
Transit –LOS is based on a combination of the access, waiting, and ride experience,
as well as travel time, frequency, safety, and reliability.
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 –LOS is based on a combination of pedestrian experience, density of
land use, and other factors including efficiency, safety, and pedestrian comfort
level.
Auto –LOS is based on a combination of travel time, delay, stops, safety, and
queues.
Freight –LOS is based on a combination of travel time, delay, stops, safety, and
queues.
Intermodal –LOS is based on an evaluation of the frequency and convenience of
connections between different travel modes.
- Action 1: Develop and adopt a multi-modal 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 the 2035 TSP) will
apply until the new standard is adopted and in areas where the evaluation of a
multi-modal LOS is not necessary.
- Action 2: Once developed, multi-modal 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.
- 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.
Goal 3: System Design
Enhance and expand Springfield’s transportation system design to provide a complete range of
transportation mode choices.
Policy 3.1: Adopt and maintain a Conceptual Street Map
Attachment 2, Page 21 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
1
3
13
- Action 1: Update and maintain the Conceptual Street Map to address
transportation system deficiencies, goals, and policies. The Conceptual Street
Map should provide flexibility in connecting destination points, while also
providing assurance to adjacent property owners to the degree possible.
- Action 2: 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 2035 TSP.
- Action 3: Ensure that land use decisions conform to the Conceptual Street Map.
Policy 3.2: Expand and enhance Springfield’s bikeway system and provide bicycle
system support facilities for both new development and redevelopment/expansion.
- Action 1: Require bike lanes and/or adjacent paths along new and reconstructed
arterial and major collector streets.
- Action 2: Provide bike lanes on collector and arterial streets; provide parallel
routes and bike boulevards on adjacent streets where appropriate.
- Action 3: Create frequent bike and pedestrian crossings on wide or high-speed
streets using approved design techniques.
- Action 4: 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.
- Action 5: 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 6: Create city-wide bike parking stations in strategic locations such as
along major transit routes and in Springfield’s central business district.
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
- Action 1: Conduct a comprehensive review, update of Springfield street
standards, and develop code to address transportation system deficiencies,
adopted goals, and policies.
- Action 2: Consider effects of stormwater runoff in street design and reduce runoff
through environmentally sensitive street designs for new and reconstructed
streets.
- Action 3: Incorporate traffic calming measures into street designs and standards
where appropriate, considering the needs of emergency services vehicles. Traffic
calming measures should reduce vehicular speeds and bypass traffic while
encouraging safe bicycle and pedestrian travel.
- Action 4: Integrate pedestrian amenities into street designs that create pedestrian
refuges and allow safe and continuous pedestrian travel.
- Action 5: Provide mid-block pedestrian crossings where appropriate between
major pedestrian destinations and along major pedestrian corridors.
Attachment 2, Page 22 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
1
4
14
- Action 6: Develop criteria in which to evaluate alternative street design concepts.
Policy 3.4: Provide for a continuous transportation network with reasonably direct travel
routes to destination points for all modes of travel.
- Action 1: Design new streets to provide a connected grid network, including
alleyways, when technically feasible.
- Action 2: Construct sidewalks or other suitable pedestrian facilities along local
streets and along urban area arterial and collector roadways, except freeways.
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 1: Ensure that current design standards address mobility needs and meet
ADA standards.
Policy 3.6: Preserve corridors, such as rail rights-of-way, private roads, and easements
that are identified for future transportation-related uses.
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.
- Action 1: Update and maintain the ADA Transition Plan to address deficiencies in
the existing system and to assist in planning for new system improvements.
- Action 2: 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.
Policy 3.8: Coordinate the design of Springfield’s transportation system with relevant
local, regional, and state agencies.
- Action 1: Work with ODOT, Lane County, and LTD to improve pedestrian and
bicycle facilities along state highways and major transit routes where
appropriate.
- Action 2: Coordinate with Springfield Public Schools to provide key bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit facilities and near schools to ensure safe, convenient, and
well-connected routes to schools.
- Action 3: Partner with LTD to provide frequent transit network2 connections along
major corridors. Frequent transit network should connect to local neighborhood
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
Attachment 2, Page 23 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
1
5
15
bus service and major activity centers to provide viable alternatives to vehicle
trips.
- Action 4: Coordinate existing and planned transportation system and land uses
with LTD to expand the park-and-ride system where appropriate within
Springfield.
- Action 5: Coordinate with the Willamalane Park and Recreation District to address
bicycle and pedestrian system deficiencies and address new transportation
system goals and policies in the Willamalane Parks and Recreation District
Comprehensive Plan, including providing improved connectivity to parks and
open space areas.
- Action 6: Develop and implement criteria that trigger jurisdictional phasing and
transfer of roads, highways, and other applicable transportation facilities.
- Action 7: Coordinate with Lane County to ensure transition between rural and
urban transportation facilities within the Springfield urban growth boundary (UGB).
- Action 8: Coordinate with ODOT and the City of Eugene to ensure regional
transportation system connectivity.
Policy 3.9: Support provision of rail-related infrastructure improvements as part of the
Cascadia High-Speed Rail Corridor project.
- Action 1: In coordination with agency 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 2: Further consider regional high speed passenger rail needs coordinated
with the Springfield Downtown District Plan and implementation strategy.
Policy 3.10: 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 recommended
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, future needs, safety, construction, and operational costs.
- Action 1: When analyzing the appropriate treatment for a new or reconstructed
intersection, the City will consider the needs consistent with policy 3.10.
Goal 4: System Financing:
Create and maintain a sustainable transportation-funding plan that provides implementable
steps towards meeting Springfield’s vision.
• 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 2, Page 24 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
1
6
16
Policy 4.1: Support development of a stable and flexible transportation finance system
that provides adequate resources for transportation needs identified in the Springfield
2035 TSP.
- Action 1: Develop criteria that support adopted 2035 TSP goals and policies and
that help prioritize transportation maintenance, preservation, and construction
projects.
- Action 2: 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 3: Give funding priority to safety actions and operations to maximize use
and utility of existing system.
- Action 4: Provide financial incentives, improvements and programs at discretion
of City to new and existing local businesses that encourage multi-modal
transportation options to employees and/or customers.
- Action 5: 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 2, Page 25 of 93
A typical roadway (collectors and
arterials) in Springfield has multiple lanes
of car traffic, a bike lane, and a sidewalk
Chapter 3: Transportation System
Plan process
The Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) was developed collaboratively with City of
Springfield staff, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and Stakeholder Advisory Committee
(SAC). In addition, the Planning Commission and City Council provided policy direction
throughout the process. The overall vision developed out of extensive public involvement and
with direct input from the TAC, SAC, Planning Commission, and Council. Project staff worked
closely with City Council and the public to identify core community values to be included in
goals and policies that helped shape the evaluation criteria used to develop the 2035 TSP
project lists. This chapter summarizes the process used to develop and prioritize 2035 TSP projects
as well as the key themes from the needs analysis that framed the development of project
ideas.
Existing and future needs
The 2035 TSP recommendations are based on input received from the community, City staff,
partner agency staff, City policy-makers, a review of existing multi-modal transportation
conditions, forecast deficiencies, and a multi-step evaluation of improvement options. Decision
making included both analysis of potential transportation improvement options and a detailed
review of relevant state, regional, and local plans and policies. The following sections outline the
key findings from the existing and future needs analyses that helped shape the improvement
options evaluated.
Existing conditions analyses
Inventory of the multi-modal transportation system
characteristics identified existing needs, opportunities,
and constraints. This inventory reviewed all major
transportation-related facilities and services within the
UGB. Key roadway features, traffic conditions, safety
performance, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and
transit service, among other topics were analyzed.
Detailed findings of the technical analysis are
summarized in Volume 3, Appendix B: Existing conditions
inventory and analysis. Key findings of the analyses
include:
The City is currently working with Point2point
Solutions on a regional Safe Routes to School
program. As part of these efforts the City may
want to prioritize solutions for the Centennial Road corridor.
The City and ODOT should continue to prioritize funding and implementation of the
pedestrian safety improvements identified along the Main Street corridor.
Overall, the City has good sidewalk coverage on arterials and collectors. However,
improvement of the quality and continuity of these facilities could enhance the walking
Attachment 2, Page 26 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
1
8
18
and cycling experience within the City. In addition, sidewalk gaps on routes that provide
direct access to schools, such as Yolanda Road, are notable deficiencies in the network.
Approximately half of the City’s arterials and collectors have some form of designated
bike facility. Notable gaps include Game Farm Road, sections of Harlow Road, 28th
Street, 30th Street/Commercial and Jasper Road. The Glenwood mixed use area also has
minimal bicycle facilities. The most significant gaps are along Franklin and Glenwood
boulevards.
The shared-use path system is an asset to the community for both pedestrian and bicycle
travel and recreation. However, connections to and between paths could be improved
city wide. Limited wayfinding at critical points (such as from the I-5 Pedestrian and
Bicycle Bridge at Gateway Mall) limits usefulness. A connection between the eastern
terminus of the EWEB path and the McKenzie Levee path could expand access to both
paths and provide a separated facility to improve east/west travel.
Existing land uses north of Main Street and west of Thurston present barriers for
pedestrians and cyclists. Given the current location of large industrial uses and the OR126
Expressway, pedestrians and cyclists are forced to travel east-west on Main Street, which
presents logistical and potential safety challenges. A new multi-use path connection at
the oxbow of the McKenzie River, near OR126 Expressway would provide an essential
east-west connection north of Main Street.
The majority of the intersections studied meet applicable performance standards under
existing conditions. Four intersections studied would require modification if the
performance standards remain as they are today.
2035 forecast analysis
Eugene and Springfield, Lane County and Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) staff worked
collaboratively to estimate year 2035 population and employment growth within the region as
well as within individual areas of each city. This interagency collaboration ensures that the
Eugene, Springfield and Coburg TSP analyses are based on the same fundamental assumptions
and that the population and employment forecasts are “coordinated” for compliance with
state transportation and land use planning requirements. Table 1 shows the existing and future
population and employment estimates for the City of Springfield.
TABLE 1
Land use estimates
Year 2010 Year 2035* Growth
Population 67,683 84,830 17,147 (25%)
Households 28,300 35,490 7,190 (25%)
Employees 29,300 40,240 10,940 (37%)
*For the purposes of the TSP, land use growth was concentrated only in the existing Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
Although the City is considering possible expansions to the UGB, decisions on whether and/or where to expand the UGB have not been made at the time of adoption of this TSP draft. The impact of growth occurring outside the existing UGB will be addressed in an update to the TSP once these decisions have been made.
Attachment 2, Page 27 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
1
9
19
No Build transportation system assumptions
City of Springfield plans, TransPlan and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) have previously
identified a variety of street, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit projects that could be implemented
in the future. At this point, there are no guaranteed funding sources for any major projects that
will materially affect traveler behaviors and traffic volumes on the City’s street network in the
future. As such, the No Build assumes that the existing street, pedestrian, bicycle and transit
system is in-place in the year 2035.
Traffic Volume Development
Based on estimates of future job and household growth, LCOG developed traffic volume
forecasts for the City’s collector and arterial street system, using an “emme” travel demand
model. This model is calibrated to actual traffic volume counts recently measured on streets
within the City. In addition to land use and street network inputs, the model also relies on
information about existing traveler behavior and trip-making characteristics to understand how
people might use the transportation system in the future.
Based on information obtained from LCOG, coupled with measured traffic counts at
intersections and roadways within the City, year 2035 intersection and roadway volumes were
analyzed using a procedure consistent with guidance from ODOT’s Analysis and Procedures
Manual (APM).
No Build analyses
The results of the year 2035 No Build analyses are summarized in Volume 3, Appendix C: No Build
analysis. A summary of the key findings include:
Glenwood Mixed Use Neighborhood: Franklin Boulevard, Glenwood Boulevard, and
McVay Highway and the primary intersections along these streets are anticipated to
experience congestion in the future given the role that they serve in both the regional
and local transportation system.
42nd Street Corridor: Five of the seven intersections along this corridor are anticipated to
exceed performance standards. Additionally, congestion is projected in the vicinity of
OR 126 as well as Main Street.
OR 126 Expressway: This corridor is anticipated to experience congestion throughout
much of its length between I-5 and 58th Street. This corridor serves as a key east-west
route for intracity, intercity, and statewide trips to/from Central Oregon.
Main Street (OR 126 Business): The 42nd Street, OR 126, and 58th Street intersections are
forecast to exceed the capacity. In addition, the corridor segments between 21st and
48th Streets as well as in the vicinity of the OR 126 intersection are anticipated to
experience congestion.
Centennial Boulevard: The intersections and corridor are forecast to operate acceptably
although the recorded crash history indicates that the corridor experiences higher than
typical rear-end crashes, especially between Pioneer Parkway and Mohawk Boulevard.
Corridor Strategies: In addition to projected levels of congestion at intersections and
along corridors, the No Build analyses also include the identification of a variety of
possible strategies related to improving the walking and cycling environment, improving
Attachment 2, Page 28 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
2
0
20
connectivity, enhancing freight mobility, improving the efficiency of the existing roadway
system (i.e., transportation system management measures) and reducing the need for
single occupancy vehicle travel through transportation demand management.
Evaluation process
Using the existing and No Build opportunities and constraints analysis and input from the public,
the team identified potential projects ideas. The multistep process used to screen and evaluate
projects is described below.
Evaluation framework
Early in the 2035 TSP process, the project team, working with the SAC, TAC, Planning Commission,
and City Council, developed an evaluation framework. The City translated the draft 2035 TSP
policies into evaluation criteria to help determine the relative priority of projects. Table 2 presents
the evaluation framework.
TABLE 2
Evaluation framework
Goal 1. Community development
1A Is consistent with community development goals and vision in Metro Plan and the draft Springfield 2030 Plan
and Metro Plan
1B Minimizes impacts on natural resources, scenic and historic areas and open spaces as reflected in the City’s Goal 5 Resource inventory
1C Enhances connectivity within and between major activity centers including employment centers, high density residential areas and community resources like major parks
1D Minimizes negative impacts to existing and future neighborhoods from transportation projects and policies
1E Reduces greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicle travel through provision of services and facilities that reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicle travel
1F Minimizes negative impacts to developable and developed commercial and industrial sites
1G Supports safe and efficient multi-modal access to major developable employment centers, City redevelopment priorities (e.g., Glenwood, Downtown, Gateway and Jasper-Natron), and other key
destinations
1F Maintains the economic viability of existing commercial and industrial areas
Goal 2. System management
2A Improves mobility on designated freight, truck and rail routes over no build scenario
2B Improves mobility for through-traffic on highways and freeways over no build scenario
2C Manages access on state, county and city roadways toward relevant standards
2D Supports roadway improvements that provide safe access for all users, regardless of age, ability or mode of transportation
2E Provides bike and pedestrian connectivity to transit corridors
2F Provides support for reliable transit service on key routes
Attachment 2, Page 29 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
2
1
21
2G Reduces delay at key arterial intersections
2H Addresses known safety issues
Goal 3. System design
3A Closes key gaps in the bike system
3B Closes key gaps in the pedestrian system
3C Addresses known safety issues
3D Supports or enhances ability to implement key state or regional projects/priorities
3E Promotes intermodal connectivity
3F Addresses pedestrian and bike connectivity gaps and safety issues that affect key routes to schools (as defined in Safe Routes to Schools programs) and parks
3G Provides transit, bike, and pedestrian connections to multiuse paths
3H Reduces trip lengths for all users
3I Closes key gaps in the roadway system
3J Closes key gaps in the transit system
Goal 4. System financing
4A Prioritizes investments that provide maximum benefit for the associated cost
4B Considers future operation and maintenance costs in investment choices
4C Leverage investments in the existing system where the existing system can meet future needs
Project identification and screening
The City identified potential 2035 TSP projects (project ideas) from a variety of sources, including:
Existing plans such as the Regional Transportation Plan and the Willamalane Parks and
Recreation District Comprehensive Plan
Planning Commission and City Council work sessions
TAC and SAC
City staff
Community members through online comment maps or at public meetings
Through this process, more than 100 project ideas were identified for further refinement and
screening. Five maps illustrated these ideas generally showing different geographic areas of the
City. Ideas were grouped into the following general categories:
Connectivity or multi-modal improvement
Bicycle or pedestrian improvement
Transit improvement
Off-street path improvement
Attachment 2, Page 30 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
2
2
22
Safety or congestion improvement
Ongoing studies
Intersection or capacity improvement
Initially, “fat lines” graphically represented these project ideas. The ideas were not developed
into specific projects. Rather, City staff, the TAC, and SAC discussed the ideas conceptually.
Once a complete initial list of ideas was developed, City staff, and the project team screened
project ideas based on the following questions:
Does the project idea address a transportation problem?
Is the project idea within the control/influence of the City to implement?
Is the project idea technically and politically feasible?
Could the project idea be constructed at a reasonable cost?
If the answer to any question was “no,” the project idea was set aside; all others were
advanced for further study. The SAC and TAC reviewed the screened set of project ideas.
In addition to this formal screening process, staff eliminated a few projects later in the process
because became they recognized that a project did not meet one of the evaluation criteria.
Generally, this was because more detailed transportation operations analysis showed that a
project did not address a transportation need. In addition, staff added a few project ideas later
to respond to transportation needs that were not identified initially.
Project evaluation
The City advanced projects that supported development or redevelopment, were minor
projects with relatively low costs and impacts, or were transit projects to be implemented by LTD
without additional evaluation. Studies areas were also advanced.
The team qualitatively applied the evaluation criteria to the remaining projects, including all
urban standards projects, higher cost and scale roadway projects, and higher cost and scale
pedestrian and bicycle projects. The team initially considered all evaluation criteria, but the
following criteria were most useful in differentiating among projects:
Impacts to developable parcels, developed properties, and neighborhoods
Support for new and redevelopment priorities
Mobility benefits for freight, through-traffic, and local traffic
Connectivity for all modes, particularly around major activity centers
Closure of gaps on pedestrian and bicycle routes and improved pedestrian and bicycle
routes near major activity centers and schools
Safety benefits for all users
Using the qualitative evaluation, the team identified these projects as 20-year projects and those
that could be implemented beyond the 20-year planning horizon. The SAC, TAC, Planning
Commission, and City Council reviewed the results of the evaluation. The outcomes of this
process are presented in Chapter 5.
Attachment 2, Page 31 of 93
Chapter 4: Transportation planning
tool box
This chapter summarizes a range of transportation-related strategies and solutions for the City to
consider as it implements projects and makes policy and financial decisions in the future. The
type of solutions included are intended to help the community maximize their investment in the
existing infrastructure, enhance the quality and availability of the pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, and plan for the long-term transportation needs of the community.
This tool box provides context for the recommended projects included in Chapter 5, can guide
the City as it evaluates projects that were not contemplated at the time the TSP was written, and
provides tools specifically applicable for the management of local streets and neighborhood
traffic issues.
Tool box
The “tool box” measures fall into the following categories:
Land use
Connectivity of the transportation network
“Active” transportation (i.e., walking, cycling, and transit)
Transportation demand management
Transportation system management and operations
Intersection control
Neighborhood traffic management
Land use
The types and intensities of land uses are important factors influencing travel demand and the
way that people get around. Low-density development tends to be linked to high motor vehicle
use compared to dense, mixed-use developments, which usually lead to shorter trips and use of
a greater variety of modes.
In Eugene and Springfield, these dense, mixed-use neighborhoods are sometimes referred to as
“nodes.” The “nodal concept” was accepted by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation
and Development (DLCD) as a regional measure to reduce vehicle miles traveled in
compliance with the 2001Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). As described in
Springfield’s current comprehensive planning document (Metro Plan; 2004 update), the nodal
concept calls for mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly developments that increase the density of
people and jobs along major transportation corridors; combining a mix of diverse and
compatible land uses with public and private improvements designed to be pedestrian- and
transit-oriented.
The 2002 update of TransPlan identified more than 50 potential neighborhood nodes sites
throughout the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. Currently there are about 430 acres of
mixed-use zoning in the nodes designated at Riverbend, Mohawk, Marcola Meadows,
Downtown, and Glenwood. An additional node is planned for the Jasper-Natron area in
Attachment 2, Page 32 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
2
4
24
southeast Springfield. Implementation Action 2.4 in the 2011 adopted Springfield 2030
Refinement Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element calls for Springfield to increase
opportunities for mixed-use nodal development.
Along with the strategies identified below, the City’s plans to increase density in these nodes,
especially in Glenwood, could move more residences closer to jobs, increase mixed-use
development, and help mitigate the strain on east-west streets by shortening home-to-work trips,
supporting transit service, and making walk/bike trips more viable for work, shopping, and other
activities.
Connectivity
A well-connected network reduces the need for “out-of-direction travel” while supporting
efficient distribution of travelers among multiple travel ways (roads, trails, sidewalks, etc.).
Connectivity improvements for bicycle and pedestrian networks are effective enhancements to
the transportation system, including improved access to transit. A common example of efficient
street connectivity is the traditional grid system, with north-south and east-west streets spaced at
generally equal distances.
In Springfield, the existing arterials and collectors, along with topography, natural resources, and
land development patterns preclude this type of network on a large scale. However, it is
possible to plan for improved connectivity by preserving right-of-way for future connections and
prioritizing funding to alleviate existing and future bottlenecks at key crossing locations. In fact,
the 2012 Phase I Glenwood Refinement Plan calls for establishing a grid block pattern of streets
to support redevelopment in the Glenwood Riverfront to provide multi-modal internal
circulation, disperse traffic, facilitate walking and biking, orient development to a public realm,
and enable clear and direct physical and visual routes between major arterials and the
riverfront.
Enhancing and increasing non-auto
travel modes
The following outlines examples of pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit improvements that can enhance the quality of
travel experience, provide more travel options, reduce
the number of automobile trips, and improve overall
safety of the transportation system.
Pedestrian system
Pedestrian facilities enable people to walk (or use mobility
devices) safely and efficiently between their homes, work,
shopping, schools, and recreational activities. A well-
planned pedestrian network includes walkways
(sidewalks, mixed-use paths), safe crossing locations, and
convenient connections to other modal facilities, such as
transit stops.
Sidewalks and multiuse pathways and trails provide the
backbone of the walkway and multi-modal facility
connections. A variety of pedestrian crossing treatments
are available for implementation, each applicable under
Common terms
Connectivity – the roads, trails,
sidewalks, etc. that are available
and how easy it is to get from
place to place; a grid system (like
Downtown) is the most connected
Low-density development – this
type of land use is spread out and
usually easier to get around in a
car or bus
Mixed-use development – a
combination of uses nearby one
another; such as employment,
dining, and housing within walking
or biking distance (called nodes or
nodal development)
Multi-modal – walking, biking,
taking transit, or using other ways
to get around beyond cars
Single occupancy vehicle (SOV) –
when people drive alone
Attachment 2, Page 33 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
2
5
25
a different range of factors. A brief description of the various pedestrian crossing types is
provided below.
Unmarked crosswalks – Under Oregon law,
pedestrians have the right-of-way to cross at
any unsignalized intersection.
Marked crosswalks –Street markings that
indicate the location of a crosswalk to motorists.
Marked crosswalks can be accompanied by
signs, curb extensions, pedestrian hybrid
beacons, rectangular rapid flashing beacons
(RRFBs), pedestrian signals, and/or median
refuge islands. These markings may occur at
intersections or mid-block locations.
Pedestrian hybrid beacon signal –A pedestrian-
activated beacon that interrupts car traffic to
provide a signalized, protected crossing for
pedestrians at an otherwise unsignalized
location.
Signalized Intersection – Signalized intersections
typically include a WALK signal that can be
automatically triggered or push-button
activated.
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFBs) –
User-activated amber lights that have an
irregular flash pattern similar to emergency
flashers on police vehicles. These supplement
warning signs at unsignalized intersections or
mid-block crosswalks.
Raised Pedestrian Refuge – Space within a
street median to allow pedestrians to easily
cross one direction of traffic, wait for a gap in
traffic, and then proceed to cross the other
direction of traffic.
Grade-Separated Crossing –Underpasses or
overpasses that allow pedestrians to entirely
avoid conflicts with automobiles when crossing
a busy street. When used as part of a multi-use
path, grade-separated crossings also
accommodate bicycles.
Bicycle system
Bicycle facilities include public infrastructure (bicycle lanes, mixed-use paths, signage, and
striping), as well as supporting private facilities (secure bike parking, changing rooms, and
showers at worksites). Each plays a role in developing a comprehensive bicycle network.
Pedestrian hybrid beacon signal
A speed bump serves as a crosswalk
Marked crosswalks with a raised pedestrian refuge
Grade-separated crossing over I-5
Attachment 2, Page 34 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
2
6
26
Many different bicycle facility types comprise a complete bicycle network that connects people
to their destinations and allows bicyclists to feel safe riding. Currently, Springfield’s bicycle
network primarily includes bicycle lanes, shared roadways, and multi-use paths. Examples of the
various bicycle facility types available for consideration by the City in the future are provided
below.
Shared Roadway – Any street without
dedicated bicycle facilities is a shared street. In
Springfield, shared streets include all public
streets without striped bicycle lanes. Where
traffic volumes are low, shared streets are
generally safe and comfortable facilities for
bicyclists. Some streets may have “sharrow”
pavement markings that remind both drivers
and cyclists to share the road. While these are
not required for automobiles and cyclists to
share the road, they are a good reminder to
both, especially on popular on-street bike routes
for cyclists.
Low-Traffic Bikeway (aka Bike Boulevard) – Low-
traffic bikeways are also known as bike
boulevards and provide high-quality bicycle
facilities on continuous street corridors with low
vehicular traffic volumes. Typically, low-traffic
bikeways occur on local streets which are
configured to prioritize bicycle trips and reduce
through automobile trips. Local automobile
access is retained. Bicycling conditions are
improved by reducing stop signs to a minimum
along the route and providing way-finding
information specific to bicyclists. The purpose of
a bike boulevard is to improve comfort and
safety for bicyclists while still allowing local
automobile access. Bike boulevards have a
distinctive look that includes a variety of traffic
calming elements.
Low-traffic bikeways are best used when they
parallel arterials and collectors and can provide
bicyclists with a low-volume alternative route.
Low-traffic bikeways are used extensively in
Portland and many areas of Eugene, and
recent rider surveys indicate that bicyclists
overwhelmingly prefer them compared to
major streets with bicycle lanes.
Bicycle Lane – Bicycle lanes are striped lanes on
the street dedicated for the exclusive use of
bicycles. Typically, bicycle lanes are placed at
the outer edge of pavement, but to the inside
of right-turn lanes and/or on-street parking. The
intent of bicycle lanes is to improve bicycle
Shared roadway, with a bike sharrow
Bike lane next to the car travel lanes,
includes green paint where cars turn into a parking lot
Low-traffic bikeway, includes a mini-roundabout to slow car traffic
Attachment 2, Page 35 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
2
7
27
safety by providing a clearly marked separate
area for cyclists. They can provide direct
connection between origins and destinations
where a separate multi-use path is not
available.
Bicycle Crossings – These treatments are used
to connect bicycle facilities at high traffic
intersections, multi-use path connections, or
other bike routes. Typical treatments include
bicycle detectors at traffic signals, bicycle-only
signals, or preferential movements for bicyclists,
such as only allowing bikes to make a through
movement.
Bicycle Parking – Bicyclists also benefit from
several other types of bicycle support facilities,
such as secure bicycle parking, either open or
covered racks, and storage lockers for clothing
and gear. The City currently requires bicycle
parking to be included in new development
and redevelopment as a condition of approval.
Lane Transit District buses are outfitted with
bicycle racks that allow bicyclists to bring their
bikes with them on transit. Allowing bicycles on
transit vehicles increases the range of trips
possible by both transit and bicycling and
reduces bicyclists’ fears of being stranded in the
event of a mechanical or physical breakdown.
Buffered bike lanes - Provide bicyclists greater
comfort than a typical on-street since they are
wider, with more space from the curb to the car
travel lane. They either can be painted the
same as a bike lane or can have diagonal paint
between the car and bike lane, which can
visually signal drivers that there is more space for
bikes and prevent cars from driving in the bike
lane.
Cycle tracks – A bike lane (or two) on the street
but physically separated from car traffic by
paint, parked cars, or even elevated at
sidewalk height. It is a combination of a
separated path and bike lane, but is separate
from car traffic and the sidewalk.
Multi-use pathways
Multi-use pathways are separated facilities dedicated to pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-
motorized uses. In Springfield, the Willamalane Park and Recreation District owns, operates, and
maintains most multi-use paths. However, the City of Springfield owns, operates, and/or
maintains a few paths. In both cases, Willamalane Parks and Recreation Distrct and the City of
Bicycle parking
Cycle track, traveling in both directions, separated from vehicle traffic with paint and parked cars
Attachment 2, Page 36 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
2
8
28
An EmX bus stop
Rosa Parks multi-use path
Springfield closely coordinate operation, maintenance, planning, funding, and constructing
multi-use paths in Springfield.
These pathways have an integral role in recreation,
commuting, and accessibility for residents. Springfield’s
off-street paths are located throughout the City,
including along open space areas, through residential
neighborhoods, and along industrial areas. Within the
City, existing and planned pathways serve and connect
several neighborhoods in Springfield but there are some
significant remaining gaps in the system, most notably
safe and efficient east-west connections. Future projects
implemented by both the City and in coordination with
Willamalane Parks and Recreation District can help
provide a comprehensive system of pathways.
Transit system
Transit service is an important part of a balanced
transportation system, providing an alternative to private
automobile travel for distances too far to walk or bike. The
City’s partnership with the Lane Transit District (LTD), as
well as with other agencies in the region, is essential to the
development of a more comprehensive transit system.
The City can also play a direct role in improving transit
service by providing services that support transit use, such
as transit stop amenities and safe and efficient pedestrian
connections.
Supporting an environment in which transit is a convenient travel option for the Springfield
community requires more than direct investments in transit service. Land use, connectivity, and
streetscape features have a major influence on the cost effectiveness of transit service. These
features will help Springfield get more out of its available transit investments. For this reason,
potential local strategies to improve transit service include planning for land uses that are transit
supportive and, in addition to providing appropriate facilities and connections to transit.
Transportation demand management
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures include any method intended allow
travelers to do one or more of the following:
shift travel demand from single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) to active modes (biking,
walking, or taking transit) or carpooling
travel at less congested times of the day
avoid the trip entirely through telecommuting or mixed land uses
Some common examples of TDM strategies include:
programs such as carpool matching assistance or flexible work shifts
parking management strategies
direct financial incentives, such as transit subsidies
Attachment 2, Page 37 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
2
9
29
A push button allows
pedestrians to safely cross a busy road
facility or service improvements, such as bicycle lockers or
increased bus service
Some of the most effective TDM strategies are best implemented by
employers and are aimed at encouraging non-SOV commuting, such
as preferential carpool parking, subsidized transit passes, and flexible
work schedules. Cities and other public agencies can play a critical
role in support of TDM through provision of facilities and services, as
well as development policies that encourage TDM.
Transportation system management
Transportation System Management (TSM) refers to a wide range of
strategies that improve operations of an existing roadway system to
avoid costly and/or undesirable roadway widening. TSM measures
can be focused on improving transportation “supply” through
enhancing capacity and efficiency, typically with advanced
technologies to improve traffic operations. Alternatively, they may be focused on reducing
transportation demand through promoting travel options and on-going programs intended to
reduce demand for drive-alone trips, especially during peak travel periods. The goals and
policies (Chapter 2) of the 2035 TSP address system management and propose specific actions
to improve how Springfield’s transportation system operates. Other regional and local plans in
the Eugene-Springfield area address system management, including the Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP), LTD’s Long Range Transit Plan (LRTP), and the Central Lane MPO ITS (Intelligent
Transportation System) Plan. Some of the key strategies identified for consideration in Springfield
are summarized in the following sections.
Signal retiming/optimization
Signal retiming and optimization refers to updating timing plans to better match prevailing traffic
conditions and coordinating signals. The City can apply timing optimization to existing systems or
may include upgrading signal technology, including signal communication infrastructure or
signal controllers or cabinets. Signal retiming can reduce travel times and be especially
beneficial to improving travel time reliability. In some strategic areas, the City could implement
signal retiming to improve or facilitate pedestrian movements during each cycle in high
pedestrian or desired pedestrian traffic areas, eliminating the need to push pedestrian crossing
buttons. The City could facilitate bicycle movements by installing bicycle detection along major
bicycle routes. Signal upgrades often come at a higher cost and usually require further
coordination between jurisdictions.
Advanced signal systems
Advanced signal systems incorporate various strategies in signal operations to improve the
efficiency of a transportation network. Strategies may include coordinated signal operations
across jurisdictions, as well as centralized control of traffic signals. Advanced signal systems can
reduce delay, travel time and the number of stops for vehicles. In addition, these systems may
help reduce vehicle emissions and have a high impact on improving travel time reliably.
Examples of advanced signal systems include: adaptive or active signal control, traffic
responsive control, and transit or freight priority signal systems.
Attachment 2, Page 38 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
3
0
30
Real-time transit information
A roundabout serves cars, pedestrians, bikes, and other vehicles
Roundabouts
Roundabouts can serve as an effective TSM strategy. A
roundabout is a circular intersection with yield control on
all approaches, islands to separate flows of traffic from
each other and pedestrians, and geometric features to
slow down traffic. Roundabouts have many benefits over
stop-controlled and signalized intersections. They have
proven safety benefits, often have lower delays, can lead
to less traffic, can reduce the need for widening, reduce
speeds in and around the roundabout, and as a result
can benefit the surrounding community.
Although roundabouts can be more costly to design and
install when compared to other intersection control types,
they have a lower operating and maintenance cost than traffic signals. Topography must be
carefully evaluated in considering a roundabout, given that slope characteristics at an
intersection may render a roundabout infeasible. Recently, several new roundabouts have
been successfully built in Springfield, including the multi-lane Pioneer Parkway / Hayden Bridge
roundabout.
While there are many benefits to roundabouts, some challenges can also exist. These often
include increased need for right-of-way and additional landscape maintenance. Additionally,
more assertive pedestrian and cycling skills are needed to properly navigate the intersection.
Real-time traveler information
Real-time transportation system information can provide the traveling public with includes
information on current traffic and road conditions, availability of parking supply; and traffic;
interruptions due to roadway incidents, street maintenance, and construction; and weather
conditions. Traveler information is collected from street sensors, traffic cameras, vehicle probes,
and, recently, media access control devices such as cell phones and laptops. Data from these
sources are sent to a central system and subsequently disseminated to the public so that drivers
can track conditions specific to their route and can provide historical and real-time traffic
conditions for travelers.
When travelers are supplied with information on their trips, they may be able to avoid heavy
congestion by altering a travel path, delaying the start of a trip, or changing which mode they
choose to use. This can reduce overall delay and fuel emissions.
Real-time transit information
Transit agencies or third-party sources can disseminate both
schedule and system performance information to travelers
through a variety of applications, such as in-vehicle,
wayside, or in-terminal dynamic message signs, as well as
the Internet or wireless devices. Coordination with regional
or multi-modal traveler information efforts can increase the
availability of this transit schedule and system performance
information. LTD has implemented this through the Trapeze’s
‘On-Street’ system.
These systems enhance passenger convenience and may
increase the attractiveness of transit to the public by
Attachment 2, Page 39 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
3
1
31
encouraging travelers to consider transit as opposed to driving alone. They do require
cooperation and integration between agencies for disseminating the information.
Access management
Access management describes a practice of managing the number, placement, and
movements of intersections and driveways that provide access to adjacent land uses. The Plan
considers these access points in context with traffic flow, safety, capacity, and speed on the
surrounding street system. Within developed areas, access management strategies may include
shared or consolidated access points, restrictions on access point movements (medians,
channelized movements), or closing access points. Access management provides several
potential benefits, such as reducing crashes and crash rates, as well as increasing capacity on
arterial and collector streets by maintaining vehicle flows and travel time.
In addition, well-deployed access management strategies can improve travel conditions for
pedestrians and bicycles. Eliminating the number of access points on streets reduces the
number of potential interruptions and conflict points between pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and
cars.
Access management is adopted typically as a policy in development guidelines. It can be
extremely difficult to implement an access management program once properties have been
developed along a corridor. Cooperation among and involvement of relevant agencies,
business owners, land developers, and the public is necessary to establish an access
management plan that benefits all street users and businesses. Springfield’s specific access
management standards are provided in the Springfield Development Code. The Oregon
Highway Plan (OHP) should be referenced for state highway access requirements.
Neighborhood traffic management
Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) describes a set of tools applicable for use in
residential neighborhoods to slow traffic or possibly reduce the volume of traffic. NTM is often
called ‘traffic calming’ due to its ability to contribute to neighborhood livability. 2035 TSP goals
and policies found in Chapter 2 of the 2035 TSP support traffic calming measures being further
developed in Springfield, in close coordination with emergency management officials. Some
local and regional examples of traffic calming that can potentially be used more in Springfield
are as follows:
Speed trailer (reader board that displays vehicle speeds)
Speed table
Speed humps
Mini roundabouts
Traffic circle
Entrance treatments
Raised crosswalks
Raised intersections
Diverters
Medians
Landscaping and trees
Attachment 2, Page 40 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
3
2
32
Chicanes
Chokers (narrow roadways in short sections)
Narrow streets
Closing streets
Half street closure
Photo radar
On-street parking
On-street protected bicycle facilities
Selective enforcement
Neighborhood watch
Curb extensions
Pavement texturing
Tighter intersection curb radii
Channelization
There are many opportunities, as well as challenges, with NTM. If planned and implemented
correctly, NTM can provide safer, more convenient bike and pedestrian routes on low-traffic
volume streets, and can help reduce automobile speeds. On the contrary, if not planned and
implemented correctly, NTM can create challenges for emergency vehicles attempting to
respond to an emergency and can result in shifting a problem from one neighborhood to
another. Measures are available to enable effective NTM deployment while also allowing
necessary emergency response time to neighborhoods. A number of streets in Springfield are
identified in the functional classification as neighborhood routes. These streets are typically
longer than the average local street and might otherwise attract cut-through traffic. These may
be appropriate locations for NTM applications.
Attachment 2, Page 41 of 93
Chapter 5: Transportation plan
This chapter presents the multi-modal Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP). The
elements included in the 2035 TSP support the goals and policies presented in Chapter 2 by
logically providing for the efficient care and expansion of the City’s multi-modal transportation
system. This chapter provides the policy and regulatory framework to guide the expansion of the
system and improvement projects to meet the future travel needs within the community.
This chapter includes the:
State and regional planning context
Policy and regulatory elements for management and design of roadways
Multi-modal improvement projects
Plan area
The City of Springfield is located within urban Lane County and is part of the Central Lane
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) area. In general, Springfield’s current boundaries are
defined by the McKenzie River to the north, Interstate 5 (I-5) to the west, the Willamette River to
the south, and rural Lane County to the east.
Figure 1 presents a map of the Plan area included in the Springfield 2035 TSP that includes the
City of Springfield and sections of unincorporated Lane County that are part of the Springfield
urban growth boundary (UGB). The unincorporated areas are required to be included in the
2035 TSP by the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR).
The City of Eugene, located directly west of the Springfield Plan area, is currently undertaking its
own TSP process. The City of Springfield coordinated its TSP directly with City of Eugene, and
other appropriate public agencies, to ensure coordination for regional facilities and issues.
State and regional planning context
While the focus of the Springfield 2035 TSP is the transportation system within the Springfield UGB,
the transportation facilities within the Plan area also have an important role in the state and
regional transportation system. In keeping with statewide planning goals related to interagency
coordination, the TSP is consistent with statewide, county, and regional transportation plans,
policies, and requirements.
The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) require that the 2035 TSP addresses the City’s current
comprehensive plan (Metro Plan; update 2004) land uses and that it provide for a transportation
system that accommodates the expected growth in population and employment that will result
from implementation of the land use plan. Development of the 2035 TSP was guided by ORS
197.712 and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) TPR
(Oregon Administrative Rules [OAR] 660-012).
The TPR requires that the 2035 TSP include provisions for safe and efficient travel by all travel
modes. City prioritization of enhancing the walking, biking and transit systems is essential to the
implementation of the TSP. The TPR also requires that local jurisdictions adopt land use and
subdivision ordinance amendments to protect transportation facilities and to provide bicycle
Attachment 2, Page 42 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
3
4
34
and pedestrian facilities between residential, commercial,
and employment/institutional areas. It is further required
that local communities coordinate their respective plans
with the applicable county, regional, and state
transportation plans.
The 2035 TSP is also consistent with the Central Lane 2035
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which is a federally
required plan that provides a regional framework for
transportation planning, coordination, and investment.
The Springfield 2035 TSP has been developed in close
coordination with the 2035 RTP update process to ensure
consistency at the state and regional levels. A
memorandum summarizing how the 2035 TSP and
implementing ordinances are compliant with the TPR and
other regulatory requirements is provided in Volume 3,
Appendix A: Plan and policies review.
Facilities
Four major regional transportation facilities are located
within or adjacent to the City of Springfield: I-5, OR 126
Business Route, Pioneer Parkway (between Main Street
and OR 126), and OR 126 Expressway. These are state
highways under the jurisdiction of the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) and subject to the
operational and design requirements placed by the state.
Plans for improvements to the highways and
interchanges, as well as changes to adjacent land uses
and access points must be developed in a manner
consistent with ODOT plans, guidelines, and standards.
Related plans and policies
City of Springfield staff reviewed relevant plans and policies in current state, regional, and local
documents that could that affect transportation planning in Springfield. This review highlighted
guidelines and procedures relevant to the development of the 2035 TSP and provided a
baseline to begin forming policies for the 2035 TSP. In addition to reviewing relevant state and
regional plans such as TransPlan and the Metro Plan (2004 update), the following local plans
(including refinement plans) were reviewed:
Local
Lane County Transportation Plan (2004)
Springfield Bicycle Plan (1998)
Springfield Capital Improvement Program (2014-2018 – updated annually)
Springfield Development Code (2010-2013 – periodically updated)
Willamalane Park and Recreation Plan (2013)
This Plan, including the Plan’s
project lists, does not have any
legal or regulatory effect on land
or transportation facilities that the
City does not own. However, the
planning process evaluated some
facilities that are not under the
City’s jurisdiction. As such, the Plan
includes proposed improvements
to non-City facilities. Without
additional action by the
governmental entity that owns the
subject facility or land (i.e., Lane
County) any project in this Plan
that involves a non-City facility is
merely a recommendation. As in
most facility planning efforts,
moving towards, and planning for,
a well- connected network
depends on the cooperation of
multiple jurisdictions; the Plan is
intended to facilitate discussions
between the City and its
governmental partners as we work
together to achieve a well-
connected network. The Plan
does not, however, obligate its
governmental partners to take any
action or construct any projects.
Attachment 2, Page 43 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
3
5
35
Neighborhood refinement plans
East Kelly Butte Neighbor(1982)
East Main (1988)
Gateway (1995)
Glenwood Refinement Plan (1999)
Glenwood Refinement Plan Phase I Update (2012)
Mid-Springfield (1986)
Q Street (1987)
Springfield Downtown District Urban Design Plan and Implementation Strategy (2010)
A full list of applicable plans, goals, and policies, including the ones listed above, can be found
in Volume 3, Appendix A: Plan and policies review. Highlights of regional plans are also listed as
follows.
Central Lane MPO Regional Transportation Plan (RTP): 2011
The Central Lane MPO RTP meets federal guidelines for the plan area and guides regional
transportation system planning and agency coordination. The RTP currently has a planning
horizon that goes beyond the planning horizons of the Metro Plan and TransPlan. The RTP is
updated every four years. The Springfield 2035 TSP must be consistent with the most currently
updated RTP.
Central Lane MPO Regional Transportation System Plan (RSTP): In process
The Central Lane MPO RSTP will update the policies, projects, and strategies that guide
transportation planning and investments within the Central Lane MPO, through 2031 (a new plan
building from the TransPlan and serving the same regional purpose). The RTSP will be updated
after Eugene, Coburg, and Springfield complete their TSP processes.
Lane County Transportation System Plan (TSP): 2004
The 2004 Lane County TSP is an update to the County’s 1980 Transportation Plan. The TSP is a
20-year planning document used to facilitate the orderly and efficient management of the
County’s transportation system. The Lane County TSP is a component of the County’s
Comprehensive Plan, which includes all currently adopted City-adopted comprehensive plans
and transportation system plans (e.g., TransPlan). The County TSP looks to the TransPlan when
decisions are needed regarding transportation facilities within the Springfield UGB. County roads
within the UGB must comply with the Lane County TSP and applicable Lane County rules,
regulations, and standards.
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan): 2004 update
Metro Plan serves as the comprehensive plan for both Eugene and Springfield. The 2004 Metro
Plan is the third update since 1990. The plan serves as Eugene, Springfield, and metropolitan
Lane County’s long range policy document; guiding land use for all three jurisdictions within the
plan’s boundaries. Metro Plan addresses all applicable statewide planning goals either in the
plan itself or through supporting facility or master plans such as local TSPs, parks plans, etc. To
comply with state regulations, Metro Plan provides a 20-year land supply. Current efforts by
Attachment 2, Page 44 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
3
6
36
Eugene and Springfield to create separate UGBs will result in separate, city‐wide refinement
plans to Metro Plan.
Metro Plan outlines regional goals, findings, objectives, and policies. Those policies with the most
impact on Springfield’s overall transportation system are listed in Volume 3, Appendix A: Plan
and policies review. These policies are grouped into three sections: Growth Management,
Transportation, and Citizen Involvement. The identified policies listed below (under
Transportation) are identical to policies found in TransPlan.
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan): amended
2002
TransPlan is the transportation element of Metro Plan. TransPlan is a system plan that guides local
and regional transportation system planning and development in the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan area. TransPlan also serves as the City’s facilities plan (or TSP) to identify projects
needed to meet transportation needs over a 20-year planning horizon, while addressing
transportation issues and proposing changes that can contribute to improvements in the
region’s quality of life and economic vitality. In addition to roadway facilities, TransPlan also calls
for significant increases in the amount and convenience of transit service, bikeways, sidewalks,
and an expansion of the existing program of transportation demand management (TDM) travel
incentives. TransPlan is a jointly adopted document that serves as a local transportation system
plan for both Springfield and Eugene, which, at present, share a joint UGB. Because of legislation
approved in 2007, the two cities are now in the process of developing separate UGBs.
The TransPlan theme, ‘Improving Our Transportation Choices,’ reflects the plan’s focus to provide
citizens with a range of safe, convenient, and efficient transportation options characterized by
smooth connections between modes. TransPlan strives to support the need to diversify
transportation choices, while avoiding reliance on any one transportation mode or method of
managing the transportation system. TransPlan establishes the framework upon which all public
agencies can make consistent and coordinated planning decisions regarding inter- and intra-
jurisdictional transportation.
Because TransPlan served as the locally adopted TSP for Springfield during the creation of the
2035 TSP, the City analyzed all of its policies as part of the 2035 TSP. Upon adoption, the 2035 TSP
replaces TransPlan as the City’s TSP.
Coordination with plans and infrastructure
The planning efforts noted above and other future efforts by neighboring jurisdictions may have
an impact on Springfield’s transportation system. In the future, the City of Springfield will
coordinate and collaborate with other planning efforts, as appropriate, to ensure integration of
any recommended transportation related projects with the future vision for the City.
Coordinating these plans with implementation of other 2035 TSP elements can provide
opportunities for additional efficiencies in funding, construction, and system impacts during
project construction.
To the extent possible, the City of Springfield will coordinate transportation system infrastructure
improvements with other types of infrastructure projects within the City (e.g., water, storm
drainage, sewer, power, and other utilities) to save costs and minimize disruptions to residents,
businesses, and travelers.
Attachment 2, Page 45 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
3
7
37
Common terms
Access - the ability for travelers a
way in to those land uses and
destinations
Mobility - actual physical travel
that occurs between destinations
Functional classification - defines a
roadway’s primary role in terms of
providing mobility and access for
all modes of travel, directing the
design and management of the
roadway
Guiding principles for street design and operations
A number of additional transportation related elements will guide development review and
project development in Springfield in the future. These elements are discussed in more detail
below and include:
Street design standards
Truck routes
Intersection performance standards
Access management guidelines
Connectivity guidelines
Safety
Functional classification of roadways
Functional classification defines a roadway’s primary
role in terms of providing mobility and access for all
modes of travel. Mobility refers to the actual physical
travel that occurs between destinations like home,
shopping, and work, whereas access is simply the ability
for travelers to access those land uses to meet daily
needs. For example, a freeway provides the highest
level of mobility (high speeds) with access limited to
interchange ramps that may be a mile apart or more.
A neighborhood street is on the opposite end of the
spectrum, providing the highest level of access
(driveways accessing every property) and with very low
mobility (low traffic volumes and speeds).
An individual street’s classification directs the design and management of the roadway,
including right-of-way needs, the number of travel lanes, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, on-
street parking, and access management guidance. Figure 2 shows the functional classification
for each roadway in Springfield.
The functional classification system for streets within Springfield is generally guided by this TSP, the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), and the City of Springfield
Development Code (see Figure 2). A general description of functional classifications is provided
below:
Interstate highways: These facilities provide for travel among major cities, regions of the
state, and areas outside the state. The primary objective for interstate highways is
mobility. Within urban areas such as Springfield, the secondary function of interstate
highways is to provide for regional trip making.
Major arterials: These facilities are intended to carry high volumes of traffic and primarily
provide mobility and not access. Major arterials provide continuity for intercity traffic
through the urban area and are often multi-lane highway facilities.
Minor arterials: These facilities interconnect with and augment the major arterial system
and accommodate trips of somewhat shorter length. Minor arterials interconnect
residential, shopping, employment, and recreational activities within the community.
Attachment 2, Page 46 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
3
8
38
Major and neighborhood collectors: These streets provide both land access and
movement within residential, commercial, and industrial uses. They gather traffic from
local streets and serve as connectors to arterials.
Local streets: These facilities have the primary function of providing access to adjacent
land uses. Local streets often have several driveways along them and are not intended
for long-distance trips. Through traffic on local streets is discouraged by street design.
They also often serve as ideal bicycle and pedestrian routes given their often low traffic
volumes.
Alleys: These streets provide local access and services for residences and businesses.
Attachment 2, Page 47 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
3
9
39
Attachment 2, Page 48 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
4
0
40
This page was intentionally left blank.
Attachment 2, Page 49 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
4
1
41
Street design standards
Street design standards provide information on how streets “look and feel.” These standards
indicate how existing streets can be modified and new streets can be constructed to
accommodate the needs of people with disabilities, riding bicycles, riding transit, walking, and
driving automobiles and freight vehicles. Chapter 2 of the 2035 TSP, Policy, 3.3, Action 1 states
that city-wide street standards will be updated subsequent to the 2035 TSP. The goals, policies,
and action items in the 2035 TSP provide overall guidance for the street standards update.
The City should consider the following as part of the street standards update:
Travel lanes: When arterial and collector streets are improved to City standards, travel
and turn lanes should be consistent with best practices at the time of improvements
unless flexibility is required to minimize impacts or better accommodate expected users.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities. As discussed in Chapter 4, bicycle facilities on arterials
and collectors can be constructed as bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, shared lanes,
or cycle-tracks, depending on context. Minimum widths of bicycle lanes and multi-use
paths should use best practice standards found in National Association of City
Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, AASHTO, and the Oregon
Bike and Pedestrian Plan.
Landscaping. Both collectors and
arterials may include landscaped
medians and/or street trees. Green
street treatments, such as bioswales,
may also be used in place of the
landscaping strip or tree wells.
Bioswales can help slow the flow of
stormwater, ensuring that drainage
systems are not overwhelmed during
heavy rain. In many areas of
Springfield, landscaping strips may be replaced with swales that will absorb stormwater
runoff.
Context sensitive variation. The street sections should vary depending on whether they
are located in a mixed use, higher density, or more suburban part of Springfield. Some
variations may be allowed, subject to City Traffic Engineer and City Engineer approval,
depending on case specific issues such as topography and environmental constraints.
Truck routes
Both TransPlan and the Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) recognize the role that an efficient
and reliable transportation system plays in supporting the region’s economy, growth, and quality
of life. Within the Eugene-Springfield area, freight mobility is provided by highways, city streets,
air, pipeline, and railways. Each of these modes must function together to ensure the efficient
and timely movement of freight to, within, and through the community.
Within Springfield, “through” truck freight travel occurs primarily on I-5 and OR 126 Expressway.
Both OR 126 Expressway and I-5 have federal truck route designations and are identified as state
freight routes. For I-5, both the federal and state designations apply throughout the UGB. For
OR 126, the federal designation applies throughout the UGB and the state freight designation is
applicable from I-5 to the intersection with Main Street. The state and federal freight
Landscaping along the Gateway EmX bus line
Attachment 2, Page 50 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
4
2
42
designations necessitate more stringent design and mobility standards for these facilities to
accommodate goods movement.
Within Springfield, truck freight travel occurs primarily on the designated City truck routes. These
local truck routes are shown in Figure 3.
Attachment 2, Page 51 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
4
3
43
Attachment 2, Page 52 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
4
4
44
This page was intentionally left blank.
Attachment 2, Page 53 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
4
5
45
Intersection performance standards
Although most intersections in Springfield are under the City’s jurisdiction, many of the larger
volume intersections are under state jurisdiction. Some unincorporated area intersections are
under Lane County jurisdiction, as are some intersections within the City that are at least partially
under the County’s jurisdiction (e.g., Glenwood Boulevard and 17th Avenue).
Policy 2.9 of this TSP (Chapter 2) notes that the City of Springfield will use motor vehicle LOS
standards to evaluate for acceptable and reliable performance on the roadway system. Lane
County facilities in Springfield use the volume to capacity ratio (v/c) as the peak hour
performance standard for evaluation. LOS analysis may also be required pursuant to Lane
Code 15.696.. Under peak hour traffic conditions, acceptable and reliable performance is
defined as LOS D.
The Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) outlines specific performance measures to be maintained
along ODOT facilities in the Springfield metropolitan area as part of adopted Highway Mobility
Standards. These standards are aimed at maintaining mobility along important road corridors
and vary according to functional classification, location, posted speed, and role within the
National Highway System (NHS). The mobility standards are based on a calculated volume to
capacity (v/c) ratio.
Per the OHP, the following intersection performance measures are applicable for facilities within
Springfield (subject to change with any future ODOT planning effort):
For I-5, v/c ratio of 0.80 because of its classification as an interstate facility within a MPO.
For the I-5 ramp terminals, the applicable v/c ratio is dependent on the crossroad
standard. If the crossroad requires a v/c less than 0.85, then the crossroad dictates the
ramp terminal standard; otherwise the applicable ramp terminal standard is a v/c of
0.85.
For OR 126, v/c of 0.80 given its classification as a statewide, National Highway System
Expressway within a MPO.
For the OR 126 ramp termini and McKenzie Highway (ODOT Highway No. 15, Main Street),
v/c ratio of 0.85.
This standard also applies to the v/c ratio of 0.90 for OR 528 (Pioneer Parkway) and OR
225 (McVay Highway) given their classification as District Highways within an MPO.
The highway standards above reflect signalized performance standards. At stop-controlled
intersections, the appropriate mobility standard is based on the classification of the intersecting
roadway. Recognizing that some intersections on the state system will fail to meet Oregon
Highway Plan targets, the City will need to request alternate mobility targets from the Oregon
Transportation Commission.
Access management guidelines
The City of Springfield’s access management standards are listed in the City’s Engineering and
Design Standards Manual (EDSM). The Springfield Development Code identifies the spacing
standards for roadways. Driveway access spacing is measured from center of each driveway to
the center of the upstream or downstream driveway or intersection on one side of the roadway.
These ideal standards can be difficult to achieve on existing roadways once properties have
been developed.
Attachment 2, Page 54 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
4
6
46
Lane County Code also outlines access regulations for roads under the County’s jurisdiction
(Chapter 15.130 through 15.140). The OHP includes guidance and requirements for all ODOT
facilities within the City, including OR 126 Business Route (i.e. Main Street); OR 126 Expressway;
Pioneer Parkway (OR 528); McVay Highway; and Franklin Boulevard (McKenzie Highway).
Attachment 2, Page 55 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
4
7
47
Connectivity guidelines
In order to promote the development of a well-
connected transportation network while
maintaining desirable neighborhood
characteristics, the following strategies can be
used for new development within the City of
Springfield:
Where feasible, new developments
should include a highly connected
network of local streets to provide direct
access to local destinations, such as
schools, parks, and neighborhood
amenities.
The City should limit the use of cul-de-
sacs and dead-end streets in new
developments, except where
topographical or natural features
constraints do not allow for connections.
New developments should connect to
the stub streets of prior developments to
provide continuous streets and include
stub streets for connection with future
development.
The City can design block size in new
developments to maximize connectivity.
Smaller block sizes, from 250-500 feet,
provide better access for all modes.
Increased connectivity in existing areas can
occur over time. The following strategies can be
implemented to enhance connectivity in
currently developed areas:
In updating refinement plans or creating
corridor plans throughout Springfield,
plans should consider local street
connectivity as a primary goal in the
development of the street network.
Multi-use paths and sidewalk connections should be used as a way to provide additional
connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Plans should consider using traffic calming strategies in existing residential areas to
minimize traffic impacts.
In existing neighborhoods with cul-de-sac or dead end streets, planners should work with
property owners to establish right-of-way easements for pedestrian and bicycle
connections, prioritizing completion of pedestrian and bicycle routes to destinations (see
Chapter 4 for more information on these treatments).
Common terms
Access – the ability for travelers a way in to
destinations, like a driveway into a business
Access management – a set of measures
regulating access to streets, roads, and
highways from public roads and private
driveways
Access points – driveways, median
openings, interchanges, roundabouts, and
street connections to a roadway
Capacity – the amount of vehicles that a
street can handle
Conflict points – sections of the road where
there might be crashes (or near misses)
between cars, bikes, pedestrians, and
transit
Functional classification – defines a
roadway’s primary role in terms of
providing mobility and access for all modes
of travel, directing the design and
management of the roadway
Mobility – actual physical travel that occurs
between destinations
Stub streets – dead-end or cul-de-sac
streets that do not provide connections to
the rest of the transportation system
Upstream/Downstream – the direction of
travel on the road either in the right
direction (upstream) or wrong direction
(downstream)
Attachment 2, Page 56 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
4
8
48
Transit service
Transit plays an important role in providing a balanced transportation system within the City.
Transit can provide an alternative to private automobile travel for distances too far to walk or
bike and for transportation-disadvantaged travelers. Existing transit service in the City of
Springfield is limited to areas north of Main Street. Lane Transit District (LTD) provides public transit
service in Springfield and throughout the region.
The City of Springfield will continue to work with LTD to identify suitable transit corridors as
development and land use densities create demand. Potential corridors for future transit
improvements may include:
Centennial Boulevard from I-5 to Mohawk Boulevard
Franklin Boulevard/Main Street/South A Street to OR 126/Main Street
Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway to 30th Street
Mohawk Boulevard from Centennial Boulevard to 19th Street/Marcola Road to 28th
Street/Olympic to Mohawk Boulevard
To support convenient transit service, future development of potential transit corridors must
consider transit-supportive land-use, connectivity, and streetscape features, such as:
Residential density of at least 4-5 dwelling units per acre to provide enough ridership to
support local transit service or densities of about 15 units per acre to support frequent
service
Commercial activity nodes with a mix of uses to provide access to multiple amenities
within walking distance of a single transit stop
A highly connected street network that enables people to easily access transit stops on
foot or by bicycle
Streetscaping with comfortable space for people on foot, bicycle, and waiting at
transit stop locations, including wide sidewalks, bike lanes or cycletracks, street trees,
and benches or shelters
LTD bases system development on a number of considerations, with service priority focused on
affordable housing, medical service centers, major employment centers, and major commercial
activity centers. Routing is also based on dense housing areas and concentrations of student
populations. LTD strives to respond to opportunities depending on resources available.
Planned transit improvements in Springfield include the development of the Frequent Transit
Network (FTN). Springfield along with its regional partners is developing the FTN through the
Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP) process. The FTN consists of average frequent service
of 15 minutes or better all day long. The purpose of the FTN is to use it as a policy tool to define
corridors where this level of service can be expected in the future as development occurs.
Investment in the FTN requires the following set of principles to be in place:
Residential and commercial development along a corridor achieves the minimum
density required to support high capacity transit
Street design and City ordinances permit the operation of high capacity transit and
maximizes pedestrian and bicycle access to transit stations along the corridor
Funding sources for high capacity transit grow at a rate to permit investment
Chapter 2, goals and policies, provides further explanation of the FTN.
Attachment 2, Page 57 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
4
9
49
Solar powered parking
meter near the University of Oregon
Parking
Cities set policies related to parking requirements for new developments,
as well as for public parking on city streets. In order to allow
developments that encourage multi-modal transportation, cities can set
parking maximums instead of minimums and/or allow for shared parking
between uses. Goals and policies in Chapter 2 of this TSP provide
guidance and direction for parking requirements in Springfield, such as
providing guidance to help reduce off-street parking needs in Springfield
through a combination of shared, leased, and new off-street parking
facilities and TDM programs.
In addition to vehicular parking needs, the Springfield Development
Code includes provisions to ensure that large parking lots include
adequate pedestrian facilities to provide safe, attractive connections to
buildings and adjacent sidewalks. The City of Springfield also recently
participated in a Regional Bike Parking Study with Point2point Solutions,
LTD, and City of Eugene to identify bike parking needs along major transit
routes, public buildings (i.e. the Springfield Public Library and City Hall),
and major employment areas. The City is working with its agency partners to implement the
recommendations of this study.
Parking plays a large role in transportation demand management and effective management
of parking resources can encourage use of non-single occupancy vehicle (SOV) modes. Cities
can tailor policies to charge for public parking in certain areas and impose time limits on street
parking in retail centers. Cities can also monitor public parking supply and utilization to inform
future parking strategies. The City of Springfield has started moving in this direction, with the 2010
Downtown Parking Study recommending various time-stay requirements in the Downtown core
area. At the time of adoption of this TSP, the City is moving toward implementation of that study
(Policy 2.6 from Chapter 2 of this TSP). As development in Springfield continues to intensify, the
City may consider additional parking management strategies that would be consistent with
transportation and land use management policies in the Metro Plan.
Safety
The ability to move safely throughout Springfield on foot, by bike, and in a vehicle is critical to
providing a well-planned and designed transportation system for the future of Springfield.
As part of the 2035 TSP development, safety and operational information was conducted at
44 specific locations throughout the City (Volume 3, Appendix F: Traffic impact study guidelines).
This data was supplemented with information about the operational and safety performance at
intersections along Gateway Street, Main Street and OR 126, as summarized in the OR 126 Main
Street Safety Study, the I-5/Beltline Interchange Area Management Plan, and the Draft OR 126
Expressway Management Plan.
The Main Street (OR 126B) corridor has been a focal point of safety concerns for many years.
Because of the continued occurrence of pedestrian collisions between 20th Street and
73rd Street (including nine pedestrian fatalities within the last 10 years), there is particular public
concern for pedestrian safety. The 2011 OR 126 Main Street Safety Study completed by ODOT,
City of Springfield, and LTD outlines multiple strategies to improve safety along this vital
transportation and land use corridor in Springfield. Pedestrian safety improvements such as mid-
block pedestrian crossings, vehicular speed reduction, and improved street lighting were just
Attachment 2, Page 58 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
5
0
50
some of the many recommendations from the study. The City of Springfield is working closely
with ODOT to implement the recommendations of the study.
In addition to the Main Street safety issues, analysis of recent crash history at key
collector/arterial intersections throughout Springfield helped identify potential improvement
projects for the 2035 TSP. The City of Springfield will continue to monitor the safety of the system
and will plan and prioritize transportation system improvements with safety as a priority.
Multi-modal improvement projects
Over the next 20 years, a variety of multi-modal transportation improvement projects can
support the continued economic development and vitality of the City of Springfield. These
improvements are intended to enhance the movement of people, goods, and services within
the City and the region, as well as provide people of all ages and abilities with a variety of ways
to access their neighborhoods, places of work, shopping, and recreational opportunities.
The recommended projects vary in terms of physical size, geographic area, type of users, and
project cost but all work together to meet the vision of the community as expressed through its
plans and policies. The actual construction timing of the projects will depend on future
development within the City and region, the ability to secure funding through partnerships with
other agencies and with the private sector, and overall community priorities.
Some of the projects have been identified to support key redevelopment opportunity areas
within the City, such as the Glenwood Riverfront Area, Downtown, Gateway, and Jasper-Natron.
Other projects serve more localized needs such as specific intersections or segments of a multi-
use path. Over the next 20 to 40 years, the implementation of these projects will help support the
overall economic health and well-being of Springfield.
Within the 2035 TSP, improvement projects have been divided into the following categories
(project lists):
20-year projects (the 2035 TSP planning horizon): projects needed to serve expected
transportation growth over the next 20 years. These projects have planning-level cost
estimates included in this Plan.
- Priority projects: Higher-cost and scale roadway, urban standards, and
pedestrian/bicycle projects that would generally require additional right-of-way
(Figure 4).
- Opportunity projects: Lower-cost and scale roadway, urban standards, and
pedestrian/bicycle projects that would generally not require additional right-of-
way and the City could implement as opportunities arise (Figure 5).
- As Development Occurs projects: Roadway and pedestrian/bicycle projects that
the City would generally implement through a partnership with the City, other
agencies, and/or private enterprise to support new development or
redevelopment (Figure 6).
Beyond 20-year projects: projects that may be constructed beyond the 20 year planning
horizon. These projects do not have planning-level cost estimates included in this Plan
(Figure 7).
Study projects: Projects that need further study and refinement (Figure 8).
Attachment 2, Page 59 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
5
1
51
Frequent Transit Network (FTN) projects: Frequent transit projects that the City has
developed through the ongoing Regional Transportation System Plan process (see
Figures 8 and 9).
Members of the community, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC), and Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) screened and evaluated the projects included in each of these categories.
The process used to identify, screen, and evaluate the projects is described in Volume 3,
Appendix E: Alternative evaluation process.
Approximately 136 projects comprise the project lists. These projects address existing and future
multi-modal transportation system deficiencies and can serve as direction for future
transportation investments. Many of these projects are necessary under current conditions, while
the list identifies others to address the transportation needs that will become more important as
the community grows. The project lists may identify proposed changes to the transportation
system or may recommend further study related to topography, environmental, right-of-way,
and construction constraints, value engineering, and practical design review to identify specific
treatments and alignments. New facilities and roadway alignments, as well as major upgrades,
will require City Council review and approval before construction.
The projects are listed and mapped by category in Tables 3 to 5 and Figures 4 to 6. In adopting
the 2035 TSP project list, the City’s objective is to be in the best position to build or implement
projects when the timing is right and funding is available. Examples of this type of opportunity
are changes to federal and state funding and policy priorities, public-private partnerships,
agency partnerships, work on subsurface infrastructure systems that leverage a transportation
project, and City development priorities that may change over time. This approach to making
transportation investments will allow the City the greatest degree of efficiency and creativity in
making transportation investments. More information about the cost estimates is provided in
Volume 2, Appendix II: Detailed cost estimates and funding analysis.
Within the tables and figures, each project list is subdivided into the following categories:
Roadway - these projects generally are needed to meet capacity needs or to serve
connectivity for multi-modal travel. This project category includes the construction of a
new collector or arterial to City standards and the modification of existing streets and
intersections. All new construction would incorporate bicycle facilities, sidewalks, vehicle
travel lanes, planter strips (where appropriate), and other street design features
commensurate with the intended functional classification of the street. To view only the
roadway improvements see Figure 10.
Bicycle and pedestrian - these projects are needed to improve pedestrian and bicycle
connectivity between primary destinations within the City or to fill-in gaps in the off-street
trail system; coordination with Willamalane Parks and Recreation District will be important
to implementing these projects. To see only bike and pedestrian projects view Figure 11.
Urban standards - these projects include the modification of existing streets to include
facilities for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. These projects will help contribute to a
rich, multi-modal environment in the future.
TABLE 3
Priority projects in the 20-year project list
Roadway projects Cost
R-3 Game Farm Road East to International Way
(Construct a new collector with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes) $6,300,000
Attachment 2, Page 60 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
5
2
52
R-9 Laura Street to Pioneer Parkway
(Construct a new collector with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle facilities in or near the EWEB powerline corridor with a right-in/right-out intersection at Pioneer Parkway; coordinate with PB-7)
$3,300,000
R-10 Q Street/Laura Street and Laura Street Interchange Area
(Construct traffic controls at Laura Street/Q Street intersection, extend the second westbound through lane through the Laura Street intersection, and construct a westbound right-turn lane;
coordinate with S-3 and PB-7; conduct study [S-3] prior to implementing project)
$1,600,000
R-13 Franklin Boulevard Multi-modal Improvements (Construct multi-modal improvements on Franklin Boulevard from I-5 to the railroad tracks
south of the Franklin Boulevard/McVay Highway intersection, and construct a roundabout at the Franklin Boulevard/Glenwood Boulevard intersection)
$54,000,000
R-14 Franklin Boulevard/McVay Highway Multi-lane Roundabout
(Construct a multi-lane roundabout)
$7,000,000
R-19 McVay Highway and East 19th Avenue
(Construct a two-lane roundabout)
$2,500,000
R-20 McVay Highway from East 19th Avenue to I-5 (Construct a two or three-lane cross-section as needed with sidewalks and bicycle lanes and
transit facilities consistent with Main Street/McVay Highway Alternatives Analysis and project T-3)
$47,000,000
R-34 Centennial Boulevard/Industrial Avenue from 28th Street to 35th Street
(Extend Centennial Boulevard/Industrial Avenue with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
$9,500,000
R-36 42nd Street from Marcola Road to Railroad Tracks
(Improve 42nd Street with a three-lane cross-section and construct a signal at Marcola Road/OR 126 westbound ramps)
$6,000,000
R-39 Extend South 48th Street to Daisy Street
(Extend South 48th Street with three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
$3,200,000
R-40 OR 126/52nd Street Interchange Improvements (Construct a grade separated interchange on OR 126 at 52nd Street with ramps and new signals at ramp terminals on 52nd Street consistent with the Interchange Area Management
Plan)
$27,000,000
R-41 South 54th Street from Main Street to Daisy Street
(Construct a new two-lane collector with sidewalks and bicycle lanes) $960,000
R-43 OR 126/Main Street Interchange Improvements (Construct a grade-separated interchange with ramps and traffic control at ramp terminals on Main Street consistent with the Interchange Area Management Plan; needs further study)
$25,000,000
Urban standards projects Cost
US-1 Game Farm Road South from Mallard Avenue to Harlow Road
(Modify and expand the Game Farm Road South cross-section to include bicycle lanes) $4,100,000
US-3 Aspen Street from Centennial Boulevard to West D Street
(Improve Aspen Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
$2,800,000
US-4 21st Street from D Street to Main Street (Improve 21st Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes) $2,300,000
US-5 28th Street from Centennial Boulevard to Main Street (Improve 28th Street to include sidewalks and bicycle lanes) $4,300,000
US-6 South 28th Street from Main Street to South F Street $6,000,000
Attachment 2, Page 61 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
5
3
53
(Improve South 28th Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
US-11 Clearwater Lane south of Jasper Road within UGB
(Modify and expand roadway cross-section to include sidewalks and bicycle lanes; coordinate with Lane County improvements)
$470,000
US-14 Thurston Road from Weaver Road to UGB
(Improve Thurston Road to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes) $4,800,000
Pedestrian/bicycle projects Cost
PB-2 Flamingo Avenue to Gateway Street
(Construct a 12-foot wide path south from Flamingo Avenue to Gateway Street south of Game Bird Park)
$70,000
PB-17 Glenwood Area Willamette River Path – I-5 to Willamette River bridges (Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from the end of the existing path east of I-5 to
the Willamette River bridges)
$2,500,000
PB-18 Glenwood Area Willamette River Path – Willamette River Bridges to UGB (Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from the Willamette River bridges to the UGB) $2,900,000
PB-19 Bridge between Downtown and Glenwood or modify Willamette River bridges
(Construct a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge between Downtown Springfield and Glenwood, or modify the existing Willamette River bridges)
$10,300,000
PB-29 Mill Race Path
(Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from South 2nd Street to South 32nd Street/UGB) $7,100,000
PB-32 McKenzie River Path from McKenzie Levee Path to 52nd Street
(Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from the existing McKenzie Levee path at 42nd Street to 52nd Street)
$3,700,000
PB-37 Booth Kelly Road from South 28th Street to South 49th Place
(Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from South 28th Street to South 49th Place )
$2,817,000
PB-46 Haul Road path from South 49th Place to UGB (Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from South 49th Place to the UGB) $3,600,000
Attachment 2, Page 62 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
5
4
54
TABLE 4
Opportunity projects in the 20-year project list
Roadway projects Cost
R-2 Gateway Road/International Way (Construct five-lane cross-section consistent with National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
[NEPA] documentation)
$950,000
R-11 5th Street/Q Street (Construct right-turn lanes to the eastbound and northbound approaches or a roundabout) $550,000
R-30 Marcola Road/19th Street (Construct right-turn lane on westbound approach or a roundabout) $320,000
R-31 28th Street/Marcola Road
(Construct a roundabout) $1,900,000
R-32 42nd Street/Marcola Road
(Construct a roundabout)
$2,800,000
R-33 Centennial Boulevard/28th Street (Construct a roundabout) $1,800,000
R-38 South 42nd Street/Daisy Street
(Construct a traffic signal or a roundabout) $1,800,000
R-48 Mountaingate Drive/Main Street
(Install a new signal)
$900,000
Pedestrian/bicycle projects (all on-street) Cost
PB-3 Oakdale Street/Pheasant Street/et.al. from Game Farm Road to Gateway Loop
(Add signing and striping for a bicycle lane)
$80,000
PB-5 Hartman Lane/Don Street south of Harlow Road to OR 126 with crossing of Harlow Road (Add signing and striping for a bicycle route and construct sidewalks to fill gaps) $180,000
PB-8 Hayden Bridge Way/Grovedale Drive, Hayden Bridge Way/3rd Street, Hayden Bridge
Way/ Castle Drive (Add a crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon)
$260,000
PB-9 EWEB Path crossings of 2nd Street, 9th Street, 11th Street, Rose Blossom Drive, Debra
Street, 15th Street, 33rd Street, and 35th Street
(Improve path crossings to emphasize path priority and to improve safety)
$50,000
PB-10 2nd Street/Q Street (Add a crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon) $90,000
PB-13 Anderson Lane between By-Gully path and Centennial Boulevard
(Add signing and striping on Anderson Street and Quinalt Street for bicycle route and construct 12-foot wide multi-use path between Anderson Lane and Quinalt Street)
$90,000
PB-14 Rainbow Drive from Centennial Boulevard to West D Street
(Restripe for bicycle lanes with signing) $60,000
PB-15 West D from Mill Street to D Street Path
(Add bicycle route signing and striping)
$10,000
PB-16 West D from Aspen Street to D Street Path (Add bicycle route signing and striping and construct sidewalks to fill gaps) $190,000
PB-20 Mill Street from Centennial to Main Street, south of Main Street to Mill Race Park $90,000
Attachment 2, Page 63 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
5
5
55
(Restripe for bicycle lanes with signing)
PB-21 Pioneer Parkway at D, E, and F Streets
(Add crosswalks on Pioneer Parkway with signage) $80,000
PB-22 5th Street/Centennial Boulevard intersection
(Add a bicycle lane through the intersection area)
$560,000
PB-23 5th Street from Centennial Boulevard to A Street (Add bicycle lane signing and striping) $50,000
PB-24 D, E, or F Streets from 5th Street to 28th Street (Add bicycle route signing and striping) $190,000
PB-25 5th Street/D Street
(Add signing and striping to improve visibility)
$10,000
PB-26 A Street from Mill Street to 10th Street (Restripe for bicycle lanes with signing) $70,000
PB-30 33rd Street between V Street and EWEB Path (Add shared-use signing and striping) $10,000
PB-33 Main Street between 34th Street and 35th Street
(Add a mid-block crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon) $90,000
PB-34 Pedestrian crossing improvement on Main Street/38th Street
(Add a mid-block crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon)
$90,000
PB-35 Main Street/ 41st Street (Add a mid-block crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon) $90,000
PB-36 Virginia Avenue and Daisy Street from South 32nd Street to Bob Straub Parkway
(Add bicycle route signing and striping) $130,000
PB-39 Main Street between 48th Street and 49th Street
(Add a mid-block crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon)
$90,000
PB-40 Main Street/ 51st Street (Add a crosswalk with signing) $10,000
PB-41 Main Street /Chapman Lane (Add a mid-block crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon) $90,000
PB-42 Main Street /57th Street
(Add a mid-block crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon)
$90,000
PB-43 Bob Straub Parkway/Daisy Street (Add a pedestrian/bicycle signal and crossing) $90,000
PB-44 Mountaingate Drive from Mountaingate Entrance to Dogwood Street (Add shared-use signing and striping and construct sidewalks and drainage improvements to
fill gaps)
$260,000
PB-45 Mt. Vernon Road/Bob Straub Parkway (Add crosswalks at three or four approaches with signing and striping and install rapid
rectangular flashing beacon or pedestrian hybrid beacon on the north-south leg)
$390,000
PB-47 Thurston Road and 66th Street (Add a crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon) $90,000
PB-48 Thurston Road and 69th Street
(Add a crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon) $90,000
Attachment 2, Page 64 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
5
6
56
PB-49 South 67th Street from Ivy Street to Main Street
(Add shared-use signing and striping and construct sidewalks to fill gaps)
$160,000
PB-50 Ivy Street from South 67th Street to South 70th Street (Add shared-use signing and striping) $20,000
PB-51 South 70th Street from Main Street to Ivy Street
(Add shared-use signing and striping) $50,000
PB-52 City-wide Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
(Install mid-block crossings City-wide with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons)
$4,400,000
TABLE 5
As development occurs projects in the 20-year project list
Roadway projects Cost
R-1 North Gateway Collector from Maple Island Road/Royal Caribbean Way to International
Way
(Construct a new collector with new a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
$4,300,000
R-4 Maple Island Road from Deadmond Ferry Road to Beltline Road
(Extend Maple Island Road with a two-lane cross-section with sidewalk, bicycle lanes, and an intersection at Beltline)
$3,100,000
R-5 Extend Riverbend Drive to Baldy View Lane
(Extend Riverbend Drive with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes) $1,600,000
R-6 Improvements to serve Riverbend Hospital
(Improve Baldy View Lane/North link, construct a McKenzie-Gateway Loop connector/new collector and construct off-street path connections)
$10,200,000
R-8 Mallard Avenue from Gateway Street to Game Farm Road
(Improve Mallard Avenue to a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes and extend Mallard Avenue to Gateway Street with a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
$4,530,000
R-12 Franklin Boulevard Riverfront Collector
(Construct a new collector as shown in the Glenwood Plan; two travel lanes with on-street parking, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes)
$7,700,000
R-16 East 17th Avenue from Glenwood Boulevard to Henderson Avenue (Improve East 17th Avenue to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes) $1,900,000
R-17 Henderson Avenue from Franklin Boulevard to East 19th Avenue
(Improve Henderson Avenue with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
$3,400,000
R-18 East 19th Avenue from Henderson Avenue to Franklin Boulevard
(Improve East 19th Avenue with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
$3,500,000
R-24 19th Street from Hayden Bridge to Yolanda Avenue
(Extend 19th Street with a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
$2,400,000
R-25 Hayden Bridge Road from 19th Street to Marcola Road (Improve Hayden Bridge Road to a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes) $12,000,000
R-26 Yolanda Avenue from 23rd Street to 31st Street
(Improve Yolanda Avenue to a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes) $460,000
Attachment 2, Page 65 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
5
7
57
R-27 Yolanda Avenue to 33rd Street
(Connect Yolanda Avenue with 33rd Street with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
$9,400,000
R-28 Marcola Road to 31st Street (Construct a new collector with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes) $9,000,000
R-29 31st Street from Hayden Bridge to U Street
(Improve 31st Street to a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes) $3,800,000
R-37 Commercial Avenue from 42nd Street to 48th Street north of Main Street and North-
South Connection
(Extend Commercial Street and add a north-south connection; three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
$19,000,000
R-42 Glacier Street from 48th Street/Holly to South 55th Street (Construct a new collector with a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes) $6,300,000
R-45 Improvements within the Japser-Natron Area
(Construct multiple roadways in the Jasper-Natron area between Bob Straub Parkway, Jasper Road, and Mt. Vernon Road)
$67,000,000
R-46 Bob Straub Parkway to Mountaingate Drive
(Construct a new collector with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes) $2,500,000
R-47 Haul Road from Mt. Vernon Road to UGB
(Construct a two-lane green street in the Haul Road right-of-way)
$11,000,000
R-49 79th Street from Main Street to Thurston Road (Extend 79th Street with a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes) $8,200,000
Pedestrian/bicycle projects (all off-street) Cost
PB-1 McKenzie Gateway Path from Existing Path to Maple Island Road (Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from the end of the existing Riverbend Hospital
path to Maple Island Road)
$3,000,000
PB-4 Wayside Lane/Ann Court to Riverbend Path (Construct a new 12-foot wide path from Wayside Lane/Ann Court to the existing Sacred
Heart Medical Center-Riverbend path)
$80,000
PB-27 South 2nd Street to Mill Street (Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from South 2nd Street to Mill Street) $3,100,000
Attachment 2, Page 66 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
5
8
58
Attachment 2, Page 67 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
5
9
59
This page was intentionally left blank.
Attachment 2, Page 68 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
6
0
60
Attachment 2, Page 69 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
6
1
61
This page was intentionally left blank.
Attachment 2, Page 70 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
6
2
62
Attachment 2, Page 71 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
6
3
63
This page was intentionally left blank.
Attachment 2, Page 72 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
6
4
64
Beyond 20-year priority projects
A number of projects have been identified that may be implemented beyond the 20-year
planning horizon (Table 6 and Figure 7). The timing of these projects depends on the pace and
location of development in the City and the surrounding areas; as such, these projects may
become a higher priority as conditions change. The inclusion of these projects into the 2035 TSP
allows the City to pursue a variety of funding sources and opportunities for their implementation.
At this point, the City has not identified cost estimates for the projects, given their long-term
nature.
TABLE 6
Beyond 20-year projects
Roadway projects
R-7 South of Kruse Way and east of Gateway Road (Construct a new roadway to improve connectivity in the general South of Kruse Way/east of Gateway Road
area)
R-15 Glenwood Boulevard from I-5 to Franklin Boulevard (Convert Glenwood Boulevard from three-lanes to five-lanes)
R-21 Pioneer Parkway to South 2nd Street (Construct a new collector between Pioneer Parkway and South 2nd Street)
R-22 Extend South 14th Street South of Railroad Tracks
(Extend South 14th Street south of the Union Pacific Railroad mainline with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-23 South B Street from South 5th to South B Street
(Extend South B Street with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
R-35 OR 126/42nd Street Interchange Improvements
(OR 126/42nd Street interchange improvements)
R-44 Daisy Street crossing of Bob Straub Parkway (Construct an at-grade crossing or undercrossing of Bob Straub Parkway)
Urban standards projects
US-2 Laura Street from EWEB powerline corridor to Game Farm Road (Improve Laura Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
US-7 South 28th Street from F Street to UGB
(Improve South 28th Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
US-8 35th Street from Olympic to Commercial Avenue
(Improve South 35th Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
US-9 Commercial Avenue from 35th to 42nd Street (Improve Commercial Avenue to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
US-10 36th Street from Commercial Avenue to Main Street (Improve 36th Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
US-12 Jasper Road from South 42nd Street to northwest of Mt. Vernon Road
(Improve Jasper Road to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
US-13 Bob Straub Parkway from Mt. Vernon Road to UGB
(Improve Bob Straub Parkway to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
Attachment 2, Page 73 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
6
5
65
US-15 Main Street east of 72nd Street to UGB
(Improve Main Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle lanes)
Pedestrian/bicycle projects (all off-street)
PB-6 SCS Channel Path from Dornoch Street to Laura Street
(Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from Dornoch Street to Laura Street)
PB-7 Extend EWEB Trail from Pioneer Parkway to Don Street (Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path in the EWEB powerline corridor from Pioneer Parkway to Don
Street with a crossing of Pioneer Parkway and Laura Street)
PB-11 By-Gully Path Extension from Pioneer Parkway to 5th Street (Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from the existing By-Gully path at Pioneer Parkway to 5th Street)
PB-12 I-5 Path – Willamette River Area Path to By-Gully Path (Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path parallel to I-5 from Willamette River area path/Eastgate
Woodlands to the end of the By-Gully path)
PB-28 South 3rd Street to South 5th Street (Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from South 3rd Street to South 5th Street)
PB-31 Quarry Ridge Lane to Marcola Road
(Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path Quarry Ridge Lane to Marcola Road)
PB-38 Haul Road: Daisy Street to Booth Kelly Road
(Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path in the Haul Road right-of-way from Daisy Street to Booth Kelly Road)
Study projects
The 2035 TSP has identified a number of potential projects that need more study before the
community and local decision-makers considers specific recommendations (Table 7 and Figure
8). This TSP cannot cover the issues and level of detail that would be needed to create project
recommendations for these concepts. Therefore, the City of Springfield would need to create
individual refinement plans for each project as timing allows and funding becomes available.
These refinement plans can identify specific recommendations, cost estimates, potential funding
sources, and the timing for implementation.
TABLE 7
Study projects
Projects
S-1 Phase 2 of Beltline/Gateway improvements
S-2 OR 126 Expressway Management Plan
S-3 Pioneer Parkway/Q Street/Laura Street circulation study to improve Q Street/Laura Street/Ramp
safety, access, and capacity
S-4 Study a new crossing of OR 126 between 5th and 15th Streets
S-5 Centennial Boulevard from Prescott Lane to Mill Street operational improvements study
S-6 Pioneer Parkway/Centennial Boulevard intersection study to improve pedestrian safety
S-7 Centennial Boulevard from Mohawk Boulevard to Pioneer Parkway operational improvements study
S-8 Study safety and operational improvements in Mohawk Boulevard/Olympic Street/
Attachment 2, Page 74 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
6
6
66
18th Street/Centennial triangle
S-9 Study a new bridge from Walnut Road/West D Street to Glenwood Boulevard/Franklin Boulevard
intersection
S-10 Study Main Street/South A Street improvements from Mill Street to 21st Street
S-11 Refinement study for Glenwood industrial area
S-12 Pedestrian/bicycle bridge study between Glenwood and Dorris Ranch
S-13 Access plan study on Main Street between 21st Street and 48th Street
S-14 Study east-west connectivity between 28th Street and 32nd Street
S-15 Study a new crossing of OR 126 near Thurston High School
S-16 Connectivity study south of OR 126 and Jessica Street
Transit projects
The Springfield 2035 TSP incorporates the frequent transit network (FTN) projects included in the
RTSP (Table 8 and Figure 9). No additional capital transit projects were identified as part of the
Springfield 2035 TSP. The FTN projects are listed below in Table 8.
At this point, cost estimates for the frequent transit network projects have not been identified.
TABLE 8
Frequent transit network projects
T-1 Transit on Centennial Boulevard from I-5 to Mohawk Boulevard
T-2 Transit on Franklin Boulevard/Main Street/South A Street to OR 126/Main Street (east-west)
T-3 Transit on Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway to 30th Avenue (north-south)
T-4 Transit on Mohawk Boulevard from Centennial Boulevard to 19th Street/Marcola Road to 28th Street/
Olympic Street to Mohawk Boulevard
Note: These projects are included in the current Regional Transportation System Plan. The final transit network will be developed through the Regional Transportation System Plan process.
Other travel modes
This section addresses the rail, air, pipeline, and surface water plans for the City of Springfield.
Each subsection below describes each respective network and how it operates within the City.
No future projects have been identified for these modes as the service is provided by other
entities beyond the City’s jurisdiction.
Rail service
There are two freight rail service providers in Springfield: Central Oregon and Pacific (COPR),
and Union Pacific (UP). COPR provides east-west freight service on track located just south of
Main Street and crossing over to slightly north of Franklin Boulevard. UP operates freight service
on a north-south line east of I-5 that intersects with the COPR line near the OR 126/OR 225
junction. The tracks run north to the Portland metropolitan area and southeast to Oakridge,
Klamath Falls, and into California. UP operates approximately 20 freight trains per day along
these tracks.
Attachment 2, Page 75 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
6
7
67
Amtrak also provides passenger service through Springfield to the Eugene station in Downtown
Eugene. Amtrak provides intercity passenger rail service between the City of Eugene and cities
north and south. The Amtrak Cascades route travels from Eugene to Vancouver, Canada and
the Coast Starlight route travels from Seattle to Los Angeles. Amtrak operates on the UP line.
Current higher speed rail plans consider a station in Downtown Springfield, consistent with the
policies and actions in this TSP (Chapter 2).
Air service
There are no public or private airports in Springfield. The Eugene Airport at Mahlon Sweet Field
(EUG), the closest airport that provides commercial service, is located near Oregon Highway 99
about 11 miles northwest of Downtown Springfield.
Pipeline service and surface water transportation
Waterways and pipelines also provide transportation opportunities in Springfield. Because the
Willamette River and McKenzie River are not navigable waterways, there are no ports or
navigational facilities within Springfield. The public primarily uses these waterways for
recreational purposes, as neither river is a major stream for commercial activity. The McKenzie
River is frequented by anglers and rafters. Neither of these waterways provides direct access to
the ocean.
Springfield has no major pipelines. Natural gas is available to residential and commercial sites
throughout the community on a regular service-line basis.
Attachment 2, Page 76 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
6
8
68
Attachment 2, Page 77 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
6
9
69
This page was intentionally left blank.
Attachment 2, Page 78 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
7
0
70
Attachment 2, Page 79 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
7
1
71
This page was intentionally left blank.
Attachment 2, Page 80 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
7
2
72
Attachment 2, Page 81 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
7
3
73
This page was intentionally left blank.
Attachment 2, Page 82 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
7
4
74
Attachment 2, Page 83 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
7
5
75
This page was intentionally left blank.
Attachment 2, Page 84 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
7
6
76
Attachment 2, Page 85 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
7
7
77
This page was intentionally left blank.
Attachment 2, Page 86 of 93
Chapter 6: Funding and
implementation
The Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) includes projects under the jurisdiction and
ownership of the state, county, City, Lane Transit District (LTD), and Willamalane Parks and
Recreation District, as well as some projects that may include privately owned property. Each
project may be funded through a different combination of federal, state, City, county, or private
sources. This chapter discusses current and possible new funding mechanisms that may be
available to implement projects at some point during the life of the 2035 TSP. A complete list of
projects anticipated to be constructed in the 20-year life of the 2035 TSP and planning-level cost
estimates for each project is provided in Chapter 5 (Tables 3-5).
It is unlikely that every project contained in the TSP will be constructed in the next 20 years. While
the TSP does prioritize planned projects, the city may advance projects as opportunities arise.
These opportunities could include changes in policy or funding at the federal, state or local
level; changes in local development priorities; or public-private or public-public partnerships.
The categories of projects, specifically 20-year priority projects and beyond 20-year priority
projects are intended to be interpreted flexibly to allow the city to make wise investments
consistent with the overall vision contained in this TSP.
20-year estimated revenue stream
RTP forecasts
The 2011 RTP forecasts constrained revenues for the transportation system in the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) boundary for the 20-year planning horizon. It includes:
Local funding from Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County (operations, maintenance,
and preservation; bike improvements; and system improvements)
LTD funding (system improvements only)
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) funding (planning studies and system
improvements only)
Approximate transportation revenues for the City of Springfield
Setting aside expected revenues for operations, maintenance, preservation, and transit system
improvements, the RTP anticipates just under $600 million in funding for bike, pedestrian, and
roadway system improvements in the MPO area through 2035. Assuming that Springfield
receives roughly one-third of regional funding, the City may receive as much as $186 million in
transportation revenues for non-transit projects in the next 20 years as shown in Table 9.
Attachment 2, Page 87 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
7
9
79
TABLE 9
Springfield revenue assumptions
RTP source Expected Springfield
Revenue
System improvements $74,400,000
Local on- and off-street bike improvements $15,300,000
ODOT system improvements $96,000,000
Total revenue for system improvements $185,700,000
Source: 2011 Central Lane RTP
Cost of 20-year needs
The 2035 Springfield TSP includes 136 transportation projects. The 20-year projects would cost
approximately $467,907,000to implement ($2013). This estimate provides the City with an idea of
the cost for future transportation needs to support expected community growth and
development. The City, using the sources described in this chapter, will seek funding to make
these investments in the transportation system Table10 contains the project cost estimates. Table
10 lists the 20-year projects and their overall costs.
TABLE 10
20-year project cost estimates
Projects Cost
Priority – roadway projects $193,360,000
Priority – urban standards projects $24,770,000
Priority – pedestrian and bicycle projects $32,987,000
Opportunity – roadway projects $11,020,000
Opportunity – pedestrian and bicycle projects $8,300,000
As development occurs – roadway projects $191,290,000
As development occurs – pedestrian and bicycle projects $6,180,000
Total costs $467,907,000
Potential funding sources
Highway use taxes and fees, including Oregon State fuel taxes, licensing and registration fees, as
well as local fuel taxes, have provided the primary source of funding for transportation-related
projects in the City. In recent years, these sources have increasingly been devoted to
operations, maintenance and preservation, and diverted from capacity development or
expansion projects. To supplement these sources, the City will need to develop a strategy to
fund the TSP improvements. Possible elements of this strategy are outlined below.
Attachment 2, Page 88 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
8
0
80
Local funding mechanisms
At the local level, the City can draw on a number potential funding mechanisms to help finance
the 2035 TSP. Table 11 outlines potential funding sources at the local level that could be
implemented in the City’s future. In general, local funding sources are more flexible than funding
obtained from state or federal grant sources.
TABLE 11
Potential local funding mechanisms
Funding Source Description
Potential Application in
Springfield
Street utility fees
(also called road maintenance fees)
A fee based on the number of trips a particular land use
generates and is usually collected through a regular utility bill. Fees can also be tied to the annual registration of a vehicle to pay for improvements, expansion, and maintenance on the
street system.
System-wide transportation
facilities including streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails.
Transportation Systems
Development Charges (SDCs)
SDCs are fees assessed on development for impacts created to public infrastructure. All revenue is dedicated to
transportation capital improvements. A significant portion is further limited to those capital improvements, preservation, and studies related to the needed improvement that increase
capacity designed to accommodate growth. The City can also offer SDC credits to developers that provide public improvements beyond the required street frontage, including
those that can be constructed by the private sector at a lower cost. For example, an SDC credit might be given for providing end-of-trip bike facilities within the new development. Use of
these credits as an incentive can generate private capital funding.
System-wide transportation facilities including streets,
sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails.
Stormwater SDCs, grants, and loans SDCs, grants, and loans can be obtained for improving stormwater management facilities. SDCs may only be used for that portion of transportation improvements which generate
additional stormwater management capacity.
Local gas tax A local tax can be assessed on the purchase of gas within the
City. This tax is added to the cost of gasoline at the pump, along with the state and federal gas taxes.
System-wide transportation
facilities including streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails.
Parking in-lieu fees Parking in-lieu fees are fees that are assessed to developers that cannot or do not want to provide the parking for the development. The idea is to decrease the amount of off-
street, private parking and consolidating parking on-street or in parking garages, as a way to decrease parking demand. May benefit developers by reducing costs.
System-wide transportation facilities including streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, trails,
and transit.
Incentives The City provides an enticement such as bonus densities and flexibility in design in exchange for a public benefit. Examples might include a commute trip reduction (CTR) program, or
transit facilities in exchange for bonus densities. May be used with SDC methods to reduce transportation impacts.
System-wide transportation facilities including streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, trails,
and transit.
Attachment 2, Page 89 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
8
1
81
Funding Source Description
Potential Application in
Springfield
Public/private partnerships Public/private partnerships have been used in several places around the country to provide public transportation amenities
within the public right-of-way in exchange for operational revenue from the facilities. These partnerships could be used to provide services such as charging stations, public parking
lots, bicycle lockers, or car share facilities.
System-wide transportation facilities including streets,
sidewalks, bike lanes, trails, and transit.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) TIF is a tool that cities use to create special districts (tax increment areas) where public improvements are made in
order to generate private-sector development. During a defined period, the City freezes the tax base at the pre-
development level. Property taxes for that period can be waived or paid, but taxes derived from increases in assessed values (the tax increment) resulting from new development can go into a special fund created to retire bonds issued to originate the development or leverage future improvements. A number of small-to-medium sized communities in Oregon
have implemented, or are considering implementing, urban renewal districts that will result in a TIF revenue stream.
System-wide transportation facilities including streets,
sidewalks, bike lanes, trails, and transit.
Streets District A Streets District is essentially a type of special district.
Oregon state law (ORS 371) allows for the formation of special streets taxing districts for purposes of constructing and maintaining streets within the taxing district boundaries. A
streets district would be a separate entity from the City of Springfield, with its own property tax levy rate and an elected board of commissioners. Those within the potential district
boundaries must vote on the creation of a streets district.
Roadway improvement
projects, particularly along Main Street.
Revenue and general obligation bonds
Bonding allows municipal and county government to finance construction projects by borrowing money and paying it back over time, with interest. Financing requires smaller regular payments over time compared to paying the full cost at once, but financing increases the total cost of the project by adding
interest. General obligation bonds are often used to pay for construction of large capital improvements and must be
approved by a vote of the public. These bonds add the cost of the improvement to property taxes over time.
Construction of major capital improvement projects within the City.
Reimbursement
Districts
Also called Advance Financed Districts, the City determines
the boundary of the district. Property owners of new development or large redevelopment permits pay a fee for the instillation of public improvements. They then recover some
portion of the cost over a period of years (often 15).
Construction of major capital
improvement projects within the City (possibly in Study Areas).
State and federal grants
In addition to local funding sources, the City of Springfield can seek to leverage opportunities for
funding from grants at the state and federal levels for specific projects. The current Federal
Transportation Bill, MAP-21, expires in September of 2014, and funding opportunities may change
after that date. Table 12 outlines those sources and their potential applications.
Potential state funding sources are extremely limited with significant competition for these limited
funds. Any future improvements that rely on state funding will require City and regional
consensus that these improvements take precedent over transportation needs elsewhere in the
Attachment 2, Page 90 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
8
2
82
region and the state. It will likely be necessary to utilize multiple funding sources so dollars can be
combined for a single improvement projects (e.g., combining state, regional, or City bicycle and
pedestrian funds to pay for new bike lanes and sidewalks).
TABLE 12
Potential state and federal grants
Funding Source Description Potential Application in
Springfield
Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP)
STIP is the State of Oregon’s four-year
transportation capital improvement program. Local agencies apply in advance for projects to be funded in each four-year cycle.
Capital projects are prioritized based on benefit categories, including (in the 2015-2018 STIP) benefits to state-owned facilities, mobility,
accessibility, economic vitality, environmental stewardship, land use, growth management, livability, safety, security, equity, funding, and
finance.
Projects on any facility that meet
the benefit categories of the STIP.
Transportation and Growth Management Grants (TGM) TGM Grants are administered by ODOT and awarded on an annual basis. The TGM grants
are generally awarded to projects that will lead to more livable, economically vital, transportation efficient, sustainable, pedestrian-friendly communities. The grants are awarded in two categories: transportation system planning and integrated land use and
transportation planning.
Pedestrian and bicycle master
plan, refinement of any identified
study projects.
Transportation Alternatives
Program (TAP)
TAP is a federal program that provides funding
for pedestrian and bicycle facilities, projects for improving public transit access, safe routes to schools, and recreational trails. Local
governments, regional transportation authorities, transit agencies, school districts or schools, natural resource or public land
agencies, and tribal governments are all eligible to receive TAP funds.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
multi-use trails.
Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP)
HSIP is a federal program that provides
funding to infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects that improve safety on all public roads. HSIP requires a data-driven approach and
prioritizes projects in demonstrated problem areas.
Areas of safety concerns within the
City, consistent with Oregon’s
Transportation Safety Action Plan.
Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ)
CMAQ is a federal program, administered
through the state, and funds projects that help reduce emissions and meet national air quality standards, such as transportation demand management programs, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, transit projects, diesel retrofits,
and vehicle emissions reductions programs.
Projects that demonstrate the
potential to reduce emissions: bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transportation demand management.
Attachment 2, Page 91 of 93
DRAFT 09.25.13
8
3
83
Funding Source Description Potential Application in
Springfield
ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Grants These grants are distributed competitively to local governments. A minimum of one percent
of annual state highway revenues are devoted to this program, with about $5 million in funding available every two years.
Pedestrian and bicycle projects within the public right-of-way are
eligible to apply for grants from this program.
Immediate Opportunity Fund This fund is discretionary, and provides funding for transportation projects essential for supporting site-specific economic development
projects. These funds are distributed on a case-by-case basis in cooperation with the
Oregon Economic and Community Development Department.
These funds can only be used when other
sources of financial support are insufficient or unavailable. These funds are reserved for projects where a document transportation
problem exists, or where private firm location decisions hinge on the immediate commitment of road construction. A minimum 50 percent
match is required from project applications.
Any identified study projects that would improve the economic development within Springfield and
there are documented transportation problems.
ConnectOregon Lottery-backed bonds distributed to air, marine, rail, transit, and other multi-modal projects
statewide. No less than 10 percent of
ConnectOregon IV funds must be distributed to each of the five regions of the state, if there are
qualified projects in the region. The objective is to improve the connections between the highway system and other modes of
transportation.
System-wide transportation facilities including streets,
sidewalks, bike lanes, trails, and transit.
Oregon Parks and Recreation Local Government Grants Oregon Parks and Recreation Department administers this program using Oregon Lottery revenues. These grants can fund acquisition, development, and major rehabilitation of public
outdoor parks and recreation facilities. A match of at least 20 percent is required.
Trails and other recreational facility development or rehabilitation.
Oregon Transportation
Infrastructure Bank (OTIB)
A statewide revolving loan fund is available to
local governments for many transportation infrastructure improvements, including highway, transit, and non-motorized projects.
Most funds made available through this program are federal; streets must be functionally classified as a major collector or
higher to be eligible for loan funding.
Infrastructure improvements to
major collectors or higher classified roads for vehicle, transit, and non-motorized travel.
State highway gas tax increase or user fee Oregon state legislatures are currently researching a state user fee for drivers to
address steady or declining state gas tax revenues. An increase in the state gas tax or a user fee would need to pass through state
legislation and would increase the state’s transportation funds.
System-wide transportation facilities including streets,
sidewalks, bike lanes, trails, and transit.
Attachment 2, Page 92 of 93
Chapter 7: Code and policy updates
The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), as codified in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR)
660‐012‐0020(2)(h), requires that local jurisdictions identify land use regulations and code
amendments needed to implement the Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) and
include them as the implementation element of the 2035 TSP. To that end, recommended
changes to the City’s planning regulations needed to implement the 2035 TSP are provided in
Volume 2, Appendix I: Plan implementation and recommendation ordinance/code language.
The City bases the implementation measures primarily on a review of the 2035 TSP for
consistency with Springfield Community Development Code and regulatory requirements. The
implementation measures also reflect projects and recommendations in the 2035 TSP as well as
discussions with project team members.
The recommended implementation measures address the following. Most of the measures
involve changes to the Springfield Community Development Code.
Needs of the transportation dependent and disadvantaged
System connectivity
Ways of supporting and promoting walking, biking, and taking transit
Treatment of transportation facilities in the land use planning and permitting process
The implementation measures that reflect strategies identified in the 2035 TSP emphasize
maximizing the capacity of existing and recommended facilities. In particular, the 2035 TSP
encourages modes other than driving alone through an increase in transit, walk, and bike
modes, which is essential to the future transportation system in Springfield. These measures
constitute a combination of potential amendments to the Springfield Community Development
Code or Comprehensive Plan, as well as the City coordinating additional planning,
administration, and programming.
Attachment 2, Page 93 of 93
Comments on Springfield Final Draft TSP
# Comment Source Response
1 Check pictures -- some look like they are not from Springfield SAC Photos updated
2 Check numbering on maps and tables (to ensure that project numbers
in tables match those in the maps)
Larry Reed Confirmed numbering; updated one label on a
map
3 Add reference to climate change and how new policies could influence
future choices
SAC Added "or regional, state or federal policies" to
text on Page 2, related to the purpose of the TSP.
4 Allow flexibility for location of R-9 -- may not be able to locate roadway
in EWEB ROW
TAC Revised project description
5 Link R-44 and R-43 to indicate that they should be constructed/funded
together
Public
comment
Leave TSP as is to maintain flexibility
6 Make minor changes to committee lists SAC and TAC Made requested changes
7 Add section on how projects are implemented and prioritized SAC and TAC Added section to Chapter 1 on project
development and CIP process
8 Remove zoning map -- map included is out of date TAC Removed zoning map
9 Note that Jasper-Natron and Main Street corridor will be major focuses
for residential development
SAC Added to Chapter 1
10 Minor text markups SAC and TAC Completed
11 Check numbering of maps and tables in the document Larry Reed Completed and updated numbering
12 Remove reference to Appendix F: Traffic impact study guidelines (this
was mistakenly added into the document)
Staff Completed
13 Providing a nexus between TSP priorities and established City of
Springfield priority policies: The TSP does an excellent job of
envisioning a broad array of anticipated transportation needs within
the UGB. As the introduction points out, the TSP is a blueprint for
future policy and decision makers. However, where existing priorities
have already been determined by past and present decision makers, I
believe it is important to go beyond the aspirational nature of the TSP
and highlight these priorities. One important example is Springfield’s
residential housing needs. Present policy, which is anticipated to
address needs out to 2030, will rely on targeted areas within the
existing UGB to meet Springfield’s housing needs. For example, two of
these targeted areas are the Jasper-Natron complex for traditional
single family homes, and Main Street for higher density residential
needs. Meeting the established residential needs in these two areas
will require dedicated infrastructure. However, the TSP does not treat
transportation needs in both areas as priorities.
George Grier Note added about housing in these areas added
to Chapter 1 (as shown in comment #9)
14 It is clear from the TSP that there will be a significant shortfall of
revenue to accomplish all of the projects listed within it. To that extent,
it is important to be clear about what is an actual priority, since these
projects need to rise to the top of any Capital Improvement Program
list. It is also important to be more specific about established priorities
so that decision makers can put in place funding sources to ensure
revenues actually will exist to meet these priority obligations. I believe
future decision makers would be well-served to the extent that the TSP
can highlight the nexus, where it exists, between listed projects and
established priorities that the City has already decided on. Examples
might include:
George Grier Leave TSP as is, this is a larger discussion about
priorities
15 - Project R-45: Improvements within the Jasper-Natron Area -
$67,000,000. This is a large project that needs funding before this area
can meet anticipated residential land needs.
George Grier Note added about housing in these areas added
to Chapter 1 (as shown in comment #9)
16 - Main Street redevelopment has been targeted to address the shortfall
of required higher density residential housing, as well as commercial
redevelopment. This transportation corridor will need refinements to
meet these needs. The following Study and Transit Projects should be
priorities if this policy is to be successful:
George Grier Note added about housing in these areas added
to Chapter 1 (as shown in comment #9)
17 Study Projects S-2 (OR 126 Expressway Management Plan), S-10 (Main
Street/South A Improvements from Mill Street to 21st Street), and S-13
(Access Plan Study on Main Street between 21st Street and 48th Street.
George Grier Leave TSP as is, this is a larger discussion about
priorities
18 Transit Project T-2, Transit on Franklin Boulevard/Main Street/ South A
Street to OR 126/Main Street.
George Grier Leave TSP as is, this is a larger discussion about
priorities
19 Study Project S-2 (OR 126 Expressway Management Plan). There are
several segments of Main Street that are listed as Study Projects. It
makes sense to study the whole corridor. Staff indicated that Study
Project S-2 includes the area from 48th Street to the Main Street/OR
126 interchange. However, it is not clear from the project title that this
is the case.
George Grier Leave TSP as is
20 US-14 (Thurston Road from Weaver Road to UGB), $4,800,000. This
project was described as needed to improve Thurston Road to urban
standards in this section because it includes Thurston Elementary.
Improvements close to the school make sense. However, to the extent
that property on the north of Thurston Road, as you progress eastward
from the school, is not in the UGB, this seems like an expensive priority
project with diluted impact for City residents.
George Grier Leave TSP as is
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 5
21 PB-47 (Thurston Road and 66th Street). I would suggest that in addition
to the proposed crosswalk, that visibility at the intersection be
improved. Bicycle and automobile traffic northbound on 66th Street, as
well as pedestrians, are obscured to westbound traffic on Thurston
Road by the offset alignment of the intersection. Line of sight at the
Southeast corner of the intersection needs to be improved when
addressing safety issues at this location.
George Grier Leave TSP as is
22 Add MetroPlan map as an appendix (page 4) ODOT Added the map as Appendix F
23 Page 9 - This might make it sound like there are actual specific projects
in the OTP. There is not.
ODOT changed sentence to "It is unclear whether
federal, state, and local governments find the
means to reinvest in transportation infrastructure
in the future consistent with the vision and
priorities in the Oregon Transportation Plan
(OTP). "
24 Page 46 - last bullet: Maybe a separate bullet since it's a different
standard? You may also want to caveat that these could be subject to
change with any future ODOT planning effort. For example, if we
pursue alternate mobility standards for OR126/Main in the future, the
V/C could be different.
ODOT Seperated last phrase as its own bullet. Added
"subject to change with any future ODOT
planning effort" to sentence before the bullet list
25 Curious about project cost estimates for projects R-40 and R-43 ODOT Updated cost estimate for R-43; see Appendix Vol
2 for both cost estimate assumptions. Updated
corresponding tables.
26 The 2004 Lane County TSP is an update to the County’s 1980
Transportation System Plan. The TSP is a 20-year planning document
used to guide facilitate the orderly and efficient management of the
County’s transportation system. The Lane County TSP is a component
of consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, which includes all
currently adopted City-adopted comprehensive plans and
transportation system plans (e.g., TransPlan) and currently adopted
local TSPs (i.e. TransPlan). The County TSP looks to the TransPlan when
decisions are needed regarding transportation facilities within the
Springfield UGB. relies on TransPlan to address urban transportation
systems within the Springfield UGB. County roads within the UGB must
comply with the Lane County TSP and applicable Lane County rules,
regulations, and standards.
Lane County Updated
27 Chapter 5 (Intersection Improvement Standards) – The first paragraph
states “Some unincorporated area intersections are under Lane County
jurisdiction.” We request this text be revised to reflect that there are
incorporated area intersections under (in part) the County’s jurisdiction
(e.g., Glenwood Blvd. and 17th Ave.).
Lane County Added this to the end of the last sentence: ", as
are some intersections within the City that are at
least partially under the County’s jurisdiction
(e.g., Glenwood Boulevard and 17th Avenue)."
28 Chapter 5 (Intersection Improvement Standards) – The second
paragraph states “Lane County facilities in Springfield use the same
intersection performance standards as the City.” This statement is not
entirely accurate. In accordance with Lane Code 15.696, County uses
the volume to capacity ratio (v/c) as the basic peak hour performance
standard for evaluation. Level of service (LOS) analysis may also be
required. Where LOS analysis is required, both the v/c and LOS
standards must be met. Table 4 of Lane Code 15.696 contains the
“Maximum Volume to Capacity Ratios (v/c) for Peak Hour Operating
Conditions on Lane County Roads.” We request Policy 2.9 and Chapter
5 be revised to reflect the County’s performance standards.
Lane County Update the senetnce to read "Lane County
facilities in Springfield use the same intersection
performance standards as the City; however, LOS
analysis may be required (Lane Code 15.696)." on
page 46. No change to Policy 2.9 because this
existing sentence should suffice "Evaluating
development applications for consistency with
the land-use regulations of the applicable local
government jurisdiction."
29 Chapter 5 (Access Management Guidelines) – The County maintains
access regulations for roadways under their jurisdiction. The County’s
access regulations are documented in Lane Code Chapter 15.130
through 15.140. We request this section be revised to make reference
to the County’s access regulations. If you choose to cite the specific
Lane Code sections, I recommend referencing the date accessed in the
event the citations change in the future.
Lane County Added this sentence to page 46 "Lane County
Code also outlines access regulations for roads
under the County’s jurisdiction (Chapter 15.130
through 15.140)."
30 Chapter 5 (Improvement Projects) - As several of the improvement
projects impact County facilities, we request the following language be
part of the final TSP submitted for adoption: This Plan, including the
Plan’s project lists, does not have any legal or regulatory effect on land
or transportation facilities that the City does not own. However, the
planning process evaluated some facilities that are not under the City’s
jurisdiction. As such, the Plan includes proposed improvements to non-
City facilities. Without additional action by the governmental entity
that owns the subject facility or land (i.e., Lane County) any project in
this Plan that involves a non-City facility is merely a
recommendation. As in most facility planning efforts, moving towards,
and planning for, a well- connected network depends on the
cooperation of multiple jurisdictions; the Plan is intended to facilitate
discussions between the City and its governmental partners as we work
together to achieve a well-connected network. The Plan does not,
however, obligate its governmental partners to take any action or
construct any projects. At the County’s request, this disclaimer
language, or some variation, is being included in all local city TSPs
currently under development.
Lane County Added right before Table 3 (project lists)
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 5
31 Chapter 5 (Improvement Projects) – As currently presented, it is not
possible to readily identify which improvement projects impact County
facilities. We request the project lists be revised to identify those
improvement projects impacting County facilities (e.g., asterisk with
footnote).
Lane County We will look into which facilities are County
owned and which projects will impact those
facilities, for the final version of the document.
32 Chapter 5 (Improvement Projects) – The description of PB-45 on page
55 is not entirely accurate. We request this description be revised to
reflect the approved design that will result in three crosswalks (East,
West, and South) and two pedestrian hybrid beacons (north and
south).
Lane County No change made to the description regarding
crosswalk location, changed "crossings" on north-
south to "rapid rectangular flashing beacons" (for
clarity). If the city would like to change this
description we will need to re-do the cost
estimate.
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 5
1342 ½ 66th Street Springfield, OR 97478
September 5, 2013
David Reesor Senior Transportation Planner
City of Springfield, Engineering & Transportation Division 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477
Dear David.
Thanks for the opportunity to serve on the Transportation System Plan (TSP) Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC). As requested, I am providing you with a written
version of the comments I made on the Draft TSP at our final meeting on September 3.
Providing a nexus between TSP priorities and established City of Springfield
priority policies: The TSP does an excellent job of envisioning a broad array of anticipated transportation
needs within the UGB. As the introduction points out, the TSP is a blueprint for future policy and decision makers. However, where existing priorities have already been determined by past and present decision makers, I believe it is important to go beyond
the aspirational nature of the TSP and highlight these priorities. One important example is Springfield’s residential housing needs. Present policy, which is anticipated to address needs out to 2030, will rely on targeted areas within the existing UGB to meet
Springfield’s housing needs. For example, two of these targeted areas are the Jasper-Natron complex for traditional single family homes, and Main Street for higher density residential needs. Meeting the established residential needs in these two areas will
require dedicated infrastructure. However, the TSP does not treat transportation needs in both areas as priorities.
It is clear from the TSP that there will be a significant shortfall of revenue to accomplish all of the projects listed within it. To that extent, it is important to be clear about what is
an actual priority, since these projects need to rise to the top of any Capital Improvement
Program list. It is also important to be more specific about established priorities so that decision makers can put in place funding sources to ensure revenues actually will exist
to meet these priority obligations. I believe future decision makers would be well-served to the extent that the TSP can
highlight the nexus, where it exists, between listed projects and established priorities that the City has already decided on. Examples might include:
- Project R-45: Improvements within the Jasper-Natron Area - $67,000,000. This is a large project that needs funding before this area can meet anticipated residential land needs.
- Main Street redevelopment has been targeted to address the shortfall of required higher density residential housing, as well as commercial redevelopment. This
transportation corridor will need refinements to meet these needs. The following Study
and Transit Projects should be priorities if this policy is to be successful:
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 5
• Study Projects S-2 (OR 126 Expressway Management Plan), S-10 (Main
Street/South A Improvements from Mill Street to 21st Street), and S-13 (Access
Plan Study on Main Street between 21st Street and 48th Street.
• Transit Project T-2, Transit on Franklin Boulevard/Main Street/ South A Street to
OR 126/Main Street.
Suggested Refinements to Listed Projects:
Study Project S-2 (OR 126 Expressway Management Plan). There are several segments
of Main Street that are listed as Study Projects. It makes sense to study the whole
corridor. Staff indicated that Study Project S-2 includes the area from 48th Street to the Main Street/OR 126 interchange. However, it is not clear from the project title that this is
the case.
US-14 (Thurston Road from Weaver Road to UGB), $4,800,000. This project was
described as needed to improve Thurston Road to urban standards in this section because it includes Thurston Elementary. Improvements close to the school make sense. However, to the extent that property on the north of Thurston Road, as you
progress eastward from the school, is not in the UGB, this seems like an expensive priority project with diluted impact for City residents.
PB-47 (Thurston Road and 66th Street). I would suggest that in addition to the proposed crosswalk, that visibility at the intersection be improved. Bicycle and automobile traffic
northbound on 66th Street, as well as pedestrians, are obscured to westbound traffic on
Thurston Road by the offset alignment of the intersection. Line of sight at the Southeast corner of the intersection needs to be improved when addressing safety issues at this
location.
Once again, thanks for the opportunity to participate in the development of the TSP.
Sincerely,
George Grier
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 5
Springfield 2035
Transportation System Plan (TSP)
October 7th, 2013
Springfield City Council
Work Session
Examples of issues addressed in TSP
Major
facilities
Collectors and
above
Finance plan
and projects
Guide
investments
Goals &
Polices
Guide future
decisions
All modes
Auto, bikes,
pedestrians,
transit, freight
Attachment 4 2
TSP Process
Goals and
policies
Existing
conditions
Future
conditions
Project
alternatives
Preferred
alternative
Revised goals
and policies
Cost estimates TSP for review
and adoption
Attachment 4 3
Adoption process
9/17/13 - Springfield Planning Commission
10/7/13 – City Council Work Session
10/29/13 – Lane Co. Board Work Session
12/17/13 – Springfield Planning Commission Public
Hearing
1/21/14 – Lane Co. Board First Reading
2/4/14 – JOINT Public Hearing (City Council & Lane
Co. Board)
2/18/14 – City Council & Lane Co. Board Regular
Session (CC 2nd reading & Co. Board 3rd reading/
separate deliberation and possible adoption)
Attachment 4 4
TSP organization
Chapter 1: brief overview of planning context
Chapter 2: goals and policies
Chapter 3: evaluation and analysis process
Chapter 4: planning toolbox
Chapter 5: projects
Chapter 6: revenue and costs
Chapter 7: implementation
Attachment 4 5
Purpose of goals, policies and action
items
Goals:
•Aspirations for the city
•Framework for policies
Policies:
•High-level direction
•Implemented over life of plan
Actions (where needed):
•Direction about steps needed to implement policies
•To be updated over time
•Provide guidance for future decision makers
Attachment 4 6
Goals, policies and actions
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.
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.
Goal 3: System design - Enhance and expand Springfield’s
transportation system design to provide a complete range of
transportation mode choices.
Goal 4: System Financing - Create and maintain a
sustainable transportation funding plan that provides
implementable steps towards meeting Springfield’s vision.
Attachment 4 7
20-year projects
Serve expected transportation growth over the next
20 years.
Priority projects: Higher-cost and scale roadway, urban
standards, and pedestrian/bicycle projects that would
generally require right-of-way.
Opportunity projects: Lower-cost and scale roadway, urban
standards, and pedestrian/bicycle projects that would
generally not require right-of-way and the City could
implement as opportunities arise.
As Development Occurs projects: Roadway and
pedestrian/bicycle projects that the City would generally
implement through a partnership with the City, other
agencies, and/or private enterprise to support new
development or redevelopment.
Attachment 4 8
20-year priority projects
Attachment 4 9
Opportunity projects
Attachment 4 10
As development occurs projects
Attachment 4 11
Other projects
Beyond 20-year projects: Projects that may be
constructed beyond the 20-year planning horizon.
Study projects: Projects that need further study and
refinement.
Frequent Transit Network (FTN) projects: Frequent
transit projects that the City has developed
through the ongoing Regional Transportation
System Plan process.
Attachment 4 12
Beyond 20-year projects
Attachment 4 13
Transit and study projects
Attachment 4 14
Expected revenues
RTP source Expected Springfield Revenue
System improvements $74,400,000
Local on- and off-street bike improvements $15,300,000
ODOT system improvements $96,000,000
Total revenue for system improvements $185,700,000
Attachment 4 15
Project costs
Projects Cost
Priority - roadway projects $170,391,400
Priority - urban standards projects $24,770,000
Priority – pedestrian and bicycle projects $32,987,000
Opportunity - roadway projects $11,020,000
Opportunity – pedestrian and bicycle projects $8,130,000
As development occurs - roadway projects $191,290,000
As development occurs – pedestrian and bicycle
projects
$6,180,000
Total costs $444,768,400
Attachment 4 16