HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Main-McVay Transit Study Progress Update AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 10/27/2014
Meeting Type: Work Session Staff Contact/Dept.: David Reesor, DPW
Staff Phone No: 541-726-4585
Estimated Time: 30 minutes S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Maintain and Improve
Infrastructure and Facilities
ITEM TITLE: MAIN - MCVAY TRANSIT STUDY PROGRESS UPDATE
ACTION REQUESTED: No action requested. Staff will present a progress update to the Council and solicit questions and input.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
Lane Transit District (LTD) was awarded federal funds to prepare a transit services
study for the Main Street and McVay Highway corridors. Over the past several months, the City of Springfield and LTD have worked closely together with the
Project’s Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) and Governance Team (GT) to
develop potential transit solutions for the corridor. Final recommendations are expected from the SAC and GT in February 2015.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Progress Report
2. Main-McVay Transit Study Area Map
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The purpose of the Main-McVay Transit Study is to analyze if Main Street and McVay Highway transit improvements are needed, technically viable, and have
general public support. Existing transit service on Main Street is hindered by
overcrowded buses. Both Main Street and McVay transit service also have safety and security issues for passengers accessing buses at transit stops that are poorly lit
and not located at signalized street crossings. If not addressed, these issues will
worsen in the future as the corridor’s population, employment, and transit ridership increase.
In July 2014, the Main-McVay Transit Study Purpose, Goals and Objectives were reviewed by the Springfield City Council and LTD Board. Since that time, the
Project Team has worked closely with elected and appointed officials from City of Springfield and LTD on the Project’s Governance Team and with the SAC to develop potential transit solutions, and has completed the Tier I screening process.
Attachment 1 includes a brief summary of the process to-date, graphics illustrating potential transit options, and the Tier I screening results for these options.
In the Tier II screening-level evaluation, the study’s evaluation criteria, along with the results of high-level data analyses of the remaining solutions, will be used to determine how well each of the proposed transit solutions would meet the project’s
goals and objectives. Each of the transit solutions will be scored based on the evaluation criteria – the higher the point total, the better the option is in meeting the
study’s goals and objectives. The resulting data and scoring will be used to assist in
comparing and contrasting transit solutions.
Over the course of the next several months, the SAC will further screen down the
number of transit options through the Tier II screening based on a determination of the consistency of the various options with the project’s evaluation criteria. The
SAC’s recommendations will be reviewed and accepted or revised by the GT and forwarded to the Springfield City Council and the LTD Board of Directors for final review and approval in spring 2015.
The SAC and GT recommendations regarding which transit solutions hold the most promise for resolving transportation problems in the Corridor are anticipated in
February 2015.
October 16, 2014
TO: Springfield City Council
FROM: John Evans, LTD
David Reesor, City of Springfield
RE: Main-McVay Transit Study Project Progress Update
In July 2014, the Main-McVay Study Statement of Purpose, Goals and Objectives was reviewed by the Springfield
City Council (July 7, 2014) and LTD Board (July 16, 2014). Since that time, the project progress has included:
• In July 2014 the Baseline Existing and Future Conditions Report was completed.
• On July 29, 2014, the project team held two full-day design workshops to develop the broad range of
transit solutions for evaluation:
o Day 1
Review of project progress, Baseline Report findings, and critical issues with Springfield
and LTD staff
Review of Baseline Report findings and critical issues with Governance Team (GT)
Review of Baseline Report findings followed by a hands-on drawing of broad range of
transit solutions with Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC)
o Day 2
Design refinement by project team
Drop-in review session for Springfield and LTD staff as well as the GT
• SAC recommended refined Study Problem Statement, Needs Statement, and Evaluation Criteria (August
26, 2014) and that was reviewed, modified and approved by the GT (September 4, 2014). The GT also
chose to remove the 2-way Main Street transit option in Downtown from any future consideration.
• In September 2014 the Tier I Screening Evaluation Report was completed.
o The project team evaluated 25 transit solution options against 19 criteria and recommended
eliminating 9 transit options and advancing 16 options for further study.
• On September 30, 2014, the SAC met to review the Tier I Screening Evaluation results and narrow the
range of possible transit solutions for the Main-McVay Corridor. The SAC agreed with many of the
project team recommendations and recommended some changes to some options under consideration.
The SAC recommended eliminating 7 transit options and advancing 18 options for further study
(summarized in the table below).
• On October 9, 2014, the GT met to review the Tier I Screening Evaluation results and the project team
and SAC recommendations. The GT concurred with the SAC recommendations regarding the narrowed
range of transit solutions. This narrowed range of transit solutions has been advanced to the next stage
of study, the Tier II Screening Evaluation.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 4
Springfield City Council
Main-McVay Transit Study - Narrowed Range of Possible Solutions
October 10, 2014
Page 2
SAC Recommendations
Options Retain Eliminate
5.3: Enhanced Bus Options
Enhanced Bus Options 1: Main Street (Figure 4.2-3)
Enhanced Bus Option 2: McVay Highway (Figure 4.2-4)
Enhanced Bus Option 3: Main Street Express (Figure 4.2-5)
Enhanced Bus Option 4: Freeway Express (Figure 4.2-6)
Enhanced Bus Option 5: Main-McVay (Figure 4.2-7)
Section 5.3 SAC Recommendations: Unanimous vote to retain Options 1, 2 and 3 and eliminate Options 4 and 5.
Agreed that it was important to not foreclose Option #5 in the future when Glenwood experiences development.
Figure 4.2-3: Enhanced Bus Option 1
Figure 4.2-4: Enhanced Bus Option 2
Figure 4.2-5: Enhanced Bus Option 3
Figure 4.2-6: Enhanced Bus Option 4
Figure 4.2-7: Enhanced Bus Option 5
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 4
Springfield City Council
Main-McVay Transit Study - Narrowed Range of Possible Solutions
October 10, 2014
Page 3
SAC Recommendations
Options Retain Eliminate
5.4: BRT Service Options
Bus Service Option 1: Franklin-Gateway; Main-McVay (Figure 4.2-8)
Bus Service Option 2: Franklin-Main; Gateway-McVay (Figure 4.2-9)
Bus Service Option 3: Franklin-Gateway; Main; McVay (Figure 4.2-10)
Bus Service Option 4: Franklin-Main; Gateway; McVay (Figure 4.2-11)
Section 5.4 SAC Recommendations: SAC members voted to retain Options 2 and 4 while eliminating Options 1 and
3. The vote was 11 of 12 members voted to advance Options 2 and 4 and one member abstained from the vote.
Figure 4.2-8: BRT Option 1
Figure 4.2-9: BRT Option 2
Figure 4.2-10: BRT Option 3
Figure 4.2-11: BRT Option 4
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 4
Springfield City Council
Main-McVay Transit Study - Narrowed Range of Possible Solutions
October 10, 2014
Page 4
SAC Recommendations
Options Retain Eliminate
5.5: BRT Lane Configurations
Lane Configuration Option 1: High Exclusivity
Lane Configuration Option 2: Moderate Exclusivity
Lane Configuration Option 3: Low Exclusivity
Section 5.5 SAC Recommendations: Unanimous vote to retain all three options.
5.6: BRT Routing Main Street East Routing Options and Eastern Terminus
East Main Option 1: Thurston Station (with connector service)
East Main Option 2: Thurston High School (with connector service)
East Main Option 3: Thurston Road to 69th
East Main Option 4: Main to 72nd
Section 5.6 SAC Recommendations: The SAC voted to retain Options 1 and 2 while eliminating Options 3 and 4.
The SAC emphasized it was important to make sure the neighborhood connector service was included in the
advanced options. The vote was 11 of 12 members agreed to advance Options 1 and 2 while one member
abstained from the vote.
5.7: BRT Main Street Downtown Routing Options
Downtown Routing Option 1: Main Street / South A Couplet
Downtown Routing Option 2: South A Street (eastbound and westbound)
Downtown Routing Option 3: South A Street to 10th or 14th; Couplet east
of 10th or 14th
Section 5.7 SAC Recommendations: Unanimous vote to retain all three options to advance into Tier II Study.
5.8: BRT Routing McVay South
South McVay Option 1: McVay Highway (west side of I-5)
South McVay Option 2: Old Franklin (east side of I-5)
South McVay Option 3: Haul Road (east side of I-5)
Section 5.8 SAC Recommendations: Unanimous vote to retain Options 1 and 2 while eliminating Option 3.
5.9: BRT Station Spacing
Station Spacing Option 1: Stations routinely spaced less than 1/3 mile
apart
Station Spacing Option 2: Stations spaced approximately 1/3 mile apart
(can vary depending on adjacent uses)
Station Spacing Option 3: Stations routinely spaced more than 1/3 mile
apart
Section 5.9 SAC Recommendations: The SAC did not agree with the project team recommendation to retain
Option 2 and eliminate Options 1 and 3 and, instead, recommended retaining all three options to advance into the
Tier II Screening. The vote was 11 of 12 members voting to advance all three options with one member abstaining.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 4
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 1