HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/04/2015 Work SessionCity of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY MAY 4, 2015
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 4, 2015 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and
Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Main -McVay Transit Study.
Tom Boyatt, Community Development Manager, presented the staff report on this item
Mr. Boyatt introduced Project Manager John Evans from Lane Transit District; LTD Board Chair
Gary Wildish; project consultant team members Steph Viggiano, Linda Wannamaker and Chris
Watge; and stakeholder advisory committee members Brett Rowlett, Emma Newman, and Randy
Hledik.
The purpose of the Study is to identify a narrowed range of potential transit improvements in the Main
Street — McVay Highway corridor that provide improved mobility and transportation choices for
residents, businesses, visitors and commuters. Potential improvements would strive to enhance the
safety and security of the corridor, improve the integration of walkers, cyclists, transit riders, autos and
freight along and through the corridor, and improve connections to and from adjacent neighborhoods.
The range of potential improvements includes options that improve regional connectivity and
equitable transit access to destinations such as employment, educational institutions, shopping,
appointments, and recreational opportunities for area residents.
In the summer of 2012, LTD and the City began work on the Main — McVay Transit Study, funded by
a grant from the Federal Transit Administration. This work builds on the partnership between the City
and LTD to successfully deliver the previous downtown to downtown and Gateway EmX lines. The
current Study was overseen by a staff project management team and developed through the efforts of a
Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) with oversight by the Main Street Projects Governance Team
(GT). Significant public involvement was conducted throughout the Study, Transit Study Final
Report, Chapter 3 Community and Agency Input. The final Study recommendations before Council
have been developed by the SAC and have been recommended to Council and the LTD Board by the
GT.
On May 18, 2015, in regular session, Council has scheduled time for public comments on the Transit
Study recommendations. Council may consider a resolution accepting the Study recommendations
and approving the work to reach an LPA. With an LPA in place, LTD could then complete a NEPA
process and compete for state and federal funding to build the identified improvements.
Mr. Boyatt presented a power point. Things considered in this study regarding Main Street included
overcrowded buses, pedestrian and rider safety and access, and projected employment and residential
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 4, 2015
Page 2
growth. These problems will worsen over time as populations increase. He noted some of the issues
with both Main Street and the McVay Highway. The study's charge was to analyze the need, technical
viability and public support for potential Main Street transit improvements.
Mr. Evans spoke regarding the process for this study. Following public outreach, the Stakeholder
Advisory Committee was formed. Information was vetted through the SAC, and then
recommendations funneled to the Governance Team which was made up of Springfield City
Councilors and LTD board members. Tonight's presentation is the second to the last stage of this
process. As part of the decision making process, there was opportunity for public input at each stage.
The public will have a chance to weigh in on feelings about the recommendations to date on May 18.
He described the community input including focus groups, listening booths, written comments,
website input, e-mail, etc.
Mr. Boyatt said the project looked at a wide variety of potential opportunities to improve transit
service. Through the course of the project, that was narrowed to the current recommendation. This first
recommendation is to advance, as most promising, to the Main Street corridor a no -build alternative,
an enhanced bus alternative, and a bus rapid transit alternative. That would be advanced for a more
detailed analysis for design, impacts, costs, and benefits, resulting in a locally preferred alternative for
the Council to consider for support. For the McVay Highway, it would include a no -build and
enhanced bus with a foot note that both gasoline alley and old Franklin Boulevard would be
considered for the best option. They would also keep bus rapid transit (BRT) as a concept in case of
increased development and/or an opportunity arose from another BRT route into that area. The second
recommendation was to conduct further study on the alternatives with the intent of Locally Preferred
Alternatives for Main and McVay. The third recommendation from the SAC is for the City to
investigate further opportunities to install crossing facilities on Main Street east of 58a' Street. That is
something that Brian Barnett and Michael Liebler are working with ODOT to develop.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if there had been a public opinion poll taken for this project. There was
not. He felt that was important to know what the citizens wanted.
Mayor Lundberg said that is why they formed the Stakeholder Advisory Committee. A survey should
have been discussed prior to the process. She asked about the timeline for this process.
Mr. Boyatt said they would present during a work session before the LTD Board on May 11. Council
would have a follow-up meeting during their regular session on May 18. That would be the decision
point to decide whether or not to go into a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) process. The next steps
including possible ways to design and deploy enhanced bus treatments would take about 3-6 months,
and they would come back to Council for a decision in about 5-7 months.
Mayor Lundberg said doing a public poll would be out of keeping with the normal due process. The
due process is to get public input. Nothing has come in that would override the current process.
Councilor Pishioneri said there had been great battles and heartache between LTD and businesses. He
would like to look at where the public is on this process and feels it should have been done long ago.
He feels it should be easy to articulate the questions for a poll. With that behind the elected officials, it
would be easy to say this is something the public wants.
Mayor Lundberg said they have not done that with the urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion or
other big topics, and is outside of their normal process.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 4, 2015
Page 3
Councilor Wylie said she had served on the EmX Steering Committee since it had begun. The amount
of resistance is deceptive and is mostly from outsiders and not many local businesses. Mayor
Lundberg and Councilor Woodrow have worked for the last few years on the Main Street Governance
Committee, involving the public on many levels to make sure the public was involved in this process
and had the opportunity to speak.
Councilor Ralston said it makes a difference on which recommendation they choose.
Mayor Lundberg said they would recommend three alternatives. She asked the Stakeholders Advisory
Committee (SAC) to come forward.
The SAC members joined the Council at the table.
Mr. Hledik said he has served on several committees in the Glenwood and Springfield area. The
Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) was made up of 17 people and represented a diverse number
of interests, including citizens at large, businesses, property owners, seniors, disabled, trucking and
freight industry, bicyclists and pedestrians, higher education, elementary schools, other jurisdictions
and advocacy groups. A member of the "Our Money, Our Transit" group was invited, but only
attended briefly and then dropped out. There was a deliberate attempt to have broad representation.
More than 17 people would have been unwieldy. There was a steep learning curve, it was very
technical and a lot of information and a lot of homework. Members studied the issues and spoke freely
on those issues. It was also staff facilitated, but because of the nature of the work involved, that was
good. Staff presented the committee information and the SAC did the analysis. Everyone had an
opportunity to question the information presented. Their recommendation was not totally unanimous
but was overwhelming a majority.
Mr. Rowlett said he enjoyed being involved in the SAC and felt staff was very helpful. He represented
Lane Community College (LCC) and said there is high support from the students at LCC for enhanced
transit and EmX. They make up a large number of ridership for LTD and they would like to see more
transportation into Springfield. Safety has been a big issue on 30th Avenue with three students killed in
that area over the last 7 years. They are looking for options to make it safer for bikers and walkers, and
he would love to see a route from LCC to Glenwood. They are excited to see the redevelopment of
Glenwood and how the colleges could participate with that connection. The SAC started with all
options on the table, and narrowed it down to things that were realistic. LCC would love to see BRT
come out to the college. Enrollment at LCC will grow again and there could be development in both
Eugene and Springfield in that area at the same time. His recommendation was to try to be smart when
planning for the future. His understanding is that they rely heavily on federal funds for BRT and
would like to pursue that further. The SAC received community feedback that also went to staff about
this process and the Main Street Corridor study. In looking at recommendations to forward on to the
elected officials, they were looking primarily at transit, but also pedestrians and bicyclists. They need
safe routes for all.
Ms. Newman said it had been an honor to serve on the SAC. It has been a long process to get to the
final recommendation. There were a lot of conversations on safety such as lighting, connecting bicycle
corridors, and how to use this project to facilitate those safety improvements and invest in our
community. It was good to hear out everyone's opinion. The SAC has a desire to move this forward to
address problems stated. The Route 11 bus is very crowded. One of the things the school district is
interested in is connecting the Thurston area and giving those students and residents access to more of
our community. She hopes they take the SAC's recommendation to move forward.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 4, 2015
Page 4
Councilor Moore asked how much involvement there was from the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT).
Ms. Newman said David Helton was the ODOT representative, and other ODOT staff also attended
the meetings.
Mr. Boyatt said ODOT Area 5 Manager Frannie Brindle was also part of the Governance Team.
Councilor Pishioneri thanked the members for serving on the SAC. He said he needs to be convinced
this is something the city wants. Listening to them and the process, they did their due diligence and he
appreciates that. This is a huge project that will cost taxpayers a lot of money.
Councilor Ralston asked how any of this helped with congestion
Mr. Boyatt said congestion is on several levels: over demand for transit and leaving people at stations;
and average daily trips in the corridor. The more people that are willing to ride the bus rather than
drive, will provide a benefit to reducing congestion. Looking ahead at some of the design concepts
with enhanced bus and BRT, there are solutions that include having the bus out of the travel lane.
Those details would be explored in the LPA process.
Councilor Ralston said anyone that can afford to drive a car will drive a car. People they are targeting
probably can't afford a car or can't drive. He doesn't want to make congestion so bad people are
forced to take transit. If they can move the buses out of traffic, that is fine.
Mayor Lundberg said the discussion is to decide what to move forward for public input on May 18.
Mr. Boyatt said during the May 18 public hearing citizens could speak and the Council could make
their decision.
Mayor Lundberg said they have opportunity for the public to give input before making a decision to
this forward to the LTD Board. She thanked the SAC members for their work. It was a long process
and she appreciates their work.
Councilor VanGordon asked what the difference in funding options were for enhanced bus or BRT.
Mr. Evans said there is and it depends on how it is designed. Typically, they envision that enhanced
bus doesn't necessarily have the level of station enhancements or pedestrian sidewalks, but would
have queue jumps and traffic signal priority similar to EmX. It may or may not be as rapid as EmX.
What makes EmX faster than regular bus service is the raised platform stations which allow quick
loading for all passengers.
Councilor VanGordon asked if they would have the same funding source for Option 1 or Option 2.
Mr. Evans said under current legislation for that type of funding, it needs to be a majority of exclusive
transit ways. That can be defined as what they have on Pioneer Parkway or could be defined as
priority treatment for transit vehicles. Legislation is subject to change, but currently there are more
dedicated funds for EmX than enhanced transit.
Councilor VanGordon said his concern is that we may have to come up locally with dollars for
enhanced. He would like to evaluate the one with the opportunity for the most available dollars.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
May 4, 2015
Page 5
Mr. Evans said there is a range of funding available and they can look at that during the LPA.
Councilor VanGordon said he would like to see more of that information before the public hearing. He
was concerned the enhanced transit would need to be locally funded.
Mr. Evans said it is not likely it would be all locally funded.
Mr. Viggiano said typically these types of projects are funded through a Federal program called
"Small Starts Program". Enhanced transit as described would not be eligible for those funds. BRT
could be defined broadly and can be through "Small Starts", but would need to include certain
elements that enhanced transit does not. There may be other federal funds available.
Mayor Lundberg said the second problem they are trying to solve is pedestrian and rider safety and
access. As part of the EmX project along Pioneer Parkway, the City got lighting and artwork. That
entire corridor changed dramatically because of EmX. The biggest issue on Main Street is getting
people back and forth safely. One option is to have medians and if there was an exclusive EmX line, it
could help with that issue. There are a lot of things she wants Council to think about as this is a big
decision. The public will be well notified of the public hearing and they did go through a thorough
process to get to this point. She feels LTD could do things better and coordinate with the City to get
their messages out together. Bus service is so important to so many people, especially along Main
Street. She asked Council to think carefully over the next two weeks on this. Conducting a study and
considering EmX does come with a level of funding that could make a better and safer corridor. It
would be helpful to know the order of the other corridors being considered. This has been carefully
studied and it is now time for the Council to make a decision. They will make sure everyone knows
they can attend and comment during the May 18 meeting.
I�Z��;�,1�1�1►�1
The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
Minutes Recorder — Amy Sowa
0
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
anw 4 -MIA --
Amy SowaJ
City Recorder