HomeMy WebLinkAboutCombined-GT-Agenda-and-Materials_Sept-4-2014
Main Street Governance Team
AGENDA
September 4, 2014
3pm-4pm
Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room
I. Welcome & Agenda Review – Mayor Lundberg, 5 minutes II. SAC recommended Broad Range of Transit Solutions to advance into screening evaluation - Project Team, 30 minutes (GT Decision Requested) III. SAC recommended revisions to Problem Statement, Needs Statement, and Evaluation Criteria – Project Team, 15 minutes (GT
Decision Requested) IV. Baseline Report - summary review of revisions – Project Team, 5 minutes V. Main-McVay Screening Evaluation process, next steps – Project Team, 5 minutes
a. Next Meeting – Thursday October 9th
The meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing-impaired, an interpreter
can be provided with 48 hours’ notice prior to the meeting. To arrange for these services,
call 541.726.3700.
Governance Team July 29, 2014
Meeting Summary 1
Main Street Project Governance Team
July 29, 2014 2:00pm - 3:00pm
Emergency Operations Center Room
Springfield Justice Center
Meeting Notes
Attendees: Mayor Lundberg (COS), Marilee Woodrow (COS), Mike Dubick (LTD), Gary Wildish (LTD),
Gino Grimaldi (COS), Ron Kilcoyne (LTD), and Frannie Brindle (ODOT)
Staff: Tom Boyatt (COS), David Reesor (COS), John Evans (LTD)
Consultants: Lynda Wannamaker, Stefano Viggiano, Justin Lanphear, Kari Turner, Brad Swearingen, Peter Coffey,
Susan Oldland, Stan Biles, Chris Watchie
I. Review Alternatives Development Overview – John Evans
Based on input provided by GT members, Staff revised approach to the alternatives
development.
Process will begin with a blank page and develop alternatives based on Stakeholder
Advisory Committee’s (SAC) ideas and input.
Service type and lane configurations can be mixed and matched along corridor.
II. Summary of Service Plan Evaluation – Stef Viggiano
Staff directed to:
- Identify who is on the technical team
- Use the term “solutions” rather than “alternatives”
III. Summary of Baseline Report Findings – Lynda Wannamaker
Staff directed to:
- Include auto and freight in terms of overall mobility not just bicycle or pedestrian
safety
IV. LTD / Springfield Staff Feedback – Dave Reesor
GT informed Staff that there has been great deal of conversation about slowing traffic
down.
Staff directed to:
- Examine speed when evaluating transit options
- Recognize that change along Main Street is envisioned and captured in Main
Street Vision Plan
V. Next Steps – John Evans
1) Day after the July 29 SAC meeting #4, the team will interpret committee’s input to
build preliminary draft solutions for LTD/Springfield staff review.
2) GT invited to drop in on 7/30.
3) SAC Meeting #5 (8/26) will focus on draft solutions to determine if the technical team
interpreted the SAC’s input correctly and if there any missing options for the Range of
Transit Solutions for screening.
4) SAC will make two recommendations to the GT at the August 26 meeting:
- Range of Transit Solutions to forward onto the screening process
Governance Team July 29, 2014
Meeting Summary 2
- Problem and Needs Statement and Evaluation Criteria to apply to the Range of
Transit Solutions
5) At the GT Sept. 4 meeting, discussion will focus on potential approval of SAC
recommendations.
Additional comments:
- The Enhanced Bus (EB) and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) solutions will be high level
and not detailed at this stage.
- Property owners may be able to interpret impacts from proposed Range of Transit
Solutions.
- At the end of the Study, the analysis will show what solutions best address “pinch
points” and potential impacts to the corridor’s property owners.
- Based on the proposed criteria, a solution that has significant property impacts likely
would not rate well as compared to other solutions.
- The GT will have two opportunities to review the Problem and Needs Statement and
Evaluation Criteria:
o Post August 26 SAC meeting
o GT Sept. 4th meeting.
- The GT has seen a preliminary draft of the problem statement.
- At the end of the process, the GT will want to know that we’ve done the best that we
could and the final solutions are best for the community.
- This will help the decision makers stand behind it.
September 4, 2014
TO: Governance Team
FROM: John Evans, LTD
David Reesor, City of Springfield
RE: Main-McVay Transit Study: Range of Possible Transit Solutions
On July 29, 2014, the Governance Team and the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) met to initiate
the process of developing a range of possible transit solutions for the Main-McVay Corridor. The SAC’s
participation included active involvement in generating ideas for routing, station locations, and route
termini. The SAC’s suggestions, ideas, and identified issues and constraints that emerged from that
meeting were translated into drawings of possible transit solutions, which were summarized in a Range
of Possible Solutions report. The SAC met on August 26, 2014 to review the report. They agreed on
some changes, shown in track changes on the attachment, and recommend Governance Team approval
of the Range of Possible Solutions, as amended.
Please note that this current step of the process does not involve evaluating the merits of the possible
solutions or their applicability to the corridor. That will occur as part of the evaluation and screening
phase of the study which will follow. These possible solutions will be evaluated through a two-step
screening process. The first screening step will be to evaluate the options based on the Study’s
established Purpose, Need, Goals, and Objectives (PNGO). Options that are consistent with the PNGO
will be carried forward to the second screening step, which is a more detailed evaluation based on the
evaluation criteria. Emerging from the second screening will be the Most Promising Transit Solutions,
which is the final product of this transit study.
It should be noted that the process originally assumed that the first screening step would be based
solely on the Purpose and Need Statement. After an initial review by the project team, screening of the
proposed range of transit solutions based solely on the Purpose Statement, which is fairly general,
would allow virtually all of the options to pass through to the second screening step and, thus, would
serve little purpose. As a result, the design team now recommends that the initial screening include the
Study’s Goals and Objectives to allow for greater scrutiny of the options and elimination of options that
do not match well with the Study’s goals.
Main-McVay Transit Study
Range of Possible Solutions
STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
AUGUST 26, 2014
The Range of Possible Solutions is described by mode (Existing Service, Enhanced Bus, and BRT) and in terms of the
five main factors that define each option:
Service Options
Lane Configurations
Routing (alignment)
Termini
Station Locations
WORKSHOP DRAWINGS
To facilitate the process of articulating the SAC’s ideas into workshop drawings, the Corridor was broken into the
Main Street and McVay Highway Segments, and each of those Segments was broken into sub-segments as shown
in Figure 1. The drawings for each segment show the alignment and general station locations for Enhanced Bus
and BRT modes. These drawings are included as Attachment A.
Figure 1: Corridor Segments and Sub-Segments Used for BRT Option Descriptions
Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Main-McVay Transit Study Range of Possible Solutions
August 26, 2014
Page 3
EXISTING SERVICE (NO CHANGE OPTION)
The option to continue existing bus service (shown in Figure 2 below), also called the No-Change Option, will be
carried forward through this study and any possible subsequent studies. Under this option, there is no change to
existing service connections, lane configurations, routing, termini, or station locations. Future bus service changes
would be consistent with the service and operational adjustments typically made by LTD to maintain service
quality.
Figure 2: Existing Bus Service on the Main-McVay Corridor
Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Main-McVay Transit Study Range of Possible Solutions
August 26, 2014
Page 4
ENHANCED BUS
Enhanced Bus options typically include transit signal priority (TSP), improved stations, and improved operations,
and can include improvements to the frequency of service on the Corridor.. The service options for Enhanced Bus
described below are not mutually exclusive. These can be applied in various combinations. For example, it is
possible to implement a Freeway Express route (Option 4) in combination with enhanced bus service on Main
and/or McVay Highway Segments.
Service Options
1. Main Street Enhanced Bus: Replace #11 Thurston with Enhanced Bus Route; #85 LCC/Springfield and other
routes would be unchanged (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Enhanced Bus Option 1
Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Main-McVay Transit Study Range of Possible Solutions
August 26, 2014
Page 5
2. McVay Highway Enhanced Bus: Replace #85 LCC/Springfield with Enhanced Bus Route; #11 Thurston and other
routes would be unchanged (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Enhanced Bus Option 2
3. Main Street Express: Add express service along the Main Street segment to supplement the #11 Thurston
route (Figure 5). Frequency on the #11 may be reduced somewhat since the express route would assume
some of its ridership load. Service on the #85 LCC/Springfield and other routes would be unchanged.
Figure 5: Enhanced Bus Option 3
Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Main-McVay Transit Study Range of Possible Solutions
August 26, 2014
Page 6
4. Freeway Express: Add an express route from the Thurston Station that uses Highway 126 for direct service to
Eugene (Figure 6). Service on the #11 Thurston, #85 LCC/Springfield and other routes would be unchanged.
Figure 6: Enhanced Bus Option 4
5. Main-McVay Enhanced Bus: Replace the #11 Thurston and the #85 LCC/Springfield with Enhanced Bus
service, providing continuous (no transfer) service from east Springfield to Lane Community College via the
Main Street and McVay Highway Segments (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Enhanced Bus Option 5
Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Main-McVay Transit Study Range of Possible Solutions
August 26, 2014
Page 7
Lane Configurations
Enhanced bus service is in mixed traffic, though queue-jump lanes may be used at congested intersections.
Possible locations for queue-jump lanes are at McVay Highway/Franklin, Main/42nd Street, and Main/Highway 126
Routing/Termini/Station Options
Table 1 summarizes routing (alignment), termini, and station locations for each of the Enhanced Bus options.
Table 1: Enhanced Bus Options: Routing/Termini/Stations
Option Description Routing Route Termini
General Station
Locations
1. Main Street
Enhanced Bus
This option would replace the
existing #11 Thurston route with an
Enhanced Bus route, using the same
alignment and stops.
Existing #11
routing
Springfield
Station - 69th &
Main (option to
extend east of
69th)
Existing Bus Stops
2. McVay
Highway
Enhanced Bus
This option would replace the
existing #85 LCC/Springfield route
with an Enhanced Bus route, using
the same alignment and stops.
Existing #85
routing
Springfield
Station - LCC Existing Bus Stops
Springfield Sta.
10th Street
14th Street
21st Street
30th Street
42nd Street
48th Street
Thurston Station
Option for fewer
stops
Thurston Station
Downtown Eugene
5. Main-McVay
Enhanced Bus
This option would replace the
existing #11 Thurston and #85
LCC/Springfield route with an
Enhanced Bus route, using the same
alignment and stops.
Existing #11 and
#85 routing
69th & Main -
LCC Existing Bus Stops
3. Main Street
Express
Main Street;
Couplet in
downtown
Springfield
Springfield
Station - Thurston
Station
4. Freeway
Express Highway 126
Eugene
(downtown and
University) -
Thurston
Station
This option would add an express
bus on the Main Street segment to
operate in combination with
continued service on the #11
Thurston route. The express bus
would service limited stops, while
the #11 Thurston would continue to
serve all bus stops along the
corridor.
This option involves an express bus
using Highway 126 to connect the
Thurston Station with downtown
Eugene. Service on the #11 Thurston
would remain as currently provided.
Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Main-McVay Transit Study Range of Possible Solutions
August 26, 2014
Page 8
BRT
There are several BRT options within the corridor. These cover a wide range of service options, lane
configurations, and routing, termini, and station options.
Service Options
1. Main-McVay BRT. This option would create an L-shaped EmX line service the Main-McVay corridor, which
would link with the existing L-shaped EmX service at Springfield Station Figure 87).
Figure 78: BRT Option 1
2. Franklin-Main and Gateway-McVay BRT Lines. This option extends the existing Franklin EmX east on Main
Street, and extends the existing Gateway EmX south on McVay Highway to LCC (Figure 98).
Figure 89: BRT Option 2
Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Main-McVay Transit Study Range of Possible Solutions
August 26, 2014
Page 9
3. Main Street BRT; McVay Highway BRT. This option would add separate EmX lines on the Main Street and
McVay Highway segments (Figure 910). They would connect with each other and the existing EmX service at
the Springfield Station.
Figure 109: BRT Option 3
4. Franklin-Main BRT; Gateway BRT; McVay Highway BRT. This option extends the existing Franklin EmX east on
Main Street and creates a McVay Highway EmX line (Figure 110). The existing EmX service on the Gateway
segment would be severed from the Franklin EmX and operate independently with a terminus at the
Springfield Station.
Figure 110: BRT Option 4
Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Main-McVay Transit Study Range of Possible Solutions
August 26, 2014
Page 10
Lane Configurations
There are many lane configuration options for EmX, ranging from exclusive transit lanes to semi-exclusive transit
lanes to mixed traffic. A detailed analysis of the most appropriate lane configuration for a particular street section
is beyond the scope of this study. Instead, the study will evaluate three basic BRT lane approaches, described as
follows:
High-Level BRT: Under this approach, a large majority of the corridor is in exclusive or semi-exclusive
transit lanes, with exceptions made for significant pinch points that would have high cost or impact.
Moderate-Level BRT: This option would provide for exclusive or semi-exclusive transit lanes in many
locations to address current or projected traffic congestion and as well as locations that have available
right-of-way or where right-of-way expansion would have less impact. Sections that would result in
significant impacts to businesses or residents would be avoided, unless required to address a key transit
delay.
Low-Level BRT: This option would only apply exclusive or semi-exclusive transit lanes in areas where there
is severe traffic congestion or where there are opportunities for transit lanes with minimal impact to the
adjacent businesses or residents. A majority of the BRT line would operate in mixed traffic.
Routing/Termini/Station Options
Table 2 summarizes routing (alignment), termini, and station locations for each of the BRT options. General station
locations are being coordinated with the Main Street Visioning Project, including with identified Activity Node
areas.
Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Main-McVay Transit Study Range of Possible Solutions
August 26, 2014
Page 11
Table 2: BRT Options: Routing/Termini/Stations
Note: Layover locations are needed at the ends of routes to allow for the bus to adjust to the scheduled departure
time and to provide for operator breaks.
Segment Sub-Segment Routing Route Termini
General Station
Locations Notes
Main St Thurston Station · Thurston Station
Possible increase in local connector
service east of Thurston Station
· Thurston Station
· Thurston HS
· Thurston Station
· Thurston HS
· Thurston / 58th
· Thurston / 63rd
· Thurston / 66th
· Thurston / 69th
· 69th / Main
· Thurston Station
· 58th
· 61st
· 66th
· 69th
· 72nd
· 30th
· 35th
· 39th
· 42nd
· 44th
· 48th
· 50th
· 53rd
· Springfield Station
· 10th
· 14th
· 21st
· Springfield Station
· 10th
· 14th
· 21st
· Springfield Station
· 10th
· 14th
· 21st
· Springfield Station
· 10th
· 14th
· 21st
· Franklin (roundabout)
· 19th
· Nugget
· South Glenwood
· Bloomberg
· Eldon Schafer
· LCC
· Seavy Loop Area
· Eldon Schafer
· LCC
· Seavy Loop Area
· Eldon Schafer
· LCC
East (East of
Bob Straub
Pkwy)
Central (30th
– Bob Straub
Pkwy)
Downtown
(McVay Hwy
– 30th)
Main Street & 69th
South A (Both
Directions) (contraflow
lane)
Main St (Both
Directions)NA
Main St to 58th Thurston High School
Layover location to be determined;
Main St Main Street & 72nd Layover location to be determined
Main St NA · McVay HighwayNorth
(Franklin to
UGB
McVay Hwy NA
Layover location to be determined
Main Street South A / Main
Couplet NA ·
NA Requires contraflow lane on South A
Street
Requires contraflow lane on Main
Street
Couplet East of 10th,
South A West of 10th NA Requires contraflow lane on South A
Street west of 10th Street
Main St to 58th to
Thurston to 69th
Station locations consistent with
Glenwood Refinement Plan
McVay Hwy (west side
of I-5)LCC
South (UGB
to LCC)
Old Franklin (east side
of I-5)LCC
Haul Road (east side of
I-5)LCC
Attachment A
Workshop Drawings
Main-McVay Transit Study
Drawings from Transit Solutions Workshop
July 29 – 30, 2014
Main Street – Downtown BRT
Main-McVay Transit Study
Drawings from Transit Solutions Workshop
July 29 – 30, 2014
Main Street – Central BRT
Main-McVay Transit Study
Drawings from Transit Solutions Workshop
July 29 – 30, 2014
Main Street – East BRT
Main-McVay Transit Study
Drawings from Transit Solutions Workshop
July 29 – 30, 2014
McVay – North BRT
Main-McVay Transit Study
Drawings from Transit Solutions Workshop
July 29 – 30, 2014
McVay – South BRT
Main-McVay Transit Study
Drawings from Transit Solutions Workshop
July 29 – 30, 2014
Main Street – Downtown Enhanced Bus
Main-McVay Transit Study
Drawings from Transit Solutions Workshop
July 29 – 30, 2014
Main Street – Central Enhanced Bus
Main-McVay Transit Study
Drawings from Transit Solutions Workshop
July 29 – 30, 2014
Main Street – East Enhanced Bus
Main-McVay Transit Study
Drawings from Transit Solutions Workshop
July 29 – 30, 2014
McVay Highway – North Enhanced Bus
Main-McVay Transit Study
Drawings from Transit Solutions Workshop
July 29 – 30, 2014
McVay Highway – South Enhanced Bus
MEMORANDUM
To: Main-McVay Transit Study Governance Team
From: John Evans, Lane Transit District
David Reesor, City of Springfield
Date: August 27, 2014
Re: Stakeholder Advisory Committee Recommended Revisions to the Study’s Problem Statement,
Needs Statement and Evaluation Criteria
At the Study’s August 26, 2014 Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting, the SAC discussed revisions to
the Study’s Problem Statement, Needs Statement and Evaluation Criteria and unanimously voted to
forward the following revisions to the Governance Team:
Delete an extraneous comma in the Problem Statement (Second sentence of the McVay
Highway Segment).
Add additional bullet(s) to the Needs Statement regarding bicycle fatalities on Main Street and
McVay Highway Segments and bicycle and pedestrian related severe injuries on Main Street and
McVay Highway Segments.
Modify the approved Objective 1.6 to include “economic status” (while the Objectives weren’t
the subject of this meeting, the SAC felt this particular objective needed slight modification to
be consistent with their suggested edit to the Evaluation Criterion).
Modify the proposed Evaluation Criteria for Objective 1.6 to clarify that the technical team will
only collect and use “readily available data”.
Change any references to “alternatives” to “transit solutions”.
The recommended revisions from the SAC are included in Attachment A. Also attached to this memo is
the memo sent to the SAC and revisions based on previous input from the SAC and others as well as new
information resulting from the Baseline Report (Attachment B). Please note that the revisions based on
previous input and the Baseline Report are in RED and the SAC’s recommended additional changes from
their August 26 meeting are in GREEN.
Once the Governance Team has approved any revisions to the Problem Statement, Needs Statement
and Evaluation Criteria, the Study’s technical team will finalize the Baseline Report and copies to the SAC.
Study Problem Statement
The Main-McVay Corridor is an L-shaped Corridor extending from 69th Street on Main Street to Lane
Community College on McVay Highway. The Corridor is comprised of two segments, the Main Street
Segment and the McVay Highway Segment, which connect at Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway.
Main Street and McVay Highway are currently major transit corridors, connecting with each other and
with other transit service at the Springfield Transit Station. The segments, while part of an overall
corridor, have differing issues and concerns that are to be addressed by this study.
Main Street Segment
Transit Service on Main Street is hindered by overcrowded buses, increasing transit travel time and
operating cost caused by signal and passenger boarding delays, and 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.
McVay Highway Segment
Transit service on McVay Highway is hindered by poor pedestrian access, service demand primarily
limited to the school season and weekdays, rider security and safety concerns for passengers accessing
buses at transit stops that are poorly lit and not located at signalized street crossings, and the unfunded
need to improve the congested I-5 interchange. If not addressed, these issues will worsen in the future
and the transit system in this segment will not be, positioned to handle the higher density development
within and adjacent to the McVay Highway Segment growth and redevelopment planned for in the
recently adopted Glenwood Refinement PlanGlenwood area.
Study Purpose and Need
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of the Main-McVay Transit Study project is to identify a range of transit improvements in
the Main-McVay Corridor that provide improved mobility and transportation choices to residents,
businesses, visitors, and commuters. The improvements will be consistent with regional plans and the
community’s long-term vision and goals for the area. The range of improvements will include options
that result in improved regional connectivity and equitable transit access to destinations such as
employment, educational institutions, shopping, appointments, and recreational opportunities for area
residents.
The project 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 project would support local, regional, and state plans and goals for land use and transportation;
efforts in the Main-McVay Corridor aimed at encouraging economic revitalization and land use
ATTACHMENT A
Main-McVay Transit Study Governance Team
August 27, 2014
Page 3
redevelopment; and, plans and programs to create Main Street and McVay Highway identities and
improve aesthetics on the Corridor, making it an attractive place to live, work, and shop.
Statement of Need
The need for the project results from:
High transit ridership along the Main Street corridor that results in overcrowding of bus trips during
peak travel times. The #11 Thurston route which operates on Main Street has the second highest
ridership in the LTD system (after EmX), with an average of more than 3,500 boardings per weekday.
This is more than double any other non-EmX bus route. During the past year, seven buses were
overcrowded to the point that 78 riders were left behind at stop(s);
Pedestrian safety issues for riders walking to and from the bus stops on Main Street, including street
crossings to access bus stops that are not located near a signalized or enhanced crossing. From 2009
through 2013, along Main Street between McVay Highway and 68th Street, there were a total of 29
pedestrian injuries including three (3) fatalities and six (6) severe injuries. From 1999 through 2010,
tThere have been a total of nine (9) pedestrian fatalities during the past ten years along Main Street
between 20th and 73rd Streets;
Bicycle related safety issues along the Main Street Corridor, with 33 bicycle injuries, including one (1)
fatal and one (1) severe injury reported during the 2008 through 2013 time period.
From 2004 through 2013 there were no reported pedestrian injuries and two (2) bicycle injuries
(neither was a fatal or severe injury) on the McVay Segment of the Corridor. Despite the low
number of reported injuries on this Segment, as this area continues to develop there is a greater
probability for pPedestrian and bicycle safety issues for riders accessing transit service on McVay
Highway due to high travel speeds, narrow roadways, and lack of sidewalks in many areas;
High student use along the corridor, especially in the Thurston area, creates special safety and
access issues;.
Lengthening transit travel times and deteriorating public transportation reliability in the Main Street
segment due to growing traffic congestion, signal delays, and passenger boarding delays. Average
run time route on the #11 Thurston has increased 3.5 percent in the last five years, with midday run
time increasing by more than 10 percent during that period. In the fall of 2014, schedule time will
be added to the route due to the lengthening travel time. Approximately 7.5 percent of the #11
Thurston trips on an average weekday are more than four (4) minutes late, a figure that is higher
than the system average of 7.0 percent;
Limited corridor revitalization and redevelopment resulting from aging structures and infrastructure
and a poor visual environment along Main Street, South A Street, and McVay Highway;
Main-McVay Transit Study Governance Team
August 27, 2014
Page 4
Historic and projected increases in traffic congestion in the Main-McVay Corridor due to increases in
regional and corridor population and employment. Four (4) intersections in the corridor
(McVay/Franklin, Main/42nd, Main/Hwy. 126, and Main/58th) are projected to exceed ODOT
mobility standards for 2035;
The approach to Lane Community College from Interstate 5 has a very high level of congestion in the
morning periods, which creates delays for the #85 LCC/Springfield route;
The Interstate 5 interchange at 30th Avenue is in need of improvements to address traffic and safety
issues. While there is a recognized need for improvements to the interchange, funding and the
schedule for the improvements are uncertain;
For this corridor project, McVay Highway, as designed today, does not support the proposed mixed-
use development goals expressed in the Glenwood Refinement Plan or the Franklin Boulevard
Redevelopment Project;
Policy direction in regional and City transportation plans that assume increased reliance on public
transportation to address the community’s future transportation needs;
LTD has experienced an average annual iIncrease ing operating expensescosts of 6.2 percent (1999-
2010), combined with increasingly scarce operating resources, while trying to meet the demanding
for more efficient public transportation operations;
The decision in the adopted 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to include bus rapid transit
(composed of frequent, fast transit service along major corridors and neighborhood feeder service
that connects with the corridor service and with activity centers) in the fiscally constrained model as
part of the regional transportation strategy.
The decision in the adopted Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (STSP) to include
partnering with LTD to provide frequent transit network (FTN) connections along major corridors,
connecting to local neighborhood bus service and major activity centers to provide viable
alternatives to vehicle trips. The STSP incorporates numerous FTN projects and 20-year priority
roadway, urban standards and pedestrian / bicycle projects relevant to the Main-McVay Transit
Study.
Local and regional land use and development plans, goals, and objectives that identify the Main-
McVay Corridor for residential, commercial, retail, institutional/educational, government, and
industrial development to help accommodate forecasted regional population and employment
growth.
Main-McVay Transit Study Governance Team
August 27, 2014
Page 5
Study Goals and Objectives
Goal 1: Improve corridor transit service
Objective 1.1: Improve transit travel time
Objective 1.2: Improve transit service reliability
Objective 1.3: Provide convenient transit connections that minimize the need to transfer
Objective 1.4: Increase transit ridership and mode share along the corridor
Objective 1.5: Improve access of other modes such as walking, bicycling, and auto (park and
ride) to transit
Objective 1.6: Enhance equitable transit for users without regard to race, color, religion, sex,
sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, age or disability.
Goal 2: Meet current and future transit demand in a cost-effective and sustainable manner
Objective 2.1: Control the increase in transit operating cost to serve the corridor
Objective 2.2: Increase transit capacity to meet current and projected ridership demand
Objective 2.3: Implement corridor improvements that provide an acceptable return on
investment
Objective 2.4 Implement corridor improvements that minimize impacts to the environment
and, where possible, enhance the environment
Goal 3: Support economic development, revitalization and land use redevelopment opportunities for
the corridor
Objective 3.1: Support development and redevelopment as planned in other adopted
documents
Objective 3.2: Enhance the aesthetics of the corridor to improve economic activity
Objective 3.3: Coordinate transit improvements with other Main Street projects
Objective 3.4: Coordinate transit improvements with other Franklin Boulevard / McVay
Highway projects
Objective 3.5: Minimize adverse impacts to existing businesses and industry
Goal 4: Enhance the safety and security of the corridor
Objective 4.1: Improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists accessing transit and crossing
the Corridor
Objective 4.2: Enhance the security of transit users and of the corridor as a whole
Goal 5: Enhance other modes of travel
Main-McVay Transit Study Governance Team
August 27, 2014
Page 6
Objectives 5.1: Improve transit operations in a way that is mutually beneficial to vehicular
traffic flow around transit stops and throughout the corridor
Objectives 5.2: Improve bicycle and pedestrians connections along the corridor and to and from
transit stops
Evaluation Criteria
Draft Evaluation Criteria
Goals and Objectives Evaluation Criteria
Goal 1: Improve corridor transit service
Objective 1.1: Improve transit travel time Round trip transit pm peak travel time between
select origins and destinations
Objective 1.2: Improve transit service
reliability
On-time performance (no more than 4 minutes
late) of transit service
Objective 1.3: Provide convenient transit
connections that minimizes the need to
transfer
Number of transfers required between heavily
used origin-destination pairs
Objective 1.4: Increase transit ridership and
mode share in the corridor
Average weekday boardings on Corridor routes
Transit mode share along the corridor
Objective 1.5: Improve access of other
modes such as walking, bicycling, and auto
(park and ride) to transit
Population with ½ mile of transit stop
Bicycle capacity at stops, stations, and on the bus
Number of park and ride spaces with direct transit
access to major destinations
Assessment of accessibility by persons with
mobility challenges
Objective 1.6: Enhance equitable transit for
users without regard to race, color, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, national origin,
marital status, age, or disability or economic
status
Distribution of transit service and facility
improvements relative to concentrations of those
minority populations along the Corridor, for which
data is readily available.
Goal 2: Meet current and future transit demand in a cost-effective manner
Objective 2.1: Control the increase in transit
operating cost to serve the corridor
Cost per trip
Impact on LTD operating and maintenance costs
Meet or exceed FTA’s Small Starts requirements
for cost-effectiveness
Cost to local taxpayers
Objective 2.2: Increase transit capacity to
meet current and projected ridership demand
Capacity of transit service relative to the current
and projected ridership
Objective 2.3: Implement corridor
improvements that provide an acceptable
return on investment
Benefit/cost assessment of planned improvements
Main-McVay Transit Study Governance Team
August 27, 2014
Page 7
Goals and Objectives Evaluation Criteria
Objective 2.4: Implement corridor
improvements that minimize impacts to the
environment and, where possible, enhance
the environment
Results of screening-level assessment of
environmental impacts of alternative transit
solutions
Goal 3: Support economic development, revitalization and land use redevelopment opportunities for
the corridor
Objective 3.1: Support development and
redevelopment as planned in other adopted
documents
Support for the overall BRT System Plan
Support for the Springfield Transportation System
Plan (STSP) Frequent Transit Network (FTN)
concept
Amount of vacant and underutilized land within ½
miles of stops/stations
Acquisitions and/or displacement of residents
measured in acres of property acquired and
residential unit and parking displacements
Local jobs created by project construction
Percentage of current and planned population
within ½ mile of FTN stop
Percentage of current and planned employment
within ½ mile of FTN stop
Objective 3.2: Enhance the aesthetics of the
corridor to improve economic activity
Potential impact to street trees, landscaping
Number of transit-related visual elements
identified in adopted plans that would be
implemented by alternative transit solutions
Potential impacts to the natural environment
Opportunity for streetscape improvements,
wayfinding, and design elements that reinforce the
community’s identity and increase awareness of
economic activity areas
Objective 3.3: Coordinate transit
improvements with other Main Street
projects
Capability of transit improvement to coordinate
with other Main Street projects identified in
adopted plans
Opportunity for streetscape improvements,
wayfinding, and design elements that reinforce the
community’s identity and increase awareness of
Main Street projects
Objective 3.4: Coordinate transit
improvements with other Franklin Boulevard
/ McVay Highway projects
Capability of transit improvement to coordinate
with other Franklin Boulevard / McVay Highway
projects identified in adopted plans
Opportunity for streetscape improvements,
wayfinding, and design elements that reinforce the
Main-McVay Transit Study Governance Team
August 27, 2014
Page 8
Goals and Objectives Evaluation Criteria
community’s identity and increase awareness of
Franklin Boulevard / McVay Highway projects
Objective 3.5: Minimize adverse impacts to
existing businesses and industry
Impacts to businesses along the Corridor
measured in acres of property acquired and
parking displacements
Impact on freight and delivery operations for
Corridor businesses
Goal 4: Enhance the safety and security of the corridor
Objective 4.1: Improve the safety of
pedestrians and bicyclists accessing transit
and crossing Main Street
Number and quality of designated (marked)
crossings near transit stops (signalized or
unsignalized)
General assessment of safety for persons with
mobility challenges
General assessment of potential to reduce the
number of pedestrian / vehicle collisions
General assessment of potential to reduce the
number of bicycle / vehicle collisions
Objective 4.2: Enhance the security of
transit users and of the corridor as a whole
Amount of added street lighting
Amount of added lighting at / near transit stops
Extent and character of stop and station
improvements
Goal 5: Enhance other modes of travel
Objective 5.1: Improve transit operations in
a way that is mutually beneficial to vehicular
traffic flow around transit stops and
throughout the corridor
Impact on current and future year intersection
Level of Service (LOS)
Impact on current and future year PM peak hour
auto / truck travel times
Objective 5.2: Improve bicycle and
pedestrians connections along the corridor
and to and from transit stops
General assessment of the interface with
pedestrians and bicyclists
Length of new or improved sidewalk in stop and
station areas
Length of new or improved bike lanes in stop and
station areas
Number of bicycle treatments in stop and station
areas
MEMORANDUM
August 26, 2014
TO: Main-McVay Transit Study Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC)
FROM: John Evans, LTD
David Reesor, City of Springfield
RE: Main-McVay Transit Study: Purpose, Need, Goals, and Objectives
In May and June of this year, the SAC reviewed a draft Purpose, Need, Goals, and Objectives (PNGO) for
the Main-McVay Transit Study. The full PNGO includes the following elements:
Problem Statement
Purpose Statement
Needs Statement
Goals
Objectives
Evaluation Criteria
The SAC took action to recommend revisions to three of these elements: The Purpose Statement, Goals,
and Objectives. Those elements were subsequently reviewed and endorsed by the project’s
Governance Team, the Springfield City Council, and the Lane Transit District Board of Directors. The
decision was made to hold off on the final review and possible modification of the Problem Statement,
Needs Statement, and Evaluation Criteria pending information provided by the Baseline Existing and
Future Conditions Report. That report has been completed and the SAC is now asked to review those
three elements and formulate a recommendation to the Governance Team.
The attached document shows the approved elements of the PNGO in grey text and the three elements
for consideration with possible revisions shown in track changes. The revisions respond to comments
from SAC members and others on the initial draft of those elements, as well as the addition of
information gleaned from the Baseline Existing and Future Conditions Report. Those items are provided
to provide a complete picture of the PNGO, but are considered final and not part of the current review.
ATTACHMENT B
Main-McVay Transit Study Stakeholder Advisory Committee
August 20, 2014
Page 10
Main-McVay Transit Study
Purpose and Need Statement
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROBLEM STATEMENT, NEEDS STATEMENT, AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
AUGUST 26, 2014
Study Problem Statement
The Main-McVay Corridor is an L-shaped Corridor extending from 69th Street on Main Street to Lane
Community College on McVay Highway. The Corridor is comprised of two segments, the Main Street
Segment and the McVay Highway Segment, which connect at Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway.
Main Street and McVay Highway are currently major transit corridors, connecting with each other and
with other transit service at the Springfield Transit Station. The segments, while part of an overall
corridor, have differing issues and concerns that are to be addressed by this study.
Main Street Segment
Transit Service on Main Street is hindered by overcrowded buses, increasing transit travel time and
operating cost caused by signal and passenger boarding delays, and 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.
McVay Highway Segment
Transit service on McVay Highway is hindered by poor pedestrian access, service demand primarily
limited to the school season and weekdays, rider security and safety concerns for passengers accessing
buses at transit stops that are poorly lit and not located at signalized street crossings, and the unfunded
need to improve the congested I-5 interchange. If not addressed, these issues will worsen in the future
and the transit system in this segment will not be, positioned to handle the higher density development
Main-McVay Transit Study Stakeholder Advisory Committee
August 20, 2014
Page 11
within and adjacent to the McVay Highway Segment growth and redevelopment planned for in the
recently adopted Glenwood Refinement PlanGlenwood area.
Study Purpose and Need
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of the Main-McVay Transit Study project is to identify a range of transit improvements in
the Main-McVay Corridor that provide improved mobility and transportation choices to residents,
businesses, visitors, and commuters. The improvements will be consistent with regional plans and the
community’s long-term vision and goals for the area. The range of improvements will include options
that result in improved regional connectivity and equitable transit access to destinations such as
employment, educational institutions, shopping, appointments, and recreational opportunities for area
residents.
The project 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 project would support local, regional, and state plans and goals for land use and transportation;
efforts in the Main-McVay Corridor aimed at encouraging economic revitalization and land use
redevelopment; and, plans and programs to create Main Street and McVay Highway identities and
improve aesthetics on the Corridor, making it an attractive place to live, work, and shop.
Statement of Need
The need for the project results from:
High transit ridership along the Main Street corridor that results in overcrowding of bus trips during
peak travel times. The #11 Thurston route which operates on Main Street has the second highest
ridership in the LTD system (after EmX), with an average of more than 3,500 boardings per weekday.
This is more than double any other non-EmX bus route. During the past year, seven buses were
overcrowded to the point that 78 riders were left behind at stop(s);
Pedestrian safety issues for riders walking to and from the bus stops on Main Street, including street
crossings to access bus stops that are not located near a signalized or enhanced crossing. There have
been a total of nine (9) pedestrian fatalities during the past ten years along Main Street between
20th and 73rd Streets;
Pedestrian safety issues for riders accessing transit service on McVay Highway due to high travel
speeds, narrow roadways, and lack of sidewalks in many areas;
Main-McVay Transit Study Stakeholder Advisory Committee
August 20, 2014
Page 12
High student use along the corridor, especially in the Thurston area, creates special safety and
access issues;.
Lengthening transit travel times and deteriorating public transportation reliability in the Main Street
segment due to growing traffic congestion, signal delays, and passenger boarding delays. Average
run time route on the #11 Thurston has increased 3.5 percent in the last five years, with midday run
time increasing by more than 10 percent during that period. In the fall of 2014, schedule time will
be added to the route due to the lengthening travel time. Approximately 7.5 percent of the #11
Thurston trips on an average weekday are more than four (4) minutes late, a figure that is higher
than the system average of 7.0 percent;
Limited corridor revitalization and redevelopment resulting from aging structures and infrastructure
and a poor visual environment along Main Street, South A Street, and McVay Highway;
Historic and projected increases in traffic congestion in the Main-McVay Corridor due to increases in
regional and corridor population and employment. Four (4) intersections in the corridor
(McVay/Franklin, Main/42nd, Main/Hwy. 126, and Main/58th) are projected to exceed ODOT
mobility standards for 2035;
The approach to Lane Community College from Interstate 5 has a very high level of congestion in the
morning periods, which creates delays for the #85 LCC/Springfield route;
The Interstate 5 interchange at 30th Avenue is in need of improvements to address traffic and safety
issues. While there is a recognized need for improvements to the interchange, funding and the
schedule for the improvements are uncertain;
For this corridor project, McVay Highway, as designed today, does not support the proposed mixed-
use development goals expressed in the Glenwood Refinement Plan or the Franklin Boulevard
Redevelopment Project;
Policy direction in regional and City transportation plans that assume increased reliance on public
transportation to address the community’s future transportation needs;
LTD has experienced an average annual iIncrease ing operating expensescosts of 6.2 percent (1999-
2010), combined with increasingly scarce operating resources, while trying to meet the demanding
for more efficient public transportation operations;
The decision in the adopted 2035 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to include bus rapid transit
(composed of frequent, fast transit service along major corridors and neighborhood feeder service
that connects with the corridor service and with activity centers) in the fiscally constrained model as
part of the regional transportation strategy.
Main-McVay Transit Study Stakeholder Advisory Committee
August 20, 2014
Page 13
The decision in the adopted Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (STSP) to include
partnering with LTD to provide frequent transit network (FTN) connections along major corridors,
connecting to local neighborhood bus service and major activity centers to provide viable
alternatives to vehicle trips. The STSP incorporates numerous FTN projects and 20-year priority
roadway, urban standards and pedestrian / bicycle projects relevant to the Main-McVay Transit
Study.
Local and regional land use and development plans, goals, and objectives that identify the Main-
McVay Corridor for residential, commercial, retail, institutional/educational, government, and
industrial development to help accommodate forecasted regional population and employment
growth.
Main-McVay Transit Study Stakeholder Advisory Committee
August 20, 2014
Page 14
Study Goals and Objectives
Goal 1: Improve corridor transit service
Objective 1.1: Improve transit travel time
Objective 1.2: Improve transit service reliability
Objective 1.3: Provide convenient transit connections that minimize the need to transfer
Objective 1.4: Increase transit ridership and mode share along the corridor
Objective 1.5: Improve access of other modes such as walking, bicycling, and auto (park and
ride) to transit
Objective 1.6: Enhance equitable transit for users without regard to race, color, religion, sex,
sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, age or disability.
Goal 2: Meet current and future transit demand in a cost-effective and sustainable manner
Objective 2.1: Control the increase in transit operating cost to serve the corridor
Objective 2.2: Increase transit capacity to meet current and projected ridership demand
Objective 2.3: Implement corridor improvements that provide an acceptable return on
investment
Objective 2.4 Implement corridor improvements that minimize impacts to the environment
and, where possible, enhance the environment
Goal 3: Support economic development, revitalization and land use redevelopment opportunities for
the corridor
Objective 3.1: Support development and redevelopment as planned in other adopted
documents
Objective 3.2: Enhance the aesthetics of the corridor to improve economic activity
Objective 3.3: Coordinate transit improvements with other Main Street projects
Objective 3.4: Coordinate transit improvements with other Franklin Boulevard / McVay
Highway projects
Objective 3.5: Minimize adverse impacts to existing businesses and industry
Goal 4: Enhance the safety and security of the corridor
Objective 4.1: Improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists accessing transit and crossing
the Corridor
Objective 4.2: Enhance the security of transit users and of the corridor as a whole
Goal 5: Enhance other modes of travel
Main-McVay Transit Study Stakeholder Advisory Committee
August 20, 2014
Page 15
Objectives 5.1: Improve transit operations in a way that is mutually beneficial to vehicular
traffic flow around transit stops and throughout the corridor
Objectives 5.2: Improve bicycle and pedestrians connections along the corridor and to and from
transit stops
Evaluation Criteria
Draft Evaluation Criteria
Goals and Objectives Evaluation Criteria
Goal 1: Improve corridor transit service
Objective 1.1: Improve transit travel time Round trip transit pm peak travel time between
select origins and destinations
Objective 1.2: Improve transit service
reliability
On-time performance (no more than 4 minutes
late) of transit service
Objective 1.3: Provide convenient transit
connections that minimizes the need to
transfer
Number of transfers required between heavily
used origin-destination pairs
Objective 1.4: Increase transit ridership and
mode share in the corridor
Average weekday boardings on Corridor routes
Transit mode share along the corridor
Objective 1.5: Improve access of other
modes such as walking, bicycling, and auto
(park and ride) to transit
Population with ½ mile of transit stop
Bicycle capacity at stops, stations, and on the bus
Number of park and ride spaces with direct transit
access to major destinations
Assessment of accessibility by persons with
mobility challenges
Objective 1.6: Enhance equitable transit for
users without regard to race, color, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, national origin,
marital status, age or disability
Distribution of transit service and facility
improvements relative to concentrations of
minority populations along the Corridor.
Goal 2: Meet current and future transit demand in a cost-effective manner
Objective 2.1: Control the increase in transit
operating cost to serve the corridor
Cost per trip
Impact on LTD operating and maintenance costs
Meet or exceed FTA’s Small Starts requirements
for cost-effectiveness
Cost to local taxpayers
Objective 2.2: Increase transit capacity to
meet current and projected ridership demand
Capacity of transit service relative to the current
and projected ridership
Objective 2.3: Implement corridor
improvements that provide an acceptable
return on investment
Benefit/cost assessment of planned improvements
Main-McVay Transit Study Stakeholder Advisory Committee
August 20, 2014
Page 16
Goals and Objectives Evaluation Criteria
Objective 2.4: Implement corridor
improvements that minimize impacts to the
environment and, where possible, enhance
the environment
Results of screening-level assessment of
environmental impacts of alternative
Main-McVay Transit Study Stakeholder Advisory Committee
August 20, 2014
Page 17
Goal 3: Support economic development, revitalization and land use redevelopment opportunities for
the corridor
Objective 3.1: Support development and
redevelopment as planned in other adopted
documents
Support for the overall BRT System Plan
Support for the Springfield Transportation System
Plan (STSP) Frequent Transit Network (FTN)
concept
Amount of vacant and underutilized land within ½
miles of stops/stations
Acquisitions and/or displacement of residents
measured in acres of property acquired and
residential unit and parking displacements
Local jobs created by project construction
Percentage of current and planned population
within ½ mile of FTN stop
Percentage of current and planned employment
within ½ mile of FTN stop
Objective 3.2: Enhance the aesthetics of the
corridor to improve economic activity
Potential impact to street trees, landscaping
Number of transit-related visual elements
identified in adopted plans that would be
implemented by alternative
Potential impacts to the natural environment
Opportunity for streetscape improvements,
wayfinding, and design elements that reinforce the
community’s identity and increase awareness of
economic activity areas
Objective 3.3: Coordinate transit
improvements with other Main Street
projects
Capability of transit improvement to coordinate
with other Main Street projects identified in
adopted plans
Opportunity for streetscape improvements,
wayfinding, and design elements that reinforce the
community’s identity and increase awareness of
Main Street projects
Objective 3.4: Coordinate transit
improvements with other Franklin Boulevard
/ McVay Highway projects
Capability of transit improvement to coordinate
with other Franklin Boulevard / McVay Highway
projects identified in adopted plans
Opportunity for streetscape improvements,
wayfinding, and design elements that reinforce the
community’s identity and increase awareness of
Franklin Boulevard / McVay Highway projects
Objective 3.5: Minimize adverse impacts to
existing businesses and industry
Impacts to businesses along the Corridor
measured in acres of property acquired and
parking displacements
Main-McVay Transit Study Stakeholder Advisory Committee
August 20, 2014
Page 18
Impact on freight and delivery operations for
Corridor businesses
Main-McVay Transit Study Stakeholder Advisory Committee
August 20, 2014
Page 19
Goal 4: Enhance the safety and security of the corridor
Objective 4.1: Improve the safety of
pedestrians and bicyclists accessing transit
and crossing Main Street
Number and quality of designated (marked)
crossings near transit stops (signalized or
unsignalized)
General assessment of safety for persons with
mobility challenges
General assessment of potential to reduce the
number of pedestrian / vehicle collisions
General assessment of potential to reduce the
number of bicycle / vehicle collisions
Objective 4.2: Enhance the security of
transit users and of the corridor as a whole
Amount of added street lighting
Amount of added lighting at / near transit stops
Extent and character of stop and station
improvements
Goal 5: Enhance other modes of travel
Objective 5.1: Improve transit operations in
a way that is mutually beneficial to vehicular
traffic flow around transit stops and
throughout the corridor
Impact on current and future year intersection
Level of Service (LOS)
Impact on current and future year PM peak hour
auto / truck travel times
Objective 5.2: Improve bicycle and
pedestrians connections along the corridor
and to and from transit stops
General assessment of the interface with
pedestrians and bicyclists
Length of new or improved sidewalk in stop and
station areas
Length of new or improved bike lanes in stop and
station areas
Number of bicycle treatments in stop and station
areas
MEMORANDUM
To: Main-McVay Transit Study Governance Team
From: John Evans, Lane Transit District
David Reesor, City of Springfield
Date: August 27, 2014
Re: Stakeholder Advisory Committee Review of Edits to Draft Baseline Existing and Future
Conditions Report
At the Study’s August 26, 2014 Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting, the SAC discussed their review
of the proposed modifications to the Draft Baseline Existing and Future Conditions Report. With the
exception of the recommended changes to the Problem Statement, Needs Statement and Evaluation
Criteria (see memo regarding recommended revisions to the Purpose, Need, Goals and Objectives), the
SAC did not suggest any additional changes to the Draft Baseline Existing and Future Conditions Report.
Attached to this memo is the memo sent to the SAC and a summary of Report modifications and
responses to comments received.
Once the Governance Team has approved any revisions to the Problem Statement, Needs Statement
and Evaluation Criteria, the Study’s Project team will finalize the Baseline Report and copies to the SAC.
MEMORANDUM
To: Main-McVay Transit Study Stakeholder Advisory Committee
From: John Evans, Lane Transit District
David Reesor, City of Springfield
Date: August 19, 2014
Re: Edits to Draft Baseline Existing and Future Conditions Report
Based on comments received by August 12th, the Draft Baseline Existing and Future Conditions has been
revised. Please note that not all comments resulted in changes to the Report. Following is a summary of
Report modifications and responses to comments received. Attached to this memo are the modified
pages with revisions in track changes; only pages with substantive changes are included.
The last items needed to finalize the Report are the Problem Statement, Statement of Need, and
Evaluation Criteria. These PNGO elements are on your August 26th agenda for your review and any
recommended revisions. Once the Governance Team has approved any recommended revisions from
the SAC, the Baseline Report will be finalized and available to you.
Report Modifications
General
Throughout Report:
Change document date to August 2014
Change title from “Draft” to “Final”
Change “alternatives” to “solutions”
Correct grammar and typographical errors
Correct formatting errors
4.9 Historic Resources
Section 4.9.1 Existing Conditions modified to include information about Glenwood
Table 4.9-4 (Historic Use Areas Identified for City of Springfield) modified to include section on
Glenwood
Figure 4.9-5 (Locations of Historic Areas of City of Springfield in Relation to Main-McVay Study
Area) modified to include Glenwood historic area
Main-McVay Transit Study Stakeholder Advisory Committee
August 20, 2014
Page 3
4.10 Land Use
Figure 4.10-1 (Existing Land Uses in Study Area) was updated to note that the Wildish land had
been rezoned from an industrial to a mixed use classification and that the map available from
the city of Springfield was in the process of being updated to reflect the change
Table 4.10-1 (Zoning Designations in Study Area) was modified to include missing zoning
classifications for the Glenwood area
4.14 Transportation
Section 4.14.2.1 Identified Congestion Issues: Main Street Segment modified to include
additional information about existing and future intersection congestion
Section 4.14.2.2 Identified Congestion Issues: McVay Highway Segment modified to include
additional information about existing and future roadway conditions and intersection
congestion
Section 4.14.3 Identified Safety Issues modified to include additional information about safety
issues on McVay Highway
Section 4.14.5.2 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: Pedestrian Related Identified Improvements
modified to include additional information about the construction progress of pedestrian safety
crossings resulting from the Springfield Main Street Safety Study
Added a new figure (new Figure 4.14-9 Traffic Signals and Pedestrian Crossing Locations on Main
Street/South A Street Corridor) that shows the implemented (or soon to be implemented) and
planned pedestrian crossings as well as all traffic signals on the Main Street/South A Street
corridor – all subsequent figures were renumbered
Response to Baseline Report Comments
The following are responses to comments from Randy Hledik, Stakeholder Advisory Committee Member,
received via email on June 19 and August 6, 2014.
The Statement of Need on page 19 continues to provide very specific information pertaining to the Main
Street segment (see bullet points 1, 2 and 4) compared to the level at which the McVay segment is
addressed (see bullet points 7). As previously stated, I think it is necessary to elaborate on the McVay
needs if this report will be used to convince federal decision makers of the need to fund transit on
McVay. I previously submitted extracts from other planning documents that I hoped would help in this
regard … if you need me to resubmit that information, please let me know.
The Statement of Need included in the draft Baseline Report is a draft. Earlier in the
Study process, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) voted to delay modifying the
Statement of Need pending the findings of the Baseline Report. With the issuance of the
Main-McVay Transit Study Stakeholder Advisory Committee
August 20, 2014
Page 4
draft Baseline Report, the SAC is currently reviewing the draft Statement of Need to
determine any recommended changes. The SAC is scheduled to make recommended
revisions to the Statement of Need at their August 26, 2014 meeting. After the
Statement of Need is approved by the Governance Team, the Baseline Report will be
finalized and will include the revised Problem Statement, Statement of Need and
Evaluation Criteria.
While Figure 4.9-4 on page 67 identifies historic sites in Glenwood (at least along Franklin Blvd), Figure
4.9-5 on page 72 does not include Glenwood in one of the numbered areas that are described in some
detail on Table 4.9-4 on pages 68 and 69. Once again, my concern is that if information on Glenwood is
omitted, the analysis for McVay will be considered incomplete and negatively affected when funding is
considered.
The Historic Resources section of the Baseline Report has been modified to include
information about Glenwood including revisions to Table 4.9-4 and Figure 4.9-5.
In regard to Table 4.10-1, I don’t believe the zoning designations for Glenwood reflect the rezoning of the
McVay (and Franklin) corridors that was recently adopted by the city council. I know that much of the
Wildish property has been redesignated and rezoned from “Light-Medium Industrial” to “Employment-
Mixed Use”, but I do not find that zoning designation listed on the table. This could affect the projected
employee calculations used to determine potential transit ridership.
Table 4.10-1 was modified to include the missing Glenwood zoning designations. Figure
4.10-1 was modified to include a note that the land in question had been rezoned from
an industrial to a mixed use classification and that the map available from the city of
Springfield was in the process of being updated to reflect the change.
Finally, on Figure 4.18-1 and -2, there appears to be a line of wetlands shown on the Wildish property
adjacent to the Willamette River. (There is no legend identifying what a “ _._._._” symbol means, but
since it’s in color, I assume it’s a wetland or other water feature.) Where did this information come
from. I have not seen this depicted on any other map. There are NO wetlands or other waterways on
this parcel – and I would appreciate it if this was removed …
As provided in the attached memorandum from Jean Ochsner and Patrick Hendrix of
Environmental Science & Assessment regarding the wetlands mapping, this early
Baseline Existing and Future Conditions Report is based primarily on information and
data in existing studies and readily available on-line. Some windshield surveys were
conducted from Study Area roadways; no field surveys on public or private lands were
conducted. Windshield surveys were conducted for biological and wetland resources.
The information in question was collected from the Lane County Zone and Plan Map
Main-McVay Transit Study Stakeholder Advisory Committee
August 20, 2014
Page 5
Viewer and indicates Class 1 Streams. When overlaid on the aerial photography it
appears that the Class 1 Streams lines are based on older information; we acknowledge
there is a discrepancy between what is on the ground and the older digital information.
The Report information was also modified to include the Glenwood Local Wetland
Inventory and field observations which indicated that areas adjacent to the river are
considered riparian corridors. Because this Report is based on existing information and
studies, we cannot change the data from Lane County or the city of Springfield’s
Glenwood Local Wetland Inventory.
Attachment A: Modified Pages from Baseline Report
Main-McVay Transit Study DRAFT Final Baseline Existing and 07/22/14August 2014
Future Conditions Report Page 81
As a result of these surveys, areas that have been well inventoried to date include Franklin Blvd in
Glenwood, Main Street in Springfield (up to 10th Street), and much of the Washburn District. Inventory
coverage of the Study Area on the Main Street Segment from 10th to 60th streets has been much less
systematic (Figure 4.9-4). Willamette Heights, in the northwest corner of the Study Area along the river,
has also been inventoried, but only 33 of the 97 properties were found to be potentially eligible
(Gratreak and Ranzetta 2013). These properties are not located along main thoroughfares that are likely
to be considered for the development of alternatives.
Clusters of inventoried historic resources, as seen in Figure 4.9-4, are evident, including the Washburn
District (which contains 314 inventoried resources), Glenwood (which has 214 inventoried resources),
and Downtown Springfield (with 189 resources). An inventory effort in the Springfield/Mohawk area
recorded 177 resources just north of the Study Area. These clusters should not be construed to be the
only areas where eligible resources are located; rather, they indicate only where studies have so far
been conducted. The side streets of downtown Springfield, as well as the more recently developed areas
east of downtown may well contain a number of resources not yet inventoried.
More than 600 historical sites have been identified within the Study Area, a vast majority of which are
residential, but a number of resources relate to commercial, transportation, and industrial pursuits (e.g.,
railroad, lumbering, millrace). The first city-wide inventory in 1979 identified six areas of historic use
within the city, five of which are represented within the Study Area (Table 4.9-4 and Figure 4.9-5). These
areas reflect the earliest urban settlement in the western portion of the Study Area (Area 1), the spread
of early residential development (Areas 2 and 3), later residential spread and light industry to the east
(Area 4), and a mix of rural settlement and mill industry (with recent residential development) in the
eastern portion of the Study Area (Area 5). Glenwood, which was not subject to any systematic historical
inventories until after 1999 when it was annexed by the city of Springfield, can be identified as another
area of historic use (Area 7). This area contains a mix of residential, industrial and commercial resources
in a floodplain setting, transitional between Springfield and Eugene.
A more recent review of the patterning of historic resources within the Study Area recognizes a number
of broad resource types, including those associated with agriculture, industry and manufacturing,
transportation, commerce, government, and culture (including schools, churches, social organizations,
medical facilities, and residences) (Table 4.9-5; see also Dennis 1999). All of these site types are
represented in the Study Area.
Table 4.9-4. Historic Use Areas Identified for the City of Springfield
AREA 1 (SOUTH AND DOWNTOWN)
This area is characterized by three distinct activities: (1) the downtown commercial district, (2) the industrial
stretch of mill related structures, and (3) a concentration of residents nestled in the oaks on Willamette
Heights. Major auto (2) and railroad (1) bridges serve as entrances to Springfield, crossing the Willamette River
west of downtown. The railroad and the 1853 millrace course through the entire length of the industrial
section. Also within this area are the sites of the pioneer cemetery (now rearranged) and an abandoned rock
quarry. Willamette Heights is a close-in neighborhood, visually separate but with clear views to downtown and
Kelly Butte. The Springfield Depot, Springfield’s only landmark to date [as of 1979] is located here, as well as an
early warehouse which marks the location of early mills.
07/22/14August 2014 DRAFT Final Baseline Existing and Main-McVay Transit Study
Page 82 Future Conditions Report
AREA 2 (CENTRAL)
The heart (just north of downtown) of Central is characterized by the highest concentration of existing early
residences and street trees within the city limits [Washburne Historic District]. Residences of the 1940s and
1950s are predominant in the rest of this area.
AREA 3 (KELLY BUTTE)
This area is named for the prominent butte which rises just north of the Willamette River. Existing early
residences are located on the flat land to the east of the butte. New construction predominates now at the top
of the butte and to the northwest; apartments are along 2nd, 3rd, and Centennial. The northern section is
typically eave-less tract style houses.
AREA 4 (EAST)
This area is typically eave-less tract houses; when street trees occur, they tend to be small in scale (e.g., plums).
Several early structures occur along Marcola Road. Small scale industry is scattered in the western section.
AREA 5 (THURSTON)
This area offers the extremes. Early residences, barns, outbuildings and orchards--rural in character--form the
northern edge. This road once served as the main highway to the McKenzie. The eastern portion is being
intensively developed with new residential structures. The western portion features ranch style houses, some
newer construction and a subdivision of mobile homes. Weyerhauser, the dominant mill of the Eugene-
Springfield area, is located in this area.
AREA 6 (NORTH) (OUTSIDE THE STUDY AREA)
The northern part of this area supports intensive new construction; i.e., a motel and restaurant strip and
apartments adjacent to Interstate 5 (now Gateway Mall and other recent development). The remainder of the
area is typically 40s and 50s residences sprinkled with small barns and simple bungalows.
AREA 7 (GLENWOOD)
Glenwood, initially platted in 1888, contains a mix of residential, industrial and commercial resources. Although
it has served as the link between the neighboring urban areas of Springfield and Eugene, Glenwood’s
development history is unique. Clusters of historic resources can be found along Franklin Blvd and the railroad
tracks that connect the two cities.
Source: City of Springfield, Historic Resources Inventory. 1979. Modified to include Glenwood Inventory Results
(City of Springfield, Oregon, 2010).
Table 4.9-5. Historic Distribution Patterns
AGRICULTURE
Agricultural resources are expected to be generally located in the perimeter areas north, east and south of the city
center. Historical records reveal that the Gateway and Thurston areas supported dairies, poultry farms, small fruit
and vegetable farms, fruit and nut orchards, hop culture, horticulture and general farming. Filbert orchards were
located due south of the city near the Middle Fork of the Willamette River and in the Glenwood area. Stock
operations were located in the foothills of the Natron locality. Examples of inventoried sites include:
Dorris Ranch Historic District (orchard)
Barnet Barn & Silo
Thurston Grange (Community) Hall
Springfield Creamery
INDUSTRIES AND MANUFACTURING
Industrial resources are expected to be clustered on the south side of South A Street in the vicinity of the millrace
and railroad tracks. This area represents the city’s original industrial district. Secondary areas which may include
industrial resources are east of this original industrial district, an area which developed as the lumber industry
grew following WWII. With the exception of the millrace, there are no remaining industrial resources for
Springfield’s earliest history. Examples of inventoried sites include:
Springfield Millrace
Weyerhaeuser Company Paper Mill Plant
Booth Kelly Lumber Mill Maintenance Shop
07/22/14August 2014 DRAFT Final Baseline Existing and Main-McVay Transit Study
Page 86 Future Conditions Report
Main-McVay Transit Study DRAFT Final Baseline Existing and 07/22/14August 2014
Future Conditions Report Page 93
07/22/14August 2014 DRAFT Final Baseline Existing and Main-McVay Transit Study
Page 110 Future Conditions Report
Zoning Designation Description Density Requirements
Heavy Industrial (HI) Uses are generally involved in the processing
of large volumes of raw materials into
refined materials and/or that have
significant external impacts. Heavy Industrial
transportation needs often include rail and
truck.
N/A
Public Land Open Space
(PLO)
Government uses, including public offices
and facilities; educational uses, including
high schools and colleges; and parks and
open space uses including, publicly owned
metropolitan and regional scale parks and
publicly and privately owned golf courses
and cemeteries.
N/A
Residential Mixed Use–
Glenwood Subarea A
(Springfield, 2012)
Subarea A provides for high‐density
residential development sites. This high‐
density neighborhood is intended to be
pedestrian‐friendly and includes park blocks
and a riverfront linear park to incorporate
public open space needs, and to provide for
unique stormwater management facilities.
Subarea A provides opportunities for high‐
density housing above ground‐floor retail
and commercial uses that serve the
neighborhood and provide for a unique
destination with riverfront views and points
of access to the Willamette River.
Minimum density of 50
dwelling units per net acre
Commercial Mixed Use
– Glenwood Subarea B
(Springfield, 2012)
Subarea B provides for flexible mixed‐use
development to achieve a unique riverfront
destination responding to developer interest
and market demand for housing, lodging,
entertainment and meeting/conference uses
and office/employment uses.
No more than 50 percent of a
development area will be
dedicated to high density
residential use, with a
minimum of 50 dwelling units
per net acre.
Office Mixed Use –
Glenwood Subarea C
(Springfield, 2012)
Subarea C provides for office and
commercial uses to help meet an identified
need for employment land in Springfield
with riverfront views and access points to
the Willamette River that complement the
adjacent high‐density residential mixed‐use
neighborhood to the east on the north side
of Franklin Boulevard, and the same uses,
with the possible addition of civic uses, on
the south side of Franklin Boulevard
High density residential
housing affiliated with
permitted educational
facilities with a minimum
density of 50 dwelling units
per net acre.
Main-McVay Transit Study DRAFT Final Baseline Existing and 07/22/14August 2014
Future Conditions Report Page 111
Zoning Designation Description Density Requirements
Employment Mixed Use
– Glenwood Subarea D
(Springfield, 2012)
Subarea D provides for office employment
and light manufacturing employment uses
with limited external impacts; that have
riverfront views and points of access to the
Willamette River; and that helps meet an
identified need for employment land in
Springfield.
N/A
Quarry Mine
Operations (QMO)
Established to: recognize that minerals and
materials within the Springfield Urban
Growth Boundary are a non-renewable
resource, and that extraction and processing
are beneficial to the local economy; protect
major deposits of minerals, rock and related
material resources with appropriate zoning;
institute procedures for the protection of
public health and safety on and adjacent to
land where quarry and mining blasting
operations are occurring; institute standards
to be used in reviewing referrals from State
and Federal agencies of Operation and
Reclamation Plans, pollution control and
similar permits; provide for cooperation
between private and governmental entities
in carrying out the purposes of this Section.
N/A
City of Eugene Zoning Designations (Eugene, 2014b).
Agricultural (AG) Allows for agricultural uses within the urban
growth boundary until land is converted to
urban development. Agricultural uses are
considered interim uses until public facilities
and services can be provided in an
economical manner and urban development
of the site would result in compact urban
growth and sequential development.
Minimum lot size: 20 acres
Low-Density
Residential (R-1)
This zone is designed for one-family
dwellings with some allowance for other
types of dwellings, and is also intended to
provide a limited range of non-residential
uses that can enhance the quality of low-
density residential areas.
Minimum net density per acre:
none; Maximum net density
per acre: 14 units
Medium-Density
Residential (R-2)
Similar to R-1, this zone is intended to
provide a limited range of non-residential
uses to help provide services for residents
and enhance the quality of the medium-
density residential area.
Minimum net density per acre:
10 units; Maximum net
density per acre: 20 units
Main-McVay Transit Study DRAFT Final Baseline Existing and 07/22/14August 2014
Future Conditions Report Page 153
Table 4.14-1. Study Area Roadway Classification
Roadway
Jurisdictions
Springfield
Functional
Classification
Springfield
Freight
Designation
ODOT
Classification
ODOT Freight
Designation
Main Street ODOT Minor Arterial City Truck
Route
Statewide
NHS
N/A
McVay Hwy ODOT Minor Arterial City Truck
Route
Statewide
NHS
N/A
Source: Transportation System Plan, City of Springfield. 2013.
Highway Plan, Oregon Department of Transportation. 1999, revised August 22, 2013.
Since both roadways are under ODOT’s jurisdiction, the following performance standards apply:
ODOT standards for signalized intersections:
o OR 126 Expressway, v/c of 0.80, given Statewide Expressway within a MPO
o OR 126 Business (McKenzie Highway, ODOT Highway No. 15, Main Street), v/c ratio of
0.85
o OR 225 (McVay Highway), v/c ratio of 0.90, given District Highway within a MPO
classification
ODOT standards for stop-controlled intersections:
o Appropriate mobility standard is based on the classification of the intersecting roadway
4.14.2 Identified Congestion Issues
4.14.2.1 Main Street Segment
Nine intersections along the proposed segment were evaluated in the Springfield Transportation System
Plan, as shown in Table 4.14-2. Of the nine, two are currently approaching the performance standard
(Main Street/42nd Street and Main Street/OR 126), and three are not expected to meet the standard in
2035 (the two intersections approaching the performance standard today plus McVay Highway/Franklin
Boulevard). The Main Street/OR 126 intersection is the most problematic since its traffic volume is
expected to exceed the intersection capacity by 2035. Existing and future intersection and link volume-
to-capacity ratios on the Main Street Segment are shown in Figures 4.14-1 and 4.14-2. Under existing
conditions, most segments are well under capacity (v/c ratios < 0.80), with a few short segments
exceeding capacity, mostly near the Willamette River bridges. In the future (2035), several segments are
either expected to approach capacity (v/c > 0.80 and <1.0) or exceed capacity (v/c >1.0), especially near
the Willamette River bridges, just east of the Main Street/South A Street couplet and east of the Main
Street/Bob Straub highway intersection.
07/22/14August 2014 DRAFT Final Baseline Existing and Main-McVay Transit Study
Page 158 Future Conditions Report
4.14.2.2 McVay Highway Segment
McVay Highway is currently not improved to urban standards, however upgrading McVay Highway to
urban standards is a future roadway project listed in TransPlan and the Regional Transportation Plan.1
Only one intersection along the proposed segment was evaluated in the Springfield Transportation
System Plan, as shown in Table 4.14-3. The McVay Highway/Franklin Boulevard intersection meets the
mobility standard under existing conditions, but is not expected to meet the standard in 2035. Existing
and future intersection and link volume-to-capacity ratios on the McVay Highway Segment are shown in
the Figures 4.14-1 and 4.14-2. Under existing conditions, a significant portion of McVay Highway is
approaching capacity (v/c > 0.80). In the future (2035), the entire corridor is expected to either approach
or exceed (v/c >1.0) capacity.
Table 4.14-3. Springfield TSP Study Intersections – McVay Highway Segment
Intersection Control Jurisdiction Performance
Standard
Existing
V/C
Ratio
Meets
Standard
Existing?
Future
V/C
Ratio
Meets
Standard
Future
(2035)
No Build?
Crash
Rate/MEV*
McVay
Hwy/
Franklin
Blvd
Signal ODOT v/c of 0.85
0.72 Yes 0.93 No 0.47
Source: Transportation System Plan, City of Springfield. 2013.
4.14.3 Identified Safety Issues
As part of the Springfield TSP, crash rates per million entering vehicles (MEV) were calculated for each of
the study intersections. Typically further investigation is warranted when crash rates are greater than
1.0. None of the study intersections has a crash rate approaching 1.0.
While the intersections studied in the TSP did not show remarkably high crash rates, there has been a
concern about pedestrian collisions between 20th Street and 73rd Street (including nine pedestrian
fatalities in 10 years). In addition, due in part to the high number of accesses in the corridor, collisions
between intersections appear to be high. The OR 126 Main Street Safety Study was conducted due to
these continued occurrences. The primary emphasis of the study was on providing safe pedestrian
crossings at unsignalized locations. The study recommended a number of safety improvements
specifically aimed at improving pedestrian safety in the corridor, with nine prioritized crossing
improvement locations identified. The recommended safety improvements are shown in Figure 4.14-3.
The Glenwood Refinement Plan Update Project reports that there have been six or more non-fatal
and/or property damage only collisions on McVay Highway each year from 2004 through 20072. In 2003,
there was a fatality. The study does not include crash rates (based on traffic volume) or detailed
information about the collisions.
1 Glenwood Refinement Plan Update Project, Existing Conditions Report, page 91.
2 Glenwood Refinement Plan Update Project, Existing Conditions Report, page 96.
07/22/14August 2014 DRAFT Final Baseline Existing and Main-McVay Transit Study
Page 166 Future Conditions Report
4.14.5.1 Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Main Street /South A Street
A 5 to 10 foot wide sidewalk exists on both sides of Main Street and South A Street between
Franklin Boulevard and OR 126, except:
o Sidewalks are limited to one side in some locations near the Willamette River bridges
o There are no sidewalks on a very short segment at the west end of the westbound
bridge
McVay Highway
Sidewalks exist in only a few locations on either side from Franklin Boulevard to E. 30th Avenue
(mostly adjacent to more recently developed properties). Some areas have shoulders, but width
varies
4.14.5.2 Pedestrian Related Identified Improvements
In general, pedestrian facilities on the Main Street corridor are generally complete and those on McVay
Highway are generally lacking. While sidewalks are available on much of Main Street, the facilities could
be improved in many areas (wider sidewalks, better buffers, etc.). The Springfield TSP has a
“Recommended Pedestrian and Bicycle Network” (Figure 4.14-7). Only one of the proposed projects is
included as a Priority Project in the 20-year Project List (Table 4.14-6).
Table 4.14-6. Springfield TSP Priority Pedestrian/Bicycle Project in the 20-year Project List (McVay
Highway Corridor)
Project
Number
Pedestrian/Bicycle Project Description Cost
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
$2.9
million
Source: Transportation System Plan, City of Springfield. 2013.
The Springfield Main Street Safety Study recommended a number of safety improvements specifically
aimed at improving pedestrian safety in the corridor, with nine prioritized crossing improvement
locations identified (Figure 4.14-8, same as Figure 4.14-3). In general, the following types of
improvements were recommended:
Pedestrian countdown timers
Left-turn signal head modifications
Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs)
Speed feedback sign (specific locations not determined)
Since the Springfield Main Street Safety Study was completed, several pedestrian crossings have either
been constructed or are scheduled to be constructed by the end of 2014. In addition, some of the
Main-McVay Transit Study Final Baseline Existing and 07/15/14August 2014
Future Conditions Report Page 167
crossing locations recommended in that study have been dropped from consideration. Figure 4.14-9
shows the implemented (or soon to be implemented) and planned pedestrian crossings as well as all
traffic signals on the Main Street/South A Street corridor.
07/22/14August 2014 DRAFT Final Baseline Existing and Main-McVay Transit Study
Page 170 Future Conditions Report
Figure 4.14-9. Traffic Signals and Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Locations on Main Street/South A Street Corridor
Source: DKS Associates. 2014.
Main-McVay Transit Study DRAFT Final Baseline Existing and 07/22/14August 2014
Future Conditions Report Page B-17
Springfield Historic Design Guidelines. These design guidelines, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation, are intended to provide guidance for ways in which to appropriately
maintain, rehabilitate, and utilize historic resources and their settings in the City of Springfield.
Guidelines for public works projects are relevant to the present BRT undertaking.
Land Use and Prime Agricultural Lands
City of Eugene, Oregon. (2014a). Eugene Zoning Map. Retrieved from http://ceapps.eugene-
or.gov/PDDOnline/Maps/ZoningMap
City of Eugene, Oregon. (2014b). Eugene Code Chapter 9, Land Use. Retrieved from http://www.eugene-
or.gov/index.aspx?NID=2128
City of Springfield, Oregon. (2011). Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan, Residential Land Use and Housing
Element. Retrieved from http://www.springfield-
or.gov/DPW/CommunityPlanningDevelopment/SupportFiles/2030Plan/ResidentialLandUseHous
ingElementOrd6268.pdf
City of Springfield, Oregon. (2010a). Chapter 3 Land Use Districts. Retrieved from
http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/dsd/Planning/Springfield%20Develoment%20Code/Home%20Pa
ge%20for%20SDC.htm
City of Springfield. (2009). Glenwood Refinement Plan Update Project. Existing Conditions Report.
Retrieved from http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/dsd/Planning/Glenwood%20-
%20Markarian/ProjectBackgroundDocuments/Existing%20Conditions%20Report.pdf
City of Springfield, Oregon. (2010b). Technical Services Directory; GIS Section. Retrieved from
http://www.springfield-or.gov/pubworks/technicalservices.htm
City of Springfield. (2012). Exhibit D Springfield Development Code Amendments. Retrieved from:
http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/dsd/Planning/documents/FinalDevCode_000.pdf
Lane Community College. (2014). About Lane. Retrieved from http://www.lanecc.edu/about
Lane County, Oregon. (2014a). Lane Code Chapter 10 – Zoning. Retrieved from
http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/CC/LaneCode/Pages/default.aspx
Lane County, Oregon. (2014). Zone and Plan Map Viewer. Retrieved from
http://apps.lanecounty.org/MapLaunch/default.aspx?maplaunchid=2
OTAK. (2014). Main Street Corridor Vision Plan, Revised Memo #2 – Existing Conditions, Opportunities
and Constraints. Retrieved from http://ourmainstreetspringfield.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/01/Springfield-Existing-Conditions-Revised-Memo-2_012314.pdf
Noise
Oregon Department of Transportation. (2009). Traffic Noise Manual.
Attachment B: Environmental Science & Assessment
Memorandum
107 SE Washington Street, Ste. 249 Portland, OR. 97214 v 503.478.0424 f 503.478.0422 www.esapdx.com
Environmental Science & Assessment, LLC
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 14, 2014
TO: David Reesor, City of Springfield and John Evans, LTD
FROM: Jean Ochsner and Patrick Hendrix
RE: Baseline Report Comments (dated August 4, 2014)
The following is a response to comment regarding Figures 4.18-1 and -2. The information in
question is from Lane County GIS. Unfortunately, when you download the map, a legend is
not included with the basemap. The blue dashed line is within the overlay zone category:
Class 1 Stream. Wetlands are also included in that layer. I have provided a map with legend,
as well as the link:
http://lcmaps.lanecounty.org/LaneCountyMaps/PlanMaps.html?GroupName=PlanMaps
If you turn off the "Major Rivers" shading (located under Natural/Base and Water Features),
it is apparent that the "Class 1 Streams" lines are a different delineation of the river. Turning
on an aerial photograph and the "Major Rivers" shading appears to be more accurate than
the "Class 1 Streams" lines. Often GIS is based on existing and historic aerial photography. It
appears as though a side channel forming a small island is shown, but that is not apparent on
the aerial photograph. Two maps are enclosed for reference.
Our scope of work included reviewing background information and conducting a windshield
survey of the corridor. We did not perform wetland reconnaissance of individual properties.
The maps provided in our section are a compilation of Lane County Zone and Plan Map
Viewer. Modified to include the Glenwood Local Wetland Inventory and field observations.
Unfortunately we cannot remove this information, as it is part of the wetland/waters
background documentation.
Overlay Zones:
Class 1 Streams
Overlay Zones:
Class 1 Streams
Main-McVayTransit Study
Stakeholder Advisory Committee
August 26, 2014
VOTING RECORD
MOTION: Approve proposed Range of Transit Solutions to move into Screening Phase with noted
additions to:
1) Enhanced Bus Service options
a. Create a solution that combines option #1 (Main St. Enhanced Bus) and #2 (McVay Highway
Enhanced Bus)
b. Extend Option #1 terminus beyond 69th to 72nd.
c. Option #4: add “University” to title
d. Create more combined options
e. Explore frequency increases in Enhanced Bus solutions
f. Explore fewer stops for Option #3: Main Street Express service
2) BRT option, East of Bob Straub Pkwy, Main St. to 58th to Thurston to 69th: Change terminus Thurston
High School rather than proposed Thurston/58th.
SAC MEMBER AGREE
13 to 0 DISAGREE ABSTAINED ABSENT
Diana Alldredge
Mike Eyster (Moved)
Ronna Frank
David Helton
Lorenzo Herrera
Ken Hill
Randy Hledik (Seconded)
Jerry Hooton
Andrew Knori
Rosalia Marquez
Emma Newman
Brett Rowlett
Dan Rupe
Paul Selby
Garry Swanson
Chad Towe
Erin Walters
Main-McVayTransit Study
Stakeholder Advisory Committee
August 26, 2014
VOTING RECORD
MOTION: Approve proposed changes to Problem, Need, and Evaluation Criteria with the following
additions:
1) Objective 1.6: add term “economic status”
2) Objective 1.6 Evaluation Criteria: add language “concentrations of populations along the corridor for
which data is readily available”
3) Include data on bicycle fatalities for both Main Street and McVay Highway
SAC MEMBER AGREE
13 to 0 DISAGREE ABSTAINED ABSENT
Diana Alldredge
Mike Eyster (Moved)
Ronna Frank
David Helton
Lorenzo Herrera
Ken Hill
Randy Hledik (Seconded)
Jerry Hooton
Andrew Knori
Rosalia Marquez
Emma Newman
Brett Rowlett
Dan Rupe
Paul Selby
Garry Swanson
Chad Towe
Erin Walters
Broad Range of Transit Solutions
Narrowed Range of Transit Solutions
Range of Most Promising Transit Solutions
Purpose, Need, Goals &
Objectives Screening
Screening-Level
Evaluation
Screening and Evaluation of Transit Solutions
The purpose of the screening and evaluation effort is to determine which transit solutions are most
appropriate for the Corridor and hold the most promise in solving the identified problems. Transit
solutions which hold the most promise by meeting the study’s Purpose and Need and its goals and
objectives would be carried forward to future phases of the project for further consideration.
A two-step process will be used to narrow the broader range of transit solutions to a smaller range of
solutions for further study. The screening process evaluates each transit solution in terms of its potential
adverse or beneficial effect to the project area environment. This includes consideration of issues
including land use, transportation, economic development, compliance with plans and regulations, and
effects to the built environment, parks, cultural and natural resources, among others.
Purpose and Need Screening
The first level of screening gauges
whether a transit solution addresses
the Study’s Purpose and Need. The
project team will screen the broad
range of solutions to determine which
best meet the Study’s Purpose, Need,
Goals and Objectives (PNGO).
It should be noted that the original
process has been modified to include
the Study’s Goals and Objectives to
allow for greater scrutiny of the
options and elimination of options that
do not match well with the Study’s
goals. The SAC and GT will consider
which transit solutions best meet the
PNGO and should be advanced to the next level of evaluation.
Screening-Level Evaluation
In this second step, a more detailed level of screening would be conducted using the Evaluation Criteria
to determine how well each of the transit solutions would meet the project’s Goals and Objectives. Each
of the solutions is 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 the transit solutions. There is no proposed weighting of the criteria.
Range of Most Promising Transit Solutions
The SAC and the GT will use the findings from the screening-level evaluation to determine the range of
most promising transit solutions, which are those solutions that have the greatest probability of
addressing the Corridor’s identified transportation problems.
Main-McVay Transit Study
August 2014
Project
Initiation
Problem
Statement,
Purpose &
Need,
Criteria,
Modes
Service
Plan,
Existing &
Future
Conditions
Develop and
Review
Conceptual
Transit
Solutions
Tiered
Screening
Process
Most
Promising
Transit
Solutions
Future Phase
(Design,
NEPA)
Governance
Team
Final
Approval by
Springfield
City Council &
LTD Board
Governance
Team
Property Owners /
Businesses / Community
Governance
Team
Stakeholder
Advisory Group
Stakeholder
Advisory
Committee
Stakeholder
Advisory
Committee
Stakeholder
Advisory
Committee
Broad Range of
Transit
Solutions
Governance
Team
Narrowed
Range of
Transit
Solutions
Governance
Team
Range of Most
Promising
Transit
Solutions
Springfield City Council and LTD Board will take final action on the Project Purpose Statement, Goals and Objectives, Range
of Modes and Range of Most Promising Transit Solutions.
WE ARE HERE
Recommendation: Modes
Recommendation: Purpose, Goals, Objectives
Service Concepts Report
Baseline Existing and Future Conditions Report
Develop Draft Broad Range of Transit Solutions
Recommendation: Problem, Need, Evaluation Criteria (8/26 Mtg)
Recommendation: Broad Range of Transit Solutions (8/26 Mtg)