HomeMy WebLinkAboutGovernance-Team-Mtg-2-19-15-AgendaThe facility used for this meeting is wheelchair accessible. If you require any special physical or language accommodations, including alternative formats of printed materials, please contact LTD’s Administration office as far in advance of the meeting as possible and no later than 48 hours prior to the meeting. To request these arrangements, please call 541-682-6100 (voice) or 7-1-1 (TTY, through Oregon Relay, for persons with hearing impairments).
Main-McVay Transit Study
Governance Team
AGENDA
Thursday February 19, 2015
Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room (note location change)
3:00 to 4:00 p.m.
1. Welcome, Introductions & Agenda Review
2. Public Outreach Update
Corridor Outreach
Community Input Update Summary
Public Notification for May Council and Board Meetings
3. SAC Project Recommendations and SAC Representatives Input
SAC Representatives will join the GT for this discussion
4. Consider SAC Recommendation
5. Next Steps & Adjourn
Main-McVay
Transit Study
February 2015
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)
Recommendation: Broad Range of Transit Solutions (8/26)
Recommendation: Narrowed Range of Transit Solutions (9/30)
Recommendation: 3 Elements of Most Promising Range of Transit Solutions (10/28)
Recommendation: 4 Elements of Most Promising Range of Transit Solutions (12/09)
Recommendation: Most Promising Range of Transit Solutions (01/27)
February 12, 2015
TO: Main Street Projects Governance Team
FROM: John Evans, LTD
Tom Boyatt, City of Springfield
RE: Stakeholder Advisory Committee Recommended Range of Most Promising Transit
Solutions
At their January 27, 2015 meeting, the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) reviewed the draft
package of Most Promising Transit Solutions. Based on decisions made over the last several months on
the various specific transit elements along the corridor, the SAC took the following actions:
SAC RECOMMENDATION #1: Advance as Most Promising Transit Solutions:
No-Change and Enhanced Bus options for the McVay Highway Segment
No-Change, Enhanced Bus, and BRT options for the Main Street Segment
SAC RECOMMENDATION #2: Further study of the Most Promising Transit Solutions with the intent of
identifying the Locally Preferred Solutions
The SAC recommended that LTD and the City of Springfield conduct further study of the range of Most
Promising Transit Solutions with the intent of identifying the Locally Preferred Solutions for the Main
Street and McVay Highway Segments. Consideration should be given to McVay Highway segment for
future BRT service based on the corridor meeting development thresholds or ridership levels associated
with other segments of the regional BRT system.
SAC RECOMMENDATION #3: Revision of SAC Lane Configuration Recommendation
The SAC recommended modifying their previously approved BRT Lane Configuration recommendation,
which is included in the Main-McVay Transit Study Most Promising Transit Solutions Report (January
2015) as follows [addition is underlined]:
BRT Lane Configurations
Lane Configuration Option 1: Low Exclusivity
Lane Configuration Option 2: Moderate Exclusivity
Lane Configuration Option 3: High Exclusivity
SAC Recommendation Option 2, with consideration given to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including
safety and comfort issues. The Moderate Exclusivity option is advanced because it provides the greatest
degree of flexibility in meeting the transit operating needs while also addressing potential impacts. The
Low Exclusivity and High Exclusivity Options provide less flexibility in the consideration of transit priority
treatments. Low Exclusivity may not provide the level of transit priority to adequately address congestion
delays. High Exclusivity has the greatest potential environmental impact and property and business
impact. The SAC recommendation stressed the need to consider impacts on pedestrian and bicycle access,
safety and comfort when developing lane configuration options. The SAC also recommends that corridor
traffic speeds of various lane configuration models be studied and be considered in relation to corridor
safety.
Memo – Governance Team
Stakeholder Advisory Committee Recommended Range of Most Promising Transit Solutions
February 12, 2015
Page 2
RECOMENDATION #4: Study of Additional Pedestrian Crossings
The SAC recommended further study of additional pedestrian crossings and lighting improvements east
of 58th Street including those identified in the SAC’s July 2014 workshop.
RECOMMENDATION #5: Committee Members to Represent SAC at GT, Springfield City Council, and
Lane Transit District Board work sessions
The SAC recommended that Randy Hledik, Emma Newman, and Brett Rowlett serve as SAC
spokespeople for the Governance Team, Springfield City Council, and Lane Transit District Board work
sessions.
Main-McVay Transit Study
Most Promising Transit Solutions
FINAL
JANUARY 2015
A collaborative study between:
Main-McVay Transit Study Most Promising Transit Solutions January 2015
Page 1
Contents
1 Overview ...............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Summary of Recommended Most Promising Transit Solutions ................................................................... 2
2 Elements of the Most Promising Transit Solutions...................................................................3
3 Most Promising Transit Solutions ...........................................................................................5
3.1 No-Change Option (Existing Service)............................................................................................................ 5
3.2 Enhanced Bus ............................................................................................................................................... 6
3.3 BRT on Main Street Segment ....................................................................................................................... 8
3.4 BRT on McVay Highway Segment .............................................................................................................. 10
4 Project Team Recommendations .......................................................................................... 11
5 Next Steps ........................................................................................................................... 11
1 Overview
1.1 Introduction
The Main-McVay Transit Study is intended to identify the most appropriate and promising transit
solutions for the Main-McVay Corridor and determine if those solutions should be advanced as a project
or projects in the Corridor. Through an iterative screening process, decisions have been made to focus
on bus-based options (Enhanced Bus and Bus Rapid Transit) and to identify the various elements of
transit solutions that would best meet the needs of the Corridor. Elements of the Most Promising
Transit Solutions are described in Section 2. The “No-Change” Option will be carried forward on any
subsequent studies. All of the study reports are available at the City of Springfield Transportation
Planning Department, LTD’s Glenwood Administration Building, and on the project website
(http://ourmainstreetspringfield.org/main-mcvay-transit-improvement-study/). This document
consolidates the decisions that have been made on each element into recommended comprehensive
transit solutions for the Corridor.
The Main-McVay Corridor is composed of the Main Street and McVay Highway segments (Figure 1.1-1).
Given the diverse characteristics of these two segments in development patterns, population and
employment density, and current transit service, recommendations for the most promising transit
solutions are broken out by segment.
January 2015 Most Promising Transit Solutions Main-McVay Transit Study
Page 2
Figure 1.1-1: Main Street and McVay Highway Corridor Segments
Source: Cameron-McCarthy. 2014.
1.2 Summary of Recommended Most Promising Transit Solutions
The recommended range of Most Promising Transit Solutions for the Main-McVay Corridor, based on
the recommended transit elements, is summarized in Table 1.1-1. The most promising solutions are
indicated with a green dot, while a red dot indicates an option that is not promising or viable at this time.
An orange dot indicates a solution that, while not recommended as the primary option, can be
reconsidered should conditions or circumstances change.
A more complete description of the recommended Most Promising Transit Solutions in included in
Section 3.
Table 1.1-1. Recommend Most Promising Transit Solutions by Segment
Options Main Street
Segment
McVay
Highway
Segment
No-Change (Existing Service)
Enhanced Bus
BRT
The No-Change Option is carried forward for both the Main Street and McVay Highway Segments.
Enhanced Bus Options are carried forward for both the Main Street and McVay Highway segments.
BRT on Main Street as an extension of the current Franklin EmX is carried forward.
BRT on McVay Highway is not a promising solution at this time. This option can be reconsidered should
sufficient new development materialize within the Corridor.
Main-McVay Transit Study Most Promising Transit Solutions January 2015
Page 3
2 Elements of the Most Promising Transit Solutions
Decisions have been made on the most appropriate elements of potential Enhanced Bus and BRT
options. These individual decisions were combined to form complete transit solutions for the Main
Street and McVay Highway Segments. Decisions on the various elements are summarized in Table 2.1-1.
Table 2.1-1. Decisions on Transit Elements
Options Advanced Eliminated
BRT Station Spacing
Station Spacing Option 1: Stations routinely spaced less than 1/3 mile apart
Station Spacing Option 2: Stations spaced approximately 1/3 mile apart (can vary
depending on adjacent uses)
Station Spacing Option 3: Stations routinely spaced more than 1/3 mile apart
SAC Recommendation: Option 2. The 1/3 mile station spacing has been recommended as the most appropriate
option for possible BRT service in the Corridor. This option provides the best balance between access and travel
time savings. Note that the stop spacing is an average distance between stops and that stops more or less than
1/3 mile apart can be implemented based on adjacent land uses and activity centers.
BRT Routing: Main Street East, Eastern Terminus
East Main Option 1: Thurston Station (with connector service east of 58th Street))
East Main Option 2A: Thurston High School – All Trips (with connector service east
of 58th Street)
East Main Option 2B: Thurston High School – Selected Trips (with connector
service east of 58th Street))
East Main Option 3: Thurston Road to 69th
East Main Option 4: Main to 72nd
SAC Recommendation: Option 2B. The option which extends the service to Thurston High School for a limited
number of trips that meet key school start and end times has been determined to be the best option, assuming a
safe and convenient routing and station location can be established. If not, it is recommended that Option 1:
Thurston Station is be used as the eastern terminus for all trips.
BRT Routing: Main Street Downtown
Downtown Routing Option 1: Main Street / South A Couplet
Downtown Routing Option 2: South A Street (eastbound and westbound)
Downtown Routing Option 3A: South A Street west of 10th; Couplet east of 10th
Downtown Routing Option 3B: South A Street west of 14th; Couplet east of 14th
SAC Recommendation: Option 3A. The “Combination Option” using 10th Street was determined to be the best
option. This option provides equivalent access as Option 1: Main Street/South A Couplet, but eliminates bus
travel through the most congested part of downtown Springfield. Option 2 that uses South A Street for both
eastbound and westbound service was suggested by SAC and the Main Street Vision Project Manager to be
retained as a back-up option, since it may provide an opportunity for a higher level of lane exclusivity and may fit
better with the Main Street vision.
BRT Routing: McVay South
South McVay Option 1: McVay Highway (west side of I-5)
South McVay Option 2: Old Franklin (east side of I-5)
January 2015 Most Promising Transit Solutions Main-McVay Transit Study
Page 4
Options Advanced Eliminated
South McVay Option 3: Haul Road (east side of I-5)
SAC Recommendation: Option 1 and Option 2. Since there was little in the analysis to differentiate the McVay
Highway and Old Franklin Options, it was determined that both the McVay Highway and Old Franklin routing
options should be carried forward. The SAC also recommended that exploration be conducted on an option that
would use a private underpass of Interstate 5 and new roadway on the west side of Interstate 5.
Enhanced Bus Options
Enhanced Bus Option 1: Main Street
Enhanced Bus Option 2: McVay Highway
Enhanced Bus Option 3: Main Street Express
Enhanced Bus Option 4: Freeway Express
Enhanced Bus Option 5: Main-McVay
SAC Recommendation: Option 1 and Option 2. Enhanced Bus options on both the Main Street and McVay
Highway segments are predicted to lead to an increase in ridership by 2035 and a reduction in operating costs
with few adverse impacts on the natural or built environment. Option 3: Main Street Express would add
considerable operating cost without a commensurate increase in ridership. Option 4: Freeway Express has
minimal impact of the corridor. Option 5: Main-McVay, which would link the Main Street and McVay Highway
segments with Enhanced Bus service, could not be done on a consistent basis due to the different service
frequencies and service spans of the two segments. However, if both Options 1 and 2 are implemented, linking
the two routes at the Springfield Station whenever possible would be beneficial by eliminating transfers for some
trips.
BRT Service Options
BRT Service Option 1: Franklin-Gateway; Main-McVay
BRT Service Option 2: Franklin-Main; Gateway-McVay
BRT Service Option 3: Franklin-Gateway; Main; McVay
BRT Service Option 4: Franklin-Main; Gateway; McVay
BRT Service Option 4A: Franklin-Main; Gateway
BRT Service Option 4B: Franklin; Gateway-McVay
SAC Recommendation: Option 4A, with Option 2 retained for possible reconsideration depending on the timing
and extent of development in the McVay Segment. Option 4, as outlined, did not allow for the independent
evaluation of the Main Street and McVay Highway Segments, therefore, this option was split into Options 4A and
4B. Option 4A extends the Franklin EmX to Main Street with Gateway EmX operating independently (starting and
ending at the Springfield Station). A Main Street BRT is feasible due to high ridership and operating compatibility
with the Franklin EmX. The Franklin-Main Street link creates a logical east-west EmX line, especially when
considering the extension of the Franklin line to west Eugene. A McVay Highway BRT would more than double
LTD’s operating cost on that segment and may not have sufficient ridership to meet Small Starts eligibility
requirements. The SAC recommended that, should new development in Glenwood and the LCC basin materialize
within the corridor planning process to the extent that the viability of a McVay Highway BRT route is positively
impacted, BRT service in the corridor should be reconsidered as an extension of the Gateway EmX. Otherwise,
the McVay Highway Segment should be considered for future BRT service, with that decision to be triggered by
the corridor meeting development thresholds.
BRT Lane Configurations
Lane Configuration Option 1: Low Exclusivity
Main-McVay Transit Study Most Promising Transit Solutions January 2015
Page 5
Options Advanced Eliminated
Lane Configuration Option 2: Moderate Exclusivity
Lane Configuration Option 3: High Exclusivity
SAC Recommendation Option 2, with consideration given to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including safety
and comfort issues. The Moderate Exclusivity option is advanced because it provides the greatest degree of
flexibility in meeting the transit operating needs while also addressing potential impacts. The Low Exclusivity and
High Exclusivity Options provide less flexibility in the consideration of transit priority treatments. Low Exclusivity
may not provide the level of transit priority to adequately address congestion delays. High Exclusivity has the
greatest potential environmental impact and property and business impact. The SAC recommendation stressed
the need to consider impacts on pedestrian and bicycle access, safety and comfort when developing lane
configuration options.
3 Most Promising Transit Solutions
The recommended range of Most Promising Transit Solutions, summarized in Table 3.1-1 below, are
formed as a combination of the various design elements that have been determined to be most
appropriate for the corridor.
Table 3.1-1. Recommend Most Promising Transit Solutions by Segment
Options Main Street
Segment
McVay
Highway
Segment
No-Change (Existing Service)
Enhanced Bus
BRT
3.1 No-Change Option (Existing Service)
The option to continue existing bus service (shown in Figure 3.1-1), called the No-Change Option, will be
carried forward to compare all options to a future scenario without making any major changes in
existing transit service. 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.
January 2015 Most Promising Transit Solutions Main-McVay Transit Study
Page 6
Figure 3.1-1. Existing Bus Service on the Main-McVay Corridor
Source: Cameron McCarthy. 2014.
3.2 Enhanced Bus
Enhanced Bus options typically include transit signal priority (TSP), improved stations, possible queue-
jumps at congested intersections, and improved operations, and can include improvements to the
frequency of service on the Corridor. Enhanced Bus Options for both the Main Street and McVay
Highway Segments are advanced as Most Promising Transit Solutions.
The Main Street Enhanced Bus Option would replace the existing #11 Thurston Route with Enhanced
Bus service; #85 LCC/Springfield and other routes would be unchanged (Figure 3.1-2). This option is
anticipated to increase ridership by approximately 6 percent and may reduce operating costs if faster
travel times can be achieved.
Main-McVay Transit Study Most Promising Transit Solutions January 2015
Page 7
Figure 3.1-2. Enhanced Bus – Main Street
Source: Cameron McCarthy. 2014.
The McVay Highway Enhanced Bus Option would replace #85 LCC / Springfield Route with Enhanced Bus
service; #11 Thurston and other routes would be unchanged (Figure 3.1-3). Alternate routing for the
McVay South segment using Old Franklin will be considered as part of this option. The McVay Highway
Enhanced bus is anticipated to increase ridership by approximately 2 percent and may reduce operating
costs if faster travel times can be achieved.
While this study did not develop specific design solutions, the basic concepts for the Enhanced Bus
Options for both the Main Street and McVay Highway segments have been developed. Enhanced Bus
characteristics on both segments generally include the following:
Enhanced Bus replaces existing service: Existing regular bus service would be replaced by
Enhanced Bus service on both segments. Service frequency would be the same as existing
service frequency.
Right-of-Way: Additional right-of-way would not be required, except at some queue-jump
locations.
Transit signal priority (TSP): The Enhanced Bus service would use TSP at signalized intersections
between the Springfield Station and Thurston Station, with the extent of priority to be
determined through subsequent study.
Enhanced Stops: Stop locations would generally be in the same as the current stop locations but
some stops at would be enhanced to include amenities such as passenger shelters, benches, and
passenger information. Limited sidewalk infill would occur. Enhanced stop locations would be
determined based on adjacent land uses, higher boarding levels, and coordination with
recommendations from other plans and projects.
Queue-Jumps: Queue-jumps will be included at up to one selected congested intersection per
travel direction for each segment.
January 2015 Most Promising Transit Solutions Main-McVay Transit Study
Page 8
Figure 3.1-3. Enhanced Bus – McVay Highway
Source: Cameron McCarthy. 2014.
3.3 BRT on Main Street Segment
BRT on the Main Street Segment would be an extension of the Franklin EmX line east of the Springfield
Station on Main Street (Figure 3.1-4). The Gateway EmX would operate independently, starting and
ending at the Springfield Station. The Franklin-Main Street link creates a logical east-west EmX line
because of the compatible operating needs (frequency of service and ridership), which would likely
reduce LTD operating costs due to faster service. Additionally, this linked route is anticipated to have a
high percentage of through-routing passengers (eliminating the need for a transfer) and, with the
extension of the Franklin line to west Eugene, is anticipated to increase ridership by approximately 12
percent. This Franklin-Main BRT option is very likely to meet FTA Small Starts requirements.
Main-McVay Transit Study Most Promising Transit Solutions January 2015
Page 9
Figure 3.1-4. BRT on Main Street Segment
Source: Cameron McCarthy. 2014.
While this study did not develop specific design solutions, the basic conceptual elements of a Main
Street BRT have been determined. These include:
BRT replaces existing service: The BRT line on Main Street would replace current service
provided by the #11 Thurston route. Connections to other service would be made at the
Springfield Station, Thurston Station, and potentially, other locations along Main Street.
Transit signal priority (TSP): The BRT service would use TSP at signalized intersections between
the Springfield Station and Thurston Station, with the extent of priority to be determined
through subsequent study.
Stops spaced approximately every 1/3 mile: This is regarded as a general (average) stop
spacing; stops could be closer or farther apart than 1/3 mile depending on adjacent land uses
and signalized pedestrian crossing locations. Specific stop locations have not been finalized.
Enhanced stops and stations (similar to current EmX): Every BRT stop would be developed as
an EmX style station, similar to the existing EmX system. Station amenities include raised
platforms, shelters, benches, real-time passenger information, ticket vending machines, and,
potentially, public art.
Alignment from Springfield Station to Thurston Station, with selected trips (approximately 6)
extended to Thurston High School: The service would extend the current Franklin EmX east
from the Springfield Station to the Thurston Station. Some trips that meet school start and end
times may be extended to Thurston High School, depending on identifying a safe and convenient
option for a bus turnaround in the vicinity of the high school. If a feasible turnaround is not
identified, all trips would terminate at the Thurston Station.
Neighborhood connector service to serve neighborhoods east of Thurston Station: The
current #11 Thurston route extends east of 58th Street, providing service to Thurston Road, 69th
January 2015 Most Promising Transit Solutions Main-McVay Transit Study
Page 10
Street, and Main Street. Under the BRT service option, transit service east of 58th would be
provided by neighborhood buses. Routing for the neighborhood service could match the
existing Route #11 loop, or it could also serve other areas, including neighborhoods east of 69th
Street and/or south of Main Street. Riders on the neighborhood service would transfer at the
Springfield Station for destinations west of 58th Street.
Westbound routing in downtown Springfield using Main Street to 10th to South A: The
westbound BRT service would use Main Street to 10th Street, and then jog down to South A
Street to access the Springfield Station. Since South A Street is a one-way eastbound street, the
BRT service between 5th and 10th Streets would use a contraflow lane.
Eastbound routing in downtown Springfield to use South A to Main Street: The eastbound BRT
service would use South A Street between 5th Street and the point where South A Street joins
Main Street in the vicinity of 21st Street.
Option for both eastbound and westbound routing to use South A: Under this option, both the
eastbound and westbound service would use South A Street between 5th Street and where
South A joins Main Street in the vicinity of 21st Street. This option is carried forward and could
be pursued if it is determined that the two-way service on South A provides greater opportunity
for exclusive lane treatments, and that the travel time advantage of that offsets the advantage
of Main Street stops for the westbound service.
Moderate level of lane exclusivity: The BRT service would be a combination of exclusive transit
lanes and mixed traffic, with the details of the design to be determined in as part of subsequent
study. This option is advanced because it provides the greatest degree of flexibility in meeting
the transit operating needs while best addressing potential impacts.
3.4 BRT on McVay Highway Segment
BRT on the McVay Highway Segment is not recommended at this time. A McVay Highway BRT would
more than double LTD’s operating cost on that segment and may not have sufficient ridership to meet
Small Starts eligibility requirements.
There is the expectation that development along the McVay Highway segment may increase significantly
in the future. There are plans for more intensive development in Glenwood and possible development
in the LCC basin. Should this new development materialize within the corridor planning process to the
extent that the viability of a McVay Highway BRT route is positively impacted, BRT service in the corridor
should be reconsidered. Otherwise, the McVay Highway Segment should be considered for future BRT
service, with that decision to be triggered by the corridor meeting development thresholds. Should a
McVay Highway BRT be pursued as part of this or a subsequent project, it would operate as an extension
of the Gateway EmX, as shown on Figure 3.1-5.
If a BRT McVay Highway option is advanced, both the McVay Highway and Old Franklin routing options
should be considered for the south portion of McVay Highway. Additionally, the SAC suggested that
additional consideration be given to other routing options that may not be as constrained.
Main-McVay Transit Study Most Promising Transit Solutions January 2015
Page 11
Figure 3.1-5: BRT Option 1 – Franklin-Gateway and Main-McVay
Source: Cameron McCarthy. 2014.
4 Project Team Recommendations
Project Team Recommendation #1: Advance the options as identified and described in this report as
the range of Most Promising Transit Solutions for the Main Street and McVay Highway Segments.
Project Team Recommendation #2: Recommend that LTD and the City of Springfield conduct further
study of the range of Most Promising Transit Solutions with the intent of identifying Locally Preferred
Alternatives for the Main Street and McVay Highway Segments.
5 Next Steps
The identification of the range of Most Promising Transit Solutions for the Main-McVay Corridor
completes this Main-McVay Transit Study. The LTD Board and the Springfield City Council will decide in
March and April 2015 whether to advance the range of Most Promising Transit Solutions for further
study.
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Comments Received 12/4/14 – 1/20/15 1
Main-McVay Transit Study
Community Input Summary
January 2015
Written comments submitted
As of 1/20/15: None received.
Website Input
As of 1/20/15: Three
Subject: RE: Our Main Street: Vision Plan Open House Rescheduled for Jan 20
From: YEITER Kurt M
Date: January 13, 2015 9:24:59 AM PST
Thank you for this.
It is not entirely clear to me, though, from these materials whether the McVay transit study SAC
or Governance Team have already narrowed the McVay transit options. Have they? Is there
a recommendation being prepared for Council review?
Thanks,
Kurt
Kurt Yeiter
City of Eugene
Transportation Planning
Project Team Response:
Subject: Re: RE: Our Main Street: Vision Plan Open House Rescheduled for Jan 20
From: John Evans
Date: Fri, Jan 16, 2015 12:19 pm
Hi Kurt -
Thanks for checking in about the Springfield Main-McVay Transit Study. The Study is close to
completion with recommendations for the Final Draft Range of Most Promising Transit Solutions
pending by the SAC and Governance Team. The resulting final recommendations will be
reviewed by Springfield City Council and the Lane Transit District Board in March. In April,
both bodies will make formal resolutions to move forward with further study or not with the
proposed transit solutions.
Attached is a summary of the upcoming meetings.
John
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Comments Received 12/4/14 – 1/20/15 2
Subject: Bus system
From: Tina Starr
Wed, Jan 14, 2015 7:48 pm
I am a business owner and I have 2 people currently coming to my place on the bus. I also
have a son going to school at the U of O. He is able to use the bus to his advantage during the
day, but in the evening when there are concerts and events going on you don't accommodate
after 10:45ish. I know people who left Tom Petty concert early because the bus doesn't run
after a certain time and in a town this size. The concert went on for another hour. My husband
and I did the park and ride (which we now call the "park and ride then walk home") and our
son had to come get us, because we rode the bus to cut down on traffic and got stuck at the
concert because there was no bus. What???? Do you know how much those tickets are and how
good of an evening my friends missed out on all because of the bus system did not work for
them. You would think that on event days you would hire or keep certain main lines running to
accommodate the situation not just your city needs, but of the people in it. So if you ask me I'm
not sure that the bus system should get all their needs met if the people riding it are not
getting their needs met.
LTD Response:
Subject: re: Bus system
From: Andy Vorbora
Thu, Jan 15, 2015 2:53 pm
The expansion of LTD’s span of service is a high priority. LTD operated an 11:30 pm
departure until 2004, however the recession of 2001-02 required service reductions and the
last departure was eliminated. The District operates 12 core routes through the 10:45 pm
departure. Operating fewer routes is possible but does reduce the usability of the service for
events and other transportation needs. LTD’s desire would be to run this core system an hour
later. On an annual basis this is an investment of approximately $300,000 and it is on our
Annual Route Review (ARR) list as a potential service addition. Our ability to fund this level of
expansion and take care of other system needs will be evaluated during the ARR and the
Board will make a final decision on what improvements will be funded later this spring. There
will be two public hearings to receive comments on the package of changes the staff is
recommending, and your comments will now be included for the Board to consider. Thank you
for taking time to share your thoughts.
Subject: Cross walks between 58th and 69th streets
From: Tammy Puett
Sun, Dec 28, 2014 2:22 pm
Automobiles travel at the highest speeds between 72nd and 58th on Main Street and many
pedestrians are crossing to either go to an LTD bus stop or to get to the high school. I see
pedestrians force during high traffic hours to stand in the median to get across all four lanes. I
know there has many near misses and a bicyclist that was killed. This is a very long distance of
road being traveled at high speed, with no cross walks and few stop lights. Please consider
taking a closer look at this area during high traffic hours.
City of Springfield Response:
Subject: re: Cross walks between 58th and 69th streets
From: Michael Liebler
Thu, Jan 15, 2015 2:52 pm
Tammy,
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Comments Received 12/4/14 – 1/20/15 3
Thank you for your input on Main Street. I am the project lead for the implementation of the
2010 Main Street Pedestrian Crossing Study projects and am able to address your
communication about the section of Main from 58th to 72nd.
The Main Street Pedestrian study looked at this area, but did not recommend a pedestrian
crossing. As the study and associated projects have evolved we have been working with
ODOT to examine this section further. We have discussed this area with ODOT and they are
willing to possibly utilize some of the funding from the pedestrian crossing projects to install a
crossing within this stretch of Main Street.
I would be open to talking with you further about our progress towards improvements along
this stretch of Main Street over the phone or in person if you are interested.
Thanks,
Michael Liebler, PE
City of Springfield, Public Works
225 Fifth Street
Springfield OR 97477
Phone: 541.736.1034
mliebler@springfield-or.gov
Email correspondence sent to Project Team:
As of 12/9/14: Five
From: Erin Walters
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 4:14 PM
To: REESOR David; John Evans
Subject: Fwd: Main-McVay Tranist Study
Good afternoon,
Could I please get a copy of the sign in sheets and public comments received during the
outreach programs listed in the attached document (MAIN STREET CORRIDOR VISION PLAN
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY January-March 2014). I was informed they are public
record.
Thank you,
Erin Walters
Project Team Response:
Subject: Re: Fwd: Main-McVay Tranist Study
From: Chris@cogitopartners.com
Mon, Jan 05, 2015 8:17 am
Good morning, Erin -
The document you attached is the Community Conversations Summary for the Main-McVay
Transit Study.
The noted outreach activities were:
Community Conversations (small groups of representative corridor stakeholders)
SummerFair/National Night out (general outreach)
Nick Symmonds Springfield 800 Community Run (general outreach)
Stakeholder groups participating in the Community Conversations are listed on page 6 of the
document.
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Comments Received 12/4/14 – 1/20/15 4
I'm attaching a list of the people who accepted the invitation to participate in those groups.
Also attached are the comments received during the two general outreach events.
The document noted in the body of your email is from the Main Street Vision Plan. If you want
information about that project's outreach, pls. let me know.
All the best,
Chris
Christian L. Watchie, Cogito
Subject: Main Street
From: Pamela Davis
Date: Sun, December 14, 2014 8:55 am
To: info@ourmainstreetspringfield.org
Good Morning, My grandchildren live near main street so I am constantly driving on main
street out by Thurston. Is there a reason why we cannot reduce the speed limit on this road.
Many times, I have almost hit someone due to the rain and poor lighting. I appreciate the
attempt at the new lighting at the cross walks, but cars are going up to 60 miles per hour on
this road at times and these lights do nothing if you can't stop in time. Why does the speed
limit have to be so fast on this street???
--
This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Our Main Street
(http://ourmainstreetspringfield.org)
Project Team Response:
From: REESOR David [mailto:dreesor@springfield-or.gov]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:25 PM
Cc: LIEBLER Michael; chris@cogitopartners.com
Subject: Main Street comment
Hi Pamela,
Your email comment and question below was emailed to me from another Project team
member – thank you for taking the time and effort to reach out. The Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) and the City of Springfield completed a Main Street Safety Study
back in 2010 and analyzed many different potential safety improvements on the corridor.
Here’s an important few sentences that I just pulled from the Study that help address what you
wrote:
Lowering Speed Limit: The speed limit is determined by roadway characteristics and the 85th
percentile speed of traffic. Studies show that ‘artificially’ lowering the speed of a roadway is
ineffective at garnering driver compliance. However, some of the other improvements may
calm traffic and result in lower travel speeds. Therefore, after other recommended projects
have been implemented, future speed limit lowering investigation can be performed to see if
lowering the speed limit is justified.
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Comments Received 12/4/14 – 1/20/15 5
Basically what this is saying is that we have to first do other measures to try and reduce
speeds and improve safety (which are recommended in the Study) before we can effectively
lower the speed limit. Some of these included: stronger enforcement; education; improved
street lighting; speed feedback signs, etc. I attached a PDF copy of the final Main Street
Safety Study if you are interested in looking at it.
I completely understand your concern and frustration, though. I have three small children and
am always concerned about them going out walking or biking by themselves. We are
continuing to work with ODOT on addressing the safety issues on Main Street and hope to
keep making progress.
I also copied my coworker, Michael Liebler, on this email as he is the Project Manager for the
Pedestrian Crossings on Main Street. Michael, please weigh in on this if you would like to add
any additional info I may have missed.
Thank you,
David
Email correspondence sent to Project Team:
From: Erin Walters
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 12:54 AM
To: REESOR David
Subject: Main-McVay Tranist Study
David,
First of all, I want to apologize for taking so long to contribute the following information and
thoughts. As you can tell by the time stamp of this email, I am stealing time from Peter to pay
Paul. This was just a little more important than sleep tonight.
Second, below are some findings I feel should be shared with the SAC.
I finally got a chance to listen to the audio from the first SAC meeting (I was not a member
yet). I really wish I could have been there in person, but I guess I am lucky you recorded the
meetings. Let me point out a couple things.
Dorris, President of the LTD Board, provided a compelling and persuasive point of view. Let
me quote a few things:
“When we went through the process with Gateway and West Eugene, we had viewpoints from
all different areas and perspectives, for and against. It helped us come to a solid decision
that would have a positive impact on the community. And we’ve watched it with the first two
corridors as they’ve unfolded and surpassed our expectations and projections for
ridership. Literally, we beat those projections within the first few months of Franklin opening up
and Gateway pretty much did the same thing… As we continue to build out the system and
look to see how we best provide the services in the community, your input is vitally important.”
1. Dorris (representing LTD) provided straight up false information about the Gateway
extension. As we found out a few meetings later, Gateway is not meeting projections and LTD
wants to decrease the service. The Gateway line is NOT meeting projections and is a waste
money.
2. LTD did not use the “all perspective” inputs from the Gateway and West Eugene projects to
make a “solid” decision. LTD had a predetermined solution.
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Comments Received 12/4/14 – 1/20/15 6
3. Because LTD always has a predetermined solution, our input is not “vitally important” unless we
agree with them.
Point #3 above leads me into my next topic- The SAC is stacked in LTD’s favor. Let me draw
your attention to the minutes from our previous meeting. I emailed you requesting the info
below. There was a letter of skepticism from an SAC member about my “real reason for
needing this information”. First, I was rather surprised you started including all of my emails to
you in the public comment section of the handout. Am I to believe that not a single committee
member has emailed you before the 2nd of November? That is unfortunate. I would have
thought you might have received at least a couple. If this is a standard policy, then why was
my email from 6/25 not included in the comments section and part of public record? I feel it is
LTD’s way of “dividing and conquering”- a calculated decision was made to start including
these emails.
Putting that aside for now, let’s look at some information.
1. My initial email on 10/31 asked for “how many people work for a public entity” on the
SAC. When I later asked “who”, it was a paraphrase of the first email. When you responded
that you needed to consult legal advice, I re-phrased it per my original email. If you
remember your official response, you stated “SAC representation includes 7 members who are
employed in the public sector and 10 members who are employed in the private sector.”
a. After listening to the first two meeting audios (which, by the way, is public
record), I was able to establish my own list. And I believe you provided false
information.
i. 8 employed in the public sector
ii. 1 is retired from the school district (which means they are in the public
sector.
iii. 1 is a social worker from the VA (which I would consider public sector)
iv. 1 is against (myself)
v. 1 is for (Mike Eyster, who was already counted in the public sector
category)
vi. 1 has a strong interest in redevelopment of adjacent property (which, of
course, we were all assured there was no conflict of interest at this junction)
vii. That leaves 5 people whom I would consider capable of providing a non-
bias point of view. After reviewing the attendance records, 2 of the 5 have
missed 4 of the first 7 meetings (we’ve had 8 meetings so far). I don’t criticize
them because, like me, they have to take time away from their family and
JOBS (some of us don’t get paid to attend these meeting that were so
thoughtfully planned during regular work hours).
b. In response to the addendum comments that questioned my intentions (“who is
she representing”….”sole purpose”)
i. These were public proceedings and free speech was still a right in this
country.
ii. At the first meeting I attended (SAC Meeting #2), I stated “…I don’t know
if I would necessarily say I represent Our Money Our Transit, but I have been
involved with that in the past”. Well, after a few meetings, it was clear to me
that LTD was up to their same old tricks, but this one was fast tracked. So
began my “passion” to find the truth and expose LTD’s lies.
iii. The “follow-up” letter from Stanley Upton was NOT a direct response to
what I wrote about the EMX. His email is dated 10/28 and my editorial was
published 11/7. Let’s not blame me for a reaction LTD has inflicted. All I had to
do was inform, which should have been LTD’s job.
c. As you can see, the results of my inquiry prove that the SAC is stacked in LTD’s
favor and a simple question cannot be answered truthfully. Maybe you should
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Comments Received 12/4/14 – 1/20/15 7
have consulted with your “City Attorney” before you mis-informed me (and the
group since you were so eager to share).
2. Per the 5/14 meeting audio, you stated, “We are coordinating with other outreach that’s
happening, for example, from some of those other main street projects I mentioned. For this
specific transit study, the bulk of our public outreach service is targeted to this group here.”
a. Sarcastically reassuring, considering the stacked committee.
b. No wonder none of the Main Street businesses know anything about the project.
c. Probably not something you want on public record as it shows the City’s and
LTD’s blatant disregard for those who are most impacted.
3. Per the 5/14 meeting audio (I really wish I could have been there), Mayor Lundberg stated, “
…. give us your perspective so that when we do make a final decision, we make it with the
knowledge that we engaged the community in a way that we have some very meaningful
products to take a look at and know the direction we can be confident in is one that has been
vetted through stakeholders like yourselves.”
a. Vetted? Really? Just keep checking those boxes.
b. Once you admitted this committee was the “bulk” of the community outreach
efforts, you negate any intentions of really wanting to know what the
community feels about this.
c. Meaningful to who? Start involving the businesses on Main Street and you will
find it is meaningful to them, but not the way you would like. They don’t want
it.
4. Since LTD cannot seem to keep the records un-sanitized (or even accessible), I have included
the Addendum Comments for reference. They don’t seem to be included in the updated
meeting link online.
5. I do appreciate the fact LTD honored my request and updated the minutes to reflect some of
what was actually said in meeting 6 regarding the over-serviced Gateway extension. The
record sanitizing was getting old.
In closing, because it’s way past my bedtime (which probably shows in my grammar and
spelling), thank you for allowing me membership to the SAC. It has proven to be a worthwhile
endeavor. Good luck with your new employment.
Erin Walters
Our Money Our Transit
Project Team Response:
Fri, Dec 19, 2014 10:26 am
REESOR David <dreesor@springfield-or.gov>
Main-McVay SAC,
At SAC member Erin Walter’s request and per our protocol, I am forwarding you her email
comments below. Our Project Team will provide a collective response to her substantive
comments in the near future and include you all in that response. It will also be included in our
next Community Input Summary.
Best,
David
David Reesor
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Comments Received 12/4/14 – 1/20/15 8
Subject: re: Main-McVay Transit Study
From: Ronna Frank
Sat, Dec 20, 2014 12:13 pm
David,
I have a response to Erin Walter's email, and have attached a document that I refer to in my
response.
Many thanks.
Ronna Frank SAC Member
---------------------
Erin,
I hope you are getting more sleep now.
You mentioned twice in your email that you wish you could have been at the first SAC
Committee Meeting on May 14, 2014. If you had been at the first meeting, you would have
known the following: (First two points are in reference to your statement: " ... some of us don’t
get paid to attend these meeting that were so thoughtfully planned during regular work hours.")
We were all made aware when we applied for the SAC that this was a voluntary
position, so we did not expect to be paid to attend any of the meetings.
Previous to our first meeting, we were emailed a multitude of time choices to meet. We
were sent a spectrum of time frames, which included evening times as well as day
times, and asked to reply with our choice. Every person on the SAC made a choice
about the time he/she wanted to meet, and the majority of us wanted to meet from 3-
5. So, it is true these meetings were "thoughtfully planned"—by our choice.
At the first meeting, we were given a paper called, "Draft Group Operating
Agreements." The 3rd from the bottom says: "Foster mutual respect and trust for your
colleagues and for the process." At a future meeting, we were all asked to sign this
document that was written on a large sheet of paper and put up on the wall in our
meeting room. Did you sign it?
At the first meeting, as part of getting to know each other, we were asked to introduce
another SAC member to the group by telling each other what we wanted the group to
know about us. We took time to listen to each other, got to know about the person we
introduced, and then we introduced each other. It was an extremely friendly way to
start out, and gave us an understanding of why each of us was there and who we
represented.
All the people at the first meeting were given a sheet with a list of names of everyone
on the SAC with two categories: Representative and Member. The categories listed
were: Citizen-at-large; Main-McVay Corridor Businesses/Property owners; Our Money
Our Transit (OMOT); Better Eugene-Springfield Transit (BEST); Senior and/or People
with Disabilities; Trucking industry/freight delivery; Bicycle/Pedestrian interests; Lane
Community College; Springfield School District; ODOT staff. As each person was
introduced, he/she said what they did within their Representative Category. For "Our
Money Our Transit (OMOT), under "Member" this was stated on the list: "TBD," and
"Seeking replacement due to initial appointed member's unanticipated conflict."
That last point is in relation to your statement," At the first meeting I attended (SAC Meeting
#2), I stated “…I don’t know if I would necessarily say I represent Our Money Our Transit, but I
have been involved with that in the past”.
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Comments Received 12/4/14 – 1/20/15 9
In relation to your statement, "Per the 5/14 meeting audio ..." b. "No wonder none of the Main
Street businesses know anything about the project," perhaps you haven't seen or read
the document I've attached entitled, "MAIN STREET CORRIDOR VISION PLAN PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY January-March 2014." There are 11 pages and I hope you will
read all 11; in case you don't have the time, I'd like to point out information relevant to your
"b." statement on the following pages:
Bottom of Page 1:
Main Street Corridor Vision Plan
Identifies the community’s preferred future for the land uses and transportation systems
along Main Street, seeking input on ways to:
- Guide future development of mutually supportive land uses and transportation systems to
improve corridor conditions and livability;
- Provide enhanced opportunities for successful commerce and corridor redevelopment;
- Increase corridor accessibility to jobs, workforce, education, services, and the ability to
accommodate future growth in travel;
- Improve safety and balance mobility for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users.
Top of Page 2:
"Main-McVay: Improved Transit Feasibility Study " that says: A potential two-phase project that
first seeks public and stakeholder input on transportation challenges and opportunities along Main
Street and explores transit options to address and enhance mobility along the Main-McVay
corridor.
Bottom of Page 4:
"Between the months of June and August 2013, the City of Springfield and LTD invited
participants to group conversations. The following reviews the stakeholder representatives that
provided Main Street input." Page 5 lists the names of 25 businesses, schools, etc. that took part
in the Main Street Community Conversations. It also lists the City (Mayor Lundberg and City
Councilor Marilee Woodrow) and 3 LTD members whose roll was to listen to the Stakeholder
input and answer questions.
Top of Page 6:
Key questions posed included:
- What’s working well on the Main Street corridor today?
- What’s not working well?
- What changes/improvements, if any, would you like to see over the next 20 years?
- Should the City of Springfield and Lane Transit District study potential transit options on
Main Street?
Middle of Page 6
SummerFair / National Night Out
"Over the weekend of July 19, 2013 Springfield leadership and staff hosted booths to gather
additional input to explore on Main Street themes. Over 35 people provided thoughtful input
on what positive attributes exist on Main Street today and what they would like to see, use,
and enjoy twenty years from now.
Springfield staff recorded public comments received."
Ronna Frank
Citizen-at-large
Film and stage composer
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Comments Received 12/4/14 – 1/20/15 10
From: Erin Walters
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 9:34 PM
To: REESOR David
Cc: 'John Evans'
Subject: RE: DRAFT Main-McVay Transit Solution Package
Good evening-
Could somebody please send me the list of committee members that attended the last
meeting? Meeting #8.
Thank you,
Erin Walters
Project Team Response:
From: Christian Watchie
RE: DRAFT Main-McVay Transit Solution Package
Fri, Dec 19, 2014 3:44 pm
Here is the attendance from SAC Meeting #8 on December 9, 2014:
Present:
- Diane Alldredge
- Mike Eyster
- Ronna Frank
- David Helton
- Ken Hill
- Randy Hledik
- Jerry Hooton
- Rosalia Marquez
- Emma Newman
- Brett Rowlett
- Paul Selby
- Garry Swanson
- Erin Walters
Absent:
- Lorenzo Herrera
- Andrew Knori
- Dan Rupe
- Chad Towe
Chris
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Comments Received 12/4/14 – 1/20/15 11
Main Street Interested Parties List Updates:
Study update included in Main Street Vision Plan Invitation
Next e-update: February 2015
Updates and Community Outreach:
Door-to-door corridor outreach on Main Street projects
January 20 - Main St. Vision Plan Open House (4-6 p.m.)
March 18 - Downtown Rotary
March 19 - Springfield City Club (pending confirmation)
March 27- Twin Rivers Rotary
Pending Meetings:
February 19, 2015 GT Recommendation Range of Most Promising
Solutions to SCC & LTD Board
February 24, 2015 SAC #10 Celebrate!
April 20, 2015 Springfield City
Council
Work Session: Range of Most Promising
Solutions
May 4, 2015 Springfield City
Council
Work Session: Range of Most Promising
Solutions (if needed)
May 4, 2015 Springfield City
Council
Resolution: Range of Most Promising Solutions
May 11, 2015 LTD Board Work Session: Range of Most Promising
Solutions
May 11, 2015 LTD Board Resolution: Range of Most Promising Solutions
May 20, 2015 LTD Board Resolution: Range of Most Promising Solutions
(if needed)
Submitted:
September 23, 2013
Christian L. Watchie
Cogito
MAIN STREET PRELIMINARY THEMES
Summary of Collaborative Community Conversations
City of Springfield & Lane Transit District
June – September 2013
Main Street Community Conversations
Preliminary Themes
!1!
OVERVIEW
Historic Multimodal Main Street
The Main Street Corridor has played a
vital role in Springfield over time. As the
primary artery to the city’s vibrant
residential and commercial life, its
importance will only increase over the
next 20 years. The City, in partnership
with Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) and Lane Transit
District (LTD), has received grants to
coordinate future land use and transit
system planning. The coordinated
approach allows the City and community to engage together in a broad
inclusive visioning process to collectively decide on a preferred future for the
corridor.
As a first step in this two-year long process, the City of Springfield and LTD
embarked on a series of community conversations regarding Main Street. These
conversations with the general public and area stakeholders occurred from
June through August of 2013 as group meetings with stakeholders and at three
large local events, SummerFair, National Night Out, and the Nick Symmonds
Springfield 800 Community Run. The purpose was to gain an early
understanding of initial community thinking about the current Main Street
corridor, its potential future, and how transit might support it. Information
gathered provides a preliminary platform for greater in-depth exploration with
the broader Springfield community.
Relationship to other planning processes
The results of this initial outreach will be built upon by other planning efforts (see
page 3) underway, planned, or under discussion including:
Main Street Corridor Vision Plan
Identifies the community’s preferred future for the land uses and transportation
systems along Main Street, seeking input on ways to:
- Guide future development of mutually supportive land uses and
transportation systems to improve corridor conditions and livability;
- Provide enhanced opportunities for successful commerce and corridor
redevelopment;
- Increase corridor accessibility to jobs, workforce, education, services, and
the ability to accommodate future growth in travel;
- Improve safety and balance mobility for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists,
and transit users.
Main Street Community Conversations
Preliminary Themes
!2!
Main-McVay: Improved Transit Feasibility Study
A potential two-phase project that first seeks public and stakeholder input on
transportation challenges and opportunities along Main Street and explores
transit options to address and enhance mobility along the Main-McVay corridor.
Downtown Demonstration Project
As an outcome of the Downtown Circulation project, this small project will install
several pedestrian scale decorative posts and LED light fixtures along one block
downtown.
Main Street Pedestrian Crossing Project
A collaborative effort between the City of Springfield and the Oregon
Department of Transportation to implement the six remaining pedestrian
crossing projects recommended under the 2010 Main Street Pedestrian Safety
Study.
SmartTrips Main Street (2014)
A comprehensive individual household and business-marketing program aimed
at increased bicycling, walking, use of public transit, and ridesharing through
education, incentives, community outreach and events.
Phase 1: 29th – 48th
Phase 2: 48th – 62nd
Geographic scope
The scope of the preliminary Main Street outreach encompassed:
- Main Street from 69th in Thurston to Mill Street downtown
- Approximately one-half mile on either side of the Main St. corridor
- Potential Main Street transit connections extending east to the Thurston
area, and west to Lane Community College
Main Street Community Conversations
Preliminary Themes
!3!
Main Street Community Conversations
Preliminary Themes
!4!
Preliminary Theme Development
Three key outreach strategies form the basis of the preliminary Main Street
themes. Outlined is the process, questions, and dominant themes derived from
public input received via:
- Community Conversations
- SummerFair
- Nick Symmonds Springfield 800 Community Run
Community Conversations
Beginning in late spring 2013, leadership representatives from the City of
Springfield and Lane Transit District hosted a series of small community
conversations intended to capture a sample of thinking about the corridor’s
current assets, areas for improvement, and potential future.
Participants
The City of Springfield
developed the participant list
with input from Lane Transit
District to gather preliminary
thoughts from Main Street
stakeholders including
representatives from:
Corridor businesses
Large corridor employers
Recreation providers
K-12 Schools
Higher education
Economic development
City Services
Social service agencies
Community organizations
Between the months of June and August 2013, the City of Springfield and LTD
invited participants to group conversations. The following reviews the
stakeholder representatives that provided Main Street input.
Why Main Streets Matter We all know where our Main Streets are, but
do we know what they are and why they
matter? Whether they are named First Avenue
or Water Street or Martin Luther King
Boulevard, what they represent is universal. Main Street is the economic engine, the big
stage, the core of the community. Our Main
Streets tell us who we are and who we were,
and how the past has shaped us. We do not go to bland suburbs or enclosed shopping malls to learn about our past, explore our culture, or
discover our identity. Our Main Streets are the
places of shared memory where people still
come together to live, work, and play.
- National Main Street Center
A subsidy of the National Historic Trust
Main Street Community Conversations
Preliminary Themes
!5!
MAIN STREET COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS
STAKEHOLDER GROUP NAME
McKenzie Feed & Pet Supplies
Wilson RV
All American Barber Shop
Fins Drive In
True Value Hardware
Roberts Supply Company
Hutch’s Bicycle Shop
D’Marias Beauty Salon
Corridor Businesses
Veterinary Allergy & Dermatology Services
Rosboro
International Paper Company
Wildish
Corridor Large Employers
John Hyland Construction
Recreation Willamalane Recreation District
Academy of Arts and Academics
Springfield High School
Thurston High School
Schools
Lane Transit District’s School Solutions
Higher Education Lane Community College
Chamber of Commerce Economic Development
NEDCO
City Services Library
Habitat for Humanity
Planned Parenthood
Catholic Community Services
Community Organizations
Social Service Agencies
Head Start
Process
Community Conversations
Each community conversation adhered to a consistent discussion framework.
Held at Willamalane, the 90-minute sessions all had a facilitator and note taker
with up to two leadership representatives each from the City of Springfield and
Lane Transit District. The representatives’ role was to listen to stakeholder input
and answer specific questions, if asked.
Agency representatives included:
- City of Springfield Mayor, Christine Lundberg
- City of Springfield City Councilor, Marilee Woodrow
- LTD Board President, Doris Towery
- LTD Board Member, Mike Dubick
- LTD Board Member, Carl Yeh
Main Street Community Conversations
Preliminary Themes
!6!
To create a common stage for discussion, participants received a brief overview
of Main Street’s history, current employment, residents, and transit usage within
the identified corridor. In addition, consultants provided future employment and
residential growth projections for the City of Springfield.
Key questions posed included:
- What’s working well on the Main Street corridor today?
- What’s not working well?
- What changes/improvements, if any, would you like to see over the next
20 years?
- Should the City of Springfield and Lane Transit District study potential
transit options on Main Street?
All participants were very open, candid, and appreciative of the opportunity to
informally talk with their public leaders. Likewise, the City of Springfield and LTD
leadership gained an early sense of the community’s Main Street perspectives.
SummerFair / National Night Out
Over the weekend of July 19, 2013 Springfield leadership and staff hosted
booths to gather additional input to explore on Main Street themes. Over 35
people provided thoughtful input on what positive attributes exist on Main Street
today and what they would like to see, use, and enjoy twenty years from now.
Springfield staff recorded public comments received.
Nick Symmonds Springfield 800 Community Run
City staff hosted an information booth to present the preliminary Main Street
themes at this community event. The public reviewed the themes summary,
added comments, and learned about opportunities for future involvement in
the Main Street planning projects. Springfield staff and LTD’s outreach consultant
recorded public comments received.
Main Street Community Conversations
Preliminary Themes
!7!
THEMES
Outlined are the primary themes by category as expressed through the
community conversations and public events.
WHAT’S WORKING WELL ON THE MAIN STREET
CORRIDOR TODAY?
ROADWAY
- Traffic flows well
- Pedestrian crossings
are an
improvement
- Good infrastructure
for cars and bikes
- Good, wide lanes
with few signals and
driveways
- Limited congestion
BUSINESS CLIMATE
- Downtown is experiencing a revival with new businesses
- Main Street offers high business visibility
- High variety of businesses (type & age)
- It’s a corridor of opportunity
AESTHETICS & IDENTITY
- We have honored our past by keeping our historic architecture
- Downtown Main St. feels more like community now with Second Friday Art
Walks, banners, flowers, etc.
- We have preserved our trees
- City is reshaping itself in a positive way
TRANSIT
- Downtown LTD station has been an advantage to Springfield business
- Easy access to reliable and frequent public transportation is great
- Transit has helped create sense of place for Springfield
- City supports transit
LAND USE
- Mixed use development in downtown (Royal Building)
- Diversity of Main St. because it represents the diversity of Springfield
“Feels like the City is restoring and renovating.”
“We have momentum.”
“The City and Lane Transit District have created
excellent public transportation for Springfield.”
“We now have a small town feel with a modern twist.”
!
Main Street Community Conversations
Preliminary Themes
!8!
WHAT IS NOT WORKING WELL ON MAIN STREET?
ROADWAY
- Speed is too high
- Congestion at intersections feeding
into Main St.
- Difficult for bicycles and pedestrians
to cross
- Corridor is not attractive to any other
mode than autos, buses, and trucks
- Need a two-way bike path
AESTHETICS & IDENTITY
- Lacks a sense of ownership
- After 21st street, don’t feel connected
- Too much garbage along street
SAFETY
- Crime an issue in mid-Springfield
- Sense of not feeling safe in our neighborhoods
LAND USE
- Underutilized areas along Main St.
- Does not feel cohesive but jumbled
- The corridor divides neighborhoods
“Works great as a freight
corridor but not as a
community’s Main Street.”
“Once you leave downtown
there is no ‘there, there.’”!
Main Street Community Conversations
Preliminary Themes
!9!
WHAT ARE SUGGESTED FUTURE
IMPROVEMENTS TO MAIN STREET?
ROADWAY
- Adjust speeds to better serve all who use Main St.
not just freight
- Make it easier to travel for ALL modes (car, transit,
foot, bicycle)
- Explore alternate freight routes
- As traffic increases, improve bike and pedestrian
infrastructure, access, and safety
BUSINESS CLIMATE
- Take advantage of the corridor’s opportunities (increase shopping,
restaurants, and other services all along Main St.)
- Offer redevelopment opportunities
- Put future jobs on or near Main St.
AESTHETICS & IDENTITY
- Make it more than one long drag
- Don’t create a cookie cutter approach
- Invest in infrastructure that enhances the corridor aesthetics (improved transit,
sidewalks with trees)
- Improved transit will add to the appearance of Main St.
TRANSIT
- Improve public transit
- Transit offers opportunities for housing and access to jobs, school, and the
region
- Make transit convenient and safe
- Buses should not stop traffic but be integrated
- Transit stops can reflect Springfield
LAND USE
- More mixed use
- Can’t do increased density without enhanced transit
- Close the gaps between downtown and Thurston
- More bike racks everywhere
- Look at development possibilities before you make decisions
“Keep it unique.
Keep it special.
Keep it flowing. ”
!
Main Street Community Conversations
Preliminary Themes
!10!
SHOULD THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND LTD STUDY
POTENTIAL TRANSIT OPTIONS ON MAIN STREET?
- Need to get out in front of change to
foster best development options for
Main St.
- Now is the time to do it
- Can’t be a great city without transit,
good bicycle, and pedestrian
infrastructure
- Want to be forward thinking and
transit is an essential part of that
- Do no harm to existing businesses by making it more friendly for transit,
bicycles and foot traffic
- A transit study is not needed because transit is working fine on the corridor
- Nothing is broken - do not fix it
- Transit adds to the foundation to transform Springfield
- Be prepared for the future
- No better time to do than now
- Why wait until you have a problem? Study it now to anticipate it
- Cheaper to do it now than later
- Understand what right-of-way the City has now and what might be needed
(don’t want a South Willamette Street situation)
- Studying it now will help connect the dots
- Understand how transit can help maintain the existing traffic flow
- Connecting Thurston and LCC is a logical connection
- Create a community where you don’t need a car
- Study it but realize you need to think about it all - multimodal integration
- If you expand EmX, parking will become an issue downtown
- Need to be sure to preserve parking
- Building of EmX should require a public vote
- Having access to transportation options is so very important
- Residents, visitors, employees, and employers all benefit, the economy
benefits, the environment benefits
- EmX is awesome
- Just do it
STUDY PROCESS
- City needs to be the lead or present when speaking with businesses
- Work on smart partnerships
- City and LTD can be part of the solution
Now is the time to do it
Need to get out in front of change to
foster best development options for
Main St.
Nothing is broken - do not fix it
!
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Comments Received 1/20/15– 2/10/15 1
Main-McVay Transit Study
Community Input Summary
January 20 – February 10, 2014
ADDENDUM
Additional Website Input:
COMMENT:
From: Laurel Hayles
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2015 9:20 am
To: info@ourmainstreetspringfield.org,
Subject: Proposed Main-McVay EmX line
LTD needs to seriously consider the environmental and commercial impact of this proposed EmX
extension project. Is the expense of construction, loss of business revenue due to construction,
and potential for serious negative public opinion from residents directly impacted by the
construction and subsequent running of this EmX line warranted? In truth, biodiesel vehicles have
a significantly lower environmental impact than electric/hybrid vehicles, and would not have
the additional negative consequences and expenses of construction. Replacing the existing non-
EmX buses from petroleum-based fuel to biodiesel would result in a huge positive statement
with the resulting positive PR - a definite win-win for LTD and the community.
PROJECT TEAM RESPONSE:
From: BOYATT Tom <tboyatt@springfield-or.gov>
Date: Thu, Jan 29, 2015 3:02 pm
To: Laurel Hayles
Subject: RE: Proposed Main-McVay EmX line
Thank you for your Main-McVay Transit Study comment via the
ourmainstreetspringfield.org website. It's been incorporated it into the public record for
decision makers to read and consider.
To receive periodic e-updates of the Main Street projects, please sign up at Main Street
Projects .
Tom Boyatt
COMMENT:
From: David Hyland
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2015 9:10 am
To: info@ourmainstreetspringfield.org
Subject: EMX
Springfield ALREADY has a more than adequate public transportation system for its size.
Spending OUR money needs to be OUR choice. Small business owners and property owners,
like myself, will be impacted by this proposal in many different ways, some of which will be
immediate and some may take months or even years to recognize. Loss of land used business
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Comments Received 1/20/15– 2/10/15 2
entry or egress, loss of parking, loss retail space , reduced business during construction, excess
noise & dust are just a few of the issues that will negatively effect the business in EMX's path.
It is my hope and desire that the powers to be will heed the concerns of the general public and
put it to a vote.
Thanks for your time
David N. Hyland
Hyland Auto Sales
Hyland Acceptance Company
541-736-1111
PROJECT TEAM RESPONSE:
From: BOYATT Tom <tboyatt@springfield-or.gov>
Date: Thu, Jan 29, 2015 3:02 pm
To: David Hyland
Subject: re: EMX
Thank you for your Main-McVay Transit Study comment via the
ourmainstreetspringfield.org website. It's been incorporated it into the public record for
decision makers to read and consider.
To receive periodic e-updates of the Main Street projects, please sign up at Main Street
Projects .
Tom Boyatt
COMMENT:
From: Gayle Ware
Date: Mon, Jan 26, 2015 7:46 am
To: info@ourmainstreetspringfield.org,
The majority of the public does not want EmEx, but it is being shoved down out throats and we,
the tax payers, will have tp pay dearly. What happened to no taxation without
representation?
PROJECT TEAM RESPONSE:
From: BOYATT Tom <tboyatt@springfield-or.gov
Date: Thu, Jan 29, 2015 3:06 pm
To: : Gayle Ware
Subject: Re: EmEx not needed nor wanted
Thank you for your Main-McVay Transit Study comment via the
ourmainstreetspringfield.org website. It's been incorporated it into the public record for
decision makers to read and consider.
To receive periodic e-updates of the Main Street projects, please sign up at Main Street
Projects .
Tom Boyatt
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Comments Received 1/20/15– 2/10/15 3
COMMENT:
From: John Borg
Date: Sun, January 25, 2015 8:00 pm
Subject: jborg5265@gmail.com
We strongly oppose an EMX on Main ST , this would adversely affect our business as has
already happened in Eugene, we see no reason to upgrade when the bus service isn't being
utilized to its full potential yet.
PROJECT TEAM RESPONSE:
From: BOYATT Tom
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 3:08 PM
To: 'jborg5265@gmail.com'
Subject: RE: [FWD: jborg5265@gmail.com]
Thank you for your Main-McVay Transit Study comment via the
ourmainstreetspringfield.org website. It's been incorporated it into the public record for
decision makers to read and consider.
To receive periodic e-updates of the Main Street projects, please sign up at Main Street
Projects .
Tom Boyatt
COMMENT:
From: Hale Carter
Date: Sun, Jan 25, 2015 6:15 pm
To: info@ourmainstreetspringfield.org
Subject: EMX extension
I'm commenting for really only one reason: I've heard that you are taking the general silence
on this issue as a sign of community support. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I know of
almost Nobody in Springfield, especially in the business community, that supports this "project ".
Why the lack of comments? How much good has all the opposition to the West 11th project
done? We are quite aware that when organizations like LTD want something, local
governments create committees like yours, whose sole purpose is to "rubber stamp" whatever
LTD proposes. If every man, women and child in Springfield spoke out against this project, you
would still support it! Because LTD says its needed, and they wouldn't lie, would they? (Yes,
they would) On that subject, I've seen reference to "studies" supporting this or that part of the
project, ridership projections and the like: How many were not generated by LTD? Or did not
depend on LTD supplied figures? I suggest you all look in the mirror and contemplate the word
"gullible".
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Comments Received 1/20/15– 2/10/15 4
PROJECT TEAM RESPONSE:
From: tboyatt@springfield-or.gov
Date Thu, Jan 29, 2015 3:09 pm
To: Hale Carter
Subject: Re: EMX extension
Thank you for your Main-McVay Transit Study comment via the
ourmainstreetspringfield.org website. It's been incorporated it into the public record for
decision makers to read and consider.
To receive periodic e-updates of the Main Street projects, please sign up at Main Street
Projects .
Tom Boyatt
Additional Project Team Email Correspondence:
COMMENT:
From: Hale Carter
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 5:48 PM
To: BOYATT Tom
Cc: OMOT
Subject: Main to Mcvay transit plans
I just spent a few hours reviewing most of the plans for the EMX extension, and apparently the
favored plan for downtown Springfield involves "contraflow" traffic on South A, with a north
side dedicated lane. Are you kidding me? Do you WANT to get people killed? This plan will
force anyone making a left turn, from the north side of South A, to cross that dedicated lane,
which MIGHT have a giant Bus doing 40plus mph GOING THE WRONG WAY in it! Do you
seriously expect people to automatically check for wrong-way traffic? This is such an obvious
accident waiting to happen situation that the City of Springfield, and anyone involved in the
planning of this, can count on being sued! It's not as if anyone will be able to claim they never
realized how dangerous it would be, as I just pointed it out.
Just because it apparently was never suggested as an option: how about (between 5th and
21st streets): No dedicated lanes, and make South A street two way for everyone! Two south
side east bound lanes, and one north side west bound lane. This would get the buses AND truck
traffic off of Main Street. After all,the only advantage of dedicated lanes is that you don't
have to wait at stop lights very much, and there is only ONE stoplight between 5th and 21st
streets, so why spend all that money for a dedicated lane?
PROJECT TEAM RESPONSE:
From: BOYATT Tom <tboyatt@springfield-or.gov>
Date: Thu, Feb 05, 2015 8:11 am
To: Hale Carter
Subject: RE: Proposed Main-McVay EmX line
Thank you for your Main-McVay Transit Study comment via the ourmainstreetspringfield.org
website. It's been incorporated it into the public record for decision makers to read and
consider.
To receive periodic e-updates of the Main Street projects, please sign up at Main Street
Projects.
Tom Boyatt
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Comments Received 1/20/15– 2/10/15 5
PROJECT TEAM RESPONSE:
From: BOYATT Tom <tboyatt@springfield-or.gov>
Date: Fri, Feb 06, 2015 3:09 pm
To: Hale Carter
Subject: RE: Proposed Main-McVay EmX line
Dear Mr. Hale Carter –
As I noted in my previous email, we are including your below statement in the public record for
the decision-makers to read and consider.
I did want to take the opportunity to clarify the Stakeholder Advisory Committee’s (SAC)
recommendation for BRT Routing on Main Street in the downtown area. Please understand that
the BRT solution, including the routing option, is one solution concept that the SAC has
forwarded on; the others are no build and enhanced bus service. After careful review and
consideration of the transit solutions that might serve well the downtown Main Street portion of
the corridor, the SAC recommended a primary and a backup option for consideration by the
Governance Team.
The primary option uses a combination of streets subject to which direction the bus travels. For
eastbound bus travel, this option uses South A Street from the Springfield Station to the
intersection of South A Street and Main Street. For westbound bus travel, this option runs
along Main Street to 10th Street, turns south, and then runs briefly in a contra-flow lane on
South A Street from 10th Street to the Springfield Station. This option was favored because it
avoids the most congested part of downtown Springfield while retaining a station on Main
Street that would provide access to downtown businesses. The back-up option, recommended
by the SAC and suggested by the Main Street Vision Plan Project Manager, is for South A
Street to be used for both eastbound and westbound bus travel since it provides an
opportunity for a higher level of lane exclusivity and may be a better fit for future land use as
proposed in the Main Street Corridor Vision Plan. For more information about the two tiered
screening process used, please click here for the Draft Tier 2 Parts A & B Report (see under
SAC Meeting #8 and #9).
Please note, the SAC recommendations will be forwarded to the Governance Team to review
and provide a final recommended set of Most Promising Transit Solutions for potential further
study. The Governance Team’s recommendations will be sent to the Springfield City Council
and Lane Transit District Board for final action. For a complete list of upcoming Study-related
meetings, please visit Main-McVay Transit Study.
For future updates on the Main-McVay Transit Study and other Main Street projects, sign up
here.
Again, thank you for your input.
Tom Boyatt
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Comments Received 1/20/15– 2/10/15 6
COMMENT:
From: Erin Walters [mailto:g.g.glide@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 3:49 PM
To: BOYATT Tom
Subject: Main-McVay Study
I just wanted to submit my comments and point out a few things after reading the packet we
received for the January 27th SAC Meeting and trying to find information on the project
website.
1. Packet #9, Meeting Report Page 6: top of page. The bus routes are referencing the
wrong segment
2. There are three different “Pending Meeting Date” areas that aren’t consistent. There
really is no clear way to determine when upcoming meetings are occurring.
a. Packet #9, Meeting #8 Meeting Report page 17
b. Packet #9, Community Input Summary page 11
c. Meeting dates listed on line (which packet #8 listed as the reference for info
on “most current schedule” http://ourmainstreetspringfield.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/11/Revised1-9-15MMStudy-relatedmtgs.pdf
3. November 18 Governance Team Agenda and Packet Materials are not posted.
4. The link “Governance Team Page” sends you to the log in for Word Press
http://ourmainstreetspringfield.org/governance-team-meeting/
5. The “Project Overview” web page is not updated and lists an outdated meeting
date. I know David Reesor said the main focus for community outreach were these
SAC meetings themselves, but I think the website should either show correct information
or just eliminate items that need ongoing updating
http://ourmainstreetspringfield.org/main-mcvay-transit-improvement-study/project-
background/
Thank you,
Erin Walters
PROJECT TEAM RESPONSE:
From: BOYATT Tom
Date: Thu, Jan 29, 2015 3:14 pm
To: Erin Walters
Subject: re: Main-McVay Study
Erin – I wanted to let you know that I forwarded this to the project team on the date
received. Thanks for your input. Tom
Tom Boyatt
COMMENT:
From: ronnalynnf@comcast.net [mailto:ronnalynnf@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 10:19 AM
To: John Evans
Subject: Re: Main-McVay Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting #9 Materials
Thanks, John.
I'm attaching a pdf of the article from the Register Guard on Jan 20 2015 about the ranking
of LTD in Eugene-Springfield compared to the rest of the nation, with a mention of of EmX as a
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Comments Received 1/20/15– 2/10/15 7
key to a well-used mass transit system in the future in smaller residential areas in the last
paragraph. Would you kindly forward this to the SAC Committee in case they didn't see it
See you on the 27th.
Many thanks.
Ronna Frank
Springfield, OR 97477
PROJECT TEAM RESPONSE:
From: John Evans
Date: Wed, Jan 21, 2015 11:04 am
To: Ronna Frank
Cc: Chris Watchie, Tom Boyatt
Hello Ronna- I will pass this on to Chris Watchie to include as a handout supplement to her
input summary for next week’s meeting.
John Evans, AICP
REGISTER GUARD
Editorial
Jan. 20, 2015
Measuring transit use
LTD ranks No. 19 in trips per capita
As Ken Kesey said, “you’re either on the bus or off the bus” — and in the Eugene-Springfield
area, more people are on the bus than in most other urban areas. Federal Transit
Administration data for 2013 show that the Lane Transit District ranks 19th in the nation for
per-capita ridership, with each resident averaging 46.5 trips a year. LTD is clearly doing
something right, but its performance also depends on conditions that favor transit use.
The nation’s most heavily used transit systems are in densely populated metropolises where
driving a car is expensive, inconvenient or both. Greater New York City is in a league of its
own with 229.8 trips for each of its 18.6 million people. The San Francisco Bay Area,
population 3.4 million, follows with 131.5 trips per capita, and Washington, D.C., population
4.7 million, is third with 99.6 trips per resident.
But in fourth place is Athens, Ga., with a population of just under 130,000 and yearly transit
ridership of 99.5 trips per resident. Many of the nation’s largest cities are among the FTA’s top
25 — Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia — but so are a dozen urban
areas with a third of a million residents or fewer, including Eugene-Springfield.
These smaller communities have one thing in common — they are all university towns. Athens is
home to the University of Georgia. No. 7 Champaign, Ill., State College, Pa., Iowa City, Iowa,
Gainesville, Fla., Davis, Calif., and Bellingham, Wash., are all centers of higher education, and
all of them are among the top 25 for per-capita transit use.
Even in small or mid-sized cities, parking on a university campus can be as big a headache as
in midtown Manhattan. Many university students and staff members can’t afford cars or don’t
need them — especially if reliable mass transit is available. High rents near campuses often
push students and staff to seek housing that is not within walking distance of the university,
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Comments Received 1/20/15– 2/10/15 8
making them dependent on transit. LTD and its counterparts in other college towns have built-in
markets for their services.
Yet the presence of a university is no guarantee that a city will have a heavily used transit
system. Fort Collins, Colo., is No. 153 on the FTA’s list, College Station, Texas, is No. 178 and
Missoula, Mont., is No. 97. A city’s geography and demographics play a role, as does the
degree of local political commitment to mass transit. The same holds true of larger cities —
Houston, Detroit and San Diego have millions of residents, but weaker transit systems than LTD
on a per-capita basis.
Perhaps the real outlier on the FTA list is the No. 13 Portland-Vancouver area. It’s the smallest
of the high-ranking metropolitan areas, with 1.9 million residents, but can’t be classed with the
university towns. Driving a car in Portland is easy compared to other large transit-dependent
cities, but its residents average 58.4 transit trips per year. Portland’s light rail system is
undoubtedly a factor — which suggests that in smaller areas, bus rapid transit systems such as
LTD’s EmX, the lower-cost equivalent of light rail, are a key to a well-used mass transit system
in the future.
REVISED PENDING MEETING SCHEDULE (as of 1/26/15):
Please visit the Main-McVay webpage on www.ourmainstreetspringfield.org for final
confirmation of meeting date.
PENDING COMMUNITY PRESENTATIONS (as of 2/10/15):
January 27, 2015 SAC #9 Recommendation Range of Most Promising
Solutions to GT
February 19, 2015 GT Recommendation Range of Most Promising
Solutions to SCC & LTD Board
February 24, 2015 SAC #10 Celebrate!
April 20, 2015 Springfield City
Council
Work Session: Range of Most Promising Solutions
May 4, 2015 Springfield City
Council
Work Session: Range of Most Promising Solutions
(if needed)
May 4, 2015 Springfield City
Council
Resolution: Range of Most Promising Solutions
May 11, 2015 LTD Board Work Session: Range of Most Promising Solutions
*May 11 or 20, 2015 LTD Board Resolution: Range of Most Promising Solutions
March 18, 2015 Springfield Rotary
April 2 or 16, 2015 Springfield City Club (pending confirmation)
March 27, 2015 Twin Rivers Rotary
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Outreach Update 2.6.15 1
Main-McVay Transit Study
Public Outreach Update
2.6.15
I. Public Outreach to Date
Prior to Study launch:
-
-Fest
During Study process:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
II. Upcoming Input Opportunities
E-Updates:
-
-
-
Corridor Mailing:
-
Main-McVay Transit Study Public Outreach Update 2.6.15 2
Presentations:
General Public Display Outreach:
-
-
-
Targeted Outreach:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-