Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFINAL-Agenda-Packet-6-21-16Main-McVay Transit Study Governance Team AGENDA Tuesday, June 21, 2016 EOC Room – Springfield Justice Center 3:00 - 4:00 p.m. 1.Welcome and agenda review 2.Approve meeting minutes for March 15 and May 26 3.Review project decisions made to date 4.Brief summary of feedback received at meetings with business and property owners fronting Main Street and South A Street 5.Discuss Main St and South A St west of 21st St route alignment options, consider options to advance to technical evaluation 6.Discuss and provide feedback on options for moving forward The meeting is open to the public to attend. No oral public comments will be taken at the Governance Team meeting. Please submit comments via the project website at http://ourmainstreetspringfield.org/feedback/. MINUTES OF MEETING MAIN STREET-MCVAY TRANSIT STUDY GOVERNANCE TEAM March 15, 2016 Pursuant to notice given to The Register-Guard for publication on March 11, 2016, and distributed to persons on the mailing list of the District, the Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team held a meeting on Tuesday, March 15, 2016, beginning at 3:00 p.m., in the Jesse Maine Room at Springfield City Hall, 225 N. 5th Avenue, Springfield, Oregon. Present: Governance Team: Mayor Christine Lundberg, City of Springfield Councilor Marilee Woodrow, City of Springfield Frannie Brindle, Oregon Department of Transportation Angelynn Pierce, Lane Transit District Board of Directors Don Nordin, Lane Transit District Board of Directors Gino Grimaldi, City of Springfield (Ex Officio) A. J. Jackson, Lane Transit District (Ex Officio) Project Management Staff: Tom Boyatt, City of Springfield Emma Newman, City of Springfield Tom Schwetz, Lane Transit District Sasha Luftig, Lane Transit District Consultants: Lynda Wannamaker, Wannamaker Consulting, Inc. Stefano Viggiano, Parsons Brinckerhoff Others: Gary Wildish, Lane Transit District Board of Directors Brian Barnett, City of Springfield 1.WELCOME AND AGENDA REVIEW Mayor Lundberg called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. and reviewed the agenda. Those present introduced themselves. 2.PROJECT PHASE 2 UPDATE Process/Schedule/Outreach Ms. Wannamaker presented the Phase 2 updates to the Governance Team (GT). In December staff received direction from the GT that revised the scope of work from summer 2015. Staff began the technical work in January. The focus of Phase 2, which started in January, has been Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team June 21, 2016 Page 2 of 20 to design, evaluate, and review options. This will be repeated until a locally preferred solution is agreed upon. The design specifics will be used to inform the decision-making process. Working with property and business owners to develop solutions to avoid and reduce potential impacts is critical to the process, as is keeping the broader community informed while working toward identifying a locally preferred solution. 3. DESIGN OPTIONS OVERVIEW East of 20th/West of 20th/McVay Highway Mr. Viggiano presented the design options overview to the GT. The No-change option would be a continuation of the current service span. This option is typically carried forward to form a baseline for all of the other options. He provided an overview of all the design options, which will be covered in more detail later in the meeting. Mayor Lundberg requested that the pedestrian graphic within the cross-sections, which could be interpreted as depicting a person on a cell phone, be changed in subsequent materials. A Main Street/BRT design option was put forth. This would include an eastward expansion of the Franklin EmX with a terminus at the Thurston Station. He noted that selected trips may extend to Thurston High School, and/or would include a neighborhood connector service east of 58th Street. Transit signal priority and roundabout intersection designs were included within the range of options presented. There would be 1/3-mile stop spacing. West of 20th Street there are four routing and lane options. East of 20th Street there are a variety of lane options to consider, and this design option includes multi-modal improvements. The next design option to consider is the McVay Highway BRT option. The route would begin at Springfield Station and end at Nugget Way, and could possibly be a southern extension of the Gateway EmX, with stations near 19th Street and Nugget Way. The existing transit signal priority at the McVay Highway and Franklin Boulevard intersection would already have been converted to roundabouts as part of the New Franklin Boulevard project, and there are a couple of lane options with the McVay designs that include additional roundabouts as well as multi-modal improvements. 4. MAIN STREET EAST (EAST OF 20TH STREET) Design Options: No Change and Enhanced Corridor Design Option A1: Mixed Traffic - Right Lane, 10-ft. Sidewalks and 12-ft Median Design Option A2: Mixed Traffic - Right Lane, 7-ft. Sidewalks and 12-ft Median Design Option A3: Mixed Traffic - Right Lane, 7-ft. Sidewalks and 8-ft Median Design Option B1: Mixed Traffic - Left Lane, 10-ft. Sidewalks and 12-ft Median Design Option B2: Mixed Traffic - Left Lane, 7-ft. Sidewalks and 12-ft. Median Design Option B3: Mixed Traffic - Left Lane, 7-ft. Sidewalks and 8-ft Median Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team June 21, 2016 Page 3 of 20 Design Option C: Mr. Viggiano explained that BAT lanes are similar to those on Pioneer Parkway East and West, and this results in a wider cross section, current right-of-way. Design Option C1: BAT Lanes – 10-ft. Sidewalks and 12-ft Median Design Option C2: BAT Lanes - 7-ft Sidewalks and 12-ft Median Design Option C3: BAT Lanes - 7- ft. Sidewalks and 8-ft Median Design Option D: No-Frills option Design Option D1: Median Transit Lanes – 10-ft. Sidewalks and 12-ft. Median Design Option D2: Median Transit Lanes – 7-ft. Sidewalks and 12-ft Median Design Option D3: Median Transit Lanes – 7-ft. Sidewalks and 8-ft Median Design Option D4: Median Transit Lanes without Multi-Modal Improvements For Main Street: Mr. Viggiano described four main lane configurations with options A, B, and C, with three variations on each. All of these include medians, landscape strips, and a separated bike zone. The design options have varying widths of sidewalks. The variations with roundabout intersections include 8-foot-wide medians instead of 12-foot wide medians since the left-turn lane widening would not be required due to the roundabout configuration. Mr. Nordin asked for more specifics on the way the bike lanes would be configured, asking if the bike lanes would just be lines on the street. Mr. Viggiano replied that the bike lanes could be designed in many ways; however, the details have not been developed yet. Mr. Barnett added that there are numerous options in how bike lanes could be configured, but this was beyond the scope of today’s meeting discussion. Ms. Brindle asked how the BRT works in mixed traffic--specifically asking about Figure 20. Mr. Viggiano answered that if it is a bus and turning traffic lane, that is called a BAT lane, and that there are BAT lane and median lane options. Mr. Viggiano explained that option C is a BAT lane; and in this case, they will widen the street in both directions, adding a lane similar to Pioneer Parkway East and West. With the last group of four options, the D options have the same sidewalk and median widths as the others; and again, the bus would travel in an exclusive left lane not shared with vehicles. There also is an option that just has median lanes. Ms. Pierce asked what specific features would separate the bus lane and bike zone. Mr. Viggiano replied that there are different options, but there may be a 2-foot buffer. Mr. Viggiano explained that the D option, with median transit lanes, is where the bus travels in an exclusive left lane and needs between 116 and 126 feet of right-of-way. He added that there also is a “No Frills” option. Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team June 21, 2016 Page 4 of 20 Ms. Brindle asked how passengers would get on and off the bus. Mr. Viggiano replied that stations would need to be added and streets would need to be widened to provide space for platforms as well as bus docking. The streets would have to be widened by at least 20 to 30 feet at stations. The assumption is that wherever there is a median station, there would be some kind of controlled crossing such as a rapid flashing yellow beacon. Ms. Brindle asked for clarification on the options that have the median with transit lanes, asking if those would be widened as well. She asked if the BAT lanes could be widened as well, to which Mr. Viggiano replied, “Yes.” Mr. Grimaldi observed that it was an impressive list of options. He asked about bicycle facilities, specifically asking if including a tree corridor separating combined pedestrian and bicycle traffic from automobile and bus traffic was an option. Mr. Viggiano stated that it was not currently an option, but it could be. He shared that International Way in Springfield is designed this way but with a high amount of pedestrian and bike traffic; this option may not be as desirable. Ms. Pierce stated that she would rather see physical barriers between bikes, pedestrians, and cars as much as possible. Mr. Viggiano stated with a 9-foot bike zone, this is possible. Mr. Boyatt expressed that part of the challenge with a barrier is that every driveway has to go through that barrier. Mr. Viggiano stated that a high level assessment was completed and the key factors were: capital cost, operating cost, transit travel time, property impacts, and safety impacts. The Consultant Team recommendation was to not advance a BAT Lane or a Median Transit Lane. The traffic analysis only improved travel time by one minute. On Main Street, traffic congestion is not currently an issue with buses. BRT improvements that use transit priority signals, he said, were doing a good job in reducing delay along existing EmX corridors. The recommendation is to advance the options that have a narrower right-of-way--the A and B groups primarily. The “No Change” option also is forwarded. GT Discussion and Direction: Mayor Lundberg stated that she agrees with Mr. Grimaldi that the trees should get moved closer to the middle of the street so that the bikes and pedestrians are further separated from automobile traffic. Mr. Boyatt asked if the trees were moved and the bike and pedestrian zone was on the inside, would there be some vertical separation. Mr. Barnett clarified that the bike and pedestrian zones would be at two different elevations. Ms. Newman described that with the bike zone and the pedestrian zone, it would need to be clear which zone was for which service. Mayor Lundberg remarked that this would address the bigger concern of bikes and pedestrians. The Mayor asked for the GT members to comment on their preferences. Ms. Brindle from ODOT stated that she preferred figures 19 and 22. Mr. Viggiano stated that those options were “no-frill.” Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team June 21, 2016 Page 5 of 20 Mayor Lundberg stated her concern about the impact on Thurston High School students crossing Main Street to get to the Thurston Station. She added that she also does not want to see extra time for commuter traffic. Mr. Viggiano explained that the current recommendation being studied was to extend a few trips to Thurston High School to alleviate the issue of high school students crossing Main Street. There also is a neighborhood connector bus that could provide service. Mr. Viggiano stated there would still be 10-minute service. Ms. Pierce asked if median transit lanes take into account trying to get more destination trips in the area between 20th and 42nd streets. Mr. Viggiano said that the assessment was high level; and as the project progresses, staff will be able to get more detailed information. Ms. Pierce expressed that she would still like one option with Median Transit Lanes. Her preferences are 19, 22, and 28. Mayor Lundberg stated that they will have to forward the “No Change” (NC) option, but could advance 19, 22, and 28. Councilor Woodrow stated that she is fine with NC, 19, 22, and 28. Ms. Brindle asked Mr. Viggiano if during the high level assessment, they had car travel time considerations, and did they also consider truck traffic considerations. He said that no analysis was done for trucks separately from car travel in the high level assessment. Mr. Barnett fielded questions about multiple options regarding bicycle traffic within multiple design options. Mayor Lundberg stated that they will need to eliminate the opportunity to do dumb things, but rather, educate people. She stated her support for narrowing the list, and she moved for NC, 16, 19, 22, and 28. Mr. Schwetz commented that from a project management standpoint, sometimes narrowing it down too much limits choices later. Ms. Wannamaker stated that there is quite a bit of variation with this list. They would work with Mr. Barnett to talk about bicycle elements and the design options to accommodate people biking and walking. Mr. Viggiano stated there would be further opportunity for design changes; this is focusing but not limiting design options. The GT recommended 16, 19, 22, and 28 to go forward. 5. MAIN STREET/ SOUTH A STREET ROUTE ALIGNMENT Design Option A: 5th Street Crossover Design Option B: 10th Street Crossover (Phase 1 Recommended Alignment) Design Option C: 14th Street Crossover Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team June 21, 2016 Page 6 of 20 Design Option D: Two-Way South A Street Team Recommendation to advance: Options C and D. Mr. Viggiano explained that this piece was a routing decision. There are four route alignment options, and he explained the different routes. Option B requires a contraflow lane; transit only. Option C is similar with a longer contraflow. Option D is a full contraflow lane on South A Street. The assessment showed transit travel time was a bit faster with a longer contraflow lane. GT Discussion and Direction: Mr. Boyatt explained why staff recommended Options C and D to advance. Mayor Lundberg discussed her concern for contraflow traffic and explained how the pedestrian and traffic safety issues on Pioneer Parkway have been a learning curve for pedestrians. Mr. Viggiano stated that this also was a big concern when LTD built the Franklin corridor near campus because the most dangerous time, safety-wise, is directly after something new first goes in. Councilor Woodrow declared her preference for option D. Ms. Pierce also indicated preference for option D but that she would like to see option C advance as well. She stated her belief that it may inspire development. Mr. Nordin asked on which side of the street passengers would board. Mr. Viggiano stated that it could be on either side due to the EmX bus double-door design. The GT recommended moving forward with Design options C and D. 6.MAIN STREET WEST (WEST OF 20TH STREET) Design Option: No Change and Enhanced Corridor Design Option A: BRT in Mixed Traffic Design Option B: BAT Lane- Parking Removed Design Option C: BAT Lane- Parking Retained Design Option D: BAT Lane- Angle Parking Team Recommendation to Advance: No Change, Enhanced Corridor, Option A: BRT Mixed Traffic, and Option B: BAT Lane - Parking Removed. Mr. Viggiano said that Main Street West with Option A, BRT in mixed traffic, refers to the area between 14th and 20th streets only due to the previous GT decision. The mixed-traffic option includes a landscape strip and a wider bike facility. With the second option, the BAT lane replaces parking on the South side of the street. Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team June 21, 2016 Page 7 of 20 Mr. Viggiano highlighted Figure 11, stating that widening the street by adding a BAT lane serves the bus and left turning traffic. The issue is having an EmX lane next to parallel parking traffic, and this option is not much faster than mixed traffic. With the BAT lane on the South side option, there could be angled parking on one side; but that would mean a loss of 20 percent of the parking spaces and would require the widest right-of-way. Staff recommend carrying forward the options with the narrowest right-of-way: NC, Enhanced Corridor, BRT Mixed Traffic, and BAT Lane – Parking Removed. GT Discussion and Direction: Ms. Pierce restated her desire to make sure bicycle safety is addressed. Mayor Lundberg agreed. Mr. Viggiano said that there could be multiple options with bicycle safety improvements. Councilor Woodrow stated that removing south side parking is ideal as no one parks there. Mayor Lundberg asked if the Team wanted figures 8, 9, and 10 to move forward. Ms. Pierce recommended option 10. Ms. Brindle asked if figure 10 would fit. Ms. Newman said that by adopting some of these options, it could deviate from the City’s adopted parking plan; but that could be changed. She stated that based on a few observations, on average, only three to six cars are parked in this span within a three-block area. Mayor Lundberg initiated a discussion about parking options and working with business owners who may lose parking. Mayor Lundberg moved to advance figure 8, the NC option, and figures 9 and 10 to go forward. Ms. Wannamaker reiterated that at the next level, there will still be a lot of flexibility. The GT recommended Figures 8, 9, and 10 to move forward. 7.SOUTH A STREET Design Option: No-Change (NC) and Enhanced Corridor Design Option E: Transit-Only Contraflow Lane Design Option F: Eastbound BAT Lane Team Recommendations to Advance: No Change, Enhanced Corridor, Design Option E: Transit-only Contraflow Lane, and Design Option F: BAT Lane Eastbound. Mr. Viggiano presented the Contraflow Lane, and the Transit-Only Contraflow Lane, Option E. that would require minimal widening. The South A option depends on the route option. GT Discussion and Direction: Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team June 21, 2016 Page 8 of 20 The GT recommended taking Enhanced Corridor off and advancing NC, and Design options E and F. 8.MCVAY HIGHWAY Design Option: No Change Design Option A: Mixed-Traffic BRT Design Option B: BAT Lanes Team Recommendations to Advance: No Change, Design Option A: BRT Mixed-Lane, and Design Option B: BAT lanes. Mr. Viggiano described Option A as supporting mixed traffic BRT, which would widen the existing 60-foot conditions to 74 feet wide. There is not much development now, but it is an opportunity to add something before there is a lot of development. GT Discussion and Direction: Mr. Boyatt explained that Union Pacific has federal pre-emption, and does not have to comply with city, state, or federal law; and there is not a lot of choice with that. It is assumed that there will likely not be a wider space under the trestle. He added that it was difficult to find out where the railroad is in the process of replacing the trestle, but it was assumed that there would be an hourglass type of bottleneck. Ms. Brindle asked if the City had possibly explored a TIGER grant. Mr. Boyatt responded that they were actually looking at a ConnectOregon grant, but the process was in the very early stages. Mr. Schwetz relayed his conversation with federal officials regarding the question of whether or not the City would be eligible for federal transit funding if exclusive lanes and transit signal priority were not included. For Small Starts grants, the saving on travel times that can be had, on say, a roundabout, is improved over existing conditions. This is good news and could potentially provide a competitive design for funding. Ms. Pierce asked if safety would be weighed in the FTA funding process. Mr. Schwetz stated that staff would look at that. Mayor Lundberg said that she would like consideration of carbon emissions, which tend to be less with a roundabout. She also asked for clarification about p. 47, 5.2.3 of the full report and wondered if that needed a correction as the first bullet point didn’t read clearly. Mr. Viggiano clarified. Ms. Brindle stated as a disclaimer that ODOT will not maintain vegetation in a corridor due to a limited maintenance budget, but that there may be a state grant-funded program for drought tolerant plants that the City may be interested in. Mayor Lundberg stated that there are creative ways to handle those issues to maintain vegetation. Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team June 21, 2016 Page 9 of 20 The GT recommended No Change, and Design Options A and B. 9. NEXT STEPS AND ADJOURNMENT Ms. Wannamaker described the next steps. They will reach out to significantly affected business and property owners fronting the corridor, with letters out by Monday. Mayor Lundberg stated she would like folks impacted to have a map included in the letter so they can visually see what kind of impact the options may have. The Mayor also suggested that the worst case scenario be shared, with copies of the letter and enclosures to all county commissioners and city council members. She said that she would like the specific and not the schematic clearly defining the impacts now. Ms. Wannamaker reviewed the following: March 16-18: Identify property and business owners with potential significant impacts and mail letters. March 28: Open House announcements: e-mail, postcards, and website. April 6-10: Property and business owner outreach: face-to-face meetings; design solutions. April 11-12: Open Houses; design solutions meetings with property and business owners. May 16: City Council Work Session: review owner input, design solutions. May 18: LTD Work Session: review owner input and design solutions. May 26: GT Meeting No. 2: review owner input, design solutions, Council and Board feedback; provide Team direction. May-June: Design Refinement and Evaluation. June 21: GT Meeting No. 3: Preliminary LPS Determination Late June: Property and Business Owner Outreach; Open Houses. Mid-July: City Council/LTD Board Work Sessions: review and feedback. September 6: GT Meeting No. 4: Locally Preferred Solution recommendations. October 3: City Council Hearing: select LPS. Mayor Lundberg confirmed that staff had sufficient direction to move forward. Mayor Lundberg adjourned the meeting at 4:36 p.m. Recorded by Spirit Brooks, LCOG Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team June 21, 2016 Page 10 of 20 MEETING NOTES Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team Thursday, May 26, 2016 Pursuant to notice given to The Register-Guard for publication on May 23, 2016, and distributed to persons on the mailing list of the District, the Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team held a meeting on Thursday, May 26, 2016, beginning at 3:00 p.m., in the Library Meeting Room at Springfield City Hall, 225 N. 5th Avenue, Springfield, Oregon. Present: Governance Team: Mayor Christine Lundberg, City of Springfield Councilor Marilee Woodrow, City of Springfield Frannie Brindle, Oregon Department of Transportation Angelynn Pierce, Lane Transit District Board of Directors Don Nordin, Lane Transit District Board of Directors Gino Grimaldi, City of Springfield (Ex Officio) A.J Jackson, Lane Transit District (Ex Officio) Project Management Staff: Tom Boyatt, City of Springfield Emma Newman, City of Springfield Sasha Luftig, Lane Transit District Tom Schwetz, Lane Transit District Consultants: Stefano Viggiano, Parsons Brinckerhoff Welcome and Agenda Review Ms. Lundberg called the meeting to order at 3:05 pm and reviewed the agenda. Those present introduced themselves and clarified for the audience who were voting members. Ms. Lundberg asked for clarification about which businesses were contacted during the Phase 1 outreach and how Cogito Partners contacted them. She emphasized this was important because it was clear that many businesses felt they were not contacted before the council passed resolution to move forward. At that public meeting, no one had spoken in opposition. She articulated the Governance Team’s role was to gather and forward recommendations to Lane Transit District (LTD) and the City Council. Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team June 21, 2016 Page 11 of 20 Ms. Lundberg stated that the project was still in the information gathering stage. She offered to meet with business owners and emphasized the Council’s primary concern was safety on Main Street. Secondary goals were to enhance the overall accessibility to the corridor, including access to bicycle lanes, safe pedestrian areas, and transit. Ms. Lundberg stated the meeting was not a public hearing. She said the audience was welcome to attend city council meetings, which provided an opportunity for public input. Written comments were also welcomed. LTD also holds open public meetings once a month, every third Wednesday. Ms. Lundberg said that everyone who signed up at the meeting would receive notifications of upcoming meetings by email. Ms. Woodrow moved to approve minutes from the previous Governance Team meeting and Ms. Pierce seconded the move. The motion passed unanimously (5:0). Brief summary of feedback received at meetings with business and property owners fronting Main Street and South A Street Ms. Newman stated that 500 phone calls have been conducted in order to provide contact information, ensure public knowledge of the potential project, and offer sit-down meetings. A mailer was sent to business and property owners which included: a letter, an invitation to meet with project staff, an aerial view of the different design options, and information on becoming involved in the project. There have been over 60 in-person meetings with people on the corridor and over 20 more were scheduled. She said the timeframe had to be extended in order to ensure the team was able to meet with all interested parties. During the meetings, the team explained the project process, the focus on safety, the design options under consideration, and provided an overview of the process of Phase 2. Staff also gathered site usage information. Ms. Lundberg asked who staffed the in-person meetings. Ms. Newman replied that there is always at least one City and LTD representative present during the meetings. Most of the meetings have included Ms. Newman, Mr. Boyatt, and Ms. Luftig. Ms. Luftig offered a summary of the comments she has heard so far. She said the outreach had focused on those fronting the corridor, as they were to be most impacted. Everyone they met with was courteous, respectful and appreciated the outreach effort. Many expressed a strong interest in safety and transit improvements. She reported the majority were concerned about the negative impacts on businesses. Where businesses are constrained on small sites, any change could have a substantial impact on parking and circulation of customers, service and freight. Ms. Luftig stated that while the project would seek to mitigate impacts, this might not be possible in every case. She stated that part of the projects next steps include a series of design solutions meetings where project consultants, project staff and city engineers would work with specific sites to mitigate impacts. She offered examples of design solutions. Ms. Luftig reported that many business and property owners believed the impact of implementation would be too costly for businesses. She further explained there was very little support for raised medians along the corridor. A median would include a number of left-turn pockets allowing U-turns. Most felt this would deter customers from shopping because they would have to go past the business and then make a U-turn. She also stated it is undetermined how the median would work with freight traffic. Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team June 21, 2016 Page 12 of 20 Ms. Luftig reported that responses have been mixed with respect to pedestrian safety. She said many stated flashing beacons are working better. People were using them more frequently and drivers were becoming more accustomed to them. There were still problems with pedestrians crossing in areas without crosswalks. Most emphasized that safety improvements needed to be balanced with impacts to businesses. Ms. Luftig reported that reactions to roundabouts have been mixed. Some individuals mentioned there would need to be additional work to ensure functionality for freight traffic; others are concerned about the impact a roundabout would cause on businesses. Ms. Luftig said the Project Management Team had met with businesses along South A Street and there were several locations that needed attention through design solutions to accommodate the 67-foot-design option. There were some businesses along South A that could accommodate that design without significant impact to operations. She concluded by stating that businesses were concerned about operating during construction. Many business owners had experienced loss of business during previous construction projects. Ms. Newman called attention to the packet that was handed out during the meeting containing written public comment addressed to the Governance Team. The public comment had been received after the May 24, 2016 email update had been sent to notify people about the May 26, 2016 Governance Team meeting. She stated the Project Management Team would be compiling a comprehensive public comment report. Ms. Newman noted that there was a comment box available for public comment. Ms. Newman explained that staff has met twice with the Springfield Utility Board (SUB). SUB had concerns about the potential impacts and changes that would be necessary for power distribution, landscaping incursion with overhead power lines, the need for water main line replacement, and the need for additional fire hydrants should a raised median be implemented. Ms. Newman said staff would continue to meet and communicate with SUB to evaluate the impacts in relation to the design concepts. Ms. Newman stated that the next steps in their planned activities entailed: continuing to meet with property and business owners, broadening community outreach, and starting design solutions with business and property owners with Governance Team guidance. Review of Project Goals and Additional Safety Information Ms. Newman referred the Governance Team to the handout entitled: Main/McVay EmX Project and reviewed the goals for the project that had been developed by the Stakeholder Advisory Committee and the Governance Team during Phase 1. Ms. Lundberg asked Ms. Brindle about the status of the All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) grant. Ms. Brindle explained that the ARTS is funded through the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and would be used on roads with documented safety issues. Main Street has had multiple pedestrian fatalities and rear-end crashes. ODOT is examining the benefit of using ARTS to address safety concerns. The two ARTS grant proposals for Main Street are: improved lighting and a median. Ms. Brindle reported that these projects had not yet been funded. She expected to know more at the end of June. When Ms. Lundberg asked if Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team June 21, 2016 Page 13 of 20 there were handouts available with information about the ARTS grant, Ms. Brindle offered to put together a handout and post the information on the website. Ms. Pierce asked if the ARTS funding was expanded to the Main Street-McVay project, or if it would be a separate project. Ms. Brindle responded it was dependent on the outcome of the transit improvements. It was possible that the transit and ARTS funds could be merged. Ms. Woodrow noted that there had been a lot of opposition to a median. She asked how people might voice concerns or get information about the ARTS project. In response, Ms. Brindle stated the project would go through a project development process. It would be a lengthy process determining the impacts and there would be an opportunity for businesses to provide input during the project design. Ms. Brindle emphasized the importance of considering the most optimal plan for safety, minimizing or eliminating pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries. If there were strong opposition, the project probably would not move forward. Mr. Nordin asked if the funding was approved, then overwhelming opposition to the median were voiced, would the funding be allocated to another project. Ms. Brindle said yes. Ms. Lundberg asked if the median project could be broken into segments. She advocated for a block-by-block approach. Ms. Brindle responded the design would have to take truck movement into consideration as well as accessibility for emergency vehicles and businesses. She stated that a segmented approach could be done. Review the Springfield City Council work session (5/16/16) and LTD Board meeting (5/18/16) discussions on the Main-McVay Transit Study update Ms. Newman reported that during the City Council meeting on May 16, 2016 and the LTD Board meeting on May 18, 2016, the Project Management Team provided a project update and preliminary design concepts. At the City Council meeting they heard an emphasis on safety for all users, especially for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. There was a desire to compare and analyze signalized intersections versus roundabout intersections. There was discussion to reconsider enhanced corridor treatments. Ms. Lundberg added that undeveloped lots provided opportunity for road widening without negatively impacting businesses and parking. Ms. Newman stated that further out on the corridor there are places where wider widths would be easier to accommodate, for example past 52nd Street, and near Bob Straub Highway. Ms. Pierce stated that LTD aimed to partner with the City. Ms. Lundberg said the City Council was looking for feedback from LTD about narrowing, signalized intersections, and medians. Ms. Brindle asked if the segment breakdowns of Main Street made sense based on the feedback received in Phase 1. In response, Ms. Newman said it would be beneficial to look at the segments once the design solution stage was entered. Mr. Nordin asked for clarification about the report on travel time between the 116-foot-design option and the 96-foot-design option. In response Ms. Luftig stated the analysis indicated the difference in travel time was minimal. Discuss and provide feedback on options for moving forward The Governance Team continued discussion about what steps are needed to move forward. Ms. Luftig summarized their direction: Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team June 21, 2016 Page 14 of 20 Remove the 116-foot-design option. Designs would not go wider than 96 ft. Begin a context sensitive design solutions process. Examine how to narrow to avoid impacts on properties, particularly building, parking, and access impacts. Study both signalized and roundabout intersections. Evaluate the median in terms of context; for example, if funding is available from ARTSthen designs should be reviewed based on segments. Safety should be considered in median design. Continue conversations with SUB regarding concerns. Provide feedback about outreach done by Cogito during Phase 1 – specifically didCogito mention the possibility of EmX. Continue to coordinate with ODOT throughout the project. Provide updates about the project through email, or other modes of communication that are best for people. Look at an enhanced corridor option for Main Street that includes bus turnouts. Ms. Lundberg said the next meeting of the Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team meeting was scheduled on Tuesday, June 21, at 3:00 p.m. She adjourned at 4:02 p.m. (Recorded by Emily Mathis) Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team June 21, 2016 Page 15 of 20 Main-McVay Transit Study Decision Log 06-17-16 Date Group Recommendations / Decisions 12-17-15 GT Approve Phase 2 process Advance options for Phase 2 study o Main Street No-Build option Enhance Corridor option BRT option o McVay Highway No-Build option BRT option – Springfield Station-Nugget Way 1-29-16 Staff Working Group Developed and refined designs for High Level Screening o Main Street/South A Street Route Alignment 5th Street Crossover 10th Street Crossover 14th Street Crossover Two-Way South A Street o Main Street: West of 20th Street No-Change Enhanced Corridor BRT: Mixed Traffic BRT: BAT Lane/Parking Removed BRT: BAT Lane/Parking Retained BRT: BAT Lane/Angle Parking o South A Street No-Change Enhanced Corridor BRT: Contraflow Lane BRT: Eastbound BAT Lane o Main Street: East of 20th Street No-Change Enhanced Corridor BRT: Mixed Traffic-Right Lane BRT: Mixed Traffic-Left Lane BRT: BAT Lanes BRT: Median Transit Lanes BRT: Median Lanes-no Multi-Modal Improvements o McVay Highway No-Build option BRT option – Springfield Station-Nugget Way – Mixed Traffic BRT option – Springfield Station-Nugget Way – BAT Lanes March 2016 Staff Working Group Recommendation to GT Main Street/South A Street Route Alignment Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team June 21, 2016 Page 16 of 20 Date Group Recommendations / Decisions 5th Street Crossover 10th Street Crossover 14th Street Crossover Two-Way South A Street Main Street: West of 20th Street No-Change Enhanced Corridor BRT: Mixed Traffic BRT: BAT Lane/Parking Removed BRT: BAT Lane/Parking Retained BRT: BAT Lane/Angle Parking South A Street No-Change Enhanced Corridor BRT: Contraflow Lane BRT: Eastbound BAT Lane Main Street: East of 20th Street No-Change Enhanced Corridor BRT: Mixed Traffic-Right Lane BRT: Mixed Traffic-Left Lane BRT: BAT Lanes BRT: Median Transit Lanes BRT: Median Lanes-no Multi-Modal Improvements McVay Highway to Nugget Way No-Change BRT: Mixed-Traffic BRT: BAT Lanes Consider varying ROW widths to accommodate multimodal improvements Consider roundabouts on Main Street east at existing signalized intersections 3-15-16 GT GT Decision / Direction to Team Main Street/South A Street Route Alignment 5th Street Crossover 10th Street Crossover 14th Street Crossover Two-Way South A Street Main Street: West of 20th Street No-Change Enhanced Corridor BRT: Mixed Traffic BRT: BAT Lane/Parking Removed BRT: BAT Lane/Parking Retained BRT: BAT Lane/Angle Parking South A Street Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team June 21, 2016 Page 17 of 20 Date Group Recommendations / Decisions No-Change Enhanced Corridor BRT: Contraflow Lane BRT: Eastbound BAT Lane Main Street: East of 20th Street No-Change Enhanced Corridor BRT: Mixed Traffic-Right Lane (option with 96’ ROW) BRT: Mixed Traffic-Left Lane (option with 96’ ROW) BRT: BAT Lanes BRT: Median Transit Lanes (option with 116’ ROW) BRT: Median Lanes-no Multi-Modal Improvements McVay Highway to Nugget Way No-Change BRT: Mixed-Traffic BRT: BAT Lanes Evaluate roundabouts on Main Street east of 20th Street at existing signalized intersections Main Street/21st Street Main Street/28th Street Main Street/32nd Street Main Street/42nd Street Main Street/54th Street 4-4-16 GT GT Decision / Direction to Team McVay Highway No-Change Enhanced Corridor (Springfield Station to LCC) BRT: Mixed-Traffic (to Nugget Way) BRT: BAT Lanes (to Nugget Way) 5-26-16 GT GT Decision / Direction to Team BRT: Median Transit Lanes (option with 116’ ROW) Evaluate Enhanced Corridor option on all Main Street segments Narrow all design concepts to minimize and avoid impacts within 96’ or less Evaluate impacts of possible median locations Evaluate roundabouts and signalized intersections at existing signalized intersections on Main Street east Main Street/21st Street Main Street/28th Street Main Street/32nd Street Main Street/42nd Street Main Street/54th Street Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team June 21, 2016 Page 18 of 20 Main Street/South A Street Segment Route Alignment Options 5th StreetPioneer Pkwy E10th Street14th Street21st StreetSPRINGFIELD STATION South A Street Main Street Option A: 5th Street Crossover Westbound travel time: Baseline 5th StreetPioneer Pkwy E10th Street14th Street21st StreetSPRINGFIELD STATION South A Street Main Street Option B: 10th Street Crossover Westbound travel time: 15–20 seconds faster than baseline 5th StreetPioneer Pkwy E10th Street14th Street21st StreetSPRINGFIELD STATION South A Street Main Street Option C: 14th Street Crossover Westbound travel time: 20–25 seconds faster than baseline 5th StreetPioneer Pkwy E10th Street14th Street21st StreetSPRINGFIELD STATION South A Street Main Street Option D: Two-way South A Street Westbound travel time: 75–85 seconds faster than baseline BRT Station Area Phase 1 Recommended Alignment ✔✔Recommend to AdvanceAdvanced by Governance Team✔✔Recommend to AdvanceAdvanced by Governance TeamMain Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team June 21, 2016 Page 19 of 20 Main Street/South A Street Segment Lane Configuration Options Main Street: West of 20th Street Option Right- of-Way Cross-Section High-Level Assessment Recommend to AdvanceAdvanced by Governance TeamCapital CostOperating CostTransit Travel TimeCar Travel TimeProperty ImpactsSafety ImpactsFigure 8: No Change (existing) 60 feet 10 ftffSidewalk 10 ftffSidewalk7 ftffParking 7 ftffParking11 ftffTravel Lane 4 ftffBike Lane WB 11ftffTravel Lane WB ▲●▼●▲▼✔✔ Figure 8: Enhanced Corridor 60 feet 10 ftffSidewalk 10 ftffSidewalk7 ftffParking 7 ftffParking11 ftffTravel Lane 4 ftffBike Lane WB 11ftffTravel Lane WB ▲●▼●▲▼✔ Figure 9: BRT Mixed Traffic 77 feet 10 ftffSidewalk 10ftffSidewalk8 ftffParking 8 ftffParking11 ftffTravel Lane 5 ft ffPlantBed 5 ftffPlantBed WB 11 ftffTravel Lane / BRT WB 9 ftffBike 2 ftff ●▲●●●▲✔✔ Figure 10: BAT Lane: Parking Removed 80 feet 2 ftff 10 ftffSidewalk 10 ftff Sidewalk8 ftffParking 11 ftffBAT LaneAA11 ftffTravel Lane 5 ft ffPlantBed 5 ft ffPlantBed WB 11 ftffTravel Lane WB 9 ftffBike WB ●▲▲▲●▲✔✔ Figure 11: BAT Lane: Parking Retained 88 feet 2 ftff 10 ftffSidewalk 10 ftff Sidewalk8 ftffParking 8 ftffParking11 ftffBAT LaneAA11 ftffTravel Lane 5 ft ffPlantBed 5 ft ffPlantBed WB 11 ftffTravel Lane WB 9 ftffBike WB ▼▲▲▲▼● Figure 12: BAT Lane: Angle Parking 90 feet 10 ftff Sidewalk 10 ftff Sidewalk18 ftffAngledParking 11 ftffBAT LaneAA11ftffTravel Lane 5 ftffPlantBed 5 ftffPlantBed WB 11 ftffTravel Lane WB WB 9 ftffBike 2 ftff ▼▲▲▲▼● South A Street Figure 13: No Change (existing) 60 feet 10 ftff Sidewalk 10 ftffSidewalk12 ftffTravel Lane EB 12 ftffTravel Lane 5 ftffBike EB 11 ftffTravel Lane EB ▲●▼▲▲▼✔✔ Figure 13: Enhanced Corridor 60 feet 10 ftff Sidewalk 10 ftffSidewalk12 ftffTravel Lane EB 12 ftffTravel Lane 5 ftffBike EB 11 ftffTravel Lane EB ▲●▼▲▲▼✔ Figure 14: Transit Only Contraflow Lane 67 feet 7 ftff Sidewalk 5 ftffPlantBed 7 ftff Sidewalk 5 ftffPlantBed12 ftff WB 11ftffTravel Lane EB 11 ftffTravel Lane EB 9 ftffBike 2 ftff ●▲▲●●●✔✔ Figure 15: BAT Lane: Eastbound 67 feet 2 ftff 7 ftffSidewalk 5 ftffPlantBed 7 ftff5 ftffPlantBed12 ftffBAT LaneAA EB 11 ftff11 ftff 9 ftffBik Travel Lane Travel Lane e Sidewalk EB EB ●▲▲●●▲✔✔ Main Street-McVay Transit Study Governance Team June 21, 2016 Page 20 of 20