HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018 09 05 AIS Main Street Safety ProjectAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 9/5/2018
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Molly Markarian/DPW Staff Phone No: 541.726.4611
Estimated Time: 60 Minutes
COMMITTEE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT (CCI) Council Goals: Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and
Facilities
ITEM TITLE:
MAIN STREET SAFETY PROJECT
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Adopt, or adopt with modifications, draft Community Engagement Plan; and appoint Strategic Advisory Committee members.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
At the July 17th Planning Commission Work Session, the project team reviewed the Main Street Facility Plan process and sought input on the development of the project’s
Community Engagement Plan (CEP) and recruitment of Strategic Advisory Committee (SAC) members. The purpose of this Regular Session is for the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as Springfield’s Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI), to
review and approve or direct modifications to the draft CEP and appoint SAC members.
ATTACHMENTS:
ATT1: CCI Memorandum
ATT2: Draft Community Engagement Plan ATT3: Strategic Advisory Committee Applications
DISCUSSION:
As summarized in Attachment 1, the City of Springfield and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) have engaged the community for several years in identifying
and discussing potential changes along the Main Street corridor that will leverage the local economy and the quality of the community for decades to come. Since 2016, City
staff have collaborated with ODOT and Lane Transit District to launch the Planning
Phase of the Main Street Safety Project in coordination with the Main-McVay Transit Study. In Spring 2018, ODOT executed its consultant contract, intergovernmental
agreement with the City, and formally issued a notice to proceed with the Facility Plan
process.
At the July 17th Work Session, the project team reviewed the Facility Plan process and
sought Planning Commission feedback to inform development of the draft Community Engagement Plan included as Attachment 2, as well as recruitment of Strategic
Advisory Committee members. As outlined in the CCI Memorandum (Attachment 1),
the City has received 12 SAC applications (Attachment 3) that reflect the variety of interests desired. The project team recommends that all applicants be appointed to
serve for the duration of the Planning Phase of the Main Street Safety Project.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 9/5/2018
To: Springfield Committee for Citizen Involvement
From: Molly Markarian, Senior Planner
Subject: Main Street Safety Project – Community Engagement Plan & Strategic Advisory
Committee
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
The City of Springfield has engaged the community for several years in identifying and discussing potential changes along the Main Street corridor that will leverage the local economy and the quality of the community
for decades to come, including: determining the community’s vision for future development; constructing pedestrian crossing improvements; improving lighting in downtown; providing assistance to individuals who
want to learn about and take advantage of a full range of transportation options; investigating the feasibility of
high capacity transit capital improvements; and now the Main Street Safety Project. The City has also worked with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to reduce the speed limit to 35mph west of 62nd and
has been actively implementing traffic safety public education and enforcement activities. In 2016, ODOT
programmed $3.9 million to construct raised center safety median treatments on nearly five miles of Main Street from 20th to 72nd. Before ODOT can obligate funds for design and construction, the City Council and
ODOT need to engage property owners, businesses, and the traveling public in a planning process to answer the questions of “what type of median concept achieves the safety goals of the City and State?” and “how can it be done to minimize negative impacts to businesses and property owners?”. State law, sometimes referred
to as the Senate Bill 408 process, also requires significant interaction with abutting property owners.
With the support of an experienced consultant team, ODOT and the City, along with other local agencies
including Lane Transit District (LTD), will spend the next two to three years working to answer these critical questions, relying on technical viability, economic impact, and community support for alternative solutions to improve safety on Main Street. The alternative solutions will also consider how to integrate transit investments
along the corridor. Due to the length of the Main Street corridor, the large number of adjacent stakeholder business and property owners, and significant ongoing safety issues, the process to forge solutions is complex
and time consuming.
Planning Phase The Main Street Facility Plan will be the work product that pulls together analysis, community outreach, and
design concepts developed during the Main Street Safety Project’s Planning Phase. It is an expression of the community’s values that becomes the design framework for project development. Council and Oregon
Transportation Commission (OTC) adoption of the Facility Plan as an amendment to the Springfield
Transportation System Plan (TSP) allows the City and ODOT to proceed with detailed design, engineering, and construction of the Council-selected solutions.
In Spring 2018, ODOT executed its consultant contract and an intergovernmental agreement outlining City and State responsibilities for the project’s Planning Phase, and formally issued a notice to proceed with the
process to develop a Main Street Facility Plan. At the City Council’s May 21st Work Session, the project team
facilitated Council review and discussion of the Facility Plan goals, process and outcomes in preparation for the June 5th Main Street Governance Team meeting that formally kicked off the Facility Plan process. At that
meeting, Governance Team members and agency staff reached a common understanding about the Facility Plan process, and the Governance Team agreed on the definition of the project purpose, agency roles, and project decision-making process.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 3
9/5/2018 Page 2
As noted earlier, Council’s consideration and adoption of the Facility Plan as an amendment to Springfield’s TSP is a necessary step prior to project design and construction. The TSP amendment process is a legislative
land use process that conforms to state requirements for public notice, public hearing, facts and findings in the
record of decision, and the opportunity for appeal. As noted at the Planning Commission’s July 17th Work Session, the Planning Commission will provide guidance and direction at several key milestones as the project
team, stakeholders and the broader community work through the values trade-offs that will ultimately lead to a
preferred package of solutions and set the stage for documenting compliance with federal requirements and project design and construction.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN: Upon adoption, the Community Engagement Plan (CEP) will serve as a guide for stakeholder outreach and
public involvement activities for the creation of the Main Street Facility Plan. At the July 17th Work Session, the project team presented an annotated outline of the CEP to give the Planning Commission an overview of
the different chapters and elements of the CEP and sought feedback on draft key messages.
With input from elected and appointed officials, the project team has developed the draft CEP included as
Attachment 2. The draft CEP is consistent with Springfield’s adopted citizen involvement policies and with Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, as well as the Senate Bill 408 requirements (State law for ODOT projects that also requires significant interaction with abutting property owners). The draft CEP
presents background information on the project, the purpose of the CEP, and describes a broad spectrum of
activities that the consultant team, City of Springfield, and ODOT will implement in order to assure that interested and affected parties have adequate opportunities to provide meaningful input to the Facility Plan.
STRATEGIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE: A key component of the draft CEP is the formation of a Strategic Advisory Committee (SAC). The SAC
presents an opportunity for citizens to communicate with the project team, to provide input, feedback, and guidance to staff, and to forward recommendations to the Planning Commission. At the July 17th Work
Session, the project team sought feedback from the Planning Commission on the categories of participants for the SAC and recruitment strategy.
On July 24th, recruitment of SAC members started and included a media release, E-Update to interested
parties, social media post, posting on City webpage and ourmainstreetspringfield.org webpage, and direct appeals to prior participants in Main Street-related projects and organizations/individuals with connections to
desired interest groups. The Register-Guard subsequently covered the recruitment in print and electronic formats. At the time of the initial application deadline (August 10), 11 applications were received from individuals reflecting most of perspectives and backgrounds desired. No applications were received in the first
round of solicitation for three interest groups (Chamber of Commerce, Trucking industry/freight & delivery, Youth), so the City issued an updated media release on August 20th, extending the deadline until August 31st
for those categories, along with additional direct outreach to potential participants. By the time this packet was
finalized, one application had been submitted to represent the Chamber of Commerce.
Below are the desired areas of representation and which applicants meet those categories. The project team
recommends all applicants be appointed as, together, they reflect the variety of interests desired.
• Corridor resident:
Staci Holt, Susan Hartman, William Belcher
• Corridor business/property owner:
Dani Wright , Jeffrey Wing, Joe Tokatly
• Corridor employee:
Alyssa Martin
• Springfield resident or business owner outside corridor:
Dick Jones, Garrick Mishaga, James Coldren, Marshall Loveday
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 3
9/5/2018 Page 3
• Chamber of Commerce:
Dean Huber
• Transit advocate:
Alyssa Martin, Garrick Mishaga, Susan Hartman
• Senior Springfield resident or business owner:
Dick Jones, James Coldren, Susan Hartman, William Belcher
• Springfield resident or business owner with disability/ies:
Susan Hartman
• Trucking industry/freight & delivery:
• Bike/ped interest:
Alyssa Martin, Garrick Mishaga, Marshall Loveday
• Youth:
ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt, or adopt with modifications, the draft Community Engagement Plan, and appoint Strategic Advisory
Committee members.
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 3
Main Street Safety Project:
Planning Phase
Community Engagement & Communications Plan
August 28, 2018
Prepared for:
City of Springfield
225 5th Street
Springfield OR, 97477
ODOT Region 2
455 Airport Rd SE
Salem, OR 97301
Prepared by:
JLA Public Involvement, Inc.
1110 SE Alder Street, Suite 301
Portland, OR 97214
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 34
2 | Page
Table of Contents
Main Street Safety Project: Planning Phase Community Engagement & Communications Plan .................... 1
August 28, 2018 ............................................................................................................................................. 1
I. Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 3
Project Purpose ............................................................................................................................................. 4
II. Public Involvement Principles ..................................................................................................................... 4
Community Engagement Goals ..................................................................................................................... 4
Main Street Corridor: Previous & Concurrent Engagement ............................................................................ 4
III. Corridor Research ................................................................................................................................... 7
Project Area Overview: Springfield ................................................................................................................. 7
Demographics ............................................................................................................................................ 7
Employment: .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Non-Resident Considerations: .................................................................................................................... 8
Demographics & Considerations: Main Street Corridor .................................................................................. 8
IV. Engagement: Key Issues & Concerns ..................................................................................................... 8
Key Issues/Concerns of Residents, Property & Business Owners.................................................................. 8
V. Key Messages ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Primary Key Messages: ................................................................................................................................. 9
Introduction & Overview.............................................................................................................................. 9
Why is this Project Important? .................................................................................................................... 9
What about the street design and adjacent land uses contributes to safety problem on Main Street? ........ 9
Community Centered Decisions: .............................................................................................................. 10
Community Engagement: ......................................................................................................................... 10
What is the Desired Outcome of this Phase of the Project? ...................................................................... 10
Secondary Key Messages:........................................................................................................................... 10
Project Background: ................................................................................................................................. 10
Project Process: Overview ........................................................................................................................ 11
What will be Considered in the Final Main Street Facility Plan? ................................................................ 11
Why are Medians being considered, and what type of medians? .............................................................. 12
Coordination with Other Projects: ............................................................................................................. 12
VI. Public Involvement Process .................................................................................................................. 13
Advisory Bodies & Decision-Making Structure.............................................................................................. 13
Decision-Making Structure: ....................................................................................................................... 13
Decision-Making Groups .............................................................................................................................. 13
Springfield City Council:............................................................................................................................ 13
Governance Team: ................................................................................................................................... 14
Advisory Bodies ........................................................................................................................................... 14
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) ....................................................................................................... 14
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 34
3 | Page
Strategic Advisory Committee (SAC) ........................................................................................................ 15
Project Timeline ........................................................................................................................................... 16
PLANNING PHASE: ................................................................................................................................. 16
VII. Engagement Strategies and Schedule .................................................................................................. 17
Community Engagement Activities: Schedule Overview .............................................................................. 19
Round 1: Kick-Off and Community Priorities (Spring/Summer 2018) ........................................................ 19
Round 1: Existing Conditions/Inventory & Analysis (Late Summer/Fall 2018) ........................................... 19
Round 2: Goals & Objectives (Late Fall/Early Winter 2019) ...................................................................... 20
Round 3: Evaluate Alternatives (Spring 2019) .......................................................................................... 20
Round 3: Recommend Alternatives & Draft Plan (Fall/Winter 2020) ......................................................... 21
VIII. Evaluation of the Community Engagement Program ............................................................................. 21
Qualitative Measures for Evaluation of Program Goals: ............................................................................... 22
Quantifiable Data on Participation: ............................................................................................................... 22
Appendix A: Identified Stakeholders & Issues .................................................................................................. 23
Appendix B: Communication Protocols ............................................................................................................ 28
Internal Communication ............................................................................................................................... 28
Progress Monitoring & Project Workplan .................................................................................................. 28
Document Review Process & Protocols .................................................................................................... 28
External Communications ............................................................................................................................ 28
Stakeholder Contact, Communication & Events ....................................................................................... 28
Email Management & Comment Tracking ................................................................................................ 29
Appendix C: Dispute Resolution Process & Protocols ..................................................................................... 30
1. Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 30
2. Key principles and methodology requirements ...................................................................................... 30
3. Process for approving key principles and methodology ......................................................................... 30
4. Notifications .......................................................................................................................................... 31
5. Collaborative Discussions logistics and decision-making ...................................................................... 32
6. Dispute Review Board logistics and decision-making ............................................................................ 33
7. Process Diagram .................................................................................................................................. 34
I. Introduction
The Community Engagement Plan (CEP) describes activities that the consultant, City of Springfield, and
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) will implement to assure that interested and affected parties
have adequate opportunities to provide meaningful input to the Facility Plan.
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 34
4 | Page
Project Purpose
Springfield’s Main Street is consistently ranked as one of the most unsafe city streets in Oregon based on the
severity and frequency of traffic crashes. ODOT and the City must address this problem to save lives, reduce
injuries, and lessen property damage due to crashes. The purpose of the Main Street Safety Project: Planning
Phase is to select infrastructure solutions that will make Main Street safer for people walking, biking, driving,
and taking transit.
The selected safety improvements will provide for the movement of goods and people, support the economic
viability of the corridor, accommodate current bus service and future transit solutions, and complement traffic
safety education and enforcement.
II. Public Involvement Principles
Community Engagement Goals
Throughout this project, we are committed to sharing information and gathering input regarding the needs and
issues of the broader community and key stakeholders related to this planning effort.
The Community Engagement goals are to:
• Identify and engage potentially affected and/or interested individuals, communities, and
organizations that live, work, and play on Main Street.
• Educate the community on the key issues related to safety and the importance of design and
planning infrastructure changes to address those concerns.
• Ensure appropriate and meaningful opportunities for education, information, and engagement exist
for adjacent businesses and property owners, neighborhood residents, and the broader community.
• Support informed decision-making by ensuring clear and transparent access to technical findings
and community input.
• Foster and sustain a collaborative and mutually respectful process while developing the Main Street
Facility Plan.
• Communicate complete, accurate, understandable, and timely information to the community and
partners throughout the development of the Main Street Facility Plan.
• Demonstrate how input has influenced the process and is incorporated into the final Main Street
Facility Plan.
• Adhere to the City of Springfield community engagement guiding principles
• Comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
Main Street Corridor: Previous & Concurrent Engagement
There are several existing City of Springfield, ODOT and partner agency initiatives that have or have had
similar objectives to this effort but are citywide or along different segments of the Main Street corridor. It is
important to be aware of these efforts to ensure that outreach and messaging are consistent.
There are a number of projects in process or recently completed in the Main Street corridor. These projects are
collectively referred to as Our Main Street Springfield, and in addition to the Main Street Safety Project
currently include: Main-McVay Transit Study, Main Street Pedestrian Crossings, and Downtown Lighting.
It is critical that all of these projects are coordinated and managed in a way that is understandable to the
community in terms of consistency and interrelationships.
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 34
5 | Page
A brief overview of each of the current and prior Main Street projects is included below, providing a highlight of
engagement activities and key themes derived from those activities:
Main Street Corridor Vision Plan – Phase I of the project identified the community’s preferred future for
land use and transportation on Main Street between 10th Street and 69th Street. Phase II of the project will
explore updates to zoning and development regulations to support incremental redevelopment along the
corridor to achieve the new pattern, mix, and intensity of uses envisioned in the Vision Plan endorsed by the
Springfield City Council in 2015. At this time a date to initiate Phase II has not been set.
SmartTrips Main Street – This project was a comprehensive individual household and business outreach
program aimed at increasing biking, walking, use of public transit, and ridesharing through education,
incentives, and community outreach and events. SmartTrips moved down the Main Street Corridor from
28th Street to east of 75th Street in three phases from 2014 – 2016.
ODOT Safety Study - ODOT’s 2011 Pedestrian Safety Study analyzed existing and future travel conditions on Main Street with a pedestrian focus, documented safety problems for pedestrians on Main Street, and identified improvement concepts.
Main Street Pedestrian Crossing Project – Subsequent to the 2011 Pedestrian Safety Study, the City and
ODOT have installed six Rapid Flashing Beacon pedestrian crossing improvements on Main Street at 35th,
41st, 44th, 48th, 51st, and Chapman Lane; a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon pedestrian crossing improvement is planned for Main Street at 66th Street in 2018.
Downtown Lighting - An outcome of the downtown circulation project, this phased project is improving lighting and enhancing existing crosswalks along identified blocks of Springfield’s downtown.
Education & Enforcement – From 2014 – 2018, Springfield’s Development and Public Works (DPW)
Department staff have engaged in the following traffic safety education efforts. These efforts are ongoing
unless otherwise noted:
• Video production – City produced four traffic safety educational videos covering Rapid Flashing Beacon
crossings, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon crossings, Roundabouts, and Flashing Yellow Arrows. News
releases were disseminated when each video went live, Mayor introduced videos to the community
through media opportunities and interviews, and they were promoted through City and Lane Transit
District (LTD) Point2Point’s social media channels. Traffic safety tips and promotion of educational
videos done through City’s social media channels with periodic postings. A fifth video will be produced
in 2018 on either the dangers of texting and driving or the types of crosswalks.
• Creation and distribution of traffic safety informational cards, including one for Springfield Police
Departments’ pedestrian and crosswalk education and enforcement efforts in 2017.
• Purchase of customized safety reflectors for distribution through various City and partner events.
Customization includes City logo and a QR Code that goes to City’s Traffic Safety webpage.
• Bicyclist and pedestrian education games as part of annual Public Works Week activities to help
reinforce the importance of traffic safety and specifically situational awareness.
• Annual support of Springfield Kiwanis Club’s Safety Town program for pre-kindergarten children with
provision of safety reflectors and informational cards to send home with students for parents to review
and conduct a traffic safety game during presentation to students.
• Promotion of existing educational materials:
o Included safety reflectors and informational cards as an ordering option as part of Point2Point’s
_Phase 2 (2015) and Phase 3 (2016) education and outreach campaign on Main Street.
o Provided safety reflectors, informational cards and videos for inclusion in Safe Routes to School
safety education class for all second grade students in the Springfield Public Schools.
o Partnered with ODOT to show educational videos in Springfield theaters for summer 2016.
• Published several traffic safety related articles in Team Springfield Newsletter delivered to all residents
in Springfield.
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 34
6 | Page
• Participated in USDOT’s Mayors’ Challenge for Safer People, Safer Streets Initiative from May 2015-
October 2016 to: build on City’s commitment to improving roadway safety for all users through
education, enforcement and engineering; help achieve identified Council goals and the specific action
item of the citywide bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and way-finding implementation plan; and learn
what other cities are doing to improve safety for pedestrian, bicyclist and drivers; share what we have
accomplished or are planning with other cities. Overall Initiative activities included:
o Mayor kicked off initiative at Bike to School Day event at Guy Lee Elementary School;
o Renewal of Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee by City Council; and
o Additional partner agency engagement to ensure needs of all road users considered in design,
planning, construction and education.
• Increased traffic enforcement patrols on Main Street. For example, issued 1,512 citations on Main Street in 2015 for an increase of 42.8% over 2014.
• Expanded traffic safety education efforts with an Oregon Impact mini-grant award. Grant paid for expanded enforcement of vehicle code sections involving pedestrian right-of-way crosswalks and
education to community members about the causes of pedestrian crashes. Expanded effort occurred
May through September 2017.
Main-McVay Transit Study Phases 1 & 2 – Phase 1 of the Main-McVay Transit Study identified and
evaluated the most appropriate and promising transit options for the Main Street-McVay Highway corridor to be
pursued by the City of Springfield and LTD. The study began in April 2014, with final recommendations on the
most promising transit options determined in February 2015. The purpose of the second phase is to further
develop and evaluate the promising transit options as potential solutions to address growing concerns about
safety, congestion, and quality of life that could be improved through transportation improvements. The goal of
Phase 2 is to identify a locally preferred solution (LPS) that can be supported by the Springfield City Council
and LTD Board of Directors. The Main Street-McVay Highway corridor and project study area follows Main
Street from Thurston to Downtown Station and continues from there into Glenwood where it follows McVay
Highway to Lane Community College (LCC).
• Phase 1: In 2013, the City and LTD conducted initial stakeholder and public outreach, including small
group meetings called “Community Conversations” and general public outreach at various community
events. Input from the initial stakeholder and community outreach was used to develop the range of
potential transit options for the corridor. A Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) was developed for
Main-McVay Transit Study Phase 1 that reflected a broad range of interests along the corridor. The
SAC met monthly throughout the first phase of the study and developed recommendations on all key
decisions for consideration by decision-makers. Information about the study was available at organized
community meetings and events, and updates were emailed to an Interested Parties List. In February
and March 2015, project team members walked the Main Street and McVay Highway segments of the
corridor, meeting with business and property owners to answer any questions they might have about
the study. Based on community input and considering technical analysis from Phase 1, the transit study
identified a range of promising transit options for the corridor. In 2015, the Springfield City Council and
LTD Board of Directors recommended that the most promising transit options move forward for
additional study. These transit options included No-Change, Enhanced Corridor, and Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) on Main Street; and No-Change and Enhanced Corridor on McVay Highway. BRT on McVay
Highway was evaluated and not recommended for further study at the time Phase 1 concluded.
• Phase 2: In Phase 2 of the transit study, the City and LTD developed configuration options by corridor
segment and are in the process of evaluating the most promising transit solutions for the corridor. In
2016, individualized outreach including mail, phone calls, and in-person meetings was conducted with
business and property owners along the Main Street segment of the corridor from Downtown Station to
Thurston Station and project staff presented to Springfield community groups. In 2017, Phase 2 was
paused, awaiting information to coordinate with the Main Street Safety Project. Throughout 2016-2018,
email updates continued to be sent periodically to the Interested Parties list. The City and LTD believe,
based on community input to date and prior technical analysis, that the Enhanced Corridor option may
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 34
7 | Page
be the most appropriate mode to further evaluate on Main Street at this time. Confirmation of
community support to advance the Enhanced Corridor mode, and not the EmX mode, will be evaluated
from the input received through the first online open house held for the Planning Phase of the Main
Street Safety Project. The Enhanced Corridor mode choice will explore transit investments including: a
series of smaller, incremental transit operational enhancements – such as improvements to stops and
investments to improve reliability and efficiency of transit travel time – as well as improvements to make
it easier for people walking and biking to get to the bus.
III. Corridor Research
In order to execute a successful community engagement plan, it is important to have a clear understanding of
the various stakeholder and interest groups that make up the community.
This section provides demographic and other information about the city of Springfield and, where available,
information that pertains specifically to the Main Street corridor and surrounding neighborhoods.
Project Area Overview: Springfield
Demographics1
Age: Springfield has a population of 60,611 people with a median age of 35.7.
Race: The ethnic composition of the population of Springfield is composed of about 80% white residents, with
12% Hispanic, 1.5% Asian residents, and 731 or 1.2% Native residents. The most common foreign languages
in Springfield are Spanish, German, and Chinese. In addition, when compared to other census places,
Springfield has a relatively high number of residents that are native Scandinavian speakers.
Economic Status: The median household income is approximately $40,000, which is less than the national
average. In 2016, 50.6% of the housing units in Springfield were occupied by their owner. This percentage
grew from the previous year's rate of 50.3%. This percentage of owner-occupation is lower than the national
average of 63.6%.
Twenty two percent (22%) of Springfield’s population live below the poverty line, a number that is higher than
the national average of 14%. The largest demographic living in poverty is Female 18-24, followed by Female
25-34 and then Male 18-24.
Disabilities: 14.2% of residents under 65 identify with some level of a disability status.
Transportation Choices & Access: Springfield residents traveling by all modes have an average commute
time of 18.7 minutes, with the majority of commute trips made in single occupancy vehicles. Twelve percent
(12%) carpooled, and approximately 4% use public transportation. Car ownership in Springfield is
approximately the same as the national average, with an average of 2 cars per household.
Employment:
Springfield employs approximately 28,297 people, with an economy that specializes in Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing, Hunting; Retail trade; and Healthcare & Social Assistance. The largest industries in Springfield are
Healthcare & Social Assistance (5,303), Retail trade (4,470), and Manufacturing (3,021), and the highest
paying industries are Utilities ($64,044), Professional, Scientific, Tech Services ($40,684), and Finance &
Insurance ($35,946).
The most common jobs held by residents of Springfield, by number of employees, are Administrative; Sales;
and Food & Serving.
1 American Community Survey: Census Bureau (2016); 5-year Estimate
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 34
8 | Page
Non-Resident Considerations:
Demographic information provides a valuable illustration of the area’s residents, but when planning for
community engagement, it is critical to consider that Main Street and Springfield is also a major destination for
both city residents and visitors to the region. Understanding employment trends (see above) as well as tourist
attractions and destinations helps the project team better understand the composition of corridor stakeholders
and the traveling public.
Demographics & Considerations: Main Street Corridor
The Main Street corridor, while reflective of the same trends and demographics of Springfield as a whole,
displays other key considerations and demographic considerations that make this corridor distinct in ways that
affect walking/biking/transit as well as community engagement efforts.
Specifically, the Main Street corridor contains a higher concentration of Title VI Communities of Concern, which
are defined by Central Lane County MPO2 as concentrations of one or more key socioeconomic factors
including: Minority Populations, Elderly Populations, People with Disabilities, and Households in Poverty.
Census tracks along the Main Street Corridor show lower than median income levels, ranging from an average
of $28,000 to $38,000.
Looking at data from 2010-2014, specific segments along the Main Street Corridor range from 24 – 42%
percent of residents identifying as Hispanic, Latino or non-white. In certain blocks groups along the corridor,
the percentage of residents who identify as having limited English-speaking abilities can be as high as 20%.
Additionally, in contrast to the County as whole, Main Street shows higher concentrations of residents over the
age of 5 living with disabilities (segments range from 5% of residents to 36% of residents).
MPO data also shows high levels of renter-dominated block groups along the Main Street corridor – as high as
79% within specific block sections. For some of these block groups, as many as 35% of renters do not own a
car.
IV. Engagement: Key Issues & Concerns
Key Issues/Concerns of Residents, Property & Business Owners
The project team will coordinate with technical team members to understand and address potential stakeholder
concerns related to their area of study. This list will be updated as more information becomes available. A list
of potential stakeholder concerns is provided in the following section to highlight how community engagement
activities will inform, engage, and consult with key stakeholder groups around these concerns.
Safety: During the five-year period between 2012 and 2016, this corridor saw hundreds of crashes, resulting in
loss of six lives, costly injuries, property damage, delays, and fuel consumption. Safety is a main concern for
this project both for the sake of safety itself, the emotional and social impacts of life altering injuries, and for the
other community and personal costs that accrue when safety is compromised.
Traffic: Improving traffic flow and congestion along Main Street (between 20th Street to 72nd Street) is of
concern to nearly all stakeholders. The broader community will be interested in how the design concepts will
improve traffic.
Coordination with Transit & Other Planning Projects: There are several projects involving the Main Street
corridor that are also of interest to corridor residents and business owners. Stakeholders will want to know how
2 Central Lane County MPO: Socio Economic Data http://thempo.org/958/Socio-Economic-Data
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 34
9 | Page
this project works in coordination with other efforts along the corridor and how input will be used and shared
across projects.
Business Disruption and Access: Business disruption due to changes in infrastructure, as well as
construction-related impacts and traffic delays, will be of concern to adjacent property owners, businesses and
associations. Additionally, stakeholders will want to know how construction might impact traffic on daily routes
through the area or access to businesses.
Cost and Funding: Given the size and scope of this project, some stakeholders will undoubtedly have high
levels of interest in the project cost and how it will be funded.
For an initial detailed list of stakeholders and key issues used to inform the project’s community engagement
efforts see Appendix A.
V. Key Messages
The use of key messages throughout project communications is helpful in maintaining consistent messaging
about the project goals, scope and desired outcomes. These messages are to be used both on written
communications and as talking points for the project team staff.
Key Messages were informed by previous and on-going community engagement efforts on the corridor
including the ODOT Pedestrian Safety Study, Main Street Corridor Vision Plan, Main-McVay Transit Study,
and Main Street Pedestrian Crossing Project. Input and direction on these key messages were provided by
Springfield City Council, the Main Street Governance Team, and the Springfield Planning Commission.
Primary Key Messages:
Introduction & Overview
In summer 2018, the City of Springfield launched the Planning Phase of the Main Street Safety Project.
Over the next 2-3 years, this project will pull together detailed analysis and extensive community outreach to
inform the selection of design concepts for infrastructure changes to improve safety on Main Street from 20th to
72nd.
Why is this Project Important?
• Safety This section of Main Street in Springfield is one of Oregon’s most unsafe city highways for those
who walk, bike and drive.
• We’re growing. Traffic on this corridor will likely double in 20 years, so problems today will be even worse
in the future.
• Main Street is the heart of the Springfield community. It serves as an iconic gateway to the city, a
primary east-west transportation corridor, and an economic engine for the area.
• A major transit corridor. This is one of the most heavily used transit routes in Lane County. LTD and the
City have been working with the community over the last few years to explore transit improvement options
in the corridor. This plan needs to support the community’s preferred transit improvements.
• Creating a Healthy & Safe Transportation System for All: Supporting engineering solutions that help to
ensure safe, accessible transportation for everyone, whether by foot, bike, mobility device, bus, or car.
What about the street design and adjacent land uses contributes to safety problem on Main
Street?
• High driveway density with poor access management
• Insufficient roadway connectivity
• Existing facility characteristics that produce high vehicle speeds
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 34
10 | Page
• Predominance of auto centric land uses
• High residential density with socioeconomic characteristics that lend towards higher transit usage and
pedestrian crossing activity
• These factors contribute to a high level of crash frequency and severity due to pedestrian, bike, and
vehicle (including freight) conflicts along this extended highway corridor.
Community Centered Decisions:
• Building on previous visioning: We will continue and extend planning efforts and previously
identified Secondary Key Messages.
• Safe, Accessible Transportation Systems for Everyone: We are committed to an efficient,
sustainable, diverse, and environmentally sound transportation system that serves our community as
a whole – providing safety improvements to support people walking, biking, using mobility devices,
taking the bus, and driving.
• Thriving Economy & Great Neighborhoods: A transportation system that enhances Springfield’s
community identity and supports thriving economies and neighborhoods.
• Connecting our community: We will plan for transportation and safety improvements that will
support great neighborhoods and help keep our Main Street economy thriving.
Community Engagement:
• We are committed to transparent decision-making informed by community input.
• It is vital that all voices are heard while planning our community’s future, and we respect
stakeholders’ limited time to contribute input.
• Community input and engagement will be a foundation for all decisions and aspects of the project
(from planning through design, and into construction).
• Outreach efforts will include a variety of ways to accommodate community input – including in
person and online formats, valuing opportunities for face-to-face conversations between members of
the project team and adjacent property and business owners.
Community input and engagement efforts will include property owners, businesses, and the traveling public
in the process to help City Council answer two key questions:
1. What type of design concepts and infrastructure solutions achieve the community’s safety goal?
2. How can these improvements be done in a way that minimizes negative impacts to businesses
and property owners?
What is the Desired Outcome of this Phase of the Project?
• Coordinated street planning and selection of design concepts for infrastructure changes that will
promote safe travel and movement through the corridor.
• A long-term plan that identifies the types of safety improvements and a preferred transit mode choice
for Main Street that supports the community’s vision. (Note: The plan will not be a proposed
engineering design; so, it will not identify specific property impacts, nor the details of a specific transit
solution.)
• With the final plan complete, the partner agencies can begin working with the adjacent business
and property owners, as well as community members, on a more detailed design that addresses how
to apply the infrastructure solutions that lead to construction in ways that minimize impacts to properties
and maintains access to businesses.
Secondary Key Messages:
Project Background:
• In 2011, Council directed staff to improve the safety of Main Street.
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 34
11 | Page
• Since Main Street is a state highway (OR-126B), City initiated discussions with the Oregon Department
of Transportation (ODOT) about how to enhance traffic safety on the corridor.
• In 2016, ODOT programmed $3.9M to construct raised center median treatments on nearly five miles of
Main Street from 20th – 72nd based on crash data that resulted in Main Street being consistently ranked
as one of the most unsafe city streets in Oregon.
• Before ODOT can obligate the funds for design and construction, the City and ODOT need to engage
property owners, businesses and the traveling public in a planning process to better understand
preferences and priorities around what types of median concepts and other safety improvements will
achieve the community’s safety goal and minimize negative impacts to business and property owners.
• Lane Transit District (LTD) works closely with the City of Springfield to coordinate transit service and
transit improvements in Springfield and serves as a key partner on this project.
• Due to length of the Main Street corridor, the large number of adjacent business and property owners,
and the significant safety issues, the process to forge solutions is complex and will take time.
Project Process: Overview
The Planning Phase of the Main Street Safety Project will begin with two key tasks:
• Task 1: Look to previous community engagement efforts in the corridor to inform our work on this
project.
• Task 2: Develop an inventory of the existing transportation conditions in the corridor – roadway
features, street classifications and freight routes, transit service and ridership, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities. This includes collecting new traffic and speed counts and presenting the analysis on recent
traffic crash data.
Goals & Objectives: Community and stakeholder input to help develop the goals and objectives of the project
and the planning phase. Clear goals and objectives will help lay the foundation for the adoption of Key
Principles and Methodology.
Decision-Making Methodology: This methodology will be used to guide the planning phase, answering
critical questions such as: “What do we need to achieve and how will we do it?” and “What will be used to
inform and evaluate the series of solutions we develop?”
Recommended Solutions: Pulling from community input, and led by the adopted decision-making
methodology, the Project Management Team (PMT), Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and consultant
team will develop options for safety improvements, engaging the community in evaluating those solutions, and
then recommend infrastructure solutions to make Main Street safer.
Final Main Street Facility Plan: Once there are recommended solutions, we will develop a draft Main Street
Facility Plan to present to the Governance Team, Planning Commission and eventually forwarded to the
Springfield City Council for consideration and adoption.
After the City Council adopts the Final Main Street Facility Plan, the plan must move through the State land
use adoption process.
What will be Considered in the Final Main Street Facility Plan?
The plan will consider a wide range of potential improvements, including, but not limited to:
• Median islands that allow left turns at strategic locations
• Roundabouts at major intersections to improve safety and traffic flow
• Consolidating or relocating driveways to reduce potential conflicts with people walking, biking, and
driving
• Improvements to accommodate current bus service, as well as future high capacity transit
improvements
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 34
12 | Page
Why are Medians being considered, and what type of medians?
Raised center median treatments are being considered as engineering response in this phase of the study based on the type of traffic crash symptoms and specific safety concerns experienced in the corridor.
If City Council elects to proceed with infrastructure improvements to address the safety problem on Main Street the most appropriate solution are raised center median treatments with u-turn opportunities that provide for the movement of goods and people, support the economic viability of the corridor, accommodate current bus
service and future transit solutions, and complement safety education and traffic enforcement.
The specific details of these median treatments will be informed by community engagement, analyzed and
approved by Council.
Coordination with Other Projects:
The City coordinates planning and construction efforts in ways that take into account the direct impact on
businesses and residents and looks to minimize disruption.
The Main Street Safety Project will build from previous community conversations and engagement efforts
along the corridor and will work closely to coordinate planning and construction with other efforts.
Coordination with LTD & the Main McVay Transit Study: The City of Springfield will work closely with LTD
to ensure planning and design of future high-capacity transit capital investments are coordinated, and that the
community conversations and planning efforts on both the Main-McVay Transit Study and the Main Street
Safety project are coordinated.
Complimentary Efforts – 3E’s (Education, Enforcement & Engineering): Safety education and traffic enforcement are important complimentary pieces to engineering solutions that will help to effectively address the safety concerns and problems along the Main Street Corridor.
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 34
13 | Page
VI. Public Involvement Process
Advisory Bodies & Decision-Making Structure
Decision-Making Structure:
The graphic below illustrates the overall stakeholder and decision-making structure.
This structure is designed to ensure that community stakeholders are regularly engaged and consulted,
and that the Springfield City Council and advisory groups have the benefit of that community input at
each major milestone of the planning phase.
Updated graphics will be developed as part of outreach efforts, and featured on the project website and in introductory materials
Decision-Making Groups
The Planning Phase of the Main Street Safety Project is overseen by two decision-making groups, the Main
Street Governance Team and Springfield City Council.
Springfield City Council: The City Council has oversight and decision-making responsibilities for the
Project. The project team will provide briefings to the City Council and solicit feedback and guidance at five key
milestones. Springfield City Council holds ultimate authority on the approval and adoption of the final Facility
WPRD,
Utilities,
Attachment 2, Page 13 of 34
14 | Page
Plan. After adoption by the City Council, the Facility Plan moves through an adoption and acknowledgement
process with Oregon Transportation Commission and Department of Land Conservation and Development.
Governance Team: Since 2013, Main Street projects have been coordinated through a three-tiered
management structure that includes project direction provided by the Governance Team (GT).
The GT currently consists of the following agencies and jurisdictions (listed in alphabetical order): • City of
Springfield (City): Mayor Christine Lundberg and Councilor Marilee Woodrow (Alternate: Councilor Leonard
Stoehr), City Manager (Gino Grimaldi, ex-officio) • Lane Transit District (LTD): Board Members (Steven Yett
and Kate Reid), General Manager (Aurora Jackson, ex-officio) • Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT): Area 5 Manager (Frannie Brindle).
The mission of the GT is to provide informed direction and final collaborative decision-making to support
current Main Street projects: Main Street Safety Project (MSSP); Main Street-McVay Highway Transit Study
(MMTS); Main Street Pedestrian Crossings; Downtown Lighting Project. Former guidance included past
projects: SmartTrips and Main Street Corridor Vision Plan.
Advisory Bodies
In addition to the governing bodies charged with decision-making and approval of the final Facility Plan, this
project will also engage a variety of advisory bodies and committees, including: the Springfield Planning
Commission (PC), a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and a Strategic Advisory Committee (SAC). The
TAC & the SAC will provide input on the goals, objectives, and design solutions considered in the planning
phase of the Main Street Facility Plan and will play a role in prioritization of feasible solutions. They will also
review project deliverables and provide feedback. In its capacity as Springfield’s Committee for Citizen
Involvement (CCI), the Planning Commission will review and approve the community engagement strategies,
as well as appointment of SAC members. Additionally, since the Facility Plan will be adopted as a Refinement
Plan of Springfield’s Transportation System Plan, the PC will participate in the process to evaluate feasible
solutions and recommend a final package of solutions to the GT.
In addition to providing ongoing project input, the TAC will ensure consistency with State and regional policy
and plans as well as City policy priorities in an advisory role. The project will seek City Council engagement
and endorsement at several key stages in the project, leading to the review and adoption of the final Main
Street Facility Plan as the final product of the Main Street Safety Planning Project.
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Role: Provides PMT with technical support necessary to develop an adoption-ready Facility Plan by:
• Establishing a forum to identify, discuss, and resolve technical issues and concerns
• Establishing a forum to maintain interdepartmental and interagency communication
• Providing data and information, as requested
• Reviewing and providing feedback on draft work products in timely manner
Membership: Upon formation, TAC protocols will identify whether participation is standing or ad hoc and
establish expectations for type of input desired.
City Participants
• City Transportation Planning Engineer (Michael Liebler)
• City Senior Transportation Planner (Emma Newman)
• City DPW Communications Coordinator (Loralyn Spiro)
• City Economic Development Manager (Courtney Griesel)
• City Traffic Engineer (Brian Barnett)
• City Principal Engineer (Kristi Krueger)
• City Police representative (Lt. Scott McKee)
Attachment 2, Page 14 of 34
15 | Page
• City Fire representative (Amy Linder)
• City Environmental Services Tech (Meghan Murphy)
• City Operations Maintenance Supervisor (Greg Ferschweiler)
ODOT Participants
• ODOT Active Transportation Liaison (Jenna Berman)
• ODOT Region 2 Traffic Engineer (Dorothy Upton)
• ODOT Region 2 Traffic Investigations Engineer & ARTS Program Coordinator (Amanda Salyer)
• ODOT Region 2 Roadway Engineer (Carl Deaton)
• ODOT Region 2 Access Management (Scott Nelson)
• ODOT Region 2 Transportation Safety Coordinator (Nicole Charlson)
• ODOT Region 2 Rail Crossing Safety Section Manager (Rick Shankle)
• ODOT Region 2 District 5 Manager (Jim Gamble)
• ODOT Region 2 Mobility Unit Manager (Christy Jordan)
DLCD Participants
• South Willamette Valley Representative (Patrick Wingard)
Utility Provider Participants
• SUB Water representative (Scott Higley)
• SUB Electric representative (Sanjeev King)
• NW Natural representative (Jon Kloor)
LTD Participants
• LTD Transit Development Planner (Sasha Luftig Vartanian)
• LTD Transit Service Planner (Heather Lindsay)
Willamalane Park & Recreation District (WPRD) and School District #19 (SPS) Participants
• SPS Transportation & Fleet Operations Manager (Mike Schlosser)
SPS Safe Routes to Schools Coordinator (Laughton Elliott-Deangelis)
WPRD Planning & Development Manager (Eric Adams)
The TAC is anticipated to meet twelve (12) times over the course of the project.
Strategic Advisory Committee (SAC)
The SAC will be comprised of key stakeholders representing various interests from within and along the Main
Street corridor and the broader Springfield community. The City of Springfield will actively reach out to potential
stakeholders to invite them to the group with explicit considerations of equity, diversity, and representation of
key interests and concerns.
There will be up to eight (8) SAC meetings for the full duration of this project. SAC members are tasked with
participating in all meetings, which are facilitated by the consultants. Meetings will be open to the public and
written public comment can be provided via a comment box at the SAC meetings.
Membership includes representatives from the following:
• Corridor Residents
• Corridor Business/property owners
• Corridor employee
• General public
• Chamber of Commerce
• Transit advocates
• Seniors
• Persons with disabilities
• Trucking industry/freight & delivery
• Bike/Ped interest
• Youth
Attachment 2, Page 15 of 34
Project Timeline
The high-level timeline below shows how the Facility Plan fits into the typical project planning, development,
and construction cycle. In this case, due to the length of the Main Street corridor, the large number of adjacent
stakeholder business and property owners, and significant ongoing safety issues, the process to forge
solutions is complex and time consuming.
2018 2021 2023 PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION
Concept Development & Selection Project Development Construction
Facility Plan Site Design/NEPA/Engineering Physical Changes
PLANNING PHASE:
The essential policy question that the Facility Plan process and adoption will develop, and document is how to
address the safety problems on Main Street with an infrastructure design concept that provides for the access
needs of corridor businesses and accommodates current bus service and future transit improvements.
Advisory groups and decision-makers will provide guidance and direction at several key milestones as the
project team, stakeholders and the broader community work through the values trade-offs that will ultimately
lead to a preferred package of solutions and set the stage for documenting compliance with federal
requirements and project design and construction. As presently scoped, these milestones are depicted in the
graphic below:
Updated graphics will be developed as part of outreach efforts, and featured on the project website and in introductory materials
2020/2021
Attachment 2, Page 16 of 34
17 | Page
VII. Engagement Strategies and Schedule
The project will include three major rounds of communication and outreach:
1. Project Kick-Off & Community Priorities (Summer 2018):
2. Goals & Objectives (Fall 2018)
3. Evaluate Alternatives (Spring 2019)
The project team will develop and facilitate community conversations at these three key points in the planning
phase of the project. Each outreach round will include a variety of in-person and online engagement
opportunities, including:
• Local Access Meetings & Stakeholder Issue Resolution: Engagement of stakeholders directly
adjacent to the corridor is a key focus of outreach activities. In addition to supporting a notification
and consultation process that follows the requirements of Senate Bill 408 for access management,
JLA will establish and facilitate small group and one-on-one conversations with residents, business
and property owners along Main Street.
The PMT will work to establish a series of segments along the Main Street corridor, and to host a
series of informal open houses, encouraging adjacent stakeholders to “drop in,” look at concepts,
and discuss how those concepts might affect their property or business. Up to three (3) three-hour-
long segment meetings would be held to present initial concepts. A second series of three (3) three-
hour-long meetings would be held to present the recommendations before they are finalized. JLA
will be responsible for logistics, facilitation and documentation of these meetings. The City will be
responsible for identification and notification of participants.
• Online open houses/workshops: JLA will develop two open houses or “virtual community
meetings” to allow people from throughout Springfield, as well as adjacent stakeholders to learn
about the Planning Phase of the Main Street Safety Project and to provide their input online. This
online format and content will mirror the format of the Local Access meetings and other community
events. The online meeting tool will be available for about a three-week period to allow the
community to participate at their convenience.
• Social Media & Project Promotion: (develop fall 2018, implementation ongoing): JLA will work
with City staff to develop an appropriate social media plan for each of the three major rounds of
engagement. The goal will be to notify as many residents, businesses, and facility users as possible
throughout the project area.
City will post to social media using City-managed social media accounts and to other accounts as
recommended by the social media strategy. Social media outreach will occur in the weeks prior to
and during major project engagement points coinciding with the online open house, and key
decision points.
• Email blasts (Ongoing): The City of Springfield will distribute email announcements to interested
parties included in the stakeholder database to provide project updates and notification of in-person
and virtual public meetings. It is anticipated that emails will be sent for the following:
o Project kick-off and announcement (summer 2018)
o At least one week prior to each GT, CC, or SAC meeting: With an announcement of the meeting
and any project milestones that have been completed. The emails will include links to any
documents or studies available on the project website.
o Two weeks prior to the online open houses: With an invitation to participate and request to
spread the word with their neighbors, family, and community groups.
Attachment 2, Page 17 of 34
18 | Page
• Project Website (develop Fall 2018, implementation ongoing): The City of Springfield will develop
a link on their existing ourmainstreetspringfield.org website dedicated to the Main Street Safety
Project Planning Phase. The page will include project information, schedule, upcoming meeting
dates and events, project materials completed to date, future opportunities to provide input, and
opportunities to send comments to the Project Team.
Consultant will provide a website strategy with page and content suggestions and best practices for
keeping the website relevant. Consultant will provide content for four website updates.
The City will host the website and make postings.
• News releases (Ongoing): The City of Springfield will identify opportunities to keep the project in
the news by producing media releases. Releases will be sent prior to public meetings, virtual public
meeting, and at key milestones of the project.
• Notification of project updates and engagement opportunities: In addition to the general
notifications outlined above, we are required to engage in additional notification as a part of the
planning phase of this project, including direct mailers to all adjacent addresses at project
initiation/introduction; prior to alternatives open house, and any required or requested phases of the
planning process (affiliated with SB408 – see Appendix B for more detail).
• Stakeholder database (Ongoing): The City of Springfield will develop and maintain a database that
includes potentially impacted parties in the project area, interested parties, and meeting attendees.
The database will be updated after public events and will track those individuals and groups who
express interest in the project. The database will be used for notification of the online meeting,
public meetings, project news, and outreach materials.
Attachment 2, Page 18 of 34
19 | Page
Community Engagement Activities: Schedule Overview
The activities listed below highlight the three rounds for community engagement during this planning phase of
the Main Street Safety Project.
JLA will provide a detailed meeting plan, annotated agendas, and agenda for all public meetings and
engagement activities listed below. These materials will be reviewed, revised, and approved by the PMT and
the PCT prior to implementation.
Engagement activities have been tailored to the goals and objectives of each engagement round.
Round 1: Kick-Off and Community Priorities (Spring/Summer 2018)
Goals: (Pre Community Engagement) Invite feedback and input in the development of the project purpose
statement, as well as a clear understanding of roles and engagement of agency partners and key
stakeholders; review and finalize key messages based on a foundation of understanding from previous
engagement efforts.
CE Activities Purpose Level of Community Engagement
City Council Meeting
#1
To orient to the project, present decision-making matrix,
clear understanding of agency roles, and objectives for
community engagement efforts
Involve
Governance Team Kick
Off
Provide all project information in one location Involve
Planning Commission
Meeting #1
Introduce the project Involve
SAC Application &
Nomination
To invite and engage key stakeholders in Involve
Planning Commission
Meeting #2
Approve Community Engagement Plan & Nomination of
SAC members
Involve
Round 1: Existing Conditions/Inventory & Analysis (Late Summer/Fall 2018)
Goals: Introduce the project (and specifically the planning phase) to the community; gather feedback about
safety concerns, existing conditions and community priorities.
CE Activities Purpose Level of
Community Engagement
Notification of Planning
Process*
Describes planning process, identifies opportunities for stakeholder participation, and provides contact info for
project leader and links to obtain updates.
Inform
Project website Provides all project information in one location. Inform
Social Media Posts Build overall awareness and promote project activities
and findings.
Inform
Factsheet #1 Introduce project, timeline, and the best ways to get involved. Inform
Stakeholder & Title VI Reach out to specific nonprofit and geographic partners to establish a clear plan for engagement of traditionally Involve
Attachment 2, Page 19 of 34
20 | Page
Engagement underserved and/or Title VI populations (Including low-income earning, limited English proficiency, Latinx and
communities of color, persons with disabilities and
senior residents)
SAC meeting #1 • Meeting 1: Introduce project, charter committee,
discuss committee project goals
Inform
* Follows Guidance for SB408 notification and engagement of adjacent stakeholders. See Appendix B for a more detailed description.
Round 2: Goals & Objectives (Late Fall/Early Winter 2019)
Goals: Establish Goals & Objectives of the Planning Phase; Create evaluation methodology based on
community feedback and technical analysis.
CE Activities Purpose Level of
Community Engagement
Online Open House #1 Inform the community about the Project and gather input on issues and values to be reflected in the goals
and objectives and to help identify potential design issues or solutions. Coordination with MMTS to help
inform a preferred Transit Mode Choice.
Consult
SAC Meetings #2 and #3 • Meeting 2: Existing Conditions: Transportation,
Land Use, Environmental; Goals & Objectives
• Meeting 3: Economic Impacts (Literature Review); Future Baseline Forecasts
Involve
Notice and Review of Key
Principles for Affected
Real Property Owners*
Address how properties abutting state highway will be evaluated to retain or obtain access to the state highway during and after plan implementation. This
notice will include an anticipated timeline for plan implementation.
Inform
Local Access Meetings
(First Round)
Introduce project and gather feedback from adjacent
businesses, property owners, neighbors and community members
Consult
Title VI Focus Group #1 Gather feedback from traditionally underserved
populations
Consult
Tabling Events &
Stakeholder Liaison
Opportunities (First
Round)
Gather feedback issues and opportunities at existing
community events.
Consult
Project website Provides all project information in one location. Inform
Social Media Posts Build overall awareness and promote project activities and findings. Inform
Factsheet #2 Introduce existing information, goals and objectives; future baseline forecasts Inform
* Follow Guidance for SB408 notification and engagement of adjacent stakeholders
Round 3: Evaluate Alternatives (Spring 2019)
Goals: Refine list of Draft Alternatives to establish top priorities.
CE Activities Purpose Level of
Community
Engagement
SAC meetings #4 and #5 Meeting 4: Key Principles & Methodology Involve
Attachment 2, Page 20 of 34
21 | Page
Meeting 5: Preliminary Alternatives (with Roundabout Alternatives)
Online Open House #2 Refine the list of draft alternatives to establish top
priorities
Consult
Local Access Meetings
(Second Round)
One-on-one opportunities to discuss how input was
used in the development of alternatives and in evaluation measures; gather feedback on alternatives from adjacent businesses, property
owners, neighbors and community members
Consult
Title VI Focus Group #2 Gather feedback on draft list of alternative solutions from traditionally underserved populations Consult
Tabling Events &
Stakeholder Liaison
Opportunities (Second
Round)
One-on-one conversations with key stakeholders and stakeholder groups. Consult
Project website Content Updates Inform
Social Media Posts Build overall awareness and promote project
activities and findings.
Inform
Factsheet #3 Highlight key themes from community input;
technical findings and how alternatives were
established
Inform
Round 3: Recommend Alternatives & Draft Plan (Fall/Winter 2020)
Goals: Translate priorities to recommended alternatives and establish draft plan for review and adoption.
CE Activities Purpose Level of Community
Engagement
SAC meetings #6, #7 and
#8
Meeting 6: Refined Alternatives
Meeting 7: Draft Plan
Meeting 8: Final Plan and Celebration
Involve
Local Access Meetings
(Third Round)
Refined Alternatives; opportunities for engagement
and input; process for decision making and next steps in the process
Consult; Inform
Stakeholder Liaison
Opportunities (Third
Round)
One-on-one conversations with key stakeholders and stakeholder groups. Consult
Project website Content Updates Inform
Factsheet #4 Present recommended alternatives and process for
decision making (highlight public input)
Inform
VIII. Evaluation of the Community Engagement Program
The primary evaluation of public engagement will be based on the established Community Engagement
Goals, listed in Section II. This evaluation is necessarily qualitative. The City and ODOT will evaluate the
community engagement program at the conclusion of the project.
Attachment 2, Page 21 of 34
22 | Page
While quantifiable information can be useful, it is not effective on its own. For instance, a high number of
participants in a process can be an indication of effective outreach; however, a poor community engagement
process on a highly contentious project can also elicit a high rate of comments and attendance at meetings.
Conversely, an excellent outreach program can result in high quality but low numbers public participation on a
project that has no controversy or has low immediate public interest.
The following are factors to assess in addition to and/or in support of an evaluation of the Community
Engagement Goals:
Qualitative Measures for Evaluation of Program Goals:
• How project decisions have been modified as a result of public input.
• Whether the comments are relevant to the project (indicates project understanding).
• Whether the program was executed as planned? If not, did the changes support the goals?
• Level of acceptance of project outcomes.
• Increase of public trust of City of Springfield and ODOT.
• Strength of partnerships between City of Springfield, ODOT, and community groups.
• Progress toward “shovel ready” project list for investment.
Quantifiable Data on Participation:
• Number of participants attending meetings or events.
• Number of responses received to a survey.
• Number of website views during a specific time-period.
• Number of likes or response on Facebook.
• Number of people who have signed up for the project mailing list.
• Number of project comments received (phone, email, comment cards, online).
Attachment 2, Page 22 of 34
23 | Page
Appendix A: Identified Stakeholders & Issues
As an initial step in developing the community engagement program for this project, the project team
brainstormed the interests who will likely be affected by the project, either directly or indirectly, as well as those
interests who think they will be affected or otherwise need to or want to be involved in the project. The
potentially affected interests and concerns were documented using worksheets developed by the Institute for
Participatory Management and Planning. This appendix is intended to be a working document, and the project
team welcomes additional suggestions over the course of the project.
Attachment 2, Page 23 of 34
24 | Page
Attachment 2, Page 24 of 34
25 | Page
Attachment 2, Page 25 of 34
26 | Page
Attachment 2, Page 26 of 34
27 | Page
Attachment 2, Page 27 of 34
28 | Page
Appendix B: Communication Protocols
Internal Communication
Progress Monitoring & Project Workplan
• Consultants will be expected to update the PMT on the progress made towards key deliverables, as
well as any impacts to the overall workplan.
• Consultants will use the designations Completed, In Progress, and Not Started to describe progress
made towards key deliverables (by phase).
• Consultants will submit updates to the Consultant Team Project Manager as requested, for review prior
to the bi-weekly PMT Calls.
Document Review Process & Protocols
Review Periods: Consultant team members will coordinate with City of Springfield PM and the PMT to incorporate two rounds of draft reviews and comments per major deliverable, unless otherwise noted under
task descriptions. This will include: 1) Preliminary Draft for PMT and PCT review and comment, 2) TAC
Discussion Draft which includes changes to the Preliminary Draft as directed by the PMT, and 3) A Final Document which incorporates feedback received on the Discussion Draft and other changes as agreed upon
by CPM, APM and Consultant Project Managers.
All documents prepared as part of this CEP shall be provided to the PMT and the City of Springfield’s PCT for review before distribution to the public.
Document Review Process: Consultant Project Managers to submit preliminary drafts of all deliverables to
the CPM and APM, with clear expectations listed for response due dates.
External Communications
Stakeholder Contact, Communication & Events
Event type examples: Tabling, civic group meetings, focused meetings with business community, outreach to
affordable housing residents, Latino leaders and/or groups, transit riders, participation in meetings held by
others. Outreach efforts will invite input and comments, as well as notifications to accommodate a variety of
formats and preferences including phone, in person, written and emailed comments and notifications.
Document Communication & Contacts:
1. Whenever possible, contacts and communication with any external or internal stakeholders and/or interested parties should be communicated to the full PMT.
2. Contacts and communications with any external groups should be documented using the project
comment summary form. Information should include: name, title and contact information for primary point of contact, date of meeting or presentation; a quick summary of the conversation, and a record of
follow-ups or requests made.
3. Comment summary forms should be emailed to info@ourmainstreetspringfield.org
Record Attendance:
1. Print out and provide MSSP project sign-in sheet for larger public events (such as local access
meetings). These forms should also include basic event information, names of public in attendance, and those who have indicated that they want to learn more about the project or join the project mailing
list. Completed sign-in forms should be scanned and sent to the project email. JLA will maintain a
record of sign-in sheets for JLA-led project events, and will pass all contact information to the City of Springfield to include in the City-maintained stakeholder database.
2. If no MSSP sign-in sheet has been used for an event (as in smaller, focused meetings with stakeholders), record names/contact information of people in attendance on staff participation form, scan, and/or hit submit to send as an attachment to the project email.
Attachment 2, Page 28 of 34
29 | Page
3. If no forms are present at the time of the meeting or event, attendance including contact information can be sent via e-mail or as an e-mailed attachment to the project email.
4. Attendance from meetings held by others may be captured retroactively from meeting minutes and sent
along with project-related comments to the project email. JLA will record meetings and attendance, as well as a summary of responses within the outreach summary and final public involvement summary
report.
Record Comments:
1. Public Comment Forms and links to submit a written comment online should be shared and used at all
presentations or events. Completed (hard-copy print) forms should be scanned and sent to the project email. If a response is required, JLA will rely on the email management protocols below to determine appropriate response.
2. Individual or discussion level comments may be summarized by staff and written on the comment form. Additional spaces are provided for entering contact information and next steps such as following up.
Staff should designate a note-taker and collaborate on completing a summary of participation after
each event, which can then be scanned and sent to the project email. 3. If no form is used or available, comments and public input may be summarized and sent to the project
email.
Email Management & Comment Tracking
Phone Communications: For phone communication, the City will complete a comment log and attach it to the
contact record in the stakeholder database.
Public Meetings/Public Comment: For stakeholder committee meetings or Planning Commission/City Council/GT, etc. meetings, comments are captured in the notes/minutes of those meetings and stored in a
BaseCamp project management software system, as required by ODOT.
Email: The City of Springfield (COS) is responsible for maintaining and recording public comments received through the project e-mail following the adoption of the Community Engagement Plan (CEP).
Any messages in the info@ourmainstreetspringfield.org “inbox” that pertain to the Main Street Safety Project
will be blind copied and documented in the City’s stakeholder database.
The City coordinates responses to inquiries submitted via the ourmainstreetspringfield.org website (info@ourmainstreetspringfield.org) or via the Comment Box at Main Street Governance Team meetings. Auto-
response gets sent immediately and then City Staff (Molly) will delegate the comment to the appropriate staff person (at CoS or LTD) to develop an initial draft response. The draft response will then be sent to a team of
folks for approval with a timeline of when responses are required. The team includes: Molly, Emma, Loralyn,
Sasha, and Therese (LTD staff are only included when the comment pertains to transit). Once the response is approved, Molly sends and bcc’s Highrise.
In order to ensure timely responses, the official response to any public comment should go out within three
business days per the auto-response. If more than 3 days is required, Molly would let the constituent know that more time would be required and give an estimate of when a response can be expected. Therefore, the
public comment team needs to respond by the deadline included in Molly’s email. If no comment is received
by the deadline, Molly can send the response to the constituent and cc the appropriate people.
During outreach phases a weekly summary of email comments will be forwarded to JLA and the consultant
team to include in the final outreach summary report.
Attachment 2, Page 29 of 34
30 | Page
Appendix C: Dispute Resolution Process & Protocols
1. Overview
The purpose of this discussion paper is to describe the key SB 408 access management requirements for
facility plans, outline the process the Planning Phase of the Springfield Main Street Safety Project will follow,
and clarify City and ODOT responsibilities. It is also intended to facilitate input from the PMT, City PCT and
CAO, ODOT staff and DOJ. The process outlined here may change based on that input. The process, when
finalized, will be incorporated into the draft Community Engagement Plan for approval by the Springfield
Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as Springfield’s Committee for Citizen Involvement.
The following topics will be discussed:
• Key principles and methodology requirements
• Process for approving key principles and methodology
• Notifications
• Collaborative Discussions logistics and decision-making
• Dispute Review Board logistics and decision-making
• Remaining questions for input and discussion
2. Key principles and methodology requirements
The requirements for developing the key principles and methodology for a highway facility plan are provided in
Oregon Administrative Rule 734-051-7010. The applicable sections are listed below and can be referenced in
full in Appendix A.
• Key Principles: OAR 734-051-7010(3)
• Access Management Methodology: OAR 734-051-7010(4)(a) – (l)
Note that key principles may be developed jointly or separately from methodology.
3. Process for approving key principles and methodology
This section describes how the City endorses the key principles and methodology, how ODOT approves them,
and the timing related to deliverables and community engagement meetings. An outline of the process the
project team will use to develop the key principles and methodology is provided in Task 7 of the Statement of
Work for the project (which is part of the contract between ODOT and DKS) and included in Appendix B. A
flowchart diagram graphically depicting this process will be included in Section 7 below in the final version of
this document.
OAR 734-051-7010(5)(c) (c) states that affected real property owners may request a review of the key
principles and methodology any time following the date of the department notice as described in section 4
below, up to the time of plan adoption or finalization. In accordance with the guidance ODOT has provided in
PDLT Operational Notice PD-03 that provides official ODOT interpretive guidance on this topic, the project
team proposes that once development of key principles and methodology occurs through standard
development and review process (PMT develops, TAC/SAC/PC/CC/GT review and provide feedback), Council
and GT would be asked to pass a motion directing staff to send the notice of review of key principles and
Attachment 2, Page 30 of 34
31 | Page
methodology. Then, the project team sends 20-day notice (likely after GT Meeting #2). Depending on
requests for Collaborative Discussions and/or Dispute Review Board, City would approve by Resolution and
ODOT would issue letter of approval.
4. Notifications
The OARs for Access Management in Highway Facility Plans (734-051-7010) describe how property owners
and other interested parties provide input, the notifications that ODOT must provide, and how the Key
Principles and Methodology are approved.
1st Notice: Notification of Planning Process
• Describes planning process, identifies opportunities for stakeholder participation, and provides contact info
for project leader and links to obtain updates.
• Sent to affected real property owners and, where possible, property lessees and business operators that
abut the state highway, local governments, stakeholders representing the freight industry and economic
development, and others who have expressed interest in the planning process by writing or email.
• Timing: Sent at beginning of planning process, following adoption of Community Engagement Plan.
(anticipated late September/early October 2018)
• Lead Agency: City of Springfield
• Approving Agency: ODOT Region 2
• Letterhead: City/ODOT combination for Main Street Safety Project
2nd Notice: Notice and Review of Key Principles for Affected Real Property Owners
• Address how properties abutting state highway will be evaluated to retain or obtain access to the state
highway during and after plan implementation and includes anticipated timeline for plan implementation.
• Key Principles and Access Management Methodology are included in this notice
• Sent to all affected real property owners, and where possible include property lessees and business
owners
• Timing: at least 20 days prior to the approval by ODOT and local agencies
• Lead Agency: City of Springfield
• Approving Agency: ODOT Region 2
• Letterhead: City/ODOT combination for Main Street Safety Project
3rd Notice: Access Management Dispute Review Board
• Where an affected real property owner requests review of the key principles or related methodology by the
Access Management Dispute Review Board, all affected property owners are invited to participate in the
Board process. Board meeting must be scheduled within 45 days from date of written request, unless
extension agreed to in writing.
• Sent to all affected real property owners
• Timing: No timeline specified in OARs; assume notification is sent once meeting is scheduled.
• Lead Agency: City of Springfield
• Approving Agency: ODOT Region 2
Attachment 2, Page 31 of 34
32 | Page
• Letterhead: City/ODOT combination for Main Street Safety Project
5. Collaborative Discussions logistics and decision-making
This section discusses a) the process and timing for selecting participants, b) how the City and ODOT will
collaborate in responding to requests for Collaborative Discussions; and c) the process by which Collaborative
Discussions may be resolved.
Process/Timing for selecting participants
OARs indicate that the ODOT Region Manager may include the following participants in Collaborative
Discussions:
• Any ODOT staff appropriate or necessary in the collaborative discussion process
• Appropriate local government representatives
• Other facility users, economic development representatives, and other parties which region manager
believes will contribute to finding appropriate solutions
This document identifies a pool of possible participants from which the Region Manager can select the final
participants in accordance with the nature of specific requests. Possible participants in the aforementioned
categories are as follows (names will be included in final discussion paper):
• ODOT staff
Area 5 Manager
Region 2 Access Management Engineer
Region 2 Traffic Engineer
Region 2 Transportation Safety Coordinator
Region 2 Traffic Investigations Engineer & ARTS Program Coordinator
• City representatives
City Traffic Engineer
Economic Development Manager
• Other facility users, economic development representatives, and other parties
UO PPPM Professor
Leasing broker or appraiser
Springfield Public Schools - bussing and walking perspective
Planning & Development Manager, Willamalane Park & Recreation District
Jin Plummer, Columbia Bank
AARP/DHS/LCOG - senior and persons with disabilities perspective
Corridor emergency services business manager
Response to Requests for Collaborative Discussions
• Timing: Must occur within 45 days of written request, unless agree to time extension.
• Process & Roles/Responsibilities: Notice will offer that recipient may discuss the Key Principles and
Methodology further without requesting a Collaborative Discussion by contacting Region 2 Planner/ODOT
Project Manager, by telephone or email. ODOT’s Project Manager will document any communication in
accordance with the communication protocols outlined in Appendix A of the Main Street Safety Project
Community Engagement Plan.
Attachment 2, Page 32 of 34
33 | Page
Notice will stipulate that recipient submit a request for a Collaborative Discussion in writing within 21 days
of the date of the letter to:
Region 2 Manager
455 Airport Road SE, Bldg B
Salem, OR 97301-5395
Region 2 Manager support staff (or project consultants) will coordinate participant invitations and meeting
logistics.
Outcome of Collaborative Discussions
The OARs describes the process by which Collaborative Discussions may be resolved. The criteria by which
the Region Manager makes a decision on the outcomes from the Collaborative Discussions are the same as
for key principles and methodology (OAR734-051-7010(3)(b) and 734-051-7010(4)). If the Region Manager
determines modifications to the Key Principles and Methodology are warranted, the Region Manager shall
‘remand’ it back to planning process. The final version of this discussion paper will include criteria by which the
project team will determine how to resolve revisions to key principles and methodology, i.e. major v. minor
revisions and whether modifications go back through the same review process that was employed to develop
the key principles and methodology (PMT/SAC/TAC/PC/CC/GT). If the Region Manager determines no
modifications to the Key Principles and Methodology should be made, the Region Manager issues an approval
letter to ODOT Project Manager so that remaining tasks for Facility Plan can proceed.
6. Dispute Review Board logistics and decision-making
This section discusses a) DRB participants b) how the City and ODOT will collaborate in responding to
requests for DRB; and c) the outcome of DRB.
Selecting Dispute Review Board members
OARs indicate that the Dispute Review Board shall include any or all of the following:
• The Director, or designee of the director who is familiar with the location for which the Facility Plan is being
prepared
• A representative of the local jurisdiction
• An independent professional engineer with education or experience in traffic engineering
• A representative from the economic or business sector
This document specifies participants to be appointed to the DRB, if needed. Participants proposed in the
aforementioned categories are as follows (names will be included in final discussion paper):
• The Director, or designee
Region 2 Manager
• City representative
Councilor, Main Street Governance Team
• Independent professional traffic engineer
Independent professional traffic engineer with statewide policy experience
• Representative from the economic or business sector
Business Oregon South Valley Regional Solutions team member
Attachment 2, Page 33 of 34
34 | Page
Director, Lane Metro Partnership
LCC President or UO Lundquist
Response to Requests for Dispute Review Board
• Timing: Must occur within 45 days of written request, unless agree to time extension in writing
• Process & Roles/Responsibilities: Notice will offer that recipient may discuss the Key Principles and
Methodology further without requesting a Dispute Review Board by contacting Region 2 Planner/ODOT
Project Manager, by telephone or email. ODOT’s Project Manager will document any communication in
accordance with the communication protocols outlined in Appendix A of the Main Street Safety Project
Community Engagement Plan.
Notice will stipulate that recipient submit a request for a Dispute Review Board in writing within 21 days of
the date of the letter to:
Region 2 Manager
455 Airport Road SE, Bldg B
Salem, OR 97301-5395
Region 2 Manager support staff (or project consultants) will coordinate participant invitations and meeting
logistics.
Dispute Review Board decision
• Recommendation to ODOT Director within 14 days of deliberation
• Director makes decision within 21 days
• Note: This is not a land use decision
Similar to Collaborative Discussions, the OARs describes the process by which the Dispute Review Board
arrives at a decision – the same as for key principles and methodology (OAR734-051-7010(3)(b) and 734-051-
7010(4)). If the Dispute Review Board determines modifications to the Key Principles and Methodology are
warranted, the Dispute Review Board shall ‘remand’ it back to planning process. The final version of this
discussion paper will include criteria by which the project team will determine how to resolve revisions to key
principles and methodology, i.e. major v. minor revisions and whether modifications go back through the same
review process that was employed to develop the key principles and methodology
(PMT/SAC/TAC/PC/CC/GT). If the Region Manager determines no modifications to the Key Principles and
Methodology should be made, the Region Manager issues an approval letter to ODOT Project Manager so that
remaining tasks for Facility Plan can proceed. If the Dispute Review Board determines no modifications to the
Key Principles and Methodology should be made, the Director issues an approval letter to ODOT Project
Manager so that remaining tasks for Facility Plan can proceed.
7. Process Diagram
DKS to create draft graphic based on ODOT version and revise based on PCT/PMT feedback prior to 9/5 CCI
meeting (final version to be inserted in final discussion paper).
Attachment 2, Page 34 of 34
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 7 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 8 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 9 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 10 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 11 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 12 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 13 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 14 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 15 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 16 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 17 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 18 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 19 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 20 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 21 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 22 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 23 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 24 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 25 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 26 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 27 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 28 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 29 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 30 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 31 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 32 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 33 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 34 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 35 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 36 of 37
Attachment 3, Page 37 of 37