HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 05 01 AIS TSP Draft Policy ReviewAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/1/2012
Meeting Type:Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: David Reesor/DPW
Staff Phone No: 726-4585
S P R I N G F I E L D
PLANNING COMMISSION
Estimated Time: 45 Minutes
ITEM TITLE: SPRINGFIELD TSP UPDATE – DRAFT POLICY AND ACTION ITEM
REVIEW.
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Staff seeks feedback from the Planning Commission on the attached document. Staff
will forward Planning Commission comments and/or recommendations to the City
Council for consideration.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The Transportation System Plan (TSP) update will address long-range (20-year)
transportation needs for the City of Springfield in part by implementing goals and
policies. Existing goals, objectives and policies found in TransPlan were used as a basis
to begin the update. Staff also used Council and Planning Commission input from
previous work sessions, as well as input from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee,
Technical Advisory Committee, Project Core Team and the pubic to develop draft
goals, policies and action items. At this time, Staff will present public comments
received to-date and responses from staff, and provide opportunity for Planning
Commission input on potential revisions to the draft policies and action items.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft TSP Goals, Policies and Action Items – public comments and staff responses.
DISCUSSION:
The attached draft goals, policies and action items were formed and refined
with the following input:
• Staff review and evaluation of existing TransPlan goals and policies.
• September 21, 2010, Planning Commission Work Session – TransPlan
goal and policy prioritization exercise.
• October 4, 2010, Council Work Session - presented results of Planning
Commission prioritization exercise; discussed overview of goal and
policy context and regional issues.
• October 18, 2010, Council Work Session - discussed local values and
issues.
• December 1, 2010, Technical Advisory Committee meeting - presented
and discussed draft goals and policies.
• January 27, 2011, Stakeholder Advisory Committee meeting -
presented and discussed draft goals and policies.
• February 7, 2011, Community Workshop - presented and discussed
draft goals.
• March 2, 2011, Project Core Team meeting - reviewed and commented
on draft goals and policies.
• March 15, 2011, Planning Commission – reviewed and commented on
draft goals and policies.
• March 2011 – present – Draft goals and policies posted on project
website.
• April 4, 2012 – Public Open House – draft policies available for public
comment.
• April 16, 2012 – Project Core Team meeting – reviewed comments to-
date and discussed staff responses.
Staff will present public input received to date and facilitate a discussion to solicit
Planning Commission input. The attached document includes draft goals, policies,
action items public comments, and Staff’s responses to public comments.
TSP policy draft comments and proposed revisions for discussion – May 1st, 2012
The tables below show the TSP policies, comments from stakeholders and recommended changes. The
highlighted comments are from Larry Reed unless otherwise noted. Comments from Peace Health are noted as
PH. Staff’s responses and/or proposed action are listed in the right hand column.
Goal 1: Community Development Project Core Team’s Response /
Proposed action
Policy 1.1: Manage Springfield’s street, bike, pedestrian, rail and transit
system to facilitate economic growth of existing and future businesses in
Springfield.
Action: When evaluating needed roadway improvements, consider the
economic viability of existing commercial and industrial areas.
Add this action (slightly revised from
Larry Reed’s suggested language).
Action: Strive to maintain existing commercial and industrial enterprise
viability by limiting new development regulations to new developments
or the expansion of existing development when greater than 50 percent
of their current size or a 50 percent increase in traffic trips is being
generated.
This is a development/code issues
and should not be addressed in the
TSP.
Action: Consider the economic impacts when writing new regulations;
inlcuding provisions for flexibility in the these new rules’ application.
Such flexibility should be written to avoid creation of another process,
undue time delays, and to mimize cost.
This is a development/code issues
and should not be addressed in the
TSP. The TSP policies already provide
for flexibility.
Policy 1.2: Consider environmental impacts of the overall transportation
system and strive to mitigate negative effects and enhance positive
features.
Action: Strive to reduce vehicle‐related greenhouse gas emissions
through more sustainable street, bike, pedestrian, transit and rail
network design, location and management.
Core Team suggested adding
language about congestion
reduction.
Action: Coordinate the transportation network with new alternative
energy Infrastructure such as electric vehicle charging stations, natural
gas and hydrogen cell fueling stations.
Core Team suggested track change
edits as listed.
Policy 1.3: Provide a multi‐modal transportation system that support
mixed use areas, major employment centers, recreation, commercial,
residential and public developments, to reduce reliance on single‐
occupancy vehicles.
Policy 1.4: Strive to increase the percentage of bicycle and pedestrian
system users by planning, designing and managing systems to support
the needs of diverse populations and types of users.
Action: Create a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes and way‐
finding signage that guides users to destination points.
Attachment 1-1
Goal 2: System Management Proposed action
Policy 2.1: Manage the roadway system to preserve safety, longevity and
operational efficiency as may be reasonably implemented.
This change would add confusion to
the policy. Do not make change.
Action: Evaluate, update and implement access management regulations
to roadways for new or modified access to the roadway system. Write
and implement any new access management regulations so as to provide
the continued use of existing driveway access from a property’s primary
street frontage; such as allowing for right‐in/out access, including the
possibility in some situations for a left‐in access.
This change is too specific for the
TSP. The action as written directs
staff to develop access management
regulations. This discussion should
occur as those regulations are
developed. One minor suggested
edit would be to add in language to
“consider existing access.”
Action: Monitor and adjust signal timing along key corridors as needed to
improve traffic flow and safety.
Make change – reduce congestion is
somewhat redundant to traffic flow
Action: Evaluate and adjust traffic control systems to optimize bicycle
travel along strategic bicycle routes.
Action: Use motor vehicle level of service standards to evaluate
acceptable and reliable performance on the roadway system.1
Evaluate, update and implement vehicle mobility standards to
correspond to Springfield’s urban setting; consider reducing mobility
standards, including motor vehicle LOS to evaluate acceptable
performance on roadway system. This action should including working
with ODOT, OTC and state legislature to develop two sets of roadway and
driveway access standards (one rural and one urban).
The state’s access management
standards will be applied to state
facilities. The TSP cannot supersede
those state policies.
For LOS standards, the TSP will
consider LOS standards based on the
future build traffic analysis. The TSP
may also consider alternate mobility
standards on state facilities as
necessary.
Action: Coordinate with LTD to provide auto, pedestrian and bicycle
connections to the transit network.
Action: As part of an ODOT roadway improvement project, require ODOT
To accommodate the continued use of existing access or allow for
relocated access within the context of improving the situation through
the reduction in the number of drives, including the consolidation of
access drives, allowing right‐in, right out access along a property’s
primary street frontage.
The TSP cannot supersede ODOT
policy for access on ODOT facilities.
Action: As part of ODOT’s roadway improvement project, require ODOT
to build missing portions of the city’s roadway system as an alternative to
vehicles having to use the state’s highway improvement.
The TSP cannot set ODOT policy.
ODOT and the City currently
coordinate on state transportation
improvements within the City,
Policy 2.2: Manage traffic operation systems for efficient freight/goods
movement along designated freight, truck and rail routes in Springfield.
Action: Adjust traffic control systems to discourage through truck traffic
through residential areas (general concerns about the language and
what this means)
Do not change action language.
However, one minor suggested edit is
to remove the word “sensitive.”
Action: Coordinate with rail provider to improve at‐grade rail crossing Minor grammatical edit
1 This Action Item will need additional revision and follow‐up near the end of the TSP process, after completing future conditions analysis.
Attachment 1-2
treatments to improve traffic flow and manage conflict points; create
grade separated rail crossings when possible
Policy 2.3: Expand existing TDM programs related to carpooling,
alternate work schedules, walking, bicycling and transit use in order to
reduce peak hour congestion and reliance on single‐occupancy vehicles.
Policy 2.4: Maintain and preserve safe and efficient bike and pedestrian
system in Springfield.
Action: Coordinate with Willamalane to maintain and preserve the off‐
street path system.
Action: Prioritize lighting in strategic areas with high pedestrian and
bicycle traffic.
Policy 2.5: Coordinate with LTD to increase the transit system’s
accessibility and convenience for all users, including the transportation
disadvantaged population.
Action: When possible, manage traffic control systems to reduce travel
time for transit and other High Occupancy Vehicles (HOVs) along key
corridors.
Action: Monitor and adjust bus stop locations as needed to support
surrounding land uses and provide more efficient and safe service.
Action: Coordinate with LTD to reflect LTD’s long range plans into
Springfield’s transportation system.
Policy 2.6: Manage the on‐street parking system to preserve adequate
capacity and turnover for surrounding land uses, while also assuring
major activity centers meet their parking demand through a combination
of shared, leased, and new off‐street parking facilities and TDM
programs.
Separate out an “on‐street” and “off‐
street” policy.
Action: Implement Springfield’s adopted July 2010 Downtown Parking
Management Plan.
Action: Develop a maximum parking requirement based on land uses.
The purpose of this action is to avoid the unnecessary use of lands for
off‐street parking for new developments. (Delete, LR and PH)
Do not delete. Consider adding an
“off‐street” policy and/or revising
this Action. Action item should
include language to “reduce parking
to utilize land for economic
development …”
Policy 2.7: Maximize the use and utility of existing infrastructure through
efficient management of traffic control devises.
Goal 3: System Design Proposed Action
Policy 3.1: Adopt and maintain a Conceptual Street Map. (PH – change
to reflect that the conceptual street map will be formally adopted as part
of the TSP; clarify which classifications the local conceptual street map
applies to)
In policy and/or action statement(s)
under this policy, add language to
“indicate the approximate location of
planned local street on the adopted
conceptual street map.” NOTE: local
streets are not “adopted” on the map,
Attachment 1-3
but just shown as reference.
Action: Update and maintain Springfield’s Local Conceptual Street Map
to address transportation system deficiencies, goals and policies. The
Local Conceptual Street Map should provide flexibility in connecting
destination points, while also providing assurance to adjacent property
owners to the degree possible. (PH – change to reflect that the
conceptual street map will be formally adopted as part of the TSP)
See above
Action: Ensure that land use decisions conform to the Conceptual Street
Map. (PH – change to reflect that the conceptual street map will be
formally adopted as part of the TSP)
See above
Action: Develop a Pedestrian and Bike Master Plan that incorporates
Springfield’s complete street network to address significant gaps and
system deficiencies.
Policy 3.2: Expand and enhance Springfield’s bikeway system and provide
bicycle system support facilities for both new development and
redevelopment/expansion.
Action: Require bike lanes and / or adjacent paths along new and
reconstructed arterial and major collector streets.
Action: Provide bike lanes on collector and arterial streets; provide
parallel routes and bike boulevards on adjacent streets.
Action: Create frequent bike and pedestrian crossings on wide or high
speed streets using approved design techniques.
Action: Require bike lanes and paths to connect new development with
nearby neighborhood activity centers and major destinations.
Action: Install shared‐roadway facilities, markings and/or signage for
bicyclists along roadways with slow vehicular traffic. On‐street pavement
markings and traffic calming measures should be considered along such
routes.
Action: Create city‐wide bike parking stations in strategic locations such
as along major transit routes and in Springfield’s central business district.
Policy 3.3: Street design standards should be flexible and allow
appropriate sized local, collector and arterials streets based upon traffic
flow, geography, efficient land use, social, economic and environmental
impacts
Action: Conduct a comprehensive review and update of Springfield street
standards and development code to address transportation system
deficiencies, goals and policies.
Action: Consider effects of storm water runoff in street design and
reduce runoff through environmentally sensitive street designs for new
and reconstructed streets.
Action: Incorporate traffic calming measures into street designs and
standards where appropriate and with consideration to needs of
emergency services vehicles. Traffic calming measures should reduce
vehicular speeds and bypass traffic while encouraging safe bicycle and
Attachment 1-4
pedestrian travel.
Action: Integrate pedestrian amenities into street designs that create
pedestrian refuges and allow safe and continuous pedestrian travel.
Action: Provide mid‐block pedestrian crossings where appropriate
between major pedestrian destinations and along major pedestrian
corridors.
Action: Develop criteria in which to evaluate alternative street design
concepts.
Policy 3.4: Provide for a continuous transportation network with
reasonably direct travel routes between destination points for all modes
of travel.
Action: Design new streets to provide a connected grid network,
including alleyways, when technically feasible.
Action: Construct sidewalks or other suitable pedestrian facilities along
local streets and along urban area arterial and collector roadways,
except freeways.
Policy 3.5: Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit
users, bicyclists, pedestrians, freight and the needs of emergency
vehicles when planning and constructing roadway system improvements.
Policy 3.6: Preserve corridors, such as rail rights‐of‐way, private roads,
and easements that are identified for future transportation‐related uses.
Policy 3.7: Provide for a pedestrian environment that supports adjacent
land uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and
convenience of walking by providing direct routes and removing barriers
when possible.
Action: Update and maintain the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Transition Plan to address deficiencies in the existing system.
Action: Utilize safety studies such as the Main Street Safety Study and
the City of Springfield Safety Study to improve pedestrian conditions
along major pedestrian corridors.
Policy 3.8: Coordinate the design of Springfield’s Transportation System
with relevant local, regional and state agencies.
Action: Work with Oregon Department of Transportation, Lane County
and Lane Transit District to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities
along state highways and major transit routes where appropriate.
Action: Coordinate with Springfield Public Schools to provide key bicycle,
pedestrian and transit facilities and near schools to ensure safe and
convenient routes to schools.
Action: Partner with LTD to provide BRT connection along major
corridors and connecting with local neighborhood bus service and with
major activity centers.
Action: Coordinate existing and planned transportation system and land
uses with Lane Transit District to expand the Park‐and‐Ride system when
Attachment 1-5
possible within Springfield.
Action: Coordinate with Willamalane Park and Recreation District to
address bicycle and pedestrian system deficiencies and address new
transportation system goals and policies in the Willamalane
Comprehensive Plan.
Action: Develop and implement criteria that trigger jurisdictional phasing
and transfer of roads, highways and other applicable transportation
facilities.
Action: Coordinate with Lane County to assure transition between rural
and urban transportation facilities.
Action: Coordination with ODOT and Lane County to assure an improved
roadway system connectivity
Action: Coordinate with Lane County, ODOT and the City of Eugene to
ensure regional transportation system connectivity.
Add a revised policy as shown.
Coordination with Lane County is
addressed above.
Policy 3.9: Support provision of rail‐related infrastructure improvements
as part of the Cascadia High‐Speed Rail Corridor project.
Action: In coordination with agency partners, develop a Passenger Rail
Plan in support of Springfield’s Downtown District Urban Design Plan.
Revise this to be broader more than
just “ODOT rail.” Ultimately, it won’t
be just ODOT rail’s decision. It will
likely be the State Legislature in
coordination with Eugene, Springfield,
ODOT, etc.
Action: Give further consideration and study of regional high speed
passenger rail needs – these needs should be coordinated with the
Springfield Downtown District Plan and Implementation Strategy.
Policy 3.10:
When a project includes planning, reconstructing or constructing new
intersections, all intersection control types are to be evaluated including
statutory control, sign control, geometric control and signal control. The
City’s preferred alternative will be selected primarily on safety and
operational efficiency in the context of mobility needs for all users,
adjacent existing and planned land uses, access considerations, site
constraints, availability of right‐of‐way, environmental factors, phasing
and future needs, construction and operational costs.
Action: When analyzing the appropriate treatment for a new or
reconstructed intersection, the City will consider mobility needs for all
users, adjacent existing and planned land uses, access considerations,
safety for all users, site constraints, availability of right‐of‐way,
environmental factors, phasing and future needs, construction costs and
operational coasts.
Proposed rewrite from PH:
When a project includes reconstructing or constructing new intersections,
a roundabout alternative is to be analyzed along with other intersection
control forms and determine the feasibility of each based upon factors
including: existing and planned land uses (adjacent and affected by
proposed intersection(s) and roadways), traffic circulation and access
Make clarifying changes to the policy.
Revise final sentence of policy as
shown.
Add action describing the analysis
process per comments received.
Objective of proposed change is that
RABs are on equal footing, not
necessarily superior. Intersection
decision should be based on which
provides best safety and operational
efficiency
Attachment 1-6
TSP POLICY DRAFT COMMENTS AND PROPOSED REVISIONS FOR DISCUSSION – MAY 1ST, 2012
WS TSP DRAFT POLICY REVIEW ATT 1 .DOCX /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] 7
considerations, types of traffic and vehicles commonly using the
intersection and transportation facilities (e.g. freight, vehicles), safety for
bicycle and pedestrian access as well as safety for the visually impaired
and elderly, site constraints, availability of right‐of‐way, environmental
factors, other design constraints, potential for phasing and/or changes to
intersection controls over time, and initial construction costs and long
term operational costs.
Action: Prior to selecting a roundabout as a design solution, involve
representatives of the disabled (ADA) community, biking representatives,
trucking industry representatives and LTD operations engineers for their
input prior to the roundabout becoming a preferred alternative.
Revised roundabout policy above. Do
not include.
Goal 4: System Financing Proposed action
Policy 4.1: Support development of a stable and flexible transportation
finance system that provides adequate resources for transportation
needs identified in Springfield’s Transportation System Plan (TSP).
Action: Develop criteria that support adopted TSP goals and policies and
that help prioritize transportation maintenance, preservation and
construction projects.
Action: Give funding priority to bicycle and pedestrian projects that
address significant gaps in the network and that provide key linkages to
other transportation modes.
Action: Give funding priority to safety actions and operations to
maximize use and utility of existing system.
Action: Provide financing incentive to new and existing local businesses
that discourage single occupancy auto trips.
Action: Require that new development pay for its proportional capacity
impact on the transportation system through ongoing rate updates of
Springfield’s System Development Charge and through proportional
exactions as part of the land development process.
Action: Give funding priority to roadway system connectivity projects that
address gaps in the City’s collector and arterial highway system and that
provide key linkages to other transportation modes.
Not necessary to add given other
policies and action items.
Attachment 1-7