Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGT 3.21.19_Agenda Packet The Main Street Safety Project is a collaborative effort between the City of Springfield and the Oregon Department of Transportation GOVERNANCE TEAM MEETING Thursday, March 21, 2019 2:30 – 4:00 pm Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room MEETING PURPOSE • Hear project updates on community engagement and public meetings • Discuss current technical work on existing conditions inventories • Provide guidance on project goals & objectives AGENDA 2:30 Welcome & Introductions • Meeting Agenda & Purpose • Group introductions • Review previous meeting summary and committee protocols Mayor Christine Lundberg & Jeanne Lawson, JLA Public Involvement 2:45 Project Updates • Project Schedule & Upcoming Milestones • Online Open House and Focus Group highlights Molly Markarian, City of Springfield 3:00 Existing Conditions Inventories • Review transportation, land use and environmental inventories Molly & Jean Senechal Biggs, DKS Associates 3:25 Project Goals & Objectives • Review and provide guidance on Goals & Objectives Facilitated Discussion Springfield Main Street Safety Project Governance Team Meeting Thursday, March 21, 2019 AGENDA – page 2 3:55 Next Steps Molly & Jean 4:00 Close Meeting Next Meeting: Late June • Endorse project Goals & Objectives • Review Economic Impact Literature Review • Review Key Principles and Methodology The meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing-impaired, if you need a sign language interpreter to attend this meeting, please contact the City Manager’s Office at 541-726-3700 or cmo@springfield-or.gov or the ADA Coordinator Tom Mugleston at 541-726-3724 or tmugleston@springfield-or.gov. Please submit this request to the appropriate party at least five (5) days prior to the date of the scheduled meeting to allow enough time to fulfill your request. The meeting is open to the public to attend. No oral public comments will be taken at the meeting. Please submit comments via the project website at http://ourmainstreetspringfield.org/feedback/. Approved X/X/18 MINUTES OF MEETING Main Street Governance Team Tuesday, June 5, 2018 Library Meeting Room – Springfield City Hall 1:00 - 3:30 p.m. Attendees: Governance Team Councilor Marilee Woodrow, City of Springfield Frannie Brindle, Oregon Department of Transportation Kate Reid, Lane Transit District Gino Grimaldi, City of Springfield Councilor Leonard Stoehr, City of Springfield Steven Yett, Lane Transit District Aurora Jackson, Lane Transit District Project Staff Tom Schwetz, Lane Transit District Sasha Luftig, Lane Transit District Brian Barnett, City of Springfield Molly Markarian, City of Springfield Bill Johnston, Oregon Department of Transportation Tom Boyatt, City of Springfield Michael Liebler, City of Springfield Loralyn Spiro, City of Springfield Emma Newman, City of Springfield Jeanne Lawson, JLA Public Involvement Shareen Springer, JLA Public Involvement Jean Senechal-Biggs, DKS Guests Mike Eyster Joe Bruns Rob Zako, BEST Jeff Wing Hyunsook Kim Tamara Pitman, Springfield Utility Board Absent 1. Welcome and Introductions Councilman Stoehr called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. Those present introduced themselves. Ms. Lawson went over the meeting’s agenda. Ms. Woodrow moved to approve the minutes from the May 8, 2017 meeting. Ms. Reid seconded the motion. All voted to approve the minutes. Mr. Yett abstained. MINUTES—Main Street Governance Team June 5, 2018 Page 2 2. Springfield Main Street Safety Project Update Ms. Biggs gave an overview of the project and its phases. Ms. Markarian explained that the purpose of the project is to engage the community and decision makers in helping to decide the right type of median for the Main Street Corridor. Ms. Biggs went over the project’s schedule and milestones. The team is currently in the beginning kick-off and identifying community priorities. The last step is presenting a draft plan to City Council. It was clarified that the corridor Facility Plan will be adopted as a refinement of the Springfield Transportation System Plan and by the Oregon Transportation Committee as a facility plan. 3. Project Purpose Ms. Lawson asked the committee to look over the purpose statement and give any input. Ms. Reid said that members of that community have suggested that LTD not be part of the Governance Team because if the team is not talking about transit it is hard to connect the project to LTD. LTD would like to know how they fit in the project, and if they don’t, how can they remove themselves. Ms. Jackson said that LTD wants to support the Team but they don’t want it to seem like they are heavily influencing any decisions. Clarifying LTD’s role will help with public perception. Ms. Woodrow said that it is important to utilize LTD in the movement of goods and people in the corridor but it is not a build team. It is a team to work on safety. The focus is on safety and how to respond to what the community has asked for. Their concern is increased safety in the corridor. LTD’s role is there but maybe it will take more time to define it. Personally, she would not want to see them being cut out. Mr. Grimaldi added that bringing the Transit Study and the Main Street Safety Project together benefits the corridor’s business and property owners. Ms. Reid suggested that a transparent conversation about all the transit options would be helpful. Ms. Lawson said that one of the modifications was how to articulate the transit piece. No changes to the Purpose Statement were proposed. Ms. Woodrow moved to accept the Purpose Statement. Ms. Brindle seconded. All voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Lawson asked the team to consider what outcomes they would like to see from the planning phase and to write them on a piece of paper. She then asked for what was written. Ms. Brindle said a safer corridor, a decision about infrastructure safety improvement, and a build alternative. MINUTES—Main Street Governance Team June 5, 2018 Page 3 Mr. Stoehr said alternative routes for thru commercial traffic because of confusion navigating the traffic circles and coordinated street planning with speed enforcement. Ms. Jackson said a clearer understanding of the integration of safety improvements and transit. Mr. Grimaldi said a long-term vision for the corridor and for the ability for business and property owners to plan for the future. Ms. Woodrow wrote visual aesthetics that promote safe travel and movement through the corridor, not harming or impeding business access, and including the voice of public safety in the planning phase, and making sure to involve the school district in safety education planning. Ms. Reid wrote clear community feedback and engagement opportunities, transit alternatives that fit the Springfield community, and clear message labeling. Ms. Lawson asked if transit mode choice should be added. Mr. Grimaldi replied that they had started a conversation about transit alternatives and hopes that the final outcome is completing that discussion. Ms. Lawson proposed putting that out of the planning phase transit mode choice is identified. Ms. Reid asked if that is the right timeline for it. Ms. Luftig replied that they had discussed integrating that early in the process and then, as the facility plan unfolds, it will define the details of how transit fits in the corridor. Transit mode choice was added. Ms. Lawson clarified that the issue is design concepts, as opposed to specific designs. Mr. Yett asked if they are going to be giving the community on the corridor a directive or options. He emphasized the importance of having a dialogue. Ms. Markarian answered that in the beginning there will be lots of options, but with input, they will be narrowed down. Ms. Woodrow added that they will be getting feedback from the people on the corridor. Mr. Stoehr asked if the strategic locations of the medians will be related to density of traffic, speed, and visibility in the area. What will determine the location of the medians? Mr. Johnson responded that will be looking at all those factors. It is a robust planning study with traffic engineers, and even an economist, on board. They will be considering potential median configurations with breaks in strategic locations, out-of-direction travel, how roundabouts will allow for out-of-direction travel, other breaks in the medians, and bigger properties that are the key traffic generators. There is no intent to have a continuous median. 4. Decision-Making Structure & Partner Roles Ms. Lawson went over and explained the Decision-Making graphic. MINUTES—Main Street Governance Team June 5, 2018 Page 4 Ms. Markarian added that they have not defined the categories of participation for the Corridor Strategic Advisory Committee but it will reflect the input level. Members will be a variety of community members. Ms. Lawson went over the Communication Protocols handout which she feels is important because of the team alternates. The Team agreed with the proposed protocol edits. Ms. Lawson asked if the Chair has been the spokesperson for the team. Ms. Woodrow said that it has varied by situation. Mr. Stoehr agreed that it is reasonable to say that the Chair speaks on behalf of the team unless someone else is designated. Ms. Lawson asked if everyone agrees that if you do speak outside of the group, and within, that you are speaking in support of the process. Would the team like her to write a protocol that states that? The Team agreed with Ms. Lawson and would like her to write that protocol. Ms. Reid added that most information brought to the community has been through staff presentations and it is different than the consensus reached at the meetings. This has led to miscommunication over time. Ms. Lawson suggested a protocol that says staff will keep everyone informed of communications so you will know when people will be going out to the public. Also, that you are informed of what developments there are in the project. Ms. Brindle agrees that it would be helpful if the team was notified when information is going to be relayed outside of the team, in like a presentation. The team agreed with Ms. Brindle. Ms. Jackson wants to make sure that by adopting the protocols that LTD doesn’t lose its voice. Ms. Lawson clarified that the protocols are just to ensure respectful communication in the process. Ms. Woodrow moved to approve the protocols. Ms. Brindle seconded the motion. All approved the motion. 5. Public Involvement Overview & Discussion Ms. Springer went over the goals and purpose of the Public Involvement Plan. It is important that there are a variety of tools to engage a variety of people and making sure that the tools match the needs, interest, and goals of the population. Ms. Lawson clarified that they want to build on the community input and not ignore it to start from scratch. They are also using previous work that identified the target stakeholder groups. MINUTES—Main Street Governance Team June 5, 2018 Page 5 Ms. Lawson asked the team if there are any missing conversations that are currently going on in the community. Ms. Brindle wants to make sure that previous technical work is also included with community engagement. She also asked if there was a need for looking at funding opportunities. For example, there is money available through Safe Routes to Schools and there are schools along the corridor. Mr. Stoehr added the possible impact the median will have on the Main Street businesses. Mr. Johnson said that he thinks it is important to recognize, under livable communities, the importance of being able to cross the street. Ms. Woodrow said that it is important to keep in mind that three blocks from the corridor is where the Springfield community lives. Ms. Reid said that, from her previous work on W. 11th, what they are missing are conversations directly with business and property owners, and it would be impactful to have them. Ms. Woodrow agreed with Ms. Reid and said that Springfield had the conversations five years ago when the transit study project started. Ms. Brindle said that she wanted to make sure that public involvement continues throughout the whole project. Ms. Lawson asked the team to name some key messages. Mr. Yett said that they need continuous open and true dialog with the community. Also, letting businesses know how long the project will take and informing them of any disruptions that may occur. Ms. Reid added that there is a real need for a reminder of context. Mr. Stoehr suggested reminding stakeholders on the corridor that the improvements will not drive up rent or overhead costs. It could increase business though. Ms. Woodrow said that letting the community know that they have a responsibility to also improve safety in the corridor is an important point. 6. Next Steps Ms. Biggs went over the next steps of the project. This summer they will be doing their inventory analysis and developing a public engagement plan. Mr. Stoehr adjourned the meeting at 3:11 p.m. (Recorded by Jolynn Barker) Main Street Governance Team Protocols -- Page 1 of 3 SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET GOVERNANCE TEAM COMMITTEE PROTOCOLS DOCUMENT Updated 3/21/19 I. Purpose of Partnering Protocols The purpose of this document is to describe the Team’s expectations, outline partner roles and responsibilities, and establish communication and decision procedures. II. Participation The Team consists of the following agencies and jurisdictions (listed in alphabetical order): • City of Springfield (City): Mayor Christine Lundberg and Councilor Marilee Woodrow , 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) This Team will be referred to as the “Main Street Governance Team.” Additional agencies and jurisdictions may be included in Team activities when and if it becomes appropriate. All members will agree upon any additional team organizations or agencies according to the decision protocols below. III. Team Mission Team members will provide informed direction and final collaborative decision making to support a range of current Main Street projects: Main Street Safety Project (MSSP); Main- McVay Transit Study (MMTS); Main Street Pedestrian Crossings; Downtown Lighting Project. Former guidance included past projects: SmartTrips and Main Street Corridor Vision Plan. IV. Team Goals The Team has two primary goals: • The Main Street projects will undertake a public involvement strategy that first works to identify existing and anticipated needs and issues and then identifies solutions. • The Main Street projects are well coordinated with each other to leverage project efficiencies and to provide a unified public outreach program that avoids duplication and confusion among the project activities. V. Partner Roles and Responsibilities Communication • The Governance Team will act as a communication link among jurisdictions and as liaison to their respective organizations. • Preferred method of communication to and among Members will be email. A header or subject line containing the terms “Main Street Governance Team” will be included with all emails related to the project. MARKARIAN Molly 3/12/2019 2:19 PM Deleted: (Alternate: Councilor Leonard Stoehr) Main Street Governance Team Protocols -- Page 2 of 3 Good Faith Members are appointed by their respective agency leadership to represent their respective agencies and jurisdictions and act in good faith by: • Being informed on relevant issues; • Communicating issues to their organizations and governing bodies, and gathering feedback and agreement from governing bodies to communicate back to the project teams and Governance Team; • Communicating with each other with respect and candor; and • Following through with respective project responsibilities in a timely manner. Information Flow Expectations and Responsibilities • Members are free to speak about their own experience in the group as individuals, but not to speak for the group. Inquiries about the Governance Team requiring a comprehensive response should be referred to the Chair who is designated to speak on behalf of the Governance Team unless the Chair designates another Governance Team member to do so. When Governance Team members speak internally and externally about projects, they shall support the agreed upon decision-making process. • The Project Leaders Team (PLT), made up of the project leaders from the Main Street Projects, will coordinate and collaborate on project development and delivery and maintain regular communication with the Governance Team by sending brief quarterly e- mails detailing project progress, pending decisions, upcoming work, community feedback and emerging issues. • The Oversight Team (OT), made up of managers from the City, LTD, and ODOT, will provide a sounding board for project issues, either within one project or among more than one project and may provide issues resolution and task direction and/or bring forward to the Governance Team project issues for consideration and direction. • The Governance Team will be notified by e-mail about upcoming public events, including open houses and stakeholder meetings. • Governance Team alternates will receive all meeting packets and either attend Governance Team meetings or get briefed in between meetings by agency peers. Meetings • Meetings will take place in Springfield City Hall, unless otherwise determined by the Governance Team. The Mayor will chair the Governance Team meetings. • Governance Team meetings will be open to the public, and will be working meetings that do not involve public interaction. Multiple opportunities for public input will be scheduled and provided through the projects’ comprehensive community engagement processes. Written public comment can be provided via a comment box at the Governance Team meetings. Main Street Governance Team Protocols -- Page 3 of 3 • The Governance Team will meet as determined by the Governance Team and/or as requested by the Oversight Team. The Governance Team will only meet if all five voting members of the Team (or their designated alternates) are present. • Staff will provide agenda and packet materials prior to each meeting. • Staff will provide presentations to the Governance Team at key milestones and decision points as identified in the various projects’ scopes of work, or as requested by the Governance Team. VI. Decision-Making • Governance Team members understand and acknowledge that their individual organizations retain all final decision-making authority as provided under law with respect to the projects. • Decisions will be made by consensus. Consensus means all team members are sufficiently comfortable with a decision and can recommend it to their respective organizations. o When significant deliberative decisions are made, the Governance Team will follow a consensus-based decision-making model1. o For decisions other than ‘significant deliberative decisions,’ the Governance Team may use a thumbs-up/thumbs-down straw-pole vote based on a simple majority. o If consensus cannot readily be reached, the Governance Team will: ! Examine interests that are behind the disagreement; ! Focus on explaining why they have taken a specific position; ! Focus on finding creative solutions when disagreements arise; and ! Return issues to PLT for further consideration or information development to resolve conflicts and obtain consensus. 1 Consensus is defined as the broad agreement of the group to go ahead with the decision or choice. It does not imply that complete agreement with each aspect of the issue or proposal has been reached. However, it does imply that all members feel good about the choice even if they might have chosen other specific components. M E M O R A N D U M Main-McVay Transit Study Date: 3/21/2019 To: Main Street Governance Team COMMUNICATION From: Main-McVay Transit Study Project Management Team PACKET MEMORANDUM Subject: Main Street Transit Mode Choice INFORMATION SHARE: The Main-McVay Transit Study has been coordinating with the Main Street Safety Project to engage the community in planning along Main Street. The following information is an update on community feedback received and a staff recommendation on transit mode choice for Main Street. The transit mode choice decision will be brought to the Main Street Governance Team, City Council, and Lane Transit District (LTD) Board as part of the Locally Preferred Solution transit decision, which will also include deciding on transit alignment. This step will align with the Draft Plan and Policies step in the Main Street Safety Project Planning Phase process, which is shown on the current project schedule occurring in winter 2020. Issue The City of Springfield and LTD are going through a process to narrow the possible transit solutions for Main Street through the Main-McVay Transit Study. Through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning process, “build” projects are compared to “no build” projects so that a project that differs from existing conditions can be compared to existing conditions. The “build” project selected as a result of the Main-McVay Transit Study is referred to as a “Locally Preferred Solution” (LPS) and is comprised of transit mode choice (i.e. Enhanced Corridor or EmX) as well as transit alignment for each corridor. Based on this project’s community involvement efforts and technical analysis so far, staff recommends removing the EmX option from consideration as a short term (approximately next 10 years) transit solution for the Main Street Corridor and selecting Enhanced Corridor as the transit mode choice for the Main Street LPS. Background The purpose of the Main-McVay Transit Study is to evaluate the most promising transit options for the Main Street and McVay Highway Corridors as potential solutions to address growing concerns about safety, congestion, and quality of life that could be improved through transportation improvements. In Phase 1 of the Study, Main-McVay Corridor residents, businesses and property owners, education representatives, community organizations, agency staff, and elected and appointed officials met to share, learn about and understand these issues. Phase 1 considered technical analyses, reviewed a range of transit options, and identified the most promising transit options for the Main Street and McVay Highway Corridors. In spring 2015, the Springfield City Council and the LTD Board of Directors recommended that the most promising transit options, based on stakeholder input, should move forward for additional study. For Main Street, the options that were advanced for further study included: No-Change; Enhanced Corridor; and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), which is locally known as EmX. As part of Phase 2, the project team worked early and collaboratively with business and property owners to inform and solicit input regarding the future of public transportation along Main Street. Initial Phase 2 outreach included phone calls to business owners, corridor mailings, website updates, meetings on-site with business and property owners, public meetings at City Hall, presentations to community groups, e-updates, and individual correspondence and follow up to written comments that were submitted. The Main Street Governance Team met in May 3/13/2019 Page 2 2016, considered feedback received up until that point, and removed the widest right-of-way design option from further consideration and analysis. Based on community input, the Governance Team also directed the Study to further evaluate Enhanced Corridor as a design option in addition to BRT. After the initial Phase 2 outreach and narrowing of transit design options, the Study was paused in order to coordinate more closely with the Main Street Safety Project that received funding midway through Phase 2 of the Transit Study. In May 2018, the transit study project team, which consists of City of Springfield and LTD staff, recommended to the Main Street Governance Team that the Transit Study advance the Enhanced Corridor transit mode option as the preliminary preferred mode for the Main Street Corridor. The team communicated this preliminary mode recommendation to the Governance Team at their June 2018 meeting and recommended that the Study communicate this preliminary mode recommendation to the Springfield community through the next outreach opportunity for the Main Street Safety Project. The project team also shared that it was not able to make an alignment recommendation without additional technical information from the safety project that will become available as the Planning Phase of Main Street Safety Project progresses. The full Locally Preferred Solution decision for the Main Street is planned to occur concurrently with the Draft Plan and Policies step in the Main Street Safety Project Planning Phase process, which is shown on the current project schedule occurring in winter 2020. Coordinating Safety and Transit In coordination with the Main Street Safety Project, the Main-McVay Transit Study engaged the community in providing additional input on the transit mode choice for Main Street through an online open house that was open for community input in November and December 2018. The online open house was viewed by 450 people with a total of 177 comment submissions; 116 participants responded to the transit question within the online open house. Participants were given an overview of the Enhanced Corridor transit mode as follows: The transit study’s community outreach and technical analysis indicate the most viable transit mode for Main Street at this time is Enhanced Corridor. EmX remains a possibility depending how development, traffic volumes, and funding opportunities change over the next 10 to 30 years. Based on input received in response to the question below, LTD and the City will identify key transit improvements in coordination with other transportation improvements identified in the Main Street Facility Plan. Participants were asked to consider the potential investments of an Enhanced Corridor on Main Street, which could include: Transit queue jumps (a special lane and signals for buses to “jump” ahead of other traffic at intersections with congestion delays); Better amenities at ground-level stops (such as trash receptacles, benches, shelters, automated fare collection); Consolidating stops to 1/3-mile spacing (provides faster, more reliable service and may attract more riders through improved travel times and stop amenities); and Deploying different sized buses – 40 to 60 foot – to accommodate fluctuations in peak and off-peak ridership. In addition, the online open house explained that EmX stations and exclusive transit-only lanes east of 20th Street (except potentially at major congested intersections) would not be included in the Enhanced Corridor option for Main Street. 3/13/2019 Page 3 Following the explanation of the elements of a potential Enhanced Corridor transit mode for Main Street, participants were asked whether they felt this option was appropriate. Below is a graph illustrating the complete breakdown of how participants responded: Transit Mode Choice Based on the technical analysis conducted during Phase 1 and Phase 2, as well as input from community members during Phase 2 of the Main-McVay Transit Study, it is clear that the most viable transit mode option for Main Street is Enhanced Corridor. From the feedback received through the safety project’s online open house regarding the Enhanced Corridor transit solution, there appears to be limited support (17% of respondents) for more improvements than Enhanced Corridor along Main Street at this time. 33% of respondents’ indicated support for the Enhanced Corridor option, which when combined with people who wanted more improvements than Enhanced Corridor represents 50% of respondents. Approximately 8% responses indicated not sure. 18% of responses expressed a desire to see fewer improvements along Main Street for transit. 24% of respondents indicated a desire to not see any of the Enhanced Corridor transit improvements along Main Street. Given the input received, it is clear that the Springfield community does not broadly support pursuing EmX improvements along the Main Street Corridor in the near future. The community has reaffirmed that there is still interest and a desire to pursue transit improvements along Main Street and further indicated that these improvements should fall into the Enhanced Corridor transit mode improvement category as defined above. By removing EmX from consideration as a near term transit solution, the transit mode choice for Main Street’s LPS would be Enhanced Corridor, which would be compared to a “No-Change” option through a future NEPA process. Next Steps The Main Street Safety Project Planning Phase will be developing and selecting street design concept alternatives. In coordination with that process, the transit alignment options for Main Street will be analyzed. Once the alternatives have been developed and refined, Main-McVay Transit Study will bring forward the full Locally Preferred Solution decision, which will include the transit mode choice and transit alignment for the Main Street Corridor, to the Main Street Governance Team, City Council, and LTD Board. 8% 24% 18% 33% 17% 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35% Not sure None of these improvements are… No, FEWER improvements are… Yes, this list makes sense No, MORE improvements are… Main Street Enhanced Corridor Transit Mode Choice Responses Main Street Safety Project Draft Goals & Objectives February 2019 Safety – Increase the safety of Main Street for all users Objectives: Identify infrastructure solutions that: ! Achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries ! Achieve a significant reduction in the frequency of crashes along the corridor Note: The primary purpose of the Main Street Safety Project is to improve safety. For a design solution to advance, it must demonstrate an improvement to safety above all other goals. Business Community – Support the viability of existing and future businesses Objectives: Identify infrastructure solutions that: ! Provide access for customers and deliveries to businesses along Main Street corridor ! Respond to business owner needs and support the visibility and economic development of Main Street ! Respond to property owner needs and support the potential for future businesses to locate on Main Street Mobility – Ensure people and goods travel efficiently and reliably through the corridor Objectives: Identify infrastructure solutions that: ! Maintain the efficiency and reliability of passenger vehicle operations through the corridor ! Maintain the efficiency and reliability of transit operations through the corridor ! Retain freight vehicle mobility along Main Street Transportation Choices – Create a multimodal environment that connects people and destinations Objectives: Identify infrastructure solutions that: ! Ensure access to services and destinations along Main Street for all members of the community at all income levels, including seniors, people with disabilities, children, and people of color. ! Create safe, comfortable and efficient pedestrian and bicycle access along Main Street. ! Support existing transit service and accommodate enhanced transit service in the future Vital Community – Support the vitality of the community and its vision for Main Street Objectives: Identify infrastructure solutions that: ! Improve the appearance and aesthetics of Main Street to make it a vibrant place for those who live, work, shop and travel through the corridor ! Create an environment consistent with the Main Street Vision Plan ! Support access to destinations along Main Street, as well as those that rely on access from Main Street Feasibility – Develop a plan with a clear and achievable approach to implementation Objectives: Identify infrastructure solutions that: ! Can be implemented within five years through anticipated funding sources and acceptable project delivery approaches ! Ensure the cost-effective expenditure of resources