HomeMy WebLinkAboutGT 3.21.19_Minutes Final Draft Approved X/X/19
1 |Main Street Safety Project Governance Team Minutes
Main Street Safety Project
Governance Team (GT) Meeting
Meeting Minutes
March 21, 2019 – 2:30 to 4:00 pm
Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room, 225 5th Street, Springfield
Attendance
Staff/Consultants: Emma Newman, Brian Barnett, Michael Liebler, Chip Decker (Intern), Molly
Markarian, Bill Johnston, Jean Senechal-Biggs, Jeanne Lawson
GT Members: Mayor Christine Lundberg, Councilor Marilee Woodrow, Kate Reid, Steven Yett,
Niel Laudati, Frannie Brindle, Aurora Jackson
Guests: Claire Roth, Mike Eyster, Carmel Snyder, Kevin Schaper
CALL TO ORDER. Meeting was called to order at 2:30 p.m.
Welcome/Introductions
Introductions were made.
Agenda and Purpose
Jeanne Lawson stated that the fundamental purpose of the meeting is to review the findings in terms of
the existing conditions and the input we gathered from the public outreach, all of which will feed into
the goals and objectives. Jeanne stated that they would be presenting the comments that they have
received from the Technical Advisory Committee, Strategic Advisory Committee, Planning Commission
and City Council on the draft Goals and Objectives. The hope is to leave here today with some clear
direction on substance. The team will then take that and begin building the overall evaluation
framework.
Jeanne stated that everyone has a meeting summary from the last meeting and asked if anyone had
comments. In that meeting there were some refinements to the protocols and we want to note that
those included an alternate for City Council and the Council is no longer using that so we adjusted that
change in the protocols.
Mayor Lundberg commented that she was unable to attend the prior meeting but had noticed that part
of the discussion revolved around LTD and their role at the table. She went on to say that she was ok
Approved X/X/19
2 |Main Street Safety Project Governance Team Minutes
with LTD being a fully engaged member on the Governance Team. When the Main Street Safety Project
was started she wanted to make sure that LTD participated. There have been many different projects
on the corridor with a lot of money spent, so safety and transit should be coordinated. If you look at
why accidents happen, sometimes it has to do with people trying to get to the bus. So, if we are trying
to improve let’s make sure we aren’t making people come to more meetings than they have to and we
come up with a seamless project. This is a safety-oriented corridor that includes all modes of
transportation so I am happy to see that is included now.
Jeanne stated that there is a newer issue regarding transit, and staff are working to try and figure out
the next steps on that so we won’t be addressing that directly today in terms of what goes to FTA. But
she went on to say that in the public outreach they did specifically have the question crafted with LTD
about the enhanced corridor approach and that got support.
Frannie Brindle commented that this was a hard conversation. She stated that she sits on the LTD
Strategic Planning Committee as well as this one and there is this ARTS money that is looked at for
improvements for safety and there is a planning process in order to provide guidance and then LTD’s
planning process for which route it will take for transit planning so it is a matter of different funding and
different timelines but thinks that bringing it together is the correct route to take.
Kate Reid stated that one of the things that had been happening was that they were getting community
pushback around LTD being a part of a conversation that wasn’t going to be based in transit. She just
wants to make sure the Board shows up to do what the Board can actually do instead of being a fly on
the wall. Additionally, she went on to say that they hadn’t really seen the MovingAhead project and the
alternatives that were coming out of that but one of the main alternatives that had been proposed to
the community is based on enhanced corridors. So, she thinks that what we will see in Springfield will
be a very similar style of corridor as is being contemplated for some corridors in Eugene.
Project Purpose Statement
Molly Markarian began by reviewing the Purpose Statement which was last discussed about a year ago.
She stated that the solutions will support economic viability of the corridor, accommodate current and
future transit service and compliment safety education and traffic enforcement. She reiterated that the
project area was between 20th and 72nd streets. She stated that they are currently in the “goals and
objectives” phase of the project timeline. They have already completed the existing conditions analysis
this fall and the intensive community engagement this winter.
Molly stated that the engagement activities that were implemented in the fall and early winter were
summarized into a Council Briefing Memo that was forwarded to the Governance Team in January. We
would like to summarize again those efforts because that formed the basis of how we reached the
community about the Online Open House that ran from November to December. There were two
purposes for the Online Open House. One, it provided background on the project to the community and
more importantly to solicit community input on values and key areas of concern. There were 450 new
users and 177 comment submissions. Molly went on to state that they gathered feedback from
traditionally underserved populations through focus groups and tabling at events. They went to the
Approved X/X/19
3 |Main Street Safety Project Governance Team Minutes
Briarwood Assisted Living Facility, Catholic Community Services, Downtown Languages and
Willamalane’s Two50 Club.
Values
One of the key components of the focus groups and Online Open House was to seek input on proposed
community values. A list of values was developed by looking at the previous visioning efforts that
occurred on the corridor and work sessions with the City Council and Planning Commission.
Jean Senechal-Biggs stated that at the Focus Groups people were given 3 coins and then placed them in
the jars representing what was most important to them. The results clearly showed that safety was the
most important. There was variation amongst the other categories.
Jean explained that the Online Open House was a completely different way to allow people to weigh in
on their values. In this focus group participants were given 21 points to divide up amongst the
categories. Safety was also the most important in this study.
Jeanne Lawson stated that transit is clearly still important. She went on to explain that this information
is very helpful but to remember it is not a vote. It is not statistically valid, it is like a public meeting. The
participants went on the online open house in lieu of a public meeting.
Existing Conditions
Molly Markarian explained that the Existing Transportation, Land Use and Environmental Conditions
summaries were based on six technical memoranda that the consultant team put together and are
available on the project website, www.mainstreetsafety.org. The data from the existing conditions
analysis not only is being used to confirm the problems that need to be addressed but also to inform the
goals and objectives.
Molly went on to state that they looked at roadway characteristics. They also looked at freight. East of
Bob Straub Parkway is considered a Reduction Review Route so there will be some additional ODOT
procedures to comply with that. She also stated that there are bike lanes and sidewalks along Main
Street but the condition varies. They looked at some different measures to determine how it feels as a
pedestrian or bicyclist on the street. It was determined that both are not very inviting to do so safely.
Molly continued that in terms of transit, Route 11 serves Main Street and has the 2nd highest ridership in
LTD’s service area. However, there is a lack of safe and accessible routes for pedestrians and bicyclists
to access it.
Jean Senechal-Biggs stated that another piece of the data that they looked at was related to crashes
along the corridor. They used ODOTs crash database which is comprised of police reports that are
funneled to ODOT to process into a format that allowed them to look at the data in different ways.
Jean went over the charts in the slide shows explaining the type of crashes and who is getting hurt along
Main Street. She explained that over a 5-year period from 2012-2016 there were 653 crashes. About
Approved X/X/19
4 |Main Street Safety Project Governance Team Minutes
half are just property damage type. Fatal and severe crashes make up 4%. The map showed that the
crashes were happening throughout the corridor and there wasn’t one area that was experiencing more
than another.
Jean went on to say that the pedestrians are more vulnerable than motorists and bicyclists to injuries.
Pedestrians made up a little over 3% of the crashes on the corridor but were 75% of the fatal crashes
and 10% of the severe injuries.
Jean also stated that another trend that came out of the data was a lot of the turning movement and
rear-end crashes due to the multiple driveways and side streets along Main Street. Additionally, we
were asked about the role drug and alcohol impairment played in the crash data. It was found that of all
the crashes impairment played a role in about 5%. That’s a pretty small percentage but when you start
to look at their impact on the fatal and sever crashes the percentage goes up.
Marilee Woodrow asked whether impairment is for drivers and bicyclists/pedestrians, and Michael
Liebler clarified that it includes all those involved in the crash.
Frannie Brindle stated that this analysis was really helpful since we are trying to get to the causes and
conditions of the crashes and find the right counter-measures for those crashes. She added that
lowering posted speed limits have been looked at but from the data here excess speed does not appear
to be a significant contributor as compared to distraction and other factors.
Molly noted that many GT members were engaged in the Main Street Visioning Process a number of
years ago and we wanted to make sure that we develop with what the community shared in that
process. We looked at existing land use conditions and possible opportunities for access consolidation
to see if that may be a potential solution. The big take away here is that there are so many residential
uses and community features along Main Street that it prompts a lot of pedestrian crossings. We do
know that this project will most likely be constructed with federal funds so we will need to comply with
federal environmental regulations. So, the consultant team did a high-level scan to let us know if there
is anything we need to be aware of in the future for environmental compliance. The conclusion of that
was there are no big problems to be aware of but we may have to do some extra effort when we get to
the design phase.
Goals and Objectives
Jeanne Lawson stated that the Purpose Statement which was adopted in the previous meeting becomes
the fatal flaw when we start evaluating alternatives. If a potential solution doesn’t meet the purpose of
the study it cannot be an alternative. Jeanne went on to give the definition of a Goal and an Objective.
Safety
Jeanne stated that in terms of objectives under the safety goal we want to achieve a significant
reduction in serious injuries as one, and overall achieve a significant reduction in the frequency of
crashes along the corridor.
Approved X/X/19
5 |Main Street Safety Project Governance Team Minutes
Molly Markarian stated that the feedback we have received includes calling out all crash types not just
fatalities and serious injuries, more specifically identify the reduction quantitatively and if there is a way
to measure an increase in a desirable outcome in addition to or instead of a decrease in a less desirable
outcome.
Business Community
Jeanne Lawson stated that from Day 1 there has been a strong concern from the business community
about the viability of the businesses along the corridor. She then reviewed the goals and objectives
proposed for this area.
Molly Markarian stated that they have received quite a bit of feedback on this goal and some
suggestions were a possible way to measure could be right-of-way impact from the possible solutions
that are developed. We have heard that travel time is more valuable than travel distance for customers
so that might influence the measurements. She also stated that there was a request to have the term
“access” be clarified. They also heard from the Planning Commission it appeared from their review that
there was some tension between the business community needs and interests and residential needs
and interests in the community engagement but that was missing in the goals, so they suggested finding
a way to highlight residential needs in some of the other goals.
Frannie Brindle questioned whether visibility was being able to see the store front due to trees being in
the way or cars?
Jeanne responded that it represents the previous feedback that had been gathered as well as the early
work that was done that a change in access could also change the visibility.
Bill Johnston stated that trees are one concern that was mentioned and he has seen this concern on
other corridors. With streetscape improvements some business owners are concerned that impedes
visibility of the businesses.
Mobility
Jeanne Lawson reviewed the goal and objectives that were identified based on community feedback.
Molly Markarian stated that they had received feedback to make sure and capture police, fire and life
safety response times. Also, determine if we want to just maintain the efficiency or is improving it
desired.
Transportation Choices
Jeanne Lawson read the goal and objectives for this category.
Molly Markarian stated that they received feedback from every group on the first objective to stop the
objective after “community” and in the metrics is where we can capture the specific groups. We also
heard from City Council on the transit objective to provide “flexibility to accommodate” since we don’t
Approved X/X/19
6 |Main Street Safety Project Governance Team Minutes
really know what the future may be. Also, to try and capture a possible solution that can reduce gaps in
sidewalks or bike lanes on the corridor.
Vital Community
Jeanne Lawson stated that for this one we wanted to explicitly refer back to the Main Street Vision Plan
work, and she read the goal and objectives.
Molly Markarian stated that this is the goal where we see addressing the question about residents and
can capture resident access needs. They also received feedback about supporting the natural
environment and water quality, which is a component of the Main Street Vision Plan.
Feasibility
Jeanne Lawson stated that they have heard clearly that we need to develop a plan with a clear and
achievable approach to implementation. She noted that all objectives are prefaced with, “develop
solutions that…and read through the goal and objectives.
Molly Markarian stated that they had received quite a few requests to clarify what the intent of a
number of these words and terms are. We are working on ways to refine that but some of the key
issues are to make sure to capture both the initial construction costs and ongoing maintenance costs
and the likelihood of foreseeable resources for both. Also, to find a way to possibly phasing projects and
to have something implemented in the short term.
Discussion
Jeanne then asked for GT input on the draft Goals and Objectives.
Mayor Lundberg stated that Council saw it on Monday night and we gave feedback there.
Kate Reid stated that she thought they met the goals and objectives of LTD as an organization and what
we are looking at for an enhanced corridor on Main Street. Transportation Choices with the mobility is
the only place we will have input. The rest of it they are here to support and do what the community
wants us to do with our transit corridor and coordinate that with the Safety Project.
Jeanne asked Kate since one of the concerns was using the term “accommodate” if there was concern.
This comes back to the idea of an enhanced corridor that is difficult for some people to grasp. So,
accommodate the enhanced corridor caused a little concern so the recommendation was to change to
provide the flexibility to accommodate. Does that feel like an acceptable approach?
Kate Reid responded that her understanding of an enhanced corridor is taking it piece by piece and
looking at how people interact with existing stops or access points. There were a couple around 42nd
and 32nd and 28th that I feel like that is where we would look at safety pieces to create an enhanced
corridor.
Jeanne asked if it addresses Councilor Pishioneri’s concern from the Council Meeting.
Approved X/X/19
7 |Main Street Safety Project Governance Team Minutes
Marilee Woodrow stated that as you’re going down Main Street you are not going to want to take 10
feet away from the properties across the board but you might have another area that has more room
and not have their store fronts right there on the sidewalk. There might be an opportunity to widen the
street and make room for buses. That’s where the flexibility comes in and that where the identity and
recognition of businesses and their needs and how we’re going to work with them comes in to play.
The Mayor stated that it was very important to her. One of the iterations from the transit study was if
you really drive down Main Street if you need to have “X” amount of space, there may be vacant land on
one side so you could move it completely. So then Main Street isn’t exactly straight anymore which may
help slow down traffic. It may actually create a safer environment anyway.
Kate stated that there are a few places between 28th and 32nd where it may actually give some
businesses frontage that don’t currently have it.
The Mayor added that it would be a better scenario to try and work with the property owners if we go
out there with the idea we will do the best that we can to try and move things around to create the best
possible scenario for the businesses. She also stated that she had been out there walking by those
planter boxes that got put in that took along time to get done. Or if it is a storage unit and you have a
trailer behind you and you have to stop without much space and your trailer is out in the street. So,
there are those type of situations that are quite specific that if we can stop and look at each one of them
but it requires the flexibility.
Jeanne stated that when you are looking at the results of the Online Open House a lot of the outreach
was directly along the corridor there. So, it would not be surprising that you would get the kind of
feedback that you did. It did focus a lot on the business viability.
Marilee stated that she noticed in the minutes from the last meeting that was one of the comments that
she had made. We have to look beyond Main Street and look what is on either side of it. It is important
because if you are talking about having access to transit and getting people in and out in their cars,
those are the people you have to consider. They have to have access to what’s immediately on Main
Street and how they are going to use it to get to where they want to go.
Molly stated that the places we considered adding “neighborhood” were in the environment consistent
with the Vision Plan.
Jeanne stated that we would modify those so that it is within the Vital Community goal that we
specifically address neighborhoods.
Frannie Brindle commented that you have this long corridor and then you have these goals and
objectives that would apply for the whole corridor but at different segments of the corridor you have
different goals that would be weighed more heavily. So, for the Vital Community she would think that
for the neighborhood piece it would also be transit because people will want to have access.
Jeanne responded that was how part of it came out in terms of the neighborhood, being able to get
where they need to go including to access transit.
Approved X/X/19
8 |Main Street Safety Project Governance Team Minutes
Kate asked what the vision is in this context? Is it walkable neighborhoods, so they can get to the bus
stop? Thinking of how we would be doing the enhanced corridor. She doesn’t think we would be
blocking any of the current access, so would that just mean more stops along the way or built out stops
that have bike racks?
The Mayor stated that she was still waiting for the whole LTD study because there is such a basic core
question in the operation piece. Do we want a further walk but more frequent service or do we want it
to stop every block and it be much slower? There is a fundamental question about people that want to
use the bus but you’re still in the process of determining what that is right now?
Kate responded that at their Board meeting last night we took a vote on the Transit Tomorrow study.
There is actually a design workshop happening today and tomorrow looking at options. The Board did
decide to go with a higher ridership network. Specifically calling out using a percentage of the coverage
for non-fixed route mobility options. Really looking at places to lose coverage and looking at other
available options. If it’s like the Mobility on Demand Pilot in Cottage Grove or what’s going to happen in
downtown Eugene with the electric vehicles. Just having an open mind on how to give the accessibility
back to the areas that would lose coverage.
The Mayor asked if you would walk a little bit further
Kate responded that yes, you may walk a little further or you may have a different way of getting to the
bus stop that isn’t necessarily your car or walking, but there is still a whole process to see what the
community would want.
Tom Schwetz stated that the question of longer walks or shorter waits, that’s going towards a ridership
model especially for Main Street which is a frequent transit corridor.
The Mayor stated that she thinks that is important for this discussion because that will affect how we
want to plan for the corridor.
Frannie asked if there was talk about extending the service into the evening hours.
Kate responded that is correct. Evenings and weekends will be voted on at the next Board meeting.
Jeanne stated that when she was thinking about the neighborhood and the residential piece she was
thinking it was sort of a push back against it being so business-oriented and not transit but it feels very
applicable to transit the way it was just brought up. The visibility issue versus tree lined, it comes up in a
number of ways. She asked Molly how it came about at the Planning Commission.
Molly stated that it was more of an observation. There seems to be a little bit of tension in the results of
the Online Open House and the Focus Groups and they just did not see that reflected in the goals and
objectives that seemed to be only focusing on the businesses not the residents.
Kate stated that for them focusing on the corridor, specifically from 20th on, they would be looking at
safety pieces for accessing the bus. She also stated that she thought that was addressed in the
Approved X/X/19
9 |Main Street Safety Project Governance Team Minutes
pedestrian network analysis which happened with the Transit Tomorrow original planning process. We
do have some very good information for accessing those areas.
Bill Johnston responded that one way that tension is formalized is in these goals. There are some
competing goals like with the tree example, improve the appearance of Main Street. That could imply
street treatments. So, the task for the decision makers will be to balance some of these competing
goals.
Marilee stated that as you present them in the future, we know based on data and statistics, that stuff
helps slow down traffic when you have street trees and improved aesthetics. It makes things feel cozier
and people just automatically slow to a measurable amount. If there is a possibility to find any data that
would go with the implementation of the aesthetics it would be great to see so we can consider it.
Jeanne stated that she believed that came out in one of the edits we were talking about in terms of we
don’t always have things that will be measured as such but we can talk about treatments.
The Mayor asked if we are going to look at what was in the Transportation System Plan discussion and
that was moving bikes off of the street and onto the sidewalk. But then it became a driveway issue
where bikes are going across driveways. She would like statistics because part of why we picked
roundabouts instead of signalized intersections is that you reduce the risk of serious or fatal injuries. So,
she would like to have the information about bicyclist involved crash and safety data as we go through
the process. Because we have the fatalities when you have a car going 40 mph can we look at what
those statistics are having bicycles on a sidewalk. Someone is doing it somewhere and has statistics on
it.
Kate stated that she also wondered about looking at what Portland is doing in some of their downtown
areas, creating a protected bike lane with the cones, flexible delineators.
The Mayor responded that they just bolt down, they are just plastic. They don’t block the driveways.
Jeanne stated that there were a couple more that are potential edits. One is under mobility and there
was the question, “why not improve?’, so we wanted to ask if you wanted to make it “maintain” or
“improve” the efficiency and reliability of passenger vehicles? And “maintain” or “improve” the
efficiency and reliability of transit operations. She also wanted to suggest based on the feedback that
we add one specifically about emergency services. So, “meet police, fire and life safety standards for
emergency response times. So, there were three edits there. Maintain or improve, at a minimum you
want to maintain but it allows to measure if it’s also improved. Remember as you start doing this it
might affect the liability but you are going to be balancing it against other things.
Tom Boyatt asked if it is “maintain and improve”?
Jeanne answered that it was “maintain or improve”.
Tom asked if that applied to emergency services as well?
Approved X/X/19
10 |Main Street Safety Project Governance Team Minutes
Molly answered that emergency services would be “meet the emergency services standards for
emergency response times”.
Tom suggested that you would go with “maintain and improve” language since we already have places
along the corridor where we don’t meet the national standard for response times. Some cases we
exceed and some cases we don’t meet so he thinks that “maintain or improve” is better.
Bill cautioned that the priority is addressing safety as we know from our other analysis that mobility is
not a large concern, it’s not a heavily congested corridor. There is no harm in trying to improve mobility,
but if we’re focusing on safety it’s not necessarily going to result in enhancements to mobility.
Frannie asked if some of this corridor has different mobility standards?
Bill responded that he wasn’t sure that it was but whether or not it is we have these alternate mobility
targets. If there were congestion issues we could address it through that.
Marilee stated that there is a congestion issue much more so than 5 years ago. But the statistics that we
got the other night said that were expected to increase by 40,000 people by 2050 in Springfield. So that
indicates were going to have a congestion issue somewhere in the next 30 years.
Tom stated that the Alternative Mobility Standards is something that is going to the Oregon
Transportation Commission and he believes that its 42nd Street and Hwy 126 and Main and it’s a slight
lowering of the standard.
Bill stated that he did not mean to complicate things and that at some of these intersections we would
like to improve mobility, and roundabouts if that’s the selected solution that would accomplish that. He
went on to say that his main point was that compared to other corridors congestion is not a big problem
and unlike other projects where that might be the main goal of the project. It’s not here necessarily to
improve mobility.
Jeanne stated that she seemed to remember that ‘maintain and/or improve’ was directed towards the
transit objective.
Molly answered that they received the feedback from the Technical Advisory Committee on that as it
related to transit but we subsequently have been talking about it is others.
Jeanne stated that however this is worded it is going to drive the same criteria so there can be conflicts
just as was said. It is nice to have something that builds reasonable expectations. So, if folks are
generally good with that we really want to get to the remaining questions. She thinks the other one is
feasibility and that is a really important one that the Council had a lot of feedback on as well. What we
talked about on this one is that we have “can be implemented within 5 years” was a big question mark.
The suggested edit was “that it can be implemented….”
Approved X/X/19
11 |Main Street Safety Project Governance Team Minutes
Molly stated that possible edits would be “it can be implemented and maintained with foreseeable
resources”, that’s getting more at the cost part of it. But then a separate objective looks at “can be
implemented incrementally“, with significant progress within a certain timeframe.
Jeanne stated that one of the issues the Council raised is don’t give up one hard target for something
recognizing it might be difficult to build the whole thing. So, breaking apart the resources and making it
clear that it would be incrementally phased with significant progress made within a shorter timeframe.
The idea here is that it be realistic solutions, that’s the goal.
The Mayor stated that Franklin Boulevard is an example because when it was started it was one big
project and now it’s three phases. If you go down Franklin it is beautiful, beautiful and then there’s
nothing else. That was where reality hit the road and we could only build so much. You have to work
with what is available. She went on to say we are hopeful that we can get a package out of the Federal
government that we could in fact make some progress towards money that would help all of us improve
the transportation system.
Jeanne asked if everyone was good with the changes that were talked about.
No comments were added.
Next Steps
Jeanne Lawson said that where we go from here is that we edit the goals and objectives. There will be a
revised version that goes out to the Governance Team in advance of the next meeting but the guidance
that was given today will allow the team to take this and start building the criteria and measurements.
She thinks a good one to use as an example is the one that we pulled apart that really addresses equity
for everyone in the community. There were those that said safety for everybody and said it should be
safety for pedestrians, safety for bikes and safety for cars. The criteria will start getting in to some of the
breakdown that will allow the team to bring evaluation to look at all the things separately. The next
meeting is expected to be in June. We have the economic impact literature review; the baseline travel
forecast and Key Principles and Methodology. Remembering that this is a Senate Bill 408 potential
corridor. That deals with corridors where there are access changes and how that is dealt with. One of
the things that has to happen is that there has to be a set of principles that the adjacent property
owners are informed of and provide input on. It is really very akin to the goals and objectives process.
We will be taking the feedback from this and using that as well to start forming those. Then the
methodology for how things will be developed and evaluated.
Bill Johnston added that in keeping with our theme of competing priorities the Key Principles will
probably emphasize that there is a need to balance these competing priorities. He thinks that is the key
thing that Senate Bill 408 wanted ODOT and local governments to look at in putting the plans together.
Make sure that we’re not only concerned about safety or medians, we also need to respect the needs of
business owners. That will be reflected in the Key Principles but as a preview to what the decision-
makers will need to balance.
Approved X/X/19
12 |Main Street Safety Project Governance Team Minutes
Frannie Brindle stated that when we looked at the safety hot spots along the corridor in the pedestrian
safety study they were tied to intersections, but we also saw that multiple driveways are contributing to
the safety issues. She was wondering in the analysis if the team can look at where those things
intersect. If the multiple accesses are occurring in the area of the intersections. The reason she would
want to do that is to figure out if there is a way to focus our efforts on access management if we have to
go there.
Bill stated that is a very good thought. We have talked before that we have an economist on board to
help look at the potential impacts to out of direction travel and the potential of a median on
surrounding businesses. Looking at the big properties that are the big traffic generators and see if that
will help us define where strategic breaks in the median might be. Part of that would also be looking at
where the safety hot spots are. The access to businesses would need to be balanced with these other
factors.
Frannie stated that if we are finding that these hot spots are tied to something other than the
intersection and when we have to balance those things we can at least use data to do that.
Marilee Woodrow added that determining whether it is before or after one of those crosswalks because
safety has changed since putting in the lighted crosswalks. It was a hot spot before it was put in.
Frannie stated that the data was collected before it was put in. It may also change how we want to do
bus stops around those things.
Kate Reid added that especially when you look at schools and community centers that are right off of
Main Street.
Brian Barnett added that there are segments that are hot spots and not strictly intersection related. A
lot of what is being described here is getting to that design level detail.
Jeanne asked if there were any other comments.
No additional comments were made.
Meeting adjourned at 4pm.
MAIN STREET
GOVERNANCE TEAM
March 21, 2019
AGENDA
•Welcome &
Introductions
•Project Updates
•Existing Conditions
Inventories
•Project Goals &
Objectives
•Next Steps
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 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 safety education and traffic
enforcement.
PROJECT
PURPOSE
STATEMENT
PROJECT AREA: 20TH – 72ND
PROJECT TIMELINE
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
KEY MESSAGES
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Round 1 activities reached over 2,000 people
•Media releases (RG article, KVAL & KEZI stories)
•Social media announcements (Facebook/Twitter)
•Introductory mailer (906 recipients)
•E-Updates (803 recipients)
•Online Open House (450 unique users/177 comments)
•Focus groups & tabling (95 participants)
•SAC meeting (12 members)
•Public comments via email/phone/in-person (24)
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Online Open House
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Focus Groups & Tabling
Melissa Cariño and
Emma Newman
demonstrating value
rating activity
Youth discussing safety
issues on Main Street
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Focus Groups & Tabling
Mapping
activity at
Catholic
Community
Services
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Values Exercise
•Safety: I value solutions that reduce the risk
of fatalities and serious injuries
•Local Business Access: I value solutions that
support the viability of the businesses on
Main Street by providing access and
minimizing other impacts
•Traffic Mobility: I value solutions that
minimize congestion and maintain the flow of
traffic
More…
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Values Exercise cont.
•Cost: I value solutions that are cost-effective and
make good use of public funds
•Main Street Character: I value solutions that
improve the appearance of Main Street and
make it a vibrant place for those who live, work,
shop, and travel through the corridor
•Transit: I value solutions that support reliable
and frequent transit service that is accessible
from destinations along Main Street
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Values Exercise: Focus Groups
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Transit Safety Cost Local BusinessAccess Main StreetCharacter Traffic Mobility
Downtown Languages Catholic Community Services
Briarwood Senior Living Willamalane Two50 Club (youth)
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
46
35
26
24
8
6
19
19
15
14
11
6
22
21
26
21
25
4
26
35
38
27
50
11
21
22
14
23
31
25
9
17
19
24
9
31
27
21
32
37
36
84
Transit
Main Street character
Cost
Traffic mobility
Local business access
Safety
0 (least important)1 2 3 4 5 6 (most important)
Values Exercise: Online Open House
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Inventories to understand Main Street
•Tech Memo #5: Intersection Operations
•Tech Memo #6: Transportation Conditions
•Tech Memo #7: Environmental Summary
•Tech Memo #8: Land Use Summary
Related documents
•Tech Memo #2: Plans and Policies Framework
•Tech Memo #4: Transportation Analysis
Methods & Assumptions
EXISTING CONDITIONS
How we will use this data?
•Confirming problems that need to be
addressed
•Turn into Goals & Objectives for the
project
TRANSPORTATION
Inventory includes:
•Street network characteristics, traffic
volumes, speed, and classification data
•Multimodal inventory and analysis
•Corridor collision analysis
•Traffic operations analysis for 15
intersections
TRANSPORTATION
Roadway Characteristics
•5-lane arterial with bike lanes
•Posted speed 35 – 45 MPH
•16K – 20K vehicles per day
•Study intersections meet ODOT mobility
standards
•Access spacing does not meet ODOT
standards
TRANSPORTATION
Freight
•Represents 2% to 4% of vehicle traffic
•City truck route, Federal/RRR east of Bob Straub
Parkway
•Freight value and tonnage higher east of Bob
Straub
TRANSPORTATION
High-stress Pedestrian Environment
•Proximity of vehicles
•High roadway speeds
•Narrow sidewalks with no buffer
•Sidewalk obstructions and ADA ramps
TRANSPORTATION
High-stress Cycling Environment
•Many unsignalized intersection and
driveway crossings
•Proximity of vehicles
•High roadway speeds
•Two lanes of traffic in each direction and
center left turn lane
•5 to 7 ft wide bike lanes, no buffer
TRANSPORTATION
Transit Service and Access
•Route 11: approximately 3,000 daily
boardings
•2nd highest ridership in LTD service area
•Headways of 10 to 30 minutes
•Lack of safe and accessible routes to bus
stops
COLLISION ANALYSIS
High crash
corridor
•653 crashes (2012
– 2016)
•Approximately 1-
1/3 crashes per
week
•Crashes occur
throughout the
corridor
Fatal and Injury Crashes
Property Damage Only Crashes
COLLISION ANALYSIS
Pedestrians
•3% of all
corridor
crashes
•75% of fatal
crashes and
10% of severe
injury crashes
COLLISION ANALYSIS
Crash Trends
•High percentage of rear-end and turning
movement crashes: typical for roadways with
high number of driveways and intersections
COLLISION ANALYSIS
COLLISION ANALYSIS
4.1%
6.3%
0.8%
4.6%
0.0% 0.2%
4.2%
8.3%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
Excessive Speed Distraction Drug Impairment Alcohol Impairment
All Crashes Fatal and Severe Crashes
Role of Speeding, Distraction and Impairment Contributing to Crashes
Location
(Intersection Cross-Street
or Segment Extents)
Excess
Crash
Frequency
(HSM)
Excess
Crash
Types
(HSM)
SPIS
Location
(ODOT)
Excess
Crash Rate
(ODOT)
ARTS
Location
(ODOT)
Intersections
28th Street x x
30th Street x x x
32nd Street x x x
36th Street x x
41st Street x x x x x
42nd Street x x x x
Chapman Lane (non-
study intersection) x
48th Street x
S. 51st Street x x
53rd Street (non-study
intersection) x
54th Street x x x
Bob Straub Pkwy x x x x
58th Street x x x
62nd Place x x
69th Street x x
71st Street (non-study
intersection) x
Table 18: Locations Flagged in Safety Evaluation
Location
(Intersection Cross-
Street or Segment
Extents)
Excess
Crash
Frequency
(HSM)
Excess
Crash
Types
(HSM)
SPIS
Location
(ODOT)
Excess
Crash
Rate
(ODOT)
ARTS
Location
(ODOT)
Segments
28th Street 30th Street x x x x
30th Street 32nd
Street x x x
32nd Street 35th Street x x
36th Street 41st Street x x x x
41st Street 42nd
Street x x x x
42nd Street 48th Street x x x x x
S. 51st Street 54th Street x x x x
Bob Straub
Pkwy. 58th Street x x
58th Street 62nd
Place x x x
62nd Place 69th Street x x x x
69th Street S. 72nd
Street x x x
Table 18: Locations Flagged in Safety Evaluation
LAND USE SUMMARY
Main Street Vision Plan (2015)
•Identified nodes and opportunity sites – should be
a focus for safety and other improvements
•Segment 2: 23rd Street to Bob Straub Parkway
•Segment 3: Bob Straub Parkway to 69th Street
LAND USE SUMMARY
Vacant and Developable Land
•Mix of commercial, industrial and residential
development is happening and projects
anticipated near 28th, 51 st, and 65th Place
•Permit requirements for sidewalks and access
consolidation creates opportunities
LAND USE SUMMARY
Residential uses and community features
prompt pedestrians crossing Main Street
ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY
Federally-funded projects must be cleared for
compliance with NEPA
•Wetlands, Waterways, and Water Quality
•Archaeological and Historic Resources
•Air Quality
•Biological Resources and Threatened and Endangered Species
•Noise
•Visual Resources
•Hazardous Materials
•Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
•Floodplains
ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY
High-level Desktop exercise (no site visits)
Potential future reconnaissance:
•Wetlands, Waterways, and Water Quality
•Stormwater Management Plan
•Archaeological and Historic Resources
•Air Quality conformity
•ESA documentation
•Noise Study
•Hazardous Materials Corridor Study
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
A goal is an overarching principle or a broad
statement of intent that informs the range of
possible transportation solutions and guides
decision-making.
Objectives are specific, measurable, and
relevant steps that are taken to meet the goal.
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Feedback* thus far:
•TAC: 2/21
•SAC: 3/4
•PC: 3/5
•CC: 3/21
*will note feedback during presentation
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Safety: Increase the safety of Main
Street for all users
Objectives:
Achieve a significant reduction in fatalities
and serious injuries
Achieve a significant reduction in the
frequency of crashes along the corridor
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Business Community: Support the
viability of existing and future businesses
Objectives:
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
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Mobility: Ensure people and goods
travel efficiently and reliably through the
corridor
Objectives:
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
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Transportation Choices: Create a
multimodal environment that connects
people and destinations
Objectives:
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.
More…
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Transportation Choices: cont.
Objectives:
Create safe, comfortable and efficient
pedestrian and bicycle access along Main
Street.
Support existing transit service and
accommodate enhanced transit service in
the future
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Vital Community: Support the vitality of
the community and its vision for Main
Street
Objectives:
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
More…
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Vital Community: cont.
Objectives:
Support access to destinations along Main
Street, as well as those that rely on access from
Main Street
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Feasibility: Develop a plan with a
clear and achievable approach to
implementation
Objectives:
Can be implemented within five years
through anticipated funding sources and
acceptable project delivery approaches
Ensure the cost-effective expenditure of
resources
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Discuss
COMMUNITY MEETINGS
Project Overview and Goals & Objectives
•3/12: Spfld Board of Realtors
•3/12: Spfld Chamber of Commerce –
Government Issues Committee
•4/12: Twin Rivers Rotary
•4/18: Spfld City Club
•TBD: Persons w/ Disabilities (LILA), Springfield
Rotary Club
June Next GT meeting
•Economic impact literature
review
•Future baseline travel forecasts
•Key Principles & Methodology
NEXT STEPS / NEXT MEETING
THANK
YOU