HomeMy WebLinkAboutSMSSP_FacilityPlan_Vol1_LocalGov_Hearing_Discussion_Draft_2022_01_07
Springfield Main Street (OR 126)
FACILITY PLAN
VOLUME 1 (DRAFT)
JANUARY 2022
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022 ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
STRATEGIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SAC)
The City of Springfield and ODOT wishes to acknowledge and sincerely thank the members of the
SAC whose guidance and feedback was critical to the development of this plan. The SAC was
comprised of key stakeholders representing various interests from within and along the Main Street
corridor and the broader Springfield community and therefore, support of various elements
included in this Facility Plan was not always unanimous. Membership on the SAC does not imply
that the committee members supported all elements of the Plan.
William Belcher
James Coldren
Susan Hartmann
Staci Holt
Dean Huber
Dick Jones
Marshall Loveday
Alyssa Martin
Garrick Mishaga
Charles Richmond
Joe Tokatly
Jeffrey Wing
Dani Wright
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
City Participants
City Transportation Planning
Engineer (Michael Liebler)
City Senior Transportation
Planner (Emma Newman)
City DPW Communications
Coordinator (Loralyn Spiro)
City Economic Development
Manager (Courtney Griesel)
City Traffic Engineer (Brian
Barnett)
City Principal Engineer
(Kristi Krueger)
City Police representative
(Sgt. Mike Massey)
City Fire representative
(Roy Emery)
City Environmental Services
Tech (Meghan Murphy)
City Operations Supervisor
(Ben Gibson)
ODOT Participants
ODOT Active Transportation Liaison (Jenna Berman)
ODOT Region 2 Traffic Engineer (Dorothy Upton)
ODOT Region 2 Traffic Analysis Engineer (Arielle Ferber)
ODOT Region 2 Traffic Investigations Engineer & ARTS Program Coordinator (Amanda Salyer)
ODOT Region 2 Roadway Engineer (Carl Deaton)
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022 iii
ODOT Region 2 Access Management Engineer (Brian Scott Nelson)
ODOT Region 2 Transportation Safety Coordinator (Nicole Charlson)
ODOT Region 2 Rail Crossing Safety Section (Bob Stolle)
ODOT Region 2 District 5 Assistant Manager (Eric Alexander)
ODOT Motor Carrier Division Mobility Operations Program Coordinator (Katie Scott)
ODOT TPAU Senior Transportation Analyst (Peter Schuytema, Dejan Dudich)
DLCD Participants
South Willamette Valley Representative (Patrick Wingard)
Utility Provider Participants
SUB Water representative (Steven Wages)
SUB Electric representative (Dan Norland & Tamara Pitman)
NW Natural representative (Sarah Follett)
Century Link representative (Luke Pilon)
Lane Transit District (LTD) & Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) Participants
LTD Transit Development Planner (Jeramy Card)
LTD Transit Service Planner (Bret Smith)
LCOG Transportation Planner (Kelly Clarke)
Willamalane Park & Recreation District (WPRD) and School District #19
(SPS) Participants
SPS Transportation & Fleet Operations Manager (Mike Schlosser)
SPS Safe Routes to Schools Coordinator (Indigo Larson)
WPRD Planning & Development Manager (Eric Adams)
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022 iv
PROJECT TEAM
ODOT
Bill Johnston
Dorothy Upton
Amanda Salyer
Scott Nelson
Carl Deaton
(and others)
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
Molly Markarian
Brian Barnett
Emma Newman
Michael Liebler
Loralyn Spiro
DKS ASSOCIATES
John Bosket
Kayla Fleskes
Lacy Brown
Garth Appanaitis
JLA PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Jeanne Lawson
Allison Brown
ANGELO PLANNING GROUP
Darci Rudzinski
Clinton Doxsee
ECONORTHWEST
Emily Picha
Matthew Kitchen
DOWL
Austin Bloom
RTE
Scott Ritchie
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022 v
CONTENTS
A GUIDE TO THE SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN ....................................... 10
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 12
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 12
SETTING DIRECTION FOR THE PLAN ................................................................ 14
POLICY CONTEXT ....................................................................................... 16
STREET DESIGNATIONS ............................................................................... 16
LAND USE CONTEXT .................................................................................... 16
ACCESS MANAGEMENT ................................................................................. 19
PROJECT PROCESS ..................................................................................... 20
PROJECT ADVISORY AND DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE ..................................... 21
Decision-Making Groups ............................................................................................................. 22
Advisory Bodies ........................................................................................................................ 22
COMMUNITY INPUT ..................................................................................... 24
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 28
CHAPTER 2. MAIN STREET NEEDS ................................................................................................... 31
SAFETY .................................................................................................... 31
BUSINESS COMMUNITY ................................................................................ 39
MOBILITY ................................................................................................. 41
MOBILITY TARGETS .................................................................................... 41
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ......................................................................... 42
TRANSPORTATION CHOICES .......................................................................... 44
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY AND FACILITIES ........................................................... 44
BICYCLE ACTIVITY AND FACILITIES ................................................................ 45
TRANSIT .................................................................................................. 45
VITAL COMMUNITY ..................................................................................... 46
MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS ........................................................................... 46
MAIN STREET VISION .................................................................................. 46
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AND CONSIDERATIONS ....................................... 46
CHAPTER 3. SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS .............................................. 49
DEVELOP AND EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES .......................................................... 49
REFINE ELEMENTS ...................................................................................... 51
INTERSECTION CONTROL ............................................................................. 51
RAISED MEDIAN FRAMEWORK ........................................................................ 54
STREET CROSS SECTIONS ............................................................................ 59
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022 vi
Base Street Cross Sections ......................................................................................................... 60
SELECT ELEMENTS FOR TOOLBOX ................................................................... 66
CHAPTER 4. RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS ................................................................... 68
INTERSECTION CONTROL ............................................................................. 70
RAISED MEDIAN FRAMEWORK ........................................................................ 71
STREET CROSS SECTIONS ............................................................................ 75
TRANSIT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 83
TRANSIT DESIGN GUIDING PRINCIPLES ........................................................... 85
ADDITIONAL STREETSCAPE AND SAFETY ELEMENTS ............................................ 86
CHAPTER 5. IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS .......................................................... 88
FUNDING STRATEGY ................................................................................... 88
PHASING OF SOLUTIONS .............................................................................. 91
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 99
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................... 101
STATE PLANS .......................................................................................... 101
REGIONAL PLANS ..................................................................................... 104
LOCAL PLANS .......................................................................................... 104
ALTERNATIVE MOBILITY TARGETS ................................................................ 105
ADOPTION PROCESS ................................................................................. 106
Volume 2 of the Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan includes background memoranda,
meeting summaries, and technical data that were the basis for its development. The contents of
Volume 2 represent an iterative process in the development of the Facility Plan. Refinements to
various Plan elements occurred throughout the process as new information was obtained. In all
cases, the contents of Volume 1 supersede those in Volume 2.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022 vii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: PROJECT AREA AND KEY DESTINATIONS ........................................... 13
FIGURE 2: FREIGHT ROUTES ....................................................................... 17
FIGURE 3: SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP FOR THE MAIN STREET CORRIDOR ................ 18
FIGURE 4: MAIN STREET SAFETY PROJECT PLANNING PHASE PROCESS ................... 20
FIGURE 5: DECISION-MAKING AND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT STRUCTURE ........... 21
FIGURE 6: EXAMPLES OF FOCUS GROUP AND COMMUNITY GROUP MEETINGS ............ 25
FIGURE 8: CRASH SEVERITY BY ROAD USERS (2012-2016) .................................. 31
FIGURE 7: BREAKDOWN OF CRASH SEVERITY ON MAIN STREET (2012-2016) ............ 31
FIGURE 9: CRASH TYPE (2012-2016) ............................................................. 32
FIGURE 10: PRIMARY CAUSES OF CRASHES ON MAIN STREET (2012-2016) .............. 32
FIGURE 11: HIGHER-THAN-EXPECTED NUMBER OF CRASHES (2012-2016) ................ 33
FIGURE 12: FATAL AND INJURY CRASHES ....................................................... 34
FIGURE 13: ENGINEERING, EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT ................................ 37
FIGURE 14: MULTI-LANE ROUNDABOUT (LEFT); SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION (RIGHT) . 49
FIGURE 15: EXAMPLE RAISED MEDIAN WITH LEFT TURN OPENING ......................... 50
FIGURE 16: EXAMPLE VARIATIONS IN MULTIMODAL FACILITIES ............................ 50
FIGURE 17: TURNING MOVEMENT CONFLICT POINTS .......................................... 54
FIGURE 18: RAISED MEDIAN DESIGN, SAFETY, AND ACCESS RELATIONSHIP ............. 55
FIGURE 19: EXAMPLE OF MAXIMIZING SAFETY, MORE OF OUT DIRECTION TRAVEL ..... 55
FIGURE 20: EXAMPLE OF BALANCING SAFETY AND ACCESS .................................. 56
FIGURE 21: EXAMPLE OF LIMITED MEDIANS .................................................... 56
FIGURE 22: EXISTING MAIN STREET TYPICAL CROSS SECTION ............................. 59
FIGURE 23: CONSTRAINED WIDTH CROSS SECTION ........................................... 61
FIGURE 24: BALANCED STREET WIDTH CROSS SECTION ..................................... 62
FIGURE 25: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCED CROSS SECTION ....................... 63
FIGURE 26: RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS ........................................ 68
FIGURE 27: EXAMPLE RAISED MEDIAN ON MAIN STREET WITH LEFT TURN OPENINGS . 73
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022 viii
FIGURE 28: CONSTRAINED WIDTH CROSS SECTION ........................................... 75
FIGURE 29: BALANCED STREET WIDTH CROSS SECTION ..................................... 76
FIGURE 30: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCED CROSS SECTION ....................... 78
FIGURE 31: LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 80
FIGURE 32: EXAMPLE CORRIDOR CONCEPT (36TH STREET TO S 46TH STREET) ........... 81
FIGURE 33: EXAMPLE CORRIDOR CONCEPT (51ST STREET TO 54TH STREET) .............. 82
FIGURE 34: TRANSIT ROUTE 11 ALIGNMENT .................................................... 84
FIGURE 35: EXAMPLE TRANSIT STOP DESIGN ................................................... 85
FIGURE 36: RECOMMENDED PHASING OF IMPROVEMENTS (PHASE 1-4) ................... 93
FIGURE 37: RECOMMENDED PHASING OF IMPROVEMENTS (PHASE 5-8) ................... 94
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022 ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF STUDY INTERSECTIONS FLAGGED IN SAFETY EVALUATION ..... 36
TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF STUDY SEGMENTS FLAGGED IN SAFETY EVALUATION ............ 37
TABLE 3: MAIN STREET INTERSECTION MOBILITY TARGETS ................................. 42
TABLE 4: INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ON MAIN STREET ..................................... 43
TABLE 5: INTERSECTION CONTROL SCORING SUMMARY ...................................... 52
TABLE 6: RAISED MEDIAN TREATMENT SCORING SUMMARY .................................. 58
TABLE 7: STREET CROSS SECTION SCORING SUMMARY ...................................... 65
TABLE 8: 2040 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS WITH RECOMMENDED ROUNDABOUTS ..... 71
TABLE 9: RECOMMENDED PHASING OF IMPROVEMENTS ON MAIN STREET ................. 95
TABLE 10: KEY PRINCIPLES AND METHODOLOGY FOR ACCESS MANAGEMENT .......... 103
TABLE 11: RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE MOBILITY TARGETS ............................. 105
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 10
A GUIDE TO THE SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET
(OR 126) FACILITY PLAN
Today, 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. The Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) and the City of Springfield must address this problem to save lives, reduce
injuries, and lessen property damage due to crashes.
In response to this need, ODOT and the City of Springfield initiated the Main Street Safety Project
planning phase with the purpose of selecting infrastructure solutions that will make Main Street
safer for people walking, biking, driving, and taking transit. ODOT owns the facility, and it is state
and local government’s role and responsibility to take care of public health and safety. The
Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan documents the result of the planning phase and:
• Pulls together analysis, outreach and design concepts
• Expresses community values
• Provides a framework for Main Street upgrades
• Positions agencies to obtain funding for detailed design and construction
• Refines the Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) and the Oregon
Highway Plan (OHP)
Over the course of the planning phase, the Springfield City Council has acknowledged community
input and reaffirmed that there is a serious safety problem on Main Street, that it is ODOT’s and
the City's duty to address the problem, and that the Main Street Safety Project’s approach is
sensible and responsible. They have also emphasized the importance of continuing to engage
community members and make adjustments during future design phases.
This Facility Plan is divided into five chapters with a summary highlighting key themes at the end of
each chapter. The Facility Plan chapters focus on the following:
• Introduction (Chapter 1) – This chapter provides an introduction to the long history of
planning projects on Main Street and sets up the policy context that guided the Main Street
Safety Project planning phase and the concepts considered for design. Chapter 1
summarizes the planning phase process, including the extensive community outreach and
input that informed the development of the recommended solutions in this Facility Plan. The
project goals and objectives are also documented in Chapter 1.
• Main Street Needs (Chapter 2) – This chapter discusses the current and future needs on
Main Street. These needs are discussed in relation to the key project goal areas of Safety,
Business Community, Mobility, Transportation Choices, and Vital Community. This system
assessment, combined with the community’s values, helped drive the development of
solutions for Main Street.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 11
• Solutions Development and Evaluation Process (Chapter 3) – This chapter discusses
the infrastructure solution development and evaluation process. Specifically, it documents
the stages used to develop and evaluate alternatives, refine elements and select elements
for the recommended toolbox of solutions. This chapter documents how elements
recommended in the toolbox of solutions achieve the project goals and objectives.
• Recommended Toolbox of Solutions (Chapter 4) – This chapter documents the
recommended toolbox of solutions. The toolbox of solutions offers an approach that
provides flexibility, phase ability and simplicity. It recommends cross section variations for
location-specific constraints to limit property impacts – not a “one size fits all” approach.
The recommended tools include raised medians, roundabouts and street cross section
upgrades, as detailed in Chapter 4. The recommendation does not include EmX bus rapid
transit service, but it does support existing transit service and provides flexibility to
accommodate Enhanced Corridor transit service in the future. It would not prevent all left
turns on Main Street and it would not need extensive right-of-way.
• Implementing the Toolbox of Solutions (Chapter 5) – This chapter discusses how the
toolbox of solutions will be implemented on Main Street and discusses the next steps after
the Facility Plan is adopted. Chapter 5 discusses potential funding sources to implement the
recommended toolbox of solutions. This chapter includes a recommended phasing plan, as
design and construction will occur in phases over the next five to 20 years, as funding
becomes available. Chapter 5 documents key considerations for a future project design
phase and documents the requirements that dictate more interagency coordination and
adopted plans that will need to be amended as the result of Plan recommendations, or to
ensure consistency between adopted plans.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 12
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The City of Springfield, Oregon was incorporated in 1885. The commercial center of the city at that
time was in what is now the historical downtown area, along Main Street. What is now known as
the McKenzie Highway was still a wagon road used primarily by homesteaders. In 1917, this route
was formally designated a State highway (OR 126). In the 1960s it became open for year-round
travel between Springfield and Sisters.
As the City grew, commercial activity extended further to the east. As the City annexed this area,
the name of the road was changed to Main Street. However, the State retained ownership
(jurisdiction) of the street. This is why the street is referred to as both Main Street and OR 126.
When the OR 126 Expressway (126E) was constructed in the 1960s, the section of Main Street
west of the intersection of OR 126E (and Bob Straub Parkway) was designated as OR 126 Business
(126B), to distinguish it from OR 126E. Main Street east of Bob Straub Parkway is designated OR
126 (not 126B).
As development occurred on the east side of the city (sometimes before the area was annexed),
the McKenzie Highway became the primary route for accessing a mix of new commercial,
industrial, and residential development, while continuing to be a popular recreational route and
serving regional travel needs. The design of Main Street at that time was focused on providing
efficient, high-speed, motor vehicle travel. Over time, continued urban growth, an increasing
demand for safe and convenient multimodal travel, and limited east-west connectivity has created
new demands on Main Street that are not well served by the current design.
Today, 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. To address this problem, in 2018
ODOT and the City of Springfield initiated the Main Street Safety Project (planning phase).1
The purpose of the project was to identify infrastructure solutions that will make Main Street safer
for people walking, biking, driving, and taking transit. The selected solutions will also provide for
the movement of goods and people, support the economic viability of the corridor, and
accommodate current bus service and future transit solutions. These infrastructure solutions will be
supplemented with traffic safety education and enforcement. The study area extends from mile
point (MP) 2.98 to MP 7.88, which is roughly from S. 20th Street to S. 72nd Street (see Figure 1).
1 The future design and construction phases may also be referred to as the Main Street Safety Project.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • DECEMBER 2021
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 13
FIGURE 1: PROJECT AREA AND KEY DESTINATIONS
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 14
SETTING DIRECTION FOR THE PLAN
This document is referred to as a facility plan. It documents the outcome of the planning phase of
the Main Street Safety Project. Upon adoption by the City Council and ODOT, it will be incorporated
into the Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) as a refinement plan, and incorporated
into the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) as an amendment. This document guides future
transportation investments along Main Street to ensure individual projects align with the
community’s vision for the corridor.
In developing this plan, the City and ODOT attempted to balance various competing interests and
objectives. Input received from community members clearly indicated that the community believes
it is important to address the safety concerns on Main Street. Other input emphasized minimizing
the impact on businesses and supporting economic development along the corridor. The
recommended ‘toolbox’ of solutions presented in this plan provides flexibility in terms of applying
different types of solutions in different sections of the corridor, rather than a “one size fits all”
approach. This flexible approach also provides simplicity and phase ability and is intended to
provide the balanced solution the community desires.
The City and ODOT carefully considered community input. They acknowledge there is a serious
safety problem on Main Street, and that it is the responsibility of ODOT and the City to address the
concerns. The conceptual solution presented in this plan is sensible and responsible. In the future,
when a more detailed design is developed, the City and ODOT will continue to engage community
members and make adjustments, as necessary.
The Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan builds upon several prior planning studies
that focused on safety and infrastructure improvements on Main Street. These major planning
efforts include:
• Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Safety Study (2011): This study focused on pedestrian
safety along Main Street and led to the identification of several corridor-wide safety treatments
including pedestrian countdown timers, left-turn signal head modifications, transit stop
relocations, street lighting, speed feedback signs, and access management. Since the study
was completed, the City and ODOT have installed seven enhanced midblock pedestrian
crossings throughout the corridor, including near 35th Street, 41st Street, 44th Street, 48th
Street, 51st Street, Chapman Lane and 66th Street.
• 2035 Springfield Transportation System Plan (2014, amended 2020): Capital projects
recommended in the project area include improvements of streets intersecting Main Street
(“Priority” and “Beyond 20 Year” projects) and pedestrian or bicycle crossings (“Opportunity”
projects). This includes intersection improvements on Main Street and Mountaingate Drive and
Main Street and 48th Street. One of the transit project recommendations (a transit project on
Main Street shown as project T-2 on TSP Figure 8: Transit and Study Projects) is currently
being investigated in the Main-McVay Transit Study. Two studies are recommended in the TSP
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 15
for the project area – an access plan study between 21st Street and 48th Street and a study for
a new crossing of OR 126 Expressway near Thurston High School.
• Springfield Main Street Corridor Vision Plan (MSVP) (2015): The vision plan identifies
vision, goals, and implementation actions for land use changes and transportation choices on
Main Street between 10th Street and 69th Street. Vision Plan Segment 2 (from 23rd Street to
Bob Straub Parkway) and Segment 3 (from Bob Straub Parkway to 69th Street) – are squarely
located in the Main Street Safety Project area. The vision for these segments was used to help
guide solutions recommended on Main Street.
• Main-McVay Transit Study (on-going): Based on community feedback and technical analysis
for transit along Main Street, the Main Street Governance Team removed EmX (bus rapid
transit) from further study in July 2019 and moved forward with Enhanced Corridor as the
transit mode to analyze further in coordination with the Main Street Safety Project. Enhanced
Corridor includes features to improve reliability, reduce transit travel times, and increase
passenger comfort, such as increased transit service in response to demand, roundabouts, stop
consolidation, and stop enhancements and better amenities at ground-level stops. The details
for the transit enhancements will be determined after the transit project moves into Phase 3:
Project Design. Transit Design Recommendations are noted on page 85 and 86 below.
• All Road Transportation Safety (ARTS) Program (on-going): The ODOT All Roads
Transportation Safety (ARTS) program was established in 2015. The goal of the program is to
reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on all Oregon roads, not just state highways. Projects
are identified and prioritized for funding using a data-driven process. In 2015, ODOT allocated
$4.5 million through the ARTS program to address safety concerns on the Main Street corridor.
The recommended solution, initially, was to install a raised median. ODOT and the City
subsequently decided to prepare a facility plan first, to develop a more comprehensive and
integrated solution. $250,000 in ARTS funds were used to prepare the Main Street Facility
Plan.2 The rest of ARTS funding was reallocated to other ARTS projects.3 Approximately $1.8
million dollars is currently earmarked for preliminary design and environmental review. ODOT
and the City may apply for ARTS funding in the future, to fund the construction of the
improvements identified in the Facility Plan.4
2 The total ODOT budget for the Facility Plan effort was $913,000. $663,000 came from ODOT’s State Planning
and Research (SPR) budget. The remaining $250,000 came from the ARTS program.
3 ARTS funding needs to be committed for construction (obligated) within the STIP cycle it was programmed
for. The ARTS funding for Main Street was programmed in the 2015-18 STIP. It cannot be carried forward to
a future STIP.
4 Main Street was competitive for ARTS funding in 2015 and presumably would be competitive in the future –
for a project in the $5-6 million range. Lower cost projects are usually more competitive for ARTS funding
because they have a higher benefit-cost ratio. The $4.5 million that was awarded in 2015 for Main Street
improvements is on the high end of the amount usually awarded for an ARTS project. Note also that an
environmental study for the entire corridor will probably need to be prepared before projects along this
corridor would be competitive for design and construction funding, through ARTS or any other program.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 16
POLICY CONTEXT
Main Street (OR 126/OR 126B) is an ODOT highway. As such, specific ODOT policies guided the
Main Street Safety Project planning phase and will guide the design of improvements along
Main Street.
STREET DESIGNATIONS
Main Street (OR 126/OR 126B) is designated by ODOT as a Statewide Highway and is part of the
National Highway System for the entire corridor length. Statewide highways typically provide
connections to larger urban areas, ports, and recreation areas that are not directly served by
Interstate Highways. A secondary function is to provide connections for intra-urban and
intra-regional trips. The management objective is to provide safe and efficient, high-speed,
continuous-flow operation. In addition, the 2035 Springfield TSP5 designates Main Street in the
study area as both a major arterial and minor arterial.
From MP 6.23 to MP 7.88 (Bob Straub Parkway to the eastern project limits at S. 72nd Street),
Main Street is designated as a Federal Truck Route and Reduction Review Route6, emphasizing the
importance of freight movement. Reduction Review Routes are ODOT facilities that require
additional review during planning, project development, development review, and maintenance to
examine any potential changes in the vehicle carrying capacity, sometimes referred to as the
“hole-in-the-air”. The term “hole-in-the-air” describes the ability to accommodate permitted over-
dimension loads, meaning there cannot be significant horizontal or vertical constraints7, which limit
the size of freight vehicles beyond what can travel on the street today. The entire corridor is also
designated as a City Truck Route (see Figure 2).
LAND USE CONTEXT
Along Main Street, property is primarily zoned Community Commercial (CC). On the west end of
the project area, there is a concentration of Heavy Industrial (HI) zoning in addition to the CC
zoning. Mid-project area, there are additional, relatively small concentrations of Light-Medium
Industrial (LMI) and High Density Residential (HDR). On the east end of the project area, CC
zoning gives way to residential zoning – both Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Low Density
Residential (LDR) – with fewer than a dozen parcels with Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning. A
zoning map for the area surrounding Main Street is provided in Figure 3.
5 2035 Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP)
6 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (as amended January 2006).
7 Horizontal or vertical constraints may include curbs, medians, trees, or roadway signs that create a
chokepoint on the roadway which limit the size of freight vehicles that can safely pass through.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 17
FIGURE 2: FREIGHT ROUTES
Figure 2
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 18
FIGURE 3: SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP FOR THE MAIN STREET CORRIDOR
Eastern Extent
Western Extent
Main Street
Main Street
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 19
ODOT’s Blueprint for Urban Design was released in January 2020 to act as a bridging document for
the Highway Design Manual, incorporating current urban design criteria into state highways. The
significance of this new guidance is that it provides greater design flexibility for Main Street to
better balance multimodal travel needs that align with the surrounding urban land uses in contrast
to the more auto-focused design requirements of the past. The Blueprint for Urban Design takes
adjacent land uses into consideration when determining appropriate design standards for
roadways, creating a set of six urban land use contexts to describe the variety of urban areas and
unincorporated communities in Oregon. Given the adjacent land uses, the existing Urban Context
for Main Street is “Urban Mix” from 20th Street to Bob Straub Parkway, “Commercial Corridor”
from Bob Straub Parkway to 61st Street and “Residential Corridor” from 61st Street to 72nd Street.
ACCESS MANAGEMENT
The administrative rules of OAR 734-051 establish procedures, standards, and approval criteria
that govern highway approach permitting and access management.8 The rules apply to access
modifications at the curb line, but not within the travel lanes.9 The intent of the rules is “to provide
a highway access management system based on objective standards that balance the economic
development objectives of properties abutting state highways with the transportation safety and
access management objectives of state highways in a manner consistent with local transportation
system plans and the land uses permitted in applicable local comprehensive plan(s) acknowledged
under ORS Chapter 197.”10
The rules describe the procedures for addressing access management in highway facility plans11,
which include public participation, development of key principles for access to properties abutting
the highways, and development of a methodology to assess the facility plan. These rules are used
to implement the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 408, which the Oregon Legislature approved in
2013. The fulfillment of these requirements is discussed in more detail in the Policy Implementation
section of Chapter 5 and are also documented in Attachment C of Volume 2.
OAR 734-051 also includes rules that apply to access management in the project delivery process,
which is the programming, designing, and construction of highway improvement projects identified
in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). These rules include additional
collaboration with local agencies and property owners in the decision-making process and direction
to balance economic development objectives with transportation safety and mobility objectives,
8 OAR 734-051, https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=3317
9 ODOT’s authority to construct a raised median, or restrict left turn movements in other ways, is not limited
by OAR 734-051. Restricting left turn movements does not diminish a property owner’s access rights
(according to case law).
10 OAR 734-051-1020, https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=183591
11 OAR 734-051-7010; https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=183712
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 20
consistent with local TSPs and permitted land uses. Therefore, as projects identified in this Facility
Plan advance to design and construction, these rules and additional procedures will apply.
PROJECT PROCESS
The Main Street Safety Project planning phase that was the basis for this Facility Plan was
conducted over an approximately four-year period, as illustrated in Figure 3. It began by building
upon previous planning efforts along Main Street and engaging stakeholders to understand corridor
needs and the history of safety issues, followed by the development of goals, objectives, and
evaluation criteria that align with the project purpose and greater vision for Main Street. The goals
and objectives guided the development and refinement of a toolbox of solutions for the corridor to
improve safety and allow for flexible implementation as each phase advances to design and
construction. The project’s Community Engagement Plan, adopted in September 2018, outlined
activities the City and ODOT would implement to assure that interested and affected parties had
adequate opportunities to provide meaningful input to the Facility Plan. Feedback from project
decision-making groups, advisory bodies, and other stakeholders guided project decisions
throughout the process, as described in the following sections.
Note that the timeframe for developing this plan overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic. This
limited the ability of the project team to conduct public meetings and other outreach efforts.
Community feedback received during that time indicated that safety continues to be a key concern
in the community. Other feedback emphasized the need for a balanced approach that would
minimize the impact on businesses and support economic development.
Note also that the COVID-19 pandemic affected travel volumes and patterns. Traffic deaths surged
in 2020 even though there was a decline in driving. According to the National Highway Safety
Administration (NHTSA), 38,680 people were killed on U.S. roadways in 2020 – the highest number
since 2007 and an increase of 7.2% from the year before. In Oregon, 508 people were killed in
traffic crashes in 2020, which is the most since 2003. Therefore, despite the pandemic-related
decrease in traffic volumes, the need to improve safety on Main Street continued to be of
paramount importance.
FIGURE 4: MAIN STREET SAFETY PROJECT PLANNING PHASE PROCESS
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 21
PROJECT ADVISORY AND DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE
Figure 5 below illustrates the overall stakeholder and decision-making structure for the Main Street
Safety Project planning process. This structure was designed to ensure that community
stakeholders were regularly engaged and consulted, and that the Springfield City Council
and advisory groups had the benefit of that community input at each major milestone of the
planning phase.
FIGURE 5: MAIN STREET SAFETY PROJECT PLANNING PHASE DECISION-MAKING AND
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT STRUCTURE
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 22
DECISION-MAKING GROUPS
The planning process for this Facility Plan was overseen by two decision-making groups, the Main
Street Governance Team and Springfield City Council. ODOT, as a partner in developing the plan,
provided input and also had a decision-making role.
• Governance Team ‒ Since 2013, Main Street projects have been coordinated through a
three-tiered management structure that includes project direction provided by the
Governance Team (GT). The mission of the GT is to provide informed direction and final
collaborative decision-making to support on-going projects on Main Street. The GT consists
of the following agencies and jurisdictions: City of Springfield (City), the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT), and Lane Transit District (LTD).
• Springfield City Council ‒ The City Council had oversight and decision-making
responsibilities for the Facility Plan, within the context of their authority.12 The project team
provided on-going briefings to City Council members throughout the project process and
solicited feedback and guidance at key milestones. Springfield City Council adopted the final
Facility Plan as an element of the City’s comprehensive plan.
• Oregon Department of Transportation ‒ After the City Council adopted the plan, it was
reviewed and adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission as an amendment to the
Oregon Highway Plan (OHP). The plan was also acknowledged by the Department of Land
Conservation and Development, as required by DLCD administrative rules.13
ADVISORY BODIES
In addition to the governing bodies charged with decision-making and approval of the final Facility
Plan, the planning process engaged a variety of advisory bodies and committees, including: the
Springfield Planning Commission (PC), a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and a Strategic
Advisory Committee (SAC).
12 The City is required to adopt the facility plan as an element of their comprehensive plan (it is considered a
refinement plan to the City’s Transportation System Plan). The Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) is
also required to adopt the plan, as an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP). ODOT staff
participated in developing the plan. If ODOT (on behalf of the OTC) had objected to any of the
recommendations included in the plan, City and ODOT staff would have negotiated a compromise that was
agreeable to both parties. The final plan presents the recommendations agreed to by both the City and
ODOT.
13 This plan is written in the past tense, for a future audience, after the plan has been adopted. The draft plan
was presented to the City Council and the OTC in this format (past tense), even though it had not yet been
adopted.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 23
The TAC & SAC provided input on the goals, objectives, and design solutions considered in the
planning phase of the Facility Plan and played a role in prioritization of feasible solutions. They
reviewed project deliverables and provided feedback in ten TAC meetings and six SAC meetings.
In its capacity as Springfield’s Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI), the Planning Commission
reviewed the community engagement strategies, as well as appointment of SAC members.
Additionally, since the Facility Plan will be adopted as a Refinement Plan of Springfield’s
Transportation System Plan, the PC provided input on the evaluation of feasible solutions and
recommended a final package of solutions to the GT.
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
The TAC was comprised of staff from various agencies that have an interest in the Main Street
corridor and could provide technical expertise. In addition to providing ongoing project input, the
TAC ensured consistency with State and regional policy and plans as well as City policy priorities in
an advisory role. The TAC included members from the following departments, agencies, and
jurisdictions:
• City Development and Public Works
department
• City Police and Fire departments
• City Manager’s Office
• Oregon Department of
Transportation14
• Lane Transit District
• Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development
• Utility providers
• Willamalane Park & Recreation District
• Springfield School District #19
• Lane Council of Governments
The City Attorney’s Office also provided project guidance, although they were not formally part of
the TAC.
Strategic Advisory Committee (SAC)
The SAC was comprised of key stakeholders representing various interests from within and along
the Main Street corridor and the broader Springfield community. The City of Springfield actively
reached out to potential stakeholders to invite them to the group with explicit considerations of
equity, diversity, and representation of key interests and concerns. Meetings were open to the
public with public comments allowed.
Membership on the SAC included representatives from the following groups:
• Corridor residents
14 Various ODOT staff participated from (1) Region 2, (2) Policy, Data and Analysis Division (PDAD), and (3)
Statewide Project Delivery Branch (Mobility Services)
• Corridor business and property owners
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 24
• Corridor employees
• General public
• Trucking industry, freight & delivery
• Bike and ped interests
• Chamber of Commerce
• Transit advocates
• Seniors
• Persons with disabilities
Given the SAC was comprised of a diverse set of stakeholders representing various interests,
feedback was not unanimous from the SAC and there were varying viewpoints on the
recommendations included in this Facility Plan. Therefore, all viewpoints and considerations from
the SAC were shared with the decision-making groups.
COMMUNITY INPUT
Significant community input was considered in developing the plan. Outreach was conducted at
several key milestones, including the development of goals and objectives, and the evaluation of
solutions. Volume 2, Attachment C documents the outreach and engagements summaries and
materials. A variety of outreach and engagement strategies were employed, including:
• Focus Groups and Community Group Meetings: The Main Street corridor contains a
higher concentration of Title VI Communities of Concern, which are defined by Central Lane
County MPO15 as concentrations of one or more key socioeconomic factors including:
Minority Populations, Elderly Populations, People with Disabilities, and Households in
Poverty. Over the course of the project, eight Title VI focus group meetings were conducted
at key project milestones. Groups that were represented include:
o Downtown Languages
o LCOG Disability Services Advisory
Council
o Timber Point Senior Living
o Briarwood Senior Living
o Catholic Community Services
o Willamalane Two50 Club
Eleven additional community group meetings were held to discuss the project process and
recommendations with interested groups, including:
o Chamber of Commerce
Government Issues Committee
o Chamber of Commerce Economic
Development Committee
o Springfield City Club
o Springfield Board of Realtors
o Springfield Rotary Club
o Twin Rivers Rotary
o City of Springfield’s Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Figure 6 shows images from various focus and community group events held both in-person
and virtually (during COVID-19 pandemic).
15 Central Lane County MPO: Socio Economic Data http://thempo.org/958/Socio-Economic-Data
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 25
FIGURE 6: EXAMPLES OF FOCUS GROUP AND COMMUNITY GROUP MEETINGS AND EVENTS
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 26
• Online open houses: Two online open houses with videos were held to allow people
throughout Springfield, as well as adjacent stakeholders, to learn about the planning phase
of the Main Street Safety Project and provide their input online. This online format and
content mirrored requests for feedback at the Local Access Forums and other community
events. The online meeting tool was available to allow the community to participate at their
convenience.16
• Local Access Forums & Stakeholder Issue Resolution: Engagement of stakeholders
directly adjacent to the corridor was a key focus of outreach activities. In addition to
supporting a notification and consultation process that follows the requirements of OAR 734-
051 for access management, small group and one-on-one conversations with residents and
business and property owners along Main Street were facilitated. Two collaborative
discussions were also conducted with adjacent business and property owners to further
discuss the key principles and methodology for guiding access management decisions.
A series of two local access forums were held online (due to COVID-19) in February of 2021,
to discuss the recommended toolbox of solutions and any potential impacts to adjacent
business and property owners. In addition, the City created an online comment map to
document concerns related to site usage and access for specific locations received from
adjacent business and property owners during Main-McVay Transit Study and the Main
Street Safety Project.
16 The first online open house was available for approximately four weeks. The timeframe of the second online
open house overlapped with the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic which may have affected participation, including
how participants responded and the number of participants in the online open house. The second online
open house was initially planned for four weeks but was extended and the project team did additional
promotion in order to gain feedback in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 27
• Mobility Advisory Committee (MAC) and freight engagement: The ODOT Mobility
Advisory Committee (MAC) provides a platform for stakeholders to inform balanced and
transparent decision-making by ODOT on designs in planning, project development and
construction that impact permanent or temporary height, width, length, or weight
restrictions, or impose traffic delays. The committee also focuses on upholding the agency’s
work zone safety goal of zero fatalities and injuries while efficiently moving people and
goods. The project team presented the recommendations from the facility plan to the MAC
for review. Overall, the MAC was supportive of the recommendations included in the facility
plan with the understanding that they will have additional opportunities for input during
future design phases. In addition, members of the project team met with large freight
distributors on Main Street (such as Rosboro) to discuss freight needs on the corridor. ODOT
Motor Carrier staff was also engaged throughout the project as members of the TAC.
• Social media, podcast, news releases, and email
blasts: Social media posts and news releases were created
to help inform the community about major engagement
and key decision points throughout the public process. The
Main Street Safety Project was also the subject of Episode
#143 of the Spent the Rent podcast with Patty Rose. To
find episode #143, go to strpod.com. To date, 23 email
updates have been sent the interested parties list. Email
announcements were distributed to interested parties
included in the stakeholder database to provide project
updates and notification of in-person and virtual public
meetings. Additionally, email updates will be sent about
public hearing process.
• Project website: Two pages dedicated to the Main Street Safety Project planning phase
were created on the City’s existing website at ourmainstreetspringfield.org. The pages
included project information, schedule, upcoming meeting dates and events, project
materials completed to date, opportunities to provide input, opportunities to send comments
to the Project Team, and a sign-up form to receive project email updates. A key competent
of the project information was the creation and dissemination of six fact sheets and one
FAQ. The following is a list of those, which can be found in Volume 2, Attachment B-1:
• Main Street Safety Fact Sheet #1 – General Overview
• Main Street Safety Frequently Asked Questions
• Main Street Safety Fact Sheet #2 – Business and Property Owner Impact Literature
Review
• Main Street Safety Fact Sheet #3 – Possible Infrastructure Elements
• Main Street Safety Fact Sheet #4 – Recommendation and Solution Toolbox
• Main Street Safety Fact Sheet #5 – Misconceptions About the Project
Source: https://www.strpod.com/
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 28
• Main Street Safety Fact Sheet #6 – Draft Facility Plan
• Mailed notification of project updates and engagement opportunities: In addition to
the general notifications outlined above, additional notification as a part of the planning
phase of this project was completed to satisfy OAR 734-051 requirements. This included
an introductory mailer sent to adjacent property/business owners and property owners
within 300 feet of Main Street; a secondary mailer sent to adjacent business/property
owners to inform them of key principles; a postcard sent to adjacent business/property
owners to invite them to local access forums; a postcard sent to adjacent property/business
owners and property owners within 300 feet of Main Street to notify them that the draft
Plan is available for comment. Additionally, mailed notice will be sent as part of the public
hearing process.
• Masthead: A project masthead was created and placed on all community outreach pieces
for a consistent and identifiable visual for the project. The masthead is pictured on the cover
page of this document.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The project team developed a set of goals and objectives for the Facility Plan through consideration
of community input on a set of six values derived from the City’s TSP and prior corridor studies (as
documented in Technical Memorandum #10 in Volume 2). These goals and objectives guided the
development and evaluation of a toolbox of solutions to address the safety problem on Main Street
and were used throughout the decision-making process. In addition, the goals and objectives were
used as the access management key principles to ensure decisions regarding changes to property
access are consistent with the overall corridor vision. The goals and objectives include:
Safety – Increase the safety of Main Street for all users
Objectives: Identify infrastructure solutions that:
Have been demonstrated to result in reducing fatalities and serious injury crashes so
that Main Street is not on the statewide high crash list
Have been demonstrated to result in reducing the frequency of all crashes so that
Main Street is not on the statewide high crash list
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:
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 29
Provide viable ways for customers and deliveries to patronize/serve businesses along
Main Street corridor
Support the visibility and economic viability of Main Street businesses
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 or improve the efficiency and reliability of passenger vehicle operations
through the corridor
Maintain or improve the efficiency and reliability of transit operations through the
corridor
Maintain or improve emergency response times for police, fire and life safety
operations
Meet ODOT’s freight vehicle mobility standards 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.
Create safe, comfortable, efficient, and continuous pedestrian and bicycle travel and
access along Main Street.
Support existing transit service and provide flexibility to accommodate Enhanced
Corridor transit service in the future
Vital Community – Support the vitality of the community and its vision for Main Street
Objectives: Identify infrastructure solutions that:
Enhance the built and natural environment and stimulate implementation of the Main
Street Vision Plan to make it a vibrant place for those who live, work, shop and
travel through the corridor
Connect neighborhood residents to Main Street destinations and services; and
transportation options to access the broader region
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 30
Feasibility – Develop a plan with a clear and achievable approach to implementation
Objectives: Identify infrastructure solutions that:
Can be implemented starting within five years and maintained with foreseeable
resources
Can be implemented incrementally as funding is secured
Ensure the cost-effective use of resources
Note: For a solution to advance, it must be feasible to implement along Main Street.
CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY
• 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.
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the City of Springfield
must address this problem to save lives, reduce injuries, and lessen property
damage due to crashes.
• Building upon prior community visioning and planning efforts for Main Street,
and input from the Main Street Governance Team and Springfield City
Council, the process to develop this Facility Plan was based on robust
community engagement. Community input and values shaped the goals,
objectives, evaluation criteria, analysis of potential solutions, and final
recommendations.
• The community has reiterated that there really is a serious safety problem
on Main Street.
• Based on feedback received, implementation of infrastructure solutions will
need to reflect a balanced approach to improve safety and support business
and economic development in the corridor. The recommended toolbox
responds to this with simplicity, flexibility, and phase ability.
• ODOT and the City will continue to listen to stakeholders and make
adjustments in future design phases to ensure the safety, business
community, mobility, transportation choices, vital community, and feasibility
goals and objectives are met.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 2 – MAIN STREET NEEDS 31
CHAPTER 2. MAIN STREET NEEDS
Community outreach, combined with a detailed technical analysis (included in Volume 2), helped
provide the groundwork for understanding the transportation needs on Main Street today and into
the future. The following sections summarize the needs on Main Street, organized according to the
goals for this plan.
SAFETY
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. Over the past several years, the crash
frequency on Main Street has been more than double the statewide average for urban arterial state
highways. During the five-year studied period between 2012 and 2016 that was analyzed, there
were 653 recorded crashes. Fifty-four percent of the crashes (354) resulted in an injury or fatality,
(see Figure 7 below) which is a frequency of approximately 1-1/3 injuries or fatalities along the
corridor each week. By mode, pedestrians are disproportionately involved in fatal and severe injury
crashes as shown in Figure 8.
FIGURE 7: CRASH SEVERITY BY ROAD USERS
(2012-2016) FIGURE 8: BREAKDOWN OF CRASH
SEVERITY ON MAIN STREET
(2012-2016)
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 2 – MAIN STREET NEEDS 32
Note that the 2012 to 2016 data was the most recent crash data available at the time of analysis.
Since then, a supplemental safety analysis was also conducted using more recent safety data
(safety data from 2017 and a subset of fatal or severe injury crashes on Main Street between 58th
Street and 69th Street from January 2018 to March 2019, which was obtained from local law
enforcement), which indicated similar trends and patterns as the 2012 through 2016 data. Since
the 2016 data was analyzed, several more fatal crashes have occurred on Main Street, particularly
around the intersection at 54th Street. The Highway Safety Manual predictive methodology confirms
that the existing crash risk factors along Main Street will be exacerbated by additional travel
demand and the frequency of crashes will continue to increase over time if safety improvement are
not implemented.
The majority of the crashes along the corridor were rear-end or turning crashes (80%), as shown
in Figure 9. Both rear-end and turning movement crashes are common on corridors with a high
density of access points and intersections, such as Main Street, but these crashes are
overrepresented on Main Street. The primary causes of all crashes on Main Street are shown in
Figure 10.
FIGURE 9: CRASH TYPE (2012-2016)
FIGURE 10: PRIMARY CAUSES OF CRASHES ON MAIN STREET (2012-2016)
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 2 – MAIN STREET NEEDS 33
Other crash trends on Main Street include:
• Impairment from drugs or alcohol contributed to only five percent of overall crashes on Main
Street but accounted for 12.5 percent of fatal or severe injury crashes.
• Excessive speed and distraction contributed to approximately 10 percent of all crashes but
were involved in a small proportion of fatal and severe injury crashes (less than half a
percent).
• Approximately 77 percent of crashes occurred during daylight and just 14 percent occurred
in darkness. This reflects typical travel patterns throughout the day – more people are
driving, biking, and walking on Main Street during daylight hours.
As shown in Figure 12 (pg. 34), the entire Main Street corridor experiences a high frequency of
crashes with numerous fatal and serious injury (injury level A) crashes occurring along the
segment. Clusters of crashes are observed near major intersections, areas with high access
density, and areas with increased multimodal travel demand.
While crashes are spread throughout Main Street within the study area, the figure below (Figure
11) shows the intersections and segments on Main Street with a higher-than expected number of
crashes. These locations include:
• Intersections:
o Main Street & 28th Street
o Main Street & 30th Street
o Main Street & 32nd Street
o Main Street & 41st Street
o Main Street & 42nd Street
o Main Street & 54th Street
• Segments:
o Main Street from 35th Street to
45th Street
o Main Street from 51st Street to
54th Street
FIGURE 11: INTERSECTIONS AND ROADWAY SEGMENTS WITH A HIGHER-THAN-
EXPECTED NUMBER OF CRASHES (2012-2016)
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 2 – MAIN STREET NEEDS 34
FIGURE 12: FATAL AND INJURY CRASHES
Figure 12
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 2 – MAIN STREET NEEDS 35
To help understand the safety performance of intersection and segments along Main Street,
several different safety measures were evaluated. The measures evaluated include:
• Highway Safety Manual (HSM) Predictive Method: The HSM Predictive Method
provides a means for understanding the safety performance of a segment, intersection, or
corridor compared to the expected safety performance of a facility with the same
characteristics. This method includes excess crashes, which indicate how many more
crashes occur on Main Street than is expected for a similar facility.
• ODOT Safety Priority Index (SPIS): SPIS identifies high-crash locations on all
roadways in the state by evaluating the crash frequency, crash severity, and traffic
volume of a roadway in 0.10-mile increments. Top 10th-percentile SPIS locations are those
with SPIS scores that are higher than 90-percent of all statewide locations of that type,
which are considered the highest priority locations for safety investigations and
treatments.
• Critical Crash Rates: This method compares the observed crash rate at each intersection
to a “critical” or threshold value. In Oregon, the critical value is either based on statewide
safety trends or trends at nearby locations with similar characteristics, if sufficient data is
available. If the observed crash rate exceeds the associated critical crash rate, that
location is flagged for further investigation.
• ARTS Evaluation: The ODOT All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) program aims to
reduce fatal and serious injury crashes on all Oregon roads by using a data-driven process
to identify, prioritize, and fund safety projects. In 2015, ODOT completed the first round
of the ARTS program which utilized a consultant to identify hot-spot safety projects across
the state and flagged locations on Main Street.
Tables 1 and 2 list which Main Street intersections and segments, respectively, were flagged as a
concern in at least one of the performance measures listed above. There are several locations
along Main Street that have a high-risk for crashes and warrant safety treatments, as indicated
by being flagged by one or more safety measures.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 2 – MAIN STREET NEEDS 36
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF STUDY INTERSECTIONS FLAGGED IN SAFETY EVALUATION
LOCATION
(MAIN STREET
INTERSECTION)
EXCEEDS
EXPECTED
CRASH
FREQUENCY
(HSM)
EXCESS
CRASH
TYPES
SPIS
LOCATION
EXCEEDS
CRITICAL
CRASH RATE
(ODOT)
ARTS
LOCATION
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
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 2 – MAIN STREET NEEDS 37
TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF STUDY CORRIDOR SEGMENTS FLAGGED IN SAFETY
EVALUATION
LOCATION
(SEGMENT EXTENTS)
EXCEEDS
EXPECTED
CRASH
FREQUENCY
(HSM)
EXCESS
CRASH
TYPES
SPIS
LOCATION
EXCEEDS
CRITICAL
CRASH
RATE
(ODOT)
ARTS
LOCATION
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
The Main Street Safety Project identifies infrastructure
solutions. Engineered solutions need to work hand in
hand with education and enforcement. Since 2014, the
City has produced a series of safety educational videos,
created safety informational cards, distributed
materials through multiple channels including social
media posts, and hosted or participated in traffic safety
programs and events. The Police Department seeks
grants annually to support increased traffic patrols to
enforce speed, seatbelt, and impaired and distracted
driving laws. Enforcement is citywide with an emphasis
on streets that would benefit from additional patrols,
including Main Street.
FIGURE 13: ENGINEERING, EDUCATION
AND ENFORCEMENT WORK TOGETHER
TO CREATE A HEALTHY TRAFFIC
ENVIRONMENT
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 2 – MAIN STREET NEEDS 38
The City and ODOT have also been working collaboratively to make other safety upgrades on
Main Street This has included:
• Since 2012, the City and ODOT installed seven enhanced pedestrian crossings with
marked crosswalks and median islands according to recommendations in the 2011 Main
Street Safety Study. The new crosswalks have increased pedestrian access to safer
crossing opportunities.
• In 2017, at the request of the City of Springfield, ODOT reduced the posted speed limit
from 20th Street to 60th Place along Main Street from 40 miles per hour to 35 miles per
hour. While the posted speed reduction has helped to slow traffic by about one to two
miles per hour in some locations, the traveling public still drives at similar speeds and
severe crashes still occur.
• In 2020, ODOT initiated design for interim traffic signal safety improvements at Main
Street and 54th Street to improve accessibility and safety. The design will include added
left turn lanes on 54th Street, upgraded traffic signal timing to allow pedestrians to cross
during an exclusive walk phase, updated street lighting and upgraded ADA curb ramps.
• In 2021, Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) Oregon legislature allocated $10
million for pedestrian safety improvements on a few high-priority corridors. A portion of
this funding was allocated for improvements on Main Street. This included upgrading turn
signals at intersections, upgrading crossing detectors (to extend the crossing time for
pedestrians when needed), upgrading the lighting along the corridor, refreshing and
adding pavement markings and striping, installing speed feedback signs, maintaining and
replacing signs, and updating an existing barrier (from short to tall) on the OR 126
Expressway near the intersection with Main Street (to help direct pedestrians to safer
crossing locations).
Although these changes have helped improve safety on Main Street, additional engineering
solutions and higher-level funding allocations are needed to significantly increase safety. A review
of preliminary 2017, 2018, and 2019 crash data showed crash frequency and severity trends
consistent with the 2012-2016 data, indicating persistent safety deficiencies after the
implementation of many of the improvements listed above. The safety concerns identified on
Main Street require a comprehensive solution beyond isolated low-cost treatments to significantly
reduce the risk of crashes for all road users. Over the course of this planning phase, the
Springfield City Council has acknowledged community input and reaffirmed that there really
is a serious safety problem on Main Street and that it is ODOT’s and the City’s duty to tackle
the problem.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 2 – MAIN STREET NEEDS 39
BUSINESS COMMUNITY
An inventory of existing businesses17 was conducted on Main Street using Quarterly Census of
Employment and Wages (QCEW) data. Employment and average wages were summarized by
business category18 within a quarter mile buffer of the Main Street corridor, as well as for a 500-
foot buffer designed to capture businesses most directly affected by the corridor redesign. The
larger buffer captured businesses likely impacted by accessibility from Main Street, while the
smaller buffer captured businesses most impacted by visibility from the Main Street corridor. The
inventory indicated that on Main Street:
• There were 282 businesses employing 2,577 persons (nine percent of citywide total
employment representing six percent of the citywide total payroll) within a 500-foot
buffer.
• There were 418 businesses employing 3,789 persons (14 percent of citywide total
employment representing 10 percent of the citywide total payroll) within a quarter mile
buffer.
• Pass-by businesses (businesses that rely upon high visibility, ease of access and pass-by
traffic) made up approximately 67 percent of businesses along Main Street while
destination businesses (where customers typically plan their trips in advance) made up
approximately 28 percent of businesses along Main Street.19
• The greatest number of existing pass-by businesses were located between 42nd Street and
54th Street.
On Main Street, concerns related to site usage and access for specific locations received from
adjacent business and property owners during the Main-McVay Transit Study and the Main Street
Safety Project were documented by City staff in an online comment map.20 Many of the
comments centered around concerns regarding:
• Potential right-of-way impacts on adjacent properties and businesses
• Impact of construction on adjacent property and businesses
• Potential impacts to existing business signage
• Ability of customers and deliveries to access businesses
17 This process examined only the existing inventory of businesses in the corridor (as of Spring 2019) and
did not reflect any expectation of future business mix nor the economic impacts of COVID-19.
18 Categorization of businesses are limited by non-disclosure requirements placed upon the distribution of
QCEW data.
19 Note that approximately five percent of businesses were vacant at the time of the inventory.
20 https://bit.ly/SpfldORMainStreetCommentsMap
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 2 – MAIN STREET NEEDS 40
In particular, some business owners expressed that freight deliveries currently use the center
turn lane to park and stage delivery. While this may be convenient, it is not permitted and can be
dangerous particularly as Springfield continues to become more urban. Alternative staging and
delivery options could include deploying smaller vehicles for the ‘last mile’ of delivery, using
adjacent travel lanes to stage during off-peak hours or directly accessing sites or standing via
side streets or alleys.
Understanding that some of the safety recommendations could include raised medians or
roundabouts, a review of literature regarding economic impacts of these elements on businesses
was conducted. While no studies exactly replicate conditions on Main Street, some similar
patterns in the literature indicated:
• Businesses mostly did better afterward. No business clearly declined because of a street
project. (Some declined, but the street project was not a clear cause.)
• Any effect on a business after a street project was less than during construction. But steps
to reduce decline during construction are clear: keep business access open, with clear
signage.
• Property real-estate values tended to increase after a street project.
Customers of destination businesses typically plan their trips in advance and will be more tolerant
of some additional time that it may take to access business properties when raised medians are
installed. However, pass-by businesses that rely upon high visibility, ease of access, and pass-by
traffic may experience some loss of patronage associated with the added time it takes to access
their property by driving. Based on a review of available literature, there is some evidence that
businesses in mid-block locations were also more susceptible to lower customer visitation
resulting from access restrictions (turning movements, sight lines, etc.). Improvements that
make businesses easier to access by people walking, biking, or using transit could offset some of
this anticipated loss of patronage. In a number of studies21, bike and walk trips are associated
with more frequent business patronage but with smaller per trip expenditures.
Apart from the data in the literature review, business owners also shared feelings in the
literature, including:
• Business owners felt good about roundabouts after construction, perceiving better traffic
flow.
• Business owners did not feel good about raised medians, even where sales numbers went
up. They felt it was harder for customers to reach them.
21 Such as: East Village Shoppers Study, Transportation Alternatives; Polk Street Intercept Survey Results,
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, 2013.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 2 – MAIN STREET NEEDS 41
MOBILITY
Main Street is a five-lane corridor with a posted speed of 35 to 45 miles per hour. A number of
public intersections and driveways located along the corridor are closely spaced, with short
distances between access points that do not meet ODOT access spacing standards for the facility.
Today there are approximately 16,000 to 20,000 vehicles trips per day, of which truck traffic
accounts for approximately two to four percent. Peak hour traffic volumes (typically occurring
between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00p.m.) range from approximately 1,400 to 1,750 vehicles, with higher
traffic volumes on OR 126 east of Bob Straub Parkway. The intersection of Main Street and Bob
Straub Parkway experiences some of the highest turning movements along the corridor, with
numerous vehicles commuting northbound on the OR 126 Expressway during the a.m. peak hour
and southbound during the p.m. peak hour. By 2040, peak hour traffic volumes are expected to
increase on Main Street by approximately 20 to 30 percent, as Springfield and surrounding
communities continue to grow. The risks from crashes will increase with the increase in traffic
volumes unless ODOT and the City act now to change the street design to save lives, reduce
injuries, and lessen property damage.
MOBILITY TARGETS
Transportation agencies typically specify mobility targets for maintaining acceptable levels of
motor vehicle mobility. Mobility targets often require intersections to meet level of service (LOS)
or volume-to-capacity (v/c) intersection operation thresholds.
• The intersection LOS is similar to a “report card” rating based upon average vehicle delay.
Level of service A, B, and C indicate conditions where traffic moves without significant
delays over periods of peak hour travel demand. Level of service D and E are
progressively more congested operating conditions with more motor vehicle delay. Level
of service F represents conditions where average motor vehicle delay has become
excessive and demand has exceeded capacity. This condition is typically evident in long
queues, vehicles failing to clear the intersection during one green phase, and delays.
• The volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio represents the level of saturation of the intersection or
individual movement. It is determined by dividing the peak hour traffic volume by the
maximum hourly capacity of an intersection or turn movement. When the v/c ratio
approaches 0.95, operations become unstable and small disruptions can cause the traffic
flow to break down, as seen by the formation of excessive queues and vehicles not
clearing the intersection during one green phase.
The entire Main Street corridor is located within the City of Springfield, serves as a regional route
for the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area, and is an ODOT facility classified as a Statewide
Highway. According to the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan (OHP), ODOT mobility targets are given as
v/c ratios and are based on the highway category. The mobility targets in the OHP are based on
conditions during the 30th highest annual hour of traffic (30 HV). In Springfield, the 30 HV
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 2 – MAIN STREET NEEDS 42
typically occurs during weekday p.m. peak hours in the summer months. The existing mobility
targets for Main Street (OR 126) are listed in Table 3. The City of Springfield’s mobility standards
(which are based on LOS rather than ODOT’s v/c metric) are also listed in Table 3.
TABLE 3: MAIN STREET INTERSECTION MOBILITY TARGETS
MAJOR ROADWAY JURISDICTION MOBILITY TARGET
MAIN STREET (OR 126) ODOT (Statewide Highway)
0.85 v/c1
(0.95 for unsignalized side
street approaches)
MAIN STREET (OR 126) City of Springfield LOS D or better
1 Alternative mobility targets were adopted in April 2020 for two intersections on Main Street: at 42nd
Street (v/c < 0.95) and at Bob Straub Parkway (v/c < 0.90).
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Table 4 compares existing (year 2018) and future (year 2040) No-Build traffic operations along
Main Street to the adopted mobility targets. The table shows that all of the signalized
intersections meet City and ODOT targets for motor vehicle delay and mobility today. However,
some of the stop-controlled side streets (not shown in Table 4 below22) experience significant
delay during peak periods today, which can encourage drivers to take more risks and utilize
shorter, less safe gaps in traffic to turn onto Main Street. This condition likely contributes to some
of the turning movement crashes along Main Street.
By 2040, the following three intersections on Main Street fail to meet existing OHP mobility
targets:
• Main Street & 28th Street
• Main Street & Bob Straub Parkway
• Main Street & 58th Street
Main Street and 42nd Street will experience increased delay. It does not exceed the mobility
target in the Future No-Build year due to an alternative mobility target that was adopted in 2020
that accepts the additional delay.
22 Intersection operations for some stop-controlled side streets reported in Technical Memorandum #5:
Existing Intersection Operations in Volume 2.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 2 – MAIN STREET NEEDS 43
TABLE 4: INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ON MAIN STREET UNDER EXISTING (2018)
AND FUTURE NO-BUILD (2040) CONDITIONS (PM PEAK HOUR)
INTERSECTION
ON MAIN
STREET
EXISTING
MOBILITY
TARGET
(V/C)A
EXISTING (2018) FUTURE NO-BUILD (2040)
V/C LOS Delay(s) V/C LOS Delay(s)
INTERSECTIONS
21ST STREET 0.85 0.46 A 9 0.64 A 10
28TH STREET 0.85 0.82 D 37 0.95 C E 62
S. 32ND
STREET 0.85 0.70 B 20 0.81 C 30
42ND STREET 0.95 B 0.80 D 37 0.92 E 61
54TH STREET 0.85 0.39 B 14 0.54 D 40
BOB STRAUB PKWY 0.90 B 0.79 D 49 1.16 C,D F 96
58TH STREET 0.85 0.76 D 46 0.90 E 61
69TH STREET 0.85 0.38 A 9 0.52 A 10
Notes:
A V/C = Volume-to-capacity ratio; LOS = Level of Service
B Alternative mobility target adopted in 2020
C Highlighted values indicate that the current mobility target is not met.
D Improvements are included in the Springfield Transportation System Plan and are assumed to be funded
and constructed by 2035. These improvements would significantly reduce the expected congestion (v/c)
shown.
The intersection operations analysis was based on available data and planning from before
COVID-19. The “Stay at Home” orders and significant shift to remote work, increased flexible
schedules, and other commute-related policy changes are still evolving and will likely have
transportation system operation impacts in the years and decades to come. This Plan’s
recommendations are based on the best available information at the time of development, and
future design efforts will continue to monitor the impacts of COVID-19 and adjust accordingly.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 2 – MAIN STREET NEEDS 44
TRANSPORTATION CHOICES
Conditions for multimodal users on Main Street (people walking, biking and taking transit) are
documented below. A level of traffic stress (LTS) analysis was conducted for both pedestrian and
bicycle facilities. LTS breaks road segments into four classifications to qualitatively rate the
effects of traffic-based stress on people walking and biking. The measure of traffic stress
quantifies the perceived safety issue of being in close proximity to vehicles, primarily considering
the physical distance to traffic and the speed of traffic. LTS is measured on a scale from LTS 1 to
LTS 4. LTS 1 represents a facility with little traffic stress and is tolerable for all ages and abilities
of users while LTS 4 represents high-stress conditions that are tolerable only for experienced and
able-bodied adults and are generally perceived to be unsafe. Generally, LTS 1 or 2 is a
reasonable minimum target on roadway facilities, which is acceptable to the majority of people.
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY AND FACILITIES
While most of Main Street has continuous sidewalk on both sides of the street, the sidewalk is
typically curb tight or buffered by narrow landscape buffers. After accounting for obstructions in
the sidewalk (such as power poles), the effective sidewalk width in many areas of Main Street is
less than 6.5 feet (the minimum based on current ODOT design standards), and as narrow as 3.5
feet in some areas. In addition to signalized crossings of Main Street, there are seven enhanced
midblock pedestrian crossings throughout the corridor (primarily near transit stops), including
near 35th Street, 41st Street, 44th Street, 48th Street, 51st Street, Chapman Lane and 66th Street.
Pedestrian activity at intersections within the corridor is moderate, with approximately ten to 30
pedestrians crossing at study intersections along Main Street during the morning and evening
peak hours. Main Street and 32nd Street, Main Street and 42nd Street, and Main Street and 58th
Street intersections experienced the highest pedestrian activity at the study intersections
(approximately 30 pedestrians during the p.m. peak hour for the first two and approximately 30
pedestrians during the a.m. peak hour for 58th Street). South of the intersection of Main Street
and 32nd Street is the Bob Keefer Center and Les Schwab Sports Park, which are both major
activity generators. North of 58th Street is Thurston High School and there are shopping centers
on both the north and south sides of the intersection. There are also heavily used Route 11 bus
stops near all three intersections.
The high speeds of motor vehicle traffic and proximity of vehicles to pedestrians combined with
the limited physical buffers between narrow sidewalks and the roadway leads to a high-stress
(LTS 3 or 4) environment for pedestrians. In addition, many of the intersections throughout the
corridor do not meet current standards for ADA compliant curb ramps or accessible push buttons
at traffic signals. Any significant future infrastructure projects on Main Street will require ADA
upgrades of the pedestrian facilities.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 2 – MAIN STREET NEEDS 45
BICYCLE ACTIVITY AND FACILITIES
While bicycle lanes are present along the full extent of the corridor, the bicycle lanes are narrow
(typically five feet) and are not buffered from motor vehicle travel lanes. Several of the cross-
streets on Main Street are marked with bike lanes.
Bicycle activity along the corridor is generally limited to ten bicycles or fewer at study
intersections during the morning and evening peak hours. Overall, the corridor provides a high-
stress (LTS 3 or 4) cycling environment due to the many unsignalized intersection and driveway
crossings, higher travel speeds, two lanes of traffic present in each direction and a center turn
lane, and bike lanes that are five to seven feet wide and do not have a buffer.
The Virginia-Daisy Bikeway route serves as a lower-stress parallel bicycle route south of Main
Street. However, safe bicycle and pedestrian crossings across Main Street are limited. In
addition, given the limited east-west connectivity through Springfield, Main Street serves as one
of the few east-west connections for people biking between 28th Street and 32nd Street.
TRANSIT
Main Street serves approximately three thousand daily transit boardings and alighting. The vast
majority of transit trips are on Route 11 which has the second-highest ridership in the Lane
Transit District (LTD) system. The Springfield Transportation System Plan and LTD’s Long Range
Transit Plan identify the Main Street corridor as a Frequent Transit Network route, which includes
frequency of buses arriving (referred to as “headways”) at least every 10-15 minutes during peak
travel times. Currently, the transit travel time through the corridor is relatively quick (ranging
from nine to thirteen minutes between 21st Street and Bob Straub Parkway) with short average
headways (ranging from ten to thirty minutes). However, as congestion on Main Street increases
in the future, transit travel times will increase and may no longer meet the Frequent Transit
Network definition if street design upgrades are not implemented. In addition, a lack of
pedestrian accessibility to transit stops serves as a barrier to riders.
Based on community feedback and technical analysis for transit along Main Street, the Main
Street Governance Team removed EmX (bus rapid transit) from further study in July 2019, and
moved forward with Enhanced Corridor as the transit mode to analyze further in coordination
with the Main Street Safety Project. Enhanced Corridor includes features to improve reliability,
reduce transit travel times, and increase passenger comfort, such as roundabouts, stop
enhancements and amenities, and adjustments to stop locations. The Transit Design
Recommendations are noted on page 85 and 86 below. Additional details for the transit
enhancements will be determined after this Facility Plan is adopted and a transit project moves
into Phase 3: Project Design.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 2 – MAIN STREET NEEDS 46
VITAL COMMUNITY
MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS
Main Street serves as a key connection through Springfield, with people traveling along Main
Street to access businesses and major activity centers. Major activity centers near Main Street
include schools, parks, commercial and employment districts (previously shown in Figure 1).
Between 21st Street and Bob Straub Parkway, the largest land use type is retail that includes
small walk-in stores, drive-through fast food, and retail stores with large yards providing space
for lumber and automobiles. As an auto-oriented corridor, with high traffic volumes, the area
provides good visibility for retailers. There are industrial properties, including some that have
been there for decades. North and south of Main Street is a mix of residential, commercial, and
industrial uses.
Between Bob Straub Parkway and 72nd Street, the current uses are predominantly residential
with regional and community-scale shopping and services clustered near the Bob Straub Parkway
intersection. It has very little office space and no industrial space.
MAIN STREET VISION
The community vision for Main Street has been documented in the 2015 Main Street Corridor
Vision Plan (MSVP). The MSVP articulates a strategic vision for Main Street which is consistent
with the goals of this project. The community vision along Main Street includes:
• Mid-Springfield Business Corridor (23rd Street to Bob Straub Parkway) will remain an
affordable place to operate a business with good visibility and access while offering new
employment opportunities in a more attractive and safer environment.
• Thurston Area (Bob Straub Parkway to 69th Street) will remain a quiet and walkable
neighborhood offering a wide range of housing choices, nearby schools with regional and
neighborhood-serving commercial uses in a more attractive and safer environment.
The MSVP includes goals around transportation choices for multimodal travel that will improve
safety for all users and enhancement of the public realm, including streetscape amenities.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Along Main Street, the following environmental constraints were identified:
• Two eligible historical resources were identified between 25th Street and 32nd Street. No
archaeological sites have been documented in the study area but there is a high potential
for discovery of archeological resources during construction, particularly on the older, west
end of the study area.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 2 – MAIN STREET NEEDS 47
• Several potential wetlands and ditches were identified, including near 48th Street,
Mountaingate Drive, 65th Place and 70th Street. Additional wetlands exist off Main Street
but are not within 200 feet of the roadway. Environmental resources were documented,
including wetlands and historical resources.
• Several hazardous materials contaminant sources are located within or immediately
adjacent to the study area. Additional detailed study will be required during future design
phases to pinpoint areas of concern and recommend further action for mitigation, if
necessary.
• Air quality and noise studies will likely be necessary with any future improvements to
Main Street.
CHAPTER 2 SUMMARY
• There is a serious transportation safety problem on Main Street. 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.
• The crash frequency on Main Street has been more than double the statewide
average for urban arterial state highways. Between 2012 and 2016, there
were 653 recorded crashes. Fifty-four percent of the crashes (354) resulted in
an injury or fatality.
• Crashes are spread throughout the Main Street corridor.
• The majority of the crashes along the corridor are rear-end or turning
movement crashes (80%), which are common on urban streets with a high
density of driveways and intersections, such as Main Street, but 80% is
particularly high.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 2 – MAIN STREET NEEDS 48
• The primary causes of crashes are failure to yield right-of-way and following too
closely.
• Since 2012, several spot safety improvements have been implemented on
Main Street, including installation of enhanced pedestrian crossings and
adjustments to the posted speed limit. Although these changes have helped
improve safety on Main Street, additional engineering solutions and higher-
level funding allocations are needed to significantly increase safety.
o A review of preliminary 2017, 2018, and 2019 crash data indicated the
safety problem continues after the installation of those improvements.
The safety problems identified on Main Street require a comprehensive
solution beyond isolated low-cost treatments to significantly reduce the
risk of crashes and life changing injuries for all users.
• While no streets are exactly like Main Street, a review of literature regarding
economic impacts of roundabouts and raised medians on businesses found
that in general businesses mostly did better after a street project and no
businesses clearly declined because of a street project (some declined but the
street project was not a clear cause).
• Based on a review of literature, business owners generally felt good about
roundabouts after construction, perceiving better traffic flow. Business owners
generally did not feel good about raised medians, even where sales numbers
went up. They felt it was harder for customers to reach them.
• Several intersections will fail to meet adopted mobility targets in the future if
no improvements are made to Main Street to enhance mobility.
• Conditions for people walking and biking on Main Street are generally high-
stress due to the proximity to motor vehicle traffic, motor vehicle speeds and
narrow sidewalks and bike lanes.
• Based on community feedback and technical analysis for transit along
Main Street, the Main Street Governance Team removed EmX from further
study and moved forward with Enhanced Corridor as the transit mode to
analyze further.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 3 – SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS 49
CHAPTER 3. SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND
EVALUATION PROCESS
The process for developing, evaluating, and refining alternatives for the Main Street Safety
Project included the following stages:
• Develop and evaluate alternatives: Develop four alternatives with various combination of
safety and streetscape elements and evaluate the four alternatives to identify which safety
and streetscape elements perform well against the project goals and objectives (as
documented in Technical Memorandum #13 and #14 in Volume 2).
• Refine elements for toolbox: Refine the major elements of alternatives considered for
potential inclusion in a toolbox of solutions using the evaluation criteria and feedback from
project advisory committees, community members and decision makers (as documented
in Technical Memorandum #15 in Volume 2).
• Select elements for toolbox: Select the best performing elements to include in the
recommended toolbox of solutions while still allowing for flexibility and phase ability
during future design phases.
DEVELOP AND EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES
After identifying the existing and future needs on Main Street, four alternatives were developed
to compare against a No-Build condition. Each of the four alternatives consisted of a combination
of three major safety and streetscape elements, including:
Intersection control: Considering roundabouts or traffic signals for major intersections on Main
Street (Figure 14).
FIGURE 14: MULTI-LANE
ROUNDABOUT AT FRANKLIN
BOULEVARD (LEFT);
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
AT 42ND STREET (RIGHT)
Raised median framework: Considering options that allow for greater or fewer opportunities
for left turn and U-turn movements through breaks in raised medians (Figure 15).
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 3 – SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS 50
FIGURE 15: EXAMPLE RAISED MEDIAN WITH LEFT TURN OPENING
Street cross sections: Considering variations in widths and types of key components of Main
Street that accommodate multimodal travel (Figure 16).
FIGURE 16: EXAMPLE VARIATIONS IN WIDTHS AND TYPES OF MULTIMODAL
FACILITIES
The four alternatives and the No-Build condition were evaluated against the project goals and
objectives utilizing evaluation criteria to support discussions about opportunity and constraint
trade-offs of various elements. The findings from this evaluation were applied to the refinement
of the safety and streetscape elements, which is discussed in the following section. The project
goals and objectives are provided in Chapter 1 and the complete list of associated evaluation
criteria can be found in Technical Memorandum #11 in the appendix.
c) At-grade Separated
Bike Lane (9-12’)
b) Buffered Bike Lane (7-10’) a) Conventional Bike Lane (6’)
d) Raised Cycle Track (11-15’) e) Curb-tight sidewalk with no
obstructions (6-8’)
f) Landscaped buffer between
roadway and sidewalk
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 3 – SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS 51
REFINE ELEMENTS
After evaluating the initial alternatives, specific elements (intersection control, raised median
framework, and street cross sections) were refined using the same evaluation criteria and further
discussions with the technical team, advisory and governance committees, and broader
community. The following discusses the scoring for each of those refined elements.
INTERSECTION CONTROL
The major intersections on Main Street are currently controlled by traffic signals. However,
Springfield’s Transportation System Plan (TSP) policies directs the City to evaluate all intersection
control types when analyzing the appropriate treatment for a new or reconstructed intersection.
As such, both roundabouts and traffic signals were evaluated as potential solutions on Main
Street, consistent with TSP Policy 3.1023 and ODOT’s Intersection Control Evaluation24
requirements.
Table 5 summarizes the general performance of roundabouts and traffic signals relative to the
project goals and objectives.25 Roundabouts performed better for nearly every goal, and
significantly better for the goals of safety, business community, and mobility of all users.
Although the evaluation criteria are qualitative, it is important to remember the significance of
the safety benefits of roundabouts. In general, roundabouts have been shown to reduce all
crashes by approximately 50 percent26 and fatal and injury crashes by up to 78 percent.27
23 Springfield TSP Policy 3.10 states: 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 recommended 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, future needs, safety, construction, and operational costs.
24 Traffic Manual, Part 400 Intersection Control Evaluation, Oregon Department of Transportation, January
2021
25 Technical Memorandum #11: Solutions Evaluation Criteria (Tech Memo #11) Volume 2
26 Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse (CMF 10088). Federal Highway Administration. Last
updated August 2020.
27 Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse (CMF 226). Federal Highway Administration. Last updated
August 2020.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 3 – SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS 52
TABLE 5: INTERSECTION CONTROL SCORING SUMMARY
GOALS AND EXAMPLE EVALUATION CRITERIA ROUNDABOUTS TRAFFIC SIGNALS
SAFETY
POTENTIAL TO REDUCE CRASHES AND
VEHICLE SPEEDS.
BUSINESS COMMUNITY
CHANGE IN TRAVEL TIME TO ACCESS
BUSINESSES, AVAILABILITY OF TRUCK
ROUTES, AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON
BUSINESS SIGNING.
MOBILITY
DELAY AT INTERSECTIONS, TRAVEL TIME
THROUGH MAIN STREET, AND POTENTIAL
IMPACTS TO FREIGHT REDUCTION REVIEW
ROUTE.
TRANSPORTATION CHOICES
FREQUENCY OF CROSSINGS FOR PEOPLE
WALKING AND BIKING, AND THE COMFORT OF
THE WALKING AND BIKING INFRASTRUCTURE.
VITAL COMMUNITY
POTENTIAL FOR STREETSCAPE
IMPROVEMENTS, SUCH AS LANDSCAPING, AND
THE DIRECTNESS OF ROUTES BETWEEN
NEIGHBORHOODS AND MAIN STREET
DESTINATIONS AND SERVICES.
FEASIBILITY
DEGREE TO WHICH RECOMMENDATIONS CAN
BE IMPLEMENTED DUE TO COST AND RIGHT-
OF-WAY IMPACTS, AND THE BENEFIT OF
SAFETY-FOCUSED IMPROVEMENTS.
Note: The safety elements above were scored using the criteria described in Technical Memorandum #11:
Solutions Evaluation Criteria. Scores were not intended to determine a single option, but rather help inform
the conversation about which safety solutions work best for Main Street. Options might score differently if
used together with other elements but are shown here without consideration for how they may be
combined.
Strongly supports; Moderately supports; No significant changes; Moderately conflicts;
Strongly conflicts
By encouraging drivers to slow down and also reducing the number of conflict points at an
intersection, roundabouts significantly reduce fatal and severe injury crashes, such as head-on
and right-angle crashes. Based on specific safety analysis of Main Street, where roundabouts are
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 3 – SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS 53
installed at major intersections, all crashes will be reduced by approximately 48 percent (which
closely matches results achieved in other cities). Roundabouts will also lessen traffic congestion
on Main Street. When roundabouts are implemented, educational outreach will be important to
help drivers understand how to safely maneuver through a multilane roundabout, yield to
emergency vehicles, and clear the intersection during minor property damage only crashes. While
they may cost more to construct, roundabouts can decrease public and private costs by lowering
crash and maintenance costs over time. Conceptual roundabout layouts were created to assess
the potential magnitude of right-of-way impacts, which could greatly impact the cost of
construction. These approximate right-of-way roundabout footprints for study intersections can
be found in the appendix, though they only represent one way these roundabouts could be
designed. The roundabout footprint concepts will be further refined during future design efforts to
further mitigate impacts to adjacent properties and businesses for each specific intersection
location. The refined design will support the established goals and objectives that were developed
based on community input.
By comparison, retaining signalized intersections would not significantly improve safety and
therefore not address the problem on Main Street that ODOT and the City have the responsibility
to solve. Signalized intersections would likely require and include modifications, such as more
lanes added in specific locations to accommodate increased traffic over the next 20 years,
widening near the corners to accommodate U-turns and transit bus queue jump lanes, and signal
timing changes. Even with modifications, signalized intersections would create more traffic delay
than roundabouts. The construction cost for signals may be lower than building a roundabout but
maintenance costs would be higher and right-of-way impacts from widening could greatly impact
the cost of construction.
Another significant difference between roundabouts and signalized intersections on Main Street is
the ability for freight vehicles to make a U-turn. Roundabouts will be designed to allow freight
vehicles (such as small box trucks or large interstate semitrailer trucks) to make a U-turn using
the inside lane with some tracking over the concrete apron around the inside island. However,
freight vehicles would be unable to make U-turns at signalized intersections without significant
widening. Such widening would have substantial impacts to adjacent properties and would make
pedestrian crossings less safe by significantly increasing crossing distances and exposure time.
Furthermore, large trucks would likely need to drive very slowly while making these U-turns and
pedestrian crossing times would increase, which would increase the amount of delay all drivers
would experience at these intersections.
Roundabouts also provide two-stage crossings for people walking and biking, shortening the
crossing distance. People biking will have the option to utilize the travel lane or the multiuse path
at a roundabout to safely cross the intersection and all multilane roundabout approaches will
have rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) to enhance crossing safety.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 3 – SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS 54
RAISED MEDIAN FRAMEWORK
A raised median provides a physical barrier that moves left turns and crossings to safer locations.
These changes reduce the number of potential conflict points (as shown in Figure 17) and, as a
result, streets become safer and less stressful to travel on. Raised medians will be the greatest
contributor to improved safety on Main Street, potentially reducing crashes by up to 60 percent
on the entire study corridor. Raised medians are specifically intended to reduce turning-related
crashes, which make up approximately 32 percent of all crashes and 42 percent of all fatal and
serious injury crashes on Main Street.
FIGURE 17: TURNING MOVEMENT CONFLICT POINTS
a) Example of eleven conflict points
without median access control
b) Example of six conflict points with
median controlled access
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 3 – SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS 55
Medians on Main Street will have breaks for turning options to provide access along Main Street,
though some raised medians will require drivers to travel a short distance to make safer left turns
or U-turns at intersections. Installing raised medians along Main Street requires a balance
between providing access to the surrounding land uses and street network while still providing a
significant safety benefit, as shown in Figure 18.
FIGURE 18: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RAISED MEDIAN DESIGN, SAFETY, AND
ACCESS
The three raised median treatment categories shown above provide examples for how raised
medians could be implemented on Main Street and are described as follows:
• Maximizing Safety (Figure 19):
Adding raised medians with openings at
major intersections only. More median
coverage along Main Street would have
the greatest impact on improving safety
but would also decrease the
accessibility to and from local streets,
requiring some out-of-direction travel
compared to existing conditions (taking
approximately 60-120 seconds more to
reach a destination, on average).
FIGURE 19: EXAMPLE OF MAXIMIZING
SAFETY, MORE OUT OF DIRECTION
TRAVEL
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 3 – SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS 56
• Balancing Safety and Access
(Figure 20): Adding raised medians
with openings at major intersections
and some local streets. This would
better balance the need to improve
safety with accessibility on Main
Street, reducing the amount of out-of-
direction travel while still providing
significant safety benefits (taking
approximately 30-60 seconds more to
reach a destination, on average).
• Limited Medians (Figure 21):
Adding raised medians only at
locations with the most severe safety
concerns. This provides the most
accessibility on Main Street with
limited out-of-direction travel (taking
approximately 10-30 seconds more to
reach a destination, on average).
However, the amount of safety
benefits that limited medians would
have on Main Street may be minor, as
crashes occur along the entire corridor.
Table 6 summarizes how the three median treatment categories perform relative to the project
goals and objectives. Some of the major differentiators in the scoring include:
• Safety: Raised medians have the greatest potential to improve safety along Main Street.
Maximizing the raised median coverage on Main Street would substantially reduce the
number of conflict points for people driving, biking, and walking along Main Street.
• Business Community: As the raised median coverage increases, the amount of out-of-
direction travel required to access businesses and properties along Main Street also
increases from 10-30 seconds for the Limited Median category and up to 60-120 seconds
for the Maximizing Safety category. For freight and delivery vehicles, this out-of-direction
travel would be even more significant if roundabouts are not installed in coordination with
raised medians, as freight vehicles would be unable to make U-turns at signalized
intersections and would have to reroute using the city street network to access businesses
and properties along Main Street.
• Mobility: Maximizing Safety has the potential to introduce more U-turns at intersections,
slightly increasing the delay at those intersections. This impact is more noticeable at
signalized intersections than at roundabouts.
FIGURE 20: EXAMPLE OF BALANCING
SAFETY AND ACCESS
FIGURE 21: EXAMPLE OF LIMITED MEDIANS
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 3 – SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS 57
• Transportation Choices: More raised median coverage would increase the ability to
provide midblock crossing opportunities for people walking and biking on Main Street, also
potentially improving access to transit.
• Vital Community: Raised medians provide space for potential streetscape improvements.
• Feasibility: While Limited Medians would have lower construction costs, it would also
provide limited safety benefits, which might not achieve the primary purpose of the Main
Street Safety Project and potentially make it more difficult to secure funding. Balancing
Safety and Access could still help reduce construction and maintenance costs while
providing a safety benefit, achieving the project purpose and improving the likelihood of
funding. While the Maximize Safety approach would have the largest safety benefit, it
would also have the greatest impact on nearby intersections on Main Street, increasing
the cost of intersection improvements.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 3 – SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS 58
TABLE 6: RAISED MEDIAN TREATMENT SCORING SUMMARY
GOALS AND EXAMPLE EVALUATION CRITERIA MAXIMIZING
SAFETY
BALANCING
SAFETY AND
ACCESS
LIMITED
MEDIANS
SAFETY
POTENTIAL TO REDUCE CRASHES AND
VEHICLE SPEEDS.
BUSINESS COMMUNITY
CHANGE IN TRAVEL TIME TO ACCESS
BUSINESSES, AVAILABILITY OF TRUCK ROUTES,
AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON BUSINESS
SIGNING.
MOBILITY
DELAY AT INTERSECTIONS, TRAVEL TIME
THROUGH MAIN STREET, AND POTENTIAL
IMPACTS TO FREIGHT REDUCTION REVIEW
ROUTE.
TRANSPORTATION CHOICES
FREQUENCY OF CROSSINGS FOR PEOPLE
WALKING AND BIKING, AND THE COMFORT OF
THE WALKING AND BIKING INFRASTRUCTURE.
VITAL COMMUNITY
POTENTIAL FOR STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS,
SUCH AS LANDSCAPING, AND THE DIRECTNESS
OF ROUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBORHOODS AND
MAIN STREET DESTINATIONS AND SERVICES.
FEASIBILITY
DEGREE TO WHICH RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE
IMPLEMENTED DUE TO COST AND RIGHT-OF-
WAY IMPACTS, AND THE BENEFIT OF SAFETY-
FOCUSED IMPROVEMENTS.
Note: The safety elements above were scored using the criteria described in Technical Memorandum #11:
Solutions Evaluation Criteria. Scores were not intended to determine a single option, but rather help inform
the conversation about which safety solutions work best for Main Street. Options might score differently if
used together with other elements but are shown here without consideration for how they may be
combined.
Strongly supports; Moderately supports; No significant changes; Moderately conflicts;
Strongly conflicts
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 3 – SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS 59
STREET CROSS SECTIONS
Currently, the typical cross section on Main Street is approximately 80 feet wide, as shown in
Figure 22.
FIGURE 22: EXISTING MAIN STREET TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
The key elements of the Main Street cross section are discussed in detail in Technical Memos #13
and #14 (see the appendix). Based on discussion and feedback from the technical team, advisory
and governance committees, and broader community, various elements were included in the
toolbox of solutions for Main Street with the following potential variations:
• Travel lanes: Given that Main Street is a freight and Frequent Transit Network corridor,
travel lanes should range from 11 to 12 feet wide. 11-foot travel lanes are preferred to
help reduce travel speeds and limit the right-of-way footprint of the cross section.
• Raised medians: Raised medians on Main Street could range from 8-10 feet wide (to
allow for sufficient width for pedestrian crossings and turn lanes, where needed) with an
additional four feet of total shy distance28, with some flexibility for modifications during
design. Where left turn lanes with raised traffic separators are included, the center turn
lane needs to be a minimum of 13 feet wide (west of Bob Straub Parkway) or 14 feet wide
(east of Bob Straub Parkway) as the surrounding land use changes29 and to accommodate
ODOT’s Freight Reduction Review Route east of Bob Straub Parkway.
• Bike infrastructure: On Main Street, bike infrastructure could include standard bike
lanes (6 feet each), buffered bike lanes (7-10 feet each) or raised cycle tracks (11-15 feet
28 The lateral distance from the edge of the travel way to the curb face.
29 ODOT has created a set of six urban land use contexts to describe the variety of urban areas and
unincorporated communities in Oregon. Utilizing the new ODOT Blueprint for Urban Design, the existing
Urban Context for Main Street is Urban Mix from 20th Street to Bob Straub Parkway, Commercial Corridor
from Bob Straub Parkway to 61st Street, and Residential Corridor from 61st Street to 72nd Street.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 3 – SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS 60
each). A raised cycle track could be implemented in areas with fewer driveways that
create conflicts between people biking and motor vehicles turning onto or off of
Main Street.
• Pedestrian facilities: Sidewalks on Main Street could range from 6.5 to 8 feet and
could include landscaped buffers, ranging from 5 to 6 feet. All construction projects on
the corridor will bring ramps up to current ADA standards and make the corridor
more accessible.
BASE STREET CROSS SECTIONS
The elements listed above can be combined to create different cross sections along Main Street.
Below are three base street cross sections that show how these elements can be combined on
Main Street and when certain deviations from these base street cross sections should be
considered. These base street cross sections provide a framework that will allow a future design
team to implement location-specific modifications while still maintaining a relatively consistent
cross section along Main Street. Different street cross sections are provided for east of Bob
Straub Parkway and west of Bob Straub Parkway where applicable, as the surrounding land use
contexts change.
Note that any street cross section that widens the existing footprint could have an impact on
adjacent properties and businesses, such as:
• Impacts to buildings close to the existing right-of-way;
• Site-specific impacts to parking or signage; and
• Site circulation changes impacting business operations.
Property-specific impacts will be determined during a future design phase and the design
team will consider concerns related to site usage and access for specific locations received
from adjacent business and property owners documented during the Main-McVay Transit Study
and the Main Street Safety Project.30 During implementation, adjustments to balance safety
and impacts to businesses can be made, as discussed in in the Project Development section
in Chapter 5.
Constrained Width Cross Section
The base Constrained Width cross section provides a reasonable, affordable and safety-oriented
approach to implement near-term safety improvements on Main Street. It maintains the existing
curb-to-curb width for most of the corridor (Figure 23) but widens the sidewalk by one-half foot
on each side to update to current ODOT standards. This cross section will be used in constrained
areas where there would be major impacts to businesses with any widening of the roadway
30 https://bit.ly/SpfldORMainStreetCommentsMap
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 3 – SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS 61
footprint. The primary change from the existing cross section is the reallocation of one foot from
each of the outside travel lanes to the bike lanes. The sidewalk may need to be widened further
than shown in areas with obstructions not allowing for adequate clear widths to meet ADA
requirements. The median space provides enough width to install a midblock pedestrian crossing.
Where openings occur in the raised medians to accommodate left turn lanes, the center median
area will need to be widened to 13 or 14 feet to accommodate a left turn lane and raised traffic
separator. Where U-turns are allowed, the intersection corners will need widening to
accommodate passenger car U-turns.
FIGURE 23: CONSTRAINED WIDTH CROSS SECTION
The following modifications, described in more detail in Chapter 4, could be considered to the
Constrained Width cross section as the concept is refined during future design efforts:
• Adding roadway landscaped strips
• Widening sidewalks
Balanced Street Width Cross Section
Another base cross section is the Balanced Street Width cross section, shown in Figure 24. This
example balances the overall width of the road with safety improvements to the bike
infrastructure by including buffered bike lanes. This cross section is approximately eight to nine
feet wider (four feet on each side) than the existing typical cross section.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 3 – SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS 62
FIGURE 24: BALANCED STREET WIDTH CROSS SECTION
a) West of Bob Straub Parkway
b) East of Bob Straub Parkway
The following modifications, described in more detail in Chapter 4, could be considered to the
Balanced Street Width cross section as the concept is refined during future design efforts:
• Narrowing the bike lane buffer
• Adding vertical separation in the bike lane buffer
• Adding landscaped strips
• Widening sidewalks
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 3 – SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS 63
Active Transportation Enhanced Cross Section
The Active Transportation Enhanced base cross section is shown in Figure 25. This base cross
section includes a raised cycle track with landscaped buffer between the roadway and raised cycle
track and would requiring widening the roadway to approximately 96 feet. The Active
Transportation Enhanced cross section would be difficult to implement for long stretches of Main
Street east of Bob Straub Parkway, which is a Freight Reduction Review Route, due to the
narrower curb-to-curb distance31. The raised cycle track will be implemented only in areas where
there are few driveways (or as driveway consolidation occurs through redevelopment) to limit the
number of conflicts between people biking on the cycle track and vehicles turning onto and off of
Main Street. This cross section is approximately 16 feet wider (eight feet on each side) than the
existing typical cross section but will be more easily implemented in areas of Main Street where
the existing right-of-way is larger than the typical existing cross section of 80 feet.
FIGURE 25: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCED CROSS SECTION
The following modifications, described in more detail in Chapter 4, could be considered to the
Active Transportation Enhanced cross section as the concept is refined during future design efforts:
• Converting to a buffered bike lane at U-turns
• Converting to a shared use path (if safety conditions described in Chapter 4 are met)
Table 7 shows the benefits and tradeoffs of the three base cross sections. Note that all three base
cross sections include the same raised median treatment assumptions. Some of the major
differentiators in the scoring among the base cross sections include:
31 The existing narrowest point on Main Street is 29 feet curb-to-curb, while the Active Transportation
Enhanced cross section would be 26 feet curb-to-curb.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 3 – SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS 64
• Safety: All of the cross sections include raised medians, which have significant potential
to reduce crashes on Main Street (see the raised median discussion above) and as such,
the safety score is based on the influence of other elements. Each of the cross sections
have different bike facilities. With a buffered bike lane or raised cycle track, safety
improves for people biking. Landscaping between people walking or biking and people
driving has the potential to reduce vehicle speeds based on traffic calming principles.
• Business Community: As all of the cross sections include raised medians, there is not a
significant difference between change in travel time to access businesses or the
availability of truck routes.
• Mobility: The Active Transportation Enhanced cross section has a narrower curb-to-curb
distance, which could potentially reduce the “hole-in-the-air” vehicle carrying capacity of
Main Street east of Bob Straub Parkway, which is designated as a Freight Reduction
Review Route (meaning there cannot be significant horizontal or vertical constraints32 that
limit the size of freight vehicles beyond what can currently travel on the street).
• Transportation Choices: Both a buffered bike lane (Balanced Street Width cross section)
and a raised cycle track (Active Transportation Enhanced cross section) would improve the
comfort of people biking on Main Street. A landscaped buffer (Active Transportation
Enhanced cross section) would also improve the comfort of people walking on Main Street.
Modifications to the Balanced Street Width and Constrained Width cross sections, such as
adding a landscaped buffer where space allows, could improve the Transportation Choices
goal scoring from what is shown below.
• Vital Community: A landscaped buffer (Active Transportation Enhanced cross section)
would increase the potential for streetscape improvements and have the potential to
reduce vehicle speeds. Modifications to the Balanced Street Width and Constrained Width
cross sections such as adding a landscaped buffer where space allows could improve the
Vital Community goal scoring from what is shown below.
• Feasibility: The Constrained Width cross section is the most feasible for the majority of
Main Street. It maintains the existing curb-to-curb distance for most of the corridor,
minimizing construction costs and right-of-way impacts (total cost approx. $8-10 million
per mile).33 Note that even a pavement preservation project would trigger the need for
ADA upgrades along Main Street and would likely cost $3-5 million per mile. The Active
Transportation Enhanced cross section would significantly widen Main Street, having a
greater right-of-way impact and increasing the construction cost (total cost approx. $15-
20 million per mile) and maintenance cost. The Balanced Street Width cross section would
balance cost and right-of-way impact (total cost approx. $10-15 million per mile). Both
the Balanced Street Width and Active Transportation Enhanced cross sections are more
32 Horizontal or vertical constraints may include curbs, medians, trees, or roadway signs that create a
chokepoint on the roadway and limit the size of freight vehicles that can safely pass through.
33 Cost estimates are discussed in Tech Memo #14, with details included in Tech Memo #14 Appendix F.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 3 – SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS 65
consistent with the long-term vision for Main Street as articulated in the 2015 Main Street
Vision Plan and meet the current multimodal ODOT guidance.
TABLE 7: STREET CROSS SECTION SCORING SUMMARY (RAISED MEDIANS SCORED
SEPARATELY IN TABLE 6 ABOVE)
GOALS AND EXAMPLE EVALUATION CRITERIA CONSTR-AINED WIDTH
BALANCED STREET WIDTH
ACTIVE
TRANSPORT-ATION ENHANCED
SAFETY
POTENTIAL TO REDUCE CRASHES AND VEHICLE
SPEEDS.
BUSINESS COMMUNITY
CHANGE IN TRAVEL TIME TO ACCESS
BUSINESSES, AVAILABILITY OF TRUCK ROUTES,
AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON BUSINESS
SIGNING.
MOBILITY
DELAY AT INTERSECTIONS, TRAVEL TIME
THROUGH MAIN STREET, AND POTENTIAL
IMPACTS TO FREIGHT REDUCTION REVIEW
ROUTE.
TRANSPORTATION CHOICES
FREQUENCY OF CROSSINGS FOR PEOPLE
WALKING AND BIKING, AND THE COMFORT OF
THE WALKING AND BIKING INFRASTRUCTURE.
VITAL COMMUNITY
POTENTIAL FOR STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS,
SUCH AS LANDSCAPING, AND THE DIRECTNESS OF
ROUTES BETWEEN NEIGHBORHOODS AND MAIN
STREET DESTINATIONS AND SERVICES.
FEASIBILITY
DEGREE TO WHICH RECOMMENDATIONS CAN BE
IMPLEMENTED DUE TO COST AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
IMPACTS, AND THE BENEFIT OF SAFETY-FOCUSED
IMPROVEMENTS.
Note: The safety elements above were scored using the criteria described in Technical Memorandum #11:
Solutions Evaluation Criteria. Scores were not intended to determine a single option, but rather help inform
the conversation about which safety solutions work best for Main Street. Options might score differently if
used together with other elements but are shown here without consideration for how they may be
combined.
Strongly supports; Moderately supports; No significant changes; Moderately conflicts;
Strongly conflicts
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 3 – SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS 66
SELECT ELEMENTS FOR TOOLBOX
During this stage, input was collected from the Technical Advisory Committee, Strategic Advisory
Committee, Planning Commission, City Council, Governance Team, and the broader community
through an online open house, focus groups and community groups. Based on the evaluation,
community input and direction from the Governance Team and City Council, the following
elements were selected for inclusion in a toolbox of solutions to be created for Main Street that
allows for flexibility in implementation.
• Intersection control: Roundabouts were selected as the preferred method of
intersection control over traffic signals.
• Raised median framework: Constructing raised medians along Main Street using the
Balancing Safety and Access approach that will provide openings at major intersections
and some local streets. The goal is to reduce the amount of out-of-direction travel while
still providing significant safety benefits (taking approximately 30-60 seconds more to
reach a destination, on average). A set of access management guiding principles, shown
in Chapter 4, were also developed to inform future design phases.
• Street cross sections: The Constrained Width, Balanced Street Width, and Active
Transportation Enhanced cross sections were all selected for use on Main Street to provide
design options and flexibility for phasing and to accommodate areas with constrained
right-of-way. Guidance for how to apply these cross sections is provided in the following
chapters.
The resulting toolbox of solutions is described in more detail in Chapter 4.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 3 – SOLUTIONS DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROCESS 67
CHAPTER 3 SUMMARY
• ODOT and the City evaluated a range of infrastructure solutions to address the
safety problem on Main Street and support the project’s goals and objectives,
which were shaped based on community values.
• Intersection control, raised medians, and street cross section upgrades were
evaluated based on the goals and objectives. Technical analysis found that:
o Roundabouts have been shown to reduce all crashes by approximately 50
percent and fatal and injury crashes by up to 78 percent.
o Roundabouts provide better U-turn opportunities and enhance the
functionality of raised medians.
o Raised medians are specifically intended to reduce turning movement
related crashes, which make up approximately 32 percent of all crashes and
42 percent of all fatal and serious injury crashes on Main Street.
o Raised medians support enhanced pedestrian and bicycle crossings of Main
Street.
o An upgraded street cross section incorporating raised medians and greater
separation between motor vehicles and people walking and biking can help
achieve many of the community’s goals.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 68
CHAPTER 4. RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS
Based on the solutions refinement and evaluation process, a toolbox of infrastructure solutions is
recommended for Main Street that allows for:
• Adjustability: Most of Main Street will get raised medians, but their locations will be
adjusted during the design of each phase to best meet the needs of all users. The plan
also includes cross section variations for location-specific constraints and property impacts
to avoid a “one size fits all” approach. There is also the ability to implement constrained
cross section upgrades at first, with minimal widening.
• Gradual change: Funding for the recommended solutions has not yet been secured. As
funding is acquired, solutions such as roundabouts, raised medians, and street cross
section changes will be added in phases. Chapter 5 provides an implementation plan with
guidance for which intersections and segments of Main Street to prioritize for upgrades
based on the project goals and objectives.
FIGURE 26: RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 69
The primary solutions in the toolbox, as shown in Figure 26, include:
• Raised medians to:
o Reduce crashes by nearly half and limit out-of-direction travel for business
access to about 30 seconds, on average (when combined with roundabouts).
o Reduce turning conflicts by moving turns to safer locations.
o Create more opportunities for safer pedestrian crossings.
• Roundabouts replacing traffic signals to:
o Improve safety at major intersections.
o Reduce congestion.
o Make U-turns easier when raised medians are present.
o Enable freight trucks to make U-turns.
• Street cross section upgrades to:
o Balance improvements for walking and biking with property impacts.
For most of Main Street, the cross section will be four feet wider on each
side than it is today.
Additional recommended upgrades include:
• Low-cost, systemic safety upgrades: as identified in previous studies, including
better street lighting and fewer driveways.
• Accommodating Enhanced Corridor transit: as defined in the Main-McVay
Transit Study and described in the Transit Design Recommendations section below.
The following sections describe these solutions in the toolbox in more detail. Chapter 5
discusses how the toolbox will be implemented on Main Street and recommends a phasing
strategy for street upgrades.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 70
INTERSECTION CONTROL
Springfield’s Transportation System Plan (TSP) policies direct that the City will evaluate all
intersection control types when analyzing the appropriate treatment for a new or reconstructed
intersection. Consistent with TSP Policy 3.10, both roundabouts and signalized intersections were
evaluated at the major study intersections and, as a result, roundabouts were selected as the
long-term solution. Therefore, roundabouts will be constructed34 on Main Street at the following
intersections, which are currently signalized or are identified in the TSP as planned to have traffic
control improvements in the future:
• 21st Street
• 28th Street
• 32nd Street
• 42nd Street
• 48th Street
• 54th Street
• 58th Street
• Mountaingate Drive
• 69th Street
Roundabouts perform better than signalized intersections for nearly all of the project goals and
objectives. They will be very effective at reducing congestion (see Table 8), and work better in
conjunction with the raised medians to help reduce out-of-direction travel times – especially for
freight vehicles. They are also very effective for realizing slower traffic speeds and eliminating the
most dangerous turning conflicts, resulting in the ability to reduce crashes by 48 percent at Main
Street’s major intersections. To significantly improve safety outcomes on Main Street, a series of
large infrastructure investments will need to be made. The recommended future roundabout
intersections35, which are an element of the necessary infrastructure investments, are prioritized
into various phases to implement over time as funding becomes available.
As roundabouts are being implemented in the corridor, ODOT and the City of Springfield
Development and Public Works and Police Departments will continue on-going educational
outreach efforts to help drivers understand how to safely maneuver through a multilane
roundabout.
34 Note that any roundabouts on the state highway system will need to comply with ODOT Highway Directive
DES-02 and be properly designed to accommodate large freight vehicles. Any changes to traffic control
will need to be approved by ODOT during design.
35 Preliminary concept drawings for roundabouts at each of the major study intersections are included in the
Appendix.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 71
TABLE 8: 2040 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS WITH RECOMMENDED ROUNDABOUTS
INTERSECTIONA
ODOT
MOBILITY
TARGET
(V/C)B
NO-BUILD
(SIGNALIZED)
BUILD
(ROUNDABOUTS)
V/CC LOS Delay(s) V/C LOSC Delay(s)
INTERSECTIONS
21ST STREET 0.90 0.64 A 10 0.69 A 4
28TH STREET 0.90 0.95D E 62 0.84 A 8
S. 32ND STREET 0.90 0.81 C 30 0.87 A 9
42ND STREET 0.95 0.92 E 61 0.93 B 13
54TH STREET 0.90 0.54 D 40 0.57 A 3
BOB STRAUB PKWY 0.95 1.16D,E F 96 0.75 A 5
58TH STREET 0.90 0.90 E 61 0.90 A 8
69TH STREET 0.90 0.52 A 10 0.61 A 3
A 48th Street and Mountaingate Drive are identified for intersection traffic control improvements in the City’s
TSP. While these intersections are not major study intersections that were analyzed, it is still recommended
that roundabouts be installed when traffic volumes or safety warrant an improvement.
B V/C = Volume-to-capacity ratio; LOS = Level of Service
C Overall intersection v/c reported for signalized intersections, worst approach v/c reported for roundabouts.
D Highlighted values indicate that the current mobility target is not met.
E Improvements are included in the Springfield Transportation System Plan and are assumed to be funded
and constructed by 2035. These improvements would significantly reduce the expected congestion (v/c)
shown.
RAISED MEDIAN FRAMEWORK
Raised medians will be the greatest contributor to improved safety on Main Street based on crash
reduction potential. Raised medians are specifically intended to reduce turning-related crashes
which make up approximately 32 percent of all crashes and 42 percent of all fatal and serious
injury crashes on Main Street. Installing raised medians along Main Street requires a balance
between providing access to the surrounding land uses and street network, while still providing a
significant safety benefit.
Therefore, raised medians will be constructed along Main Street within the corridor from S. 20th
Street to S. 70th Street using the Balancing Safety and Access approach that provides openings
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 72
at major intersections and some local streets. The goal is to reduce the amount of out-of-
direction travel while still providing significant safety benefits, taking approximately 30-60
seconds more to reach a destination on average. This is consistent with the feedback received
from the majority of respondents in the second online open house (38 out of 56)36 and a
community focus group (8 of 10)37 who were willing to accept 30-60 seconds (or more) of
additional delay caused by raised medians in exchange for the associated safety benefits.
A list of guiding principles that will apply to raised median design for every phase of
implementation is provided below to help appropriately balance safety and access along Main
Street, which are based on community input and the project’s goals and objectives. These
principles include:
• Keep full access at all arterial and collector streets: All arterial and collector streets
should have full access onto and off of Main Street. U-turns for passenger vehicles should
also be provided where feasible at all arterial and collector street intersections.
• Limit out-of-direction travel time: Out-of-direction travel time should be limited to an
average of 30-60 seconds (or less) to achieve the intended balance of safety and
accessibility along Main Street. Greater delays could be considered outside of commercial
areas if there is a safety concern with providing greater access.
• Raised medians paired with roundabouts: Roundabouts have the potential to reduce
delay at intersections (by an average of approximately 40 seconds) and can be paired
with raised medians to help limit out-of-direction travel time, particularly for freight
vehicles. The average out-of-direction travel would increase from 31 seconds to 53
seconds if roundabouts are not used in combination with raised medians.
• U-turns at major intersections (roundabouts): Roundabouts provide critical U-turn
opportunities for both freight and delivery vehicles and passenger cars and are
recommended at all major intersections. Signalized intersections can be widened to
provide U-turn opportunities for passenger cars (but not freight vehicles) as a phasing
approach, though widening would create wider pedestrian crossing distances and increase
motor vehicle delay. Any signalized intersection widened to provide U-turn opportunities
as a phasing approach would need to be further studied to address these concerns to
permit U-turns.
• U-turns at unsignalized intersections: Consider widening to provide signed U-turns at
specific unsignalized intersections to reduce out-of-direction travel time for passenger
36 See Online Open House #2 Summary for additional details: http://ourmainstreetspringfield.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/06/Online-Open-House-2-Outreach-Summary_Final.pdf
37 See Outreach Round 2 Focus Group Summary: http://ourmainstreetspringfield.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/05/Downtown-Languages-Summary-FINAL-5.24.20.pdf
http://ourmainstreetspringfield.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Downtown-Languages-Summary-FINAL-
5.24.20.pdf
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 73
vehicles. Right turns followed by
U-turns have been found to
reduce all crashes by nearly
20% compared to direct left
turns.38 It can also reduce
serious and fatal injury crashes
by nearly 36% by reducing the
number of conflict points and
reducing exposure to crashes
tied to higher injury severities.
• Avoid overlapping turn lanes:
Where possible, left turns onto
local public streets could be
provided so long as the turn
lane would not overlap and
compete with storage for
another turn lane (as shown in
Figure 27).
• Consider left-in access to
properties on Main Street
that generate large volumes
of traffic: As the concepts are
refined through a future design
effort, left-in or full access
could be considered at properties with significant traffic volumes and larger out-of-
direction travel times. Note that the current example of how these principles can be
applied limit out-of-direction travel times to an average of approximately 30 seconds. Out-
of-direction travel times may have a larger impact on pass-by businesses (rather than
destination businesses). On Main Street, the largest number of pass-by businesses are
between 42nd Street and 54th Street.
• Emergency vehicle access: Raised medians should not limit access to fire vehicles
departing the fire stations along Main Street. In addition, a mountable raised median
design should be considered on Main Street to limit the out-of-direction travel for
emergency vehicles. A mountable raised median design will allow emergency service
vehicles to make left turns and U-turns throughout Main Street when necessary, but will
be less convenient than the existing two-way left turn lane. Fire hydrants on Main Street
are currently located on one side of the street and some may need to be relocated to both
38 Right Turns followed by Direction U-turns Versus Direct Left Turns: A Comparison of Safety Issues, Xu, L.,
Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal Vol. 71, No. 11, (2001)
FIGURE 27: EXAMPLE RAISED MEDIAN ON MAIN
STREET WITH LEFT TURN OPENINGS
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 74
sides of the street to ensure adequate emergency access once raised medians are
installed.
• Access to streets with no other outlets: There are a handful of streets accessing Main
Street that do not connect to another local street. These streets with no other outlet could
maintain full left turn access onto and off of Main Street until future connectivity to the
local street system can be provided.
• Consider crossing locations for people walking and biking: Raised medians provide
for safer crossing opportunities for people walking and biking. Crossing locations,
especially providing access to bus stops and active transportation travel routes to
neighborhoods to the north and south, should be considered when determining locations
of raised medians and turn lanes.
• Provide two-stage left turns from side streets: Where possible, two-stage left turns
from side streets should be provided, allowing a vehicle to store in the center turn lane
before maneuvering into the travel lane. Where a two-stage left turn would conflict with
another traffic movement, one-stage left turns could be considered based on expected
traffic volumes.
• Phase improvements to avoid freight rerouting through residential
neighborhoods: Where segments of raised medians are being constructed, ensure that
freight traffic can sufficiently reroute on designated truck routes to avoid rerouting
through residential neighborhoods.
Implementing raised medians as recommended can lead to a 35 percent reduction in crashes.
When the raised medians are combined with roundabouts at the seven major intersections, which
are currently signalized, the crash reduction on Main Street will increase to 48 percent (16 fewer
fatal or severe injury crashes per year) and will result in an average of 31 seconds (ranging from
9 to 53 seconds) of out-of-direction travel time. A conceptual example of what this could look like
on Main Street is shown in Figures 32 and 33 (pg. 81-82).
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 75
STREET CROSS SECTIONS
All three base street cross sections, Constrained Width, Balanced Street Width and Active
Transportation Enhanced (Figures 28-30), will be applied on Main Street as appropriate to
provide design options and flexibility for phasing and areas with constrained right-of-way.
Potential modifications to each (such as adding landscaping or reducing the width of certain
elements) are provided below to offer flexibility in design to better fit corridor opportunities and
constraints. During the planning phase, community members and advisory bodies expressed that
flexibility exist to modify each street segment during the design phase to ensure it is not a one-
size-fits-all approach. In general, flexibility in the alignment of lanes, curbs, sidewalk locations,
etc. can occur to the degree that it does not compromise safety.
FIGURE 28: CONSTRAINED WIDTH CROSS SECTION
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 76
FIGURE 29: BALANCED STREET WIDTH CROSS SECTION
a) West of Bob Straub Parkway
b) East of Bob Straub Parkway
The following modifications will be considered with the Constrained Width cross section and the
Balanced Width cross section as the concept is refined during future design efforts:
• Widening sidewalks: In areas where there would be little to no impact to existing
businesses, the sidewalk could be widened from 6.5 to 8 feet to provide a more
comfortable walking environment and provide space for street furniture. In areas where
obstructions exist in the sidewalk, it should be widened up to eight feet to allow
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 77
pedestrians to navigate around the obstruction and provide a more comfortable walking
experience.
• Adding landscaped strips: Based on public comments from the second round of
community engagement,39 landscaped buffers between the roadway and sidewalk were
preferred along Main Street. In areas where there would be little to no impact or there
could be benefits to existing businesses, landscaped buffers could be installed between the
curb and the sidewalk. This could help provide stormwater treatment and improve the
aesthetic of Main Street, addressing the Vital Community goal.
In addition, the following modifications will be considered with the Balanced Street Width cross
section as the concept is refined during future design efforts:
• Narrowing the bike lane buffer: The buffer between the bike lanes and travel lanes
could be narrowed or eliminated in areas of Main Street where the existing right-of-way is
constrained.
• Adding vertical separation in the bike lane buffer: Vertical separation such as flexible
plastic delineators (shown in Figure 16 on page 50) or raised medians could be added in
the bike lane buffer to provide a more comfortable bike facility in areas with few
driveways on Main Street (or as driveway consolidation through redevelopment occurs).
The type of vertical separation should be selected in coordination with maintenance
departments to ensure that the bicycle facility can be easily maintained. In addition,
vertical delineators could be considered on key sections of Main Street that provide bike
connectivity to other regional bike routes (e.g., between 28th Street and 32nd Street,
which provides east-west connectivity to the Virginia-Daisy Bikeway south of 32nd Street).
• Modifying travel lane widths: The ODOT Mobility Advisory Committee stated a
preference (but not a requirement for) 12-foot travel lanes east of Bob Straub Parkway,
which is a freight reduction review route. Travel lane widths east of Bob Straub Parkway
may be further refined during design.
39 See online open house and focus group summaries.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 78
FIGURE 30: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCED CROSS SECTION
The following modifications will be considered with the Active Transportation Enhanced cross
section as the concept is refined during future design efforts:
• Converting to a buffered bike lane at U-turns: Due to the limited curb-to-curb width at
locations where U-turns are allowed, extensive widening would be needed to accommodate a
U-turn. Instead, the cycle track could be converted to a buffered bike lane at U-turn locations
to maximize the curb-to-curb width.
• Converting to a shared use path: Due to its two-way nature, there are limited applications
on Main Street where it would be safe to install a shared use path. Shared use paths can be
difficult to implement safely in areas where people biking and walking would need to interact
often with motor vehicle traffic (such as driveways and intersections), as drivers often do not
expect bicyclists to approach from both directions. In areas where there are few conflicts with
driveways40 or a large amount of right-of-way to provide a sufficient setback to store turning
vehicles (20-25 feet), a shared use path could be considered. However, considerations would
be needed to allow people biking on the two-way shared use paths to cross back to the correct
side of the street to their respective one-way bike lanes at the start and end of any shared use
path.
40 The intent of constructing a shared use path is to provide a low-stress environment for people walking
and biking and, therefore, the number of driveway conflicts should be consistent with a low-stress
environment. The number of conflicts could vary depending on the number of driveways and the
frequency of driveway use.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 79
LONG TERM STREET CROSS SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
The long-term street design of Main Street from S. 20th Street to S. 72nd Street is shown in
Figure 31 below. The Balanced Street Width cross section is the intended long-term design for
most of the corridor, with the Active Transportation Enhanced design being applied between S.
52nd Street and S. 58th Street. The Active Transportation Enhanced cross section provides an
off-street cycle track with landscaping, while the Balanced Street Width cross section improves
facilities for all users while using less right-of-way. The Constrained Width cross section is similar
to the existing cross section and maintains the existing curb lines. The Constrained Width cross
section is only recommended as a short-term solution or for implementation in constrained41
areas on Main Street, as it is the most feasible to quickly implement.
RECOMMENDATION EAST OF 69TH STREET
In addition to the long-term recommendations listed above, a three-lane cross section east of
69th Street should be investigated during design. Main Street currently narrows to a three-lane
section shortly east of 72nd Street. Traffic volumes on Main Street east of 69th Street are over
40 percent lower than near Bob Straub Parkway, with an annual average daily traffic volume of
approximately 15,500 vehicles. A three-lane section could be accommodated with a roundabout
at 69th Street (or traffic signal) without significant operational issues. A three-lane section could
be implemented either with or without raised medians, although a wide median would be needed
to accommodate U-turns (or U-turns would need to be limited). A three-lane section could
accommodate improved facilities for people walking and biking and could be combined with
walking and biking facilities east of 72nd Street to connect to the Thurston Hills Natural Area
trailhead. This could also provide space for landscaping or a gateway treatment for vehicles
entering or leaving the city to indicate the transition to and from rural and more urban areas.
41 Constrained areas will be determined during a future design phase when more detailed information from
surveys, engineering, and property owner engagement is available to determine the potential impacts and
mitigations to adjacent properties. Areas may be deemed constrained where the benefits of the
improvements would not outweigh the cost of property impacts/mitigations.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 80
FIGURE 31: LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 31
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 81
FIGURE 32: EXAMPLE CORRIDOR CONCEPT (36TH STREET TO S 46TH STREET)
Figure 32
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 82
FIGURE 33: EXAMPLE CORRIDOR CONCEPT (51ST STREET TO 54TH STREET)
Figure 33
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 83
TRANSIT DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Beginning in 2014, the City of Springfield and Lane Transit District (LTD) initiated the Main-McVay
Transit Study. The Main-McVay Transit Study’s purpose was to engage the community in a
planning process to evaluate transit options for the Main Street and McVay Highway Corridor as
potential solutions to address growing concerns about safety, congestion, and quality of life.
In 2018, the City of Springfield and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) launched
the Main Street Safety Project to address the safety problem on Main Street from 20th Street to
72nd Street. The Main Street Safety Project has coordinated with the Main-McVay Transit Study
throughout the planning phase of the Main Street Safety Project.
The Main Street Safety Project built upon the Main-McVay Transit Study’s prior community
engagement and technical analysis. Early in the Main Street Safety Project’s planning phase, the
project incorporated transit into the goals and objectives that helped guide the planning process.
This Facility Plan both accommodates current bus service and future transit solutions.
In July 2019, in response to feedback received through community engagement and technical
analysis, the Main Street Governance Team formally removed the EmX (bus rapid transit) transit
mode option from further consideration. The Governance Team directed the Main-McVay Transit
Study project team to move forward with analysis of the No-Change option and Enhanced
Corridor option.
Enhanced Corridor transit on Main Street could include:
• Better amenities, such as trash receptacles, benches, shelters, and automated fare
collection to provide a more welcoming environment for transit riders;
• Increased service in response to demand, including more reliable, consistent 10-minute
service that connects with other transit routes for convenient transfers;
• Changes to the corridor street design that improve transit travel times, including
roundabouts and stop consolidations; and
• Roadway upgrades to accommodate more frequent transit activity, such as a concrete
street surface that is more durable.
Transit vehicles along Main Street are expected to primarily run in mixed-traffic in the future.
Enhanced Corridor transit will consist of buses running along the current Route #11 alignment, as
shown below.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 84
FIGURE 34: TRANSIT ROUTE 11 ALIGNMENT
Transit service changes, such as bus stop location changes, may occur outside of the
implementation of phases of this Facility Plan that involve capital project design and construction.
Changes to bus stop locations typically fall within the day-to-day operational responsibilities of
LTD. During design and construction of phases of this Facility Plan, it will be critical to evaluate
bus stop locations since bus stops interact with all other street design elements and in-lane stops
can add some delay to motor vehicles, so it may make sense to relocate stops. For example,
where the Active Transportation Enhanced cross section is implemented, unique stop designs
(similar to that shown in the figure below), may be necessary.
Additionally, the walking and biking upgrades identified in this Facility Plan will help improve the
overall transit rider experience by improving safety, access, and convenience for people walking
and biking to the bus.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 85
FIGURE 35: EXAMPLE TRANSIT STOP DESIGN WITH ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
ENHANCED CROSS SECTION
Source: https://nacto.org/wp-
content/uploads/gallery/2012_guidance_images/2012guidance_protectedcycletrack.jpg
TRANSIT DESIGN GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The following guiding principles for future design phases will be taken into consideration to create
a multimodal environment that connects people and destinations by supporting existing transit
service and providing flexibility to accommodate Enhanced Corridor transit service in the future:
Coordinate transit elements with safety project delivery: As design phases are funded to
gradually implement this Facility Plan, the project design team will coordinate with LTD on
design, discuss funding opportunities for transit-specific elements, and ensure resources are used
in a cost-effective manner. The infrastructure design solutions will maintain or improve the
efficiency and reliability of transit operations through the corridor to achieve corridor goals.
Use durable construction materials that support transit vehicles: At a minimum, concrete
pads should be installed at bus stops so that heavy buses filled with passengers do not cause
surface uplift and heaving, especially when buses brake while accessing bus stops. Ideally, the
outside travel lanes throughout the Main Street corridor west of 69th Street should be
constructed with concrete, if project funding allows. The cost to design and construct concrete
outside lanes would increase the long-term cross section costs by approximately 20 percent.
Concrete pads at bus stops would cost significantly less. As phases are implemented, ODOT, City
of Springfield, and LTD will discuss ongoing maintenance needs and agency responsibilities to
maintain transit infrastructure.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 86
Construct level boarding at transit stops: Level boarding or near level boarding should be
constructed to decrease transit travel times and increase accessibility for people riding the bus.
Raised platforms elevate the sidewalk at bus stops a few inches higher to allow people to walk or
roll onto and off the bus quicker and more easily.
Follow transit spacing policies for distance between bus stops: Look to current LTD and
City of Springfield transit stop spacing policies and standards to determine changes to bus stop
locations, taking into consideration the adjacent land uses and pedestrian trip generators and
attractors.
Other items to consider during future design phases include, but are not limited to:
• bus stop locations in relation to intersections;
• distance and location of bus stops in relation to pedestrian crossings and destinations;
• bus stop locations and amenities (e.g., bike parking facilities, accessible walking routes,
potential bike share stations) in relation to the regional biking and walking networks; and
bus stop design.
ADDITIONAL STREETSCAPE AND SAFETY ELEMENTS
As the toolbox of solutions is implemented on Main Street, the following elements will be taken
into consideration.
• Access management: Systemic safety improvements, such as access management and
driveway access consolidation, where possible, will be included in any future design phase
on Main Street. The design team will utilize the Key Principles and Access Management
Methodology (listed in Table 10 on pg. 103) to make decisions regarding any future
changes to individual property access points that may occur through future land use
applications and/or the engineering design phase once funding for implementation
becomes available. There will be additional opportunity for review of the Access
Management Methodology, which describes the decision-making criteria for making
changes to property access, by business and property owners during future design
phases.
• Enhanced street lighting: Throughout Main Street, street lighting will need further
analysis and potentially further enhancements42 along the entire corridor. This was also
recommended in the 2011 Main Street Safety Study and identified as a need by City staff
and through ARTS analysis.
42 The 2021 ODOT safety upgrades included upgrading and adding LED lighting along the entire Main Street
corridor. Due to the rapid turnaround of the upgrades, further lighting analysis to complete the
enhancements may be needed.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 4 – RECOMMENDED TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 87
CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY
• Raised medians, roundabouts, and street cross section upgrades are primary
solutions to address the safety problem on Main Street. They are reasonable
and sensible tools to use since they focus on addressing the primary causes of
fatal and severe injury crashes observed along Main Street.
• Implementing raised medians as recommended would lead to a 35 percent
reduction in crashes.
• When the raised medians are combined with roundabouts, crashes would be
reduced by 48 percent and result in an average of 31 seconds of out-of-
direction travel time.
• Street cross section upgrades will balance improvements for walking and
biking with property impacts. For most of Main Street, the cross section will
be about four feet wider on each side. The Constrained Width, Balanced
Street Width, and Active Transportation Enhance cross sections will be applied
and modified as appropriate.
• Additional recommended improvements include low-cost systemic safety
upgrades, such as better street lighting and fewer driveways, and
accommodating Enhanced Corridor transit.
• Community members have confirmed they want to see safety improved on
Main Street. Additionally, they have confirmed they like the solution "toolbox"
and the range of recommended safety tools to address safety as it provides
the flexibility to implement infrastructure that will accommodate different
segments of the corridor instead of a "one-size-fits-all" approach.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 88
CHAPTER 5. IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF
SOLUTIONS
This chapter provides guidance for implementing the toolbox of solutions provided in this Facility
Plan. It describes strategies for securing funding, a prioritization and phasing plan, general
expectations for the project development process, identification of key regulations and policies,
recommendations for the adoption of alternative mobility targets, and key steps for adoption of
this Facility Plan.
FUNDING STRATEGY
Securing additional funding is a critical component for constructing safety upgrades in the
corridor. To save lives and reduce serious injuries on Main Street, ODOT and the City must
actively pursue funding opportunities and identify dollars to pay for the recommended
infrastructure upgrades. Key decision makers at ODOT to influence these financial decisions
to fund Main Street design and construction are Oregon Transportation Commissioners, the
ODOT Executive Management Team, the Region 2 Manager, and the Area 5 Manager.
The City Council and Lane Area Commission Transportation also have opportunities to
influence funding allocations.
Available funding sources will vary depending on the type of street design element and available
revenue sources, such as state and federal grant programs. Most potential funding sources have
specific requirements and stipulations associated with them. For instance, ODOT ADA program
funds can only pay for design and construction of ADA compliant curb ramps and no other street
design elements. Upgrades in the corridor will be dependent on securing funding for engineering
design and construction.
ODOT, the City, and LTD need to collaborate to assemble a funding strategy that will likely draw
from different funding sources to assemble comprehensive phases that can be implemented.
Based on community feedback, this would ideally pair roundabout intersection upgrades with
adjacent median installation in a given phase. If ADA upgrades and other street segment
upgrades could be coordinated at the same time, construction impacts in the work zone area
would also be reduced and support the Business Community goal. Combining different funding
sources where possible will help leverage different grant programs to most effectively and
efficiently use public dollars, supporting the Feasibility goal and objectives. This potential cost
sharing strategy between different grant programs will support the Oregon Transportation
Commission’s Strategic Action Plan priorities and result in phased project implementation that
has multiple co-benefits.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 89
Implementation of the entire recommended toolbox of solutions is expected to cost
approximately $135 million dollars, as shown in Table 9 below.43 Approximately $1.8 million is
currently earmarked for preliminary design and environmental review. Examples of potential
funding sources for Main Street improvements include:
• ODOT Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): The STIP is ODOT’s
capital improvement plan for state and federally-funded projects. The Oregon
Transportation Commission and ODOT develop the STIP in coordination with a wide range
of stakeholders and the public. The STIP focuses on projects that enhance the
transportation system, improve safety, and/or enhance facilities for people walking and
biking. The following programs are part of the STIP.
o ODOT All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) Funding: The ARTS program
(Oregon’s Highway Safety Improvement Program) is a competitive program with a
focus on implementation of cost-effective and proven safety countermeasures to
reduce fatal and injury crashes that funds safety improvements throughout the state.
Many of the improvements recommended in this Facility Plan are focused on safety
and could be partially funded through the ARTS program.
o ODOT Enhance Funding: The ODOT Enhance Highway Discretionary program makes
operational enhancements to state highways to improve the movement of people and
goods in order to enhance the economy of Oregon. Projects must provide congestion
relief and/or freight mobility benefits to be eligible. Additional benefits include safety,
multimodal accessibility, equity, climate mitigation, adaptation, and sustainability.
Intersections and interchange upgrades are examples of the type of project this
program could fund.
o ODOT ADA Funding: ODOT entered into a 15-year settlement agreement to make
state highways more accessible to people with disabilities. As part of the settlement,
ADA compliant curb ramps and other associated changes will need to be implemented
on Main Street prior to 2031. The legally required ADA upgrades along Main Street are
likely to be one of the soonest triggers for design and construction and will likely start
occurring in the 2024-2027 time period. While this funding is specific to ADA-related
improvements, there may be opportunities to leverage this funding with other sources
to implement a more comprehensive set of improvements on Main Street.
o ODOT Bike/Ped Strategic Funding: This program supports improving safety and
equitable access to active and public transportation. It primarily focuses on the top
10% of priority locations identified in ODOT’s Active Transportation Network Needs
43 Note that the planning level cost estimates do not include costs for Enhanced Corridor transit
improvements. Additionally, the cost estimates assume asphalt lanes. If concrete outside lanes were
desired for increased durability and to combine funding with Enhanced Corridor transit upgrades, the cost
to construct the long-term cross section improvements would increase by approximately 20 percent from
values shown in Table 9.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 90
Inventory (including some segments of Main Street). The program goals are to 1)
address pedestrian and bicycle gaps on the state system such as missing sidewalks,
bike lanes, and crossings, 2) prioritize projects at locations that provide an equity and
safety benefit, and 3) identify cost savings through leveraging with other ODOT
projects such as repaving or curb ramp replacement at high priority pedestrian and
bicycle locations.
o ODOT Fix-It Funding: This program funds projects that fix or preserve the state’s
transportation system, including preserving and replacing street surfaces. ODOT uses
data about the conditions of assets to choose the highest priority projects. The two
programs listed below are the Fix-It programs that have already identified assets on
the corridor needing to be prioritized for replacement in the next couple of decades:
> ODOT Preservation: This funding preserves, rehabilitates, and reconstructs
existing pavement to improve pavement conditions or reduce pavement
maintenance requirements. Priority is given to pavement on priority routes and
projects which provide a high pavement service life return on investment.
> ODOT Operations: This funding is used to address functional operations areas
such as signs, signals, illumination, and other traffic control devices; intelligent
transportation systems; and other system operational deficiencies identified by the
regions that enhance the safety and efficiency of the state’s transportation system.
• Development Improvements: As new development is implemented on Main Street,
right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements could be conditioned on the new
development to help reduce the long-term costs associated with the recommended
improvements on Main Street.
Other potential funding sources to consider could include: ODOT Safe Routes to Schools
Infrastructure funding, Oregon legislature designated funding, federal transportation grant
programs (such as Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity “RAISE,”
Infrastructure for Rebuilding America “INFRA,” or Congressional member directed spending),
potential future state or federal climate change related grant funding, transit funding through the
Federal Transit Administration, or discretionary federal transportation funding that flows to the
Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Area (including Surface Transportation Block Grant,
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality, and Transportation Alternatives funding). Based on previous
transportation revenue for this region, the revenue that can be expected for any given funding
cycle will not be able to fund the entire corridor. If existing funding programs continue at their
current levels, it is likely that only around $10 million in improvements could be funded in any
given four-year transportation funding cycle. Given funding constraints, it is likely that the
solutions on Main Street will need to be funded over time and in phases.
Approximately $17.6 million is needed to fund the first comprehensive phase of design and
construction. Although a comprehensive phase would be ideal, waiting for the ideal funding
scenario should not deter ODOT and the City from moving forward with design and construction
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 91
as soon as funding allows. Ever year delayed risks more lives being lost or severely altered
before changes to the street can be made.
Considering typical funding and design timelines, the soonest any upgrades would begin
construction would be 2025. However, it may take longer to secure funding as some previous
attempts to secure funding for safety improvements on Main Street (ODOT Safe Routes to School
Infrastructure grant, 2024-2027 ARTS funding) have been unsuccessful.
PHASING OF SOLUTIONS
All advisory committees have emphasized the importance of phasing. The first complete phase of
the project should be constructed soon in order to tangibly demonstrate to the community what
the Facility Plan recommendations look and feel like and enable the traveling public to start
adjusting to a new street design and traffic patterns. Implementation of the first phase is also an
opportunity to demonstrate to business and property owners how the design phase further
refines the Plan concepts and works to mitigate impacts while achieving and balancing project
goals and objectives. Given the solutions identified in this Facility Plan will be funded over time
and in phases, ODOT and the City will need to prioritize improvements on Main Street. In doing
so, the following strategies should be considered for prioritizing improvements and balancing the
goals of the project:
• Safety – The primary purpose of the Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan is to
identify infrastructure solutions that will make Main Street safer for people walking, biking,
driving and taking transit. As such, safety should play a key role in the prioritization and
phasing of improvements, with preference given to upgrades implemented in high crash
locations. Greater safety benefits will also increase the likelihood of being awarded funding
through programs such as ARTS, which prioritizes locations throughout the state based on
crash history.
• Feasibility – To easily implement solutions in phases, the sub-phases likely need to be
fundable at approximately $5 million to $10 million. This incremental level of funding will
likely be more achievable by ODOT and the City. To increase the feasibility, potential
right-of-way impacts should be considered, as greater impacts outside of existing
right-of-way will likely be more costly and take longer to implement. The more complete
each phase can be (in the $10 to $20 million range, covering all segment elements and
intersection improvements at one time), the more cost effective and less disruptive to
adjacent businesses the construction of that phase will be.
• Functionality – Based on feedback from advisory groups and community members,
the functionality of raised medians is greatly enhanced when paired with U-turn
opportunities at roundabouts. Phasing of improvements should consider pairing raised
medians with roundabouts to reduce the potential for out-of-direction travel associated
with the raised medians.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 92
• Consistency – While improvements on Main Street will be phased in over time, there
needs to be some consistency in the application of upgrades. Phasing upgrades on
adjacent segments will create a more consistent Main Street experience for people
walking, biking, driving and taking transit while also providing consistency for utility
placement. In addition, consistency with other planned improvements from the TSP or the
ability to connect existing active transportation routes and transit should be considered in
phasing.
Based on the above criteria, Figures 36-37 and Table 9 below describe the recommended phasing
of improvements on Main Street and the planning level cost of each phase. Additional streetscape
and safety elements are not explicitly noted in the table below but should be included where
appropriate. This phasing list is intended as a guide for which improvements should be
constructed first, but as funding opportunities arise and to address the needs of the community,
there will be opportunities for flexibility. For higher cost sub-phase segments, improvements
along those segments could be further broken into sub-phases based on funding availability.
There is also opportunity to implement the Constrained Width cross section as an interim
improvement in locations outside of the ones identified in the table below.
While sub-phases may be funded and constructed separately, it is recommended that Phase 1A-
1C improvements be constructed simultaneously. Phase 1A-1C includes roundabouts at 32nd
Street and 42nd Street, with the Constrained Width cross section constructed between the two
intersections. This provides the best functionality and feasibility by pairing a shorter stretch of
raised medians with roundabouts on either end to facilitate U-turns.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 93
FIGURE 36: RECOMMENDED PHASING OF IMPROVEMENTS ON MAIN STREET (PHASES 1-4)
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 94
FIGURE 37: RECOMMENDED PHASING OF IMPROVEMENTS ON MAIN STREET (PHASES 5-8)
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 95
TABLE 9: RECOMMENDED PHASING OF IMPROVEMENTS ON MAIN STREET
LOCATION IMPROVE-
MENT TYPE DESCRIPTION
PLANNING
LEVEL COST
ESTIMATE A
(2021
DOLLARS)
PHASE 1 $17,600,000
1A Main St. @ 32nd
St. intersection
Roundabout Construct a roundabout at 32nd St. $5,000,000
1B
Main Street:
32nd St. to 42nd
St.
Interim Cross
Section
Construct the Constrained Width
cross section between 32nd St.
and 42nd St.
$7,600,000
1C Main St. @ 42nd
St. intersection
Roundabout Construct a roundabout at 42nd St. $5,000,000
PHASE 2 $6,200,000
2A
Main St. @ Bob
Straub Parkway
intersection
Bob Straub
Parkway
Interchange
Study and
Interim Safety
Improvements
Identify the appropriate long-term
solution at Bob Straub Parkway
through an Interchange Area
Management Plan. Construct
interim safety improvements near
Bob Straub Parkway and 54th St.,
such as enhanced lighting and
improving the geometry of the
southbound right turn from Bob
Straub Parkway to reduce the
potential for high-speed turns.
$1,200,000
2B Main St. @ 54th
St. intersection Roundabout
Construct a roundabout at 54th St.
Design should be consistent with
the recommended interchange
improvements identified in the
future Bob Straub Parkway
Interchange Area Management
Plan (Phase 2A).
$5,000,000
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 96
PHASE 3 $10,400,000
3A
Main Street:
42nd St. to 48th
St.
Interim Cross
Section
Construct the Constrained Width
cross section between 42nd St.
and 48th St.
$6,000,000
3B
Main Street:
28th St. to 32nd
St.
Long-Term
Cross Section
Construct the Balanced Width cross
section between 28th St. and 32nd
St. Additional coordination with the
railroad will be required as this
segment includes an at-grade
railroad crossing.
$4,400,000
PHASE 4 $27,300,000
4A Main Street:
48th St. to 52nd
St.
Long-Term
Cross Section
Construct the Balanced Width cross
section between 48th St. and 52nd
St. Note that the improvements
should be consistent with the
recommended interchange
improvements identified in the
future Bob Straub Parkway
Interchange Area Management
Plan (Phase 2A).
$7,500,000
4B Main Street:
52nd St. to 58th
St.
Long-Term
Cross Section
Construct the Active Transportation
Enhanced cross section between
52nd St. and 58th St. Note that
additional coordination with the
MAC will be necessary to
implement the cross section east of
Bob Straub Parkway and the
improvements should be consistent
with the recommended interchange
improvements identified in the
future Bob Straub Parkway
Interchange Area Management
Plan (Phase 2A).
$10,100,000
4C Main Street:
69th St. to 72nd
St.
Long-Term
Cross Section
and
Roundabout
Construct a roundabout at 69th St.
and the long-term cross section
east of 69th St. The long-term
cross section is still to be
$9,700,000B
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 97
determined but may include a
reduction from five travel lanes to
three travel lanes, pending further
refinement of the roundabout
design and coordination with the
ODOT Mobility Advisory Committee
(MAC).
PHASE 5 $15,100,000
5A Main St. @ 58th
St. intersection
Roundabout Construct a roundabout at 58th
Street. Design should be consistent
with the recommended interchange
improvements identified in the
future Bob Straub Parkway
Interchange Area Management
Plan (Phase 2A).
$5,000,000
5B Main Street:
58th St. to 69th
St.
Interim Cross
Section
Construct the Constrained Width
cross section between 58th St. and
69th St.
$10,100,000
PHASE 6 $24,500,000
6A Main St. @ 48th
St. intersection
Roundabout Construct a roundabout at 48th
St., as traffic volumes warrant.
$5,000,000
6B Main Street:
42nd St. to 48th
St.
Long-Term
Cross Section
Construct the Balanced Width cross
section between 42nd St. and 48th
St.
$8,600,000
6C Main Street:
32nd St. to 42nd
St.
Long-Term
Cross Section
Construct the Balanced Width cross
section between 32nd St. and 42nd
St.
$10,900,000
PHASE 7 $15,800,000
7A Main St. @ 28th
St. intersection
Roundabout Construct a roundabout at 28th
St. Additional coordination with
the railroad will be required as
the intersection is within 500
feet of an at-grade railroad
crossing.
$5,000,000
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 98
7B Main Street: 21st
St. to 28th St.
Long-Term Cross
Section
Construct the Balanced Width
cross section between 21st St.
and 28th St.
$5,800,000
7C Main St. @ 21st
St. intersection
Roundabout Construct a roundabout at 21st
St.
$5,000,000
PHASE 8 $19,500,000
8A Main Street:
58th St. to 69th
St.
Long-Term Cross
Section
Construct the Balanced Width
cross section between 58th St.
and 69th St.
$14,500,000
8B Main St. @
Mountaingate Dr.
intersection
Roundabout Construct a roundabout at
Mountaingate Dr., as traffic
volumes warrant.
$5,000,000
8C Main St. @ Bob
Straub Parkway
intersection
Interchange
improvements
Implement the recommended
interchange improvements
identified in the future Bob
Straub Parkway Interchange
Area Management Plan (Phase
2A).
TBD
A Cost estimates are based on the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE)
classifications. Planning level cost estimates (Class 5) indicate a 0-2% project definition and cost estimates
may range from +100% to -50%. As the recommended solution becomes more defined through planning
and design, the cost estimates will continue to be refined and will have less variation in range. Cost
estimates include generic assumptions for right-of-way cost. Cost estimates will need to be scaled
accordingly based on inflation over time. Note that the planning level cost estimates do not include costs for
Enhanced Corridor transit improvements. Additionally, the cost estimates assume asphalt lanes. If concrete
outside lanes were desired for increased durability and to combine funding with Enhanced Corridor transit
upgrades, the cost to construct the long-term cross section improvements would increase by approximately
20 percent from values shown in Table 9.
B The planning level cost estimate for cross section improvements east of 69th Street assumes the cost for
Balanced Width cross section. This is likely a conservative estimate as a three-lane section could be
implemented, reducing right-of-way costs.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 99
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
After the Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan has been adopted and as funding is
identified for each phase, ODOT will initiate the design process. This will include additional
community engagement and engineering to develop more detailed solutions and construction
plans. These design processes generally include:
• Developing one or more intergovernmental agreements (IGA) that the City of Springfield
and ODOT agree to that could address responsibilities associated with design, project
delivery, community engagement, advertising, land use application processing, and budget
and compensation.
• Developing a preliminary design that will further refine the concepts identified in the Facility
Plan. It will:
o Utilize design guidance such as the Key Principles and Access Management Methodology
– developed in conformance with OAR 734-051 – and consider existing site access and
usage comments documented by the City.44
o Incorporate the raised median guiding principles (pg. 72-74), transit design guiding
principles (pg. 85-86) and potential base cross section modifications, where appropriate
(such as the ones shown in Figure 31 on pg. 80).
• Refreshing the Access Management Methodology and developing an Access Management
Strategy – in conformance with OAR 734-051. This will include another opportunity for
property owners to provide comments and discuss economic development needs.
• Compiling applicable environmental documentation (potentially one or more NEPA
processes, depending on the implementation strategy)45 and addressing other federal
requirements related to highway improvements.46
• Developing a final design and obtaining federal (NEPA) approval.
In the design process, the final design and footprint of the project may be different than how
improvements are depicted in the Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan. The Facility Plan
identifies solutions for addressing needs along the corridor and offers flexibility in how the design of
needed upgrades implement the solution.47 Because the corridor is a state highway facility and will
44 https://bit.ly/SpfldORMainStreetCommentsMap
45 https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/nepa/classes_of_action.aspx
46 If required, design exceptions would be obtained during the preliminary design phase. Guidelines such as
the Blueprint for Urban Design (BUD) allow greater flexibility for designing improvements in urban areas and
may help limit the need for design exceptions.
47 For example, there is built-in flexibility in how future transportation improvements developed during the
design phase can meet the median guiding principles, cross-sections, and design concepts (maps) in the
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 100
require conformance with NEPA requirements, the design process coordination will be completed as
required by OAR Chapter 731, Division 15. Division 15 establishes coordination procedures used by
ODOT to ensure programs are completed in compliance with statewide planning goals and
acknowledged comprehensive plans. In addition, some corridor improvement solutions may be
subject to the City’s land use decision-making process and notice requirements at the time of
project development, as determined under OAR 660-012-0050. Project development involves land
use decision-making to the extent that issues of compliance with applicable requirements requiring
interpretation or the exercise of policy or legal discretion or judgment remain outstanding at the
project development phase.
Additional corridor upgrades that should be coordinated and refined during design include:
• ADA upgrades: Funding for Main Street ADA remediation is currently being planned for the
2024-2027 STIP. As much as possible, future ADA improvements should be coordinated
with the long-term corridor improvements identified in this Facility Plan to reduce the
impacts of construction and the need for reconstruction at a later date. For example, if ADA
remediation triggers the need for a rebuild of any traffic signals on Main Street,
opportunities for implementing a new roundabout instead of investing in traffic signal
upgrades should be considered, although additional funding would likely be required. If ADA
remediation is rebuilding a sidewalk segment to install compliant curb ramps, the long-term
desired sidewalk width should be constructed.
• Stormwater: Landscape buffers can provide on-site stormwater treatment if designed
appropriately.48 However, on-site stormwater treatment (such as bioswales) may have
water line impacts. Additional stormwater treatment needs will need to be addressed during
future design phases.
• Utilities: The recommended long-term cross sections will widen Main Street. In many
locations, this will require relocating overhead and underground utilities. For example, fire
hydrants are currently only located on one side of Main Street but for easier emergency
vehicle access hydrants may need to be located on both sides of Main Street. On-going
coordination will be required throughout stages of securing funding, design and
construction. Efforts will be made during design to avoid multiple utility relocations if the
interim cross section is implemented prior to the long-term cross section. Property-specific
efforts during design phases may be able to reduce the impact of utility relocation.
Specific to electric and water impacts, ODOT and the City will work with the Springfield
Utility Board (SUB) throughout design to keep electric and water facilities within the right-
of-way, but acquisition or expansion of public utilities easements (PUEs) may be considered
Facility Plan. Similarly, stormwater facilities are not shown or described in the plan and may need to be
constructed at various locations along the corridor.
48 Depending on site-specific stormwater treatment needs, landscaped buffers can be designed with certain
widths, depths, and vegetation to treat stormwater.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 101
as part of the right-of-way acquisition process given that SUB relies on existing prescriptive
easements and/or PUEs for overhanging electrical equipment and water facilities. As the
improvements on Main Street are funded for construction, consideration will be given to the
length of segments, as shorter segment improvements may pose a challenge for SUB.
Consideration should also be given to opportunities to create alternative utility corridors on
parallel facilities through other TSP projects.
• Business signage: Care should be given to the selection of any landscaping buffers to
ensure the ability of people driving to see business signage. Property-specific efforts during
design phases may be able to enhance visibility and will address impacts on signage
visibility.
• Multimodal crossings and signage: Consider additional locations for enhanced bicycle or
pedestrian crossings and wayfinding and signage improvements.
• Speed zone order investigation: Over time as recommended improvements are
implemented on Main Street, a change in observed speeds may occur, which could provide
adequate justification to lower the posted speed limit along stretches of Main Street.
Specifically, after plan implementation in the Thurston area, a speed zone order
investigation should be considered.
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
To implement this Facility Plan, the following highlights requirements that dictate more interagency
coordination and adopted plans that will need to be amended as the result of Plan
recommendations, or to ensure consistency between adopted plans.
STATE PLANS
• The Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) is amended as needed to incorporate refinement plans
such as the Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan. Policies in the OHP emphasize the
efficient management of the highway system to increase safety and to extend highway
capacity, partnerships with other agencies and local governments, and the use of new
techniques to improve road safety and capacity. These policies also link land use and
transportation, set standards for highway performance and access management, and
emphasize the relationship between state highways and local road, bicycle, pedestrian,
transit, rail, and air systems.
• ORS 366.215 and OAR Chapter 731, Division 12 designate requirements for reviewing
Reduction of Vehicle-carrying Capacity (RVC) on designated Reduction Review Routes
(RRR).49 OR 126 is designated as an RRR east of Bob Straub Parkway. The RRR designation
requires that permanent reductions to freight vehicle-carrying capacity may not be made
49 OAR 731-012, https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=3274
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 102
unless safety or access considerations require the reduction. Examples of roadway changes
that would require review include street upgrades that impact vertical clearances for tall
trucks or the ability to move oversized trucks through the corridor.
• ORS 824.206 and OAR Chapter 741 establishes procedures and requirements that
govern modifications to public at-grade rail crossings. Railroad crossings, including traffic
control devices and roadway elements within the crossing influence area, are under the
jurisdiction of ODOT Commerce and Compliance Division. Any work within 500 feet is
considered within their jurisdiction. A rail crossing order permit will be required to construct
cross section improvements between 28th Street and 32nd Street or to construct a
roundabout at 28th Street, as it is within 500 feet of the at-grade railroad crossing. The rail
crossing order process typically takes 6 to 18 months, depending on the complexity of the
proposed work.
• OAR Chapter 731, Division 5150 establishes procedures, standards, and approval criteria
that govern highway access management and approach permitting. The Springfield Main
Street (OR 126) Facility Plan process addresses access management consistent with Division
51, including public participation and development of key principles for access and a
methodology (listed in Table 9 below) for assessing the facility plan. The access
management key principles and access management methodology are included in the
Facility Plan, ensuring that future decisions will be consistent with Division 51 and will
balance permitted land uses and the economic development objectives of properties
abutting the corridor with the transportation safety and access management objectives for
the state highway.51
50 OAR 734-051, https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=3317
51 OAR 734-051-1020, https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=183591
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 103
TABLE 10: KEY PRINCIPLES AND METHODOLOGY FOR ACCESS MANAGEMENT
KEY PRINCIPLES
(SAME AS PROJECT GOALS) METHODOLOGY
SAFETY –
Increase the safety of Main
Street for all users
• Consider the level of direct access to Main Street that is
appropriate for the type of development that exists and
would be allowed according to the Comprehensive Plan
• Locate and design accesses to adequately serve the
volume and type of traffic reasonably anticipated to enter
and exit the property, based on existing and planned uses
• Maintain the ability for businesses to receive
freight/deliveries
• Consider site circulation and parking affected by proposed
access modifications and closures
BUSINESS COMMUNITY –
Support the viability of existing and future businesses
• Move in the direction of meeting ODOT’s adopted
standards for spacing of accesses along Main Street
MOBILITY –
Ensure people and goods travel efficiently and reliably through the corridor
• Move in the direction of meeting ODOT’s adopted
standards for spacing of accesses along Main Street
TRANSPORTATION CHOICES –
Create a multimodal
environment that connects
people and destinations
• Modify or relocate accesses as necessary to allow for the
construction of ADA-compliant pedestrian facilities
• Reconstruct or modify accesses as needed to provide
continuous sidewalk along property frontages
VITAL COMMUNITY –
Support the vitality of the community and its vision for
Main Street
• No unique methodology identified. Methodology that
would support the Vital Community Key Principle is
already identified under other Key Principles that support
Safety, Business Community, Mobility, and Transportation
Choices.
FEASIBILITY –
Develop a plan with a clear
and achievable approach to implementation
• Ensure that existing accesses are consistent with the
properties’ access rights (both deeded access rights and
permit status)
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 104
REGIONAL PLANS
• The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the
metropolitan area’s comprehensive plan and serves as the overarching land use policy
document for regional planning. It guides the development of land use and public facilities,
as well as planning for the local economy and the conservation of natural resources. The
2001 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) serves as the
transportation element of the Metro Plan and provides regional transportation goals and
policies.52
• The Central Lane MPO Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) establishes a policy
foundation, implementation measures (projects and programs), and implementation
performance measures and monitoring for transportation systems in the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan region. The RTP policy element includes tiers of goals, objectives, and policies
covering land use, transportation demand management (TDM), transportation system
improvements (improvements system-wide and by mode), and finance. The RTP guides
transportation system planning and investment in the region and may be implemented
through local TSPs.
LOCAL PLANS
• The Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan is the long-range policy guide for land use in
the City’s urban growth boundary (UGB), consistent with statewide planning goals. The
Comprehensive Plan establishes goals, policies, and implementation actions for the City. The
Comprehensive Plan’s objectives and policies work in concert with the goals and objectives
of the Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) to provide direction on
transportation system and land use decision-making in the City. The TSP, adopted in 2014
and amended in 2020, serves as the transportation element of the Springfield
Comprehensive Plan. It establishes the City’s goals, policies, and project needs for
developing and improving the transportation system within the City’s UGB. Technical
Memorandum #19 in Volume 2 of the Plan details recommended amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan for consistency with the Facility Plan.
• The Springfield Development Code implements the long-range land use vision embodied
in the Springfield Comprehensive Plan. It regulates uses within the City and establishes
standards for development and land divisions. Technical Memorandum #19 in Volume 2 of
the Plan details the recommended development code amendments, including a modification
to special street setback distances on Main Street to ensure no buildings are constructed
within the future right-of-way and help provide adequate space for potential public utility
easements in the future.
52 The TransPlan served as the local agency transportation system plan for Springfield until March 2014 when
the City adopted its own transportation system plan, the Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 105
ALTERNATIVE MOBILITY TARGETS
The Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) specifies mobility targets for maintaining acceptable levels of
motor vehicle mobility on state highways. The OHP targets are used for land use related decisions
and for determining when a mobility enhancement may be necessary. For most intersections on
Main Street, the OHP mobility target is a maximum volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) of 0.85.
Alternative mobility targets (AMTs) that allow for more congestion can be adopted when it is
agreed that meeting the current targets is not practical or desirable (e.g., funding constraints,
balancing the needs of people traveling by different transportation modes, right-of-way impacts).
Note that AMTs do not change the design standard, which is set by the ODOT Highway Design
Manual.
Two AMTs were recently adopted (April 2020) on Main Street at the intersections of 42nd Street
(0.95 v/c) and Bob Straub Parkway (0.90 v/c). After following ODOT’s process for determining the
need for AMTs (as documented in Technical Memorandum #17 in Volume 2), it is recommended
that two additional AMTs be adopted for the intersections on Main Street with 28th Street and 58th
Street, as described in Table 11.
TABLE 11: RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE MOBILITY TARGETS FOR MAIN STREET
(OR 126)
INTERSECTION MAXIMUM VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO TARGET
MAIN STREET / 28TH STREET 0.95
MAIN STREET / 58TH STREET 0.90
Note: The peak hour of analysis for applying these alternative mobility targets is the 30th highest annual
hour.
The process for adopting the recommended alternative mobility targets begins with Springfield
City Council confirming their support for this change and adopting the new mobility targets as
part of the Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan. Alternatively, City Council could commit
funding for the improvements needed to meet the existing mobility targets.
Following local adoption, this Facility Plan will be taken to the Oregon Transportation Commission
(OTC) for adoption as an amendment to the OHP, which would formally implement the alternative
mobility targets.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 106
ADOPTION PROCESS
The sequence of adoption at the state, regional, and local levels can be generally summarized in
the following manner.
1. The ODOT Mobility Advisory Committee considers a Reduction of Vehicle-carrying Capacity
for the Reduction Review Route and provides recommendations to the OTC.
2. The City concurrently amends the TSP, the transportation element of the Springfield
Comprehensive Plan, and the Springfield Development Code to implement the Springfield
Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan, through a Type IV legislative procedure. The Type IV
legislative procedure includes public hearings before the Springfield Planning Commission
and City Council.
3. The OTC adopts the Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan as an amendment to
the OHP.
4. The Central Lane MPO amends the RTP to include the Springfield Main Street (OR 126)
Facility Plan as part of its four-year update cycle (next anticipated in 2025).
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY
• To save lives and reduce serious injuries on Main Street, ODOT and the City
must actively pursue funding opportunities and identify dollars to pay for the
recommended infrastructure upgrades.
• The recommendations of this plan will need to be implemented in phases.
Approximately $18 million (in 2021 dollars) is needed to fund the first
comprehensive phase of design and construction.
SPRINGFIELD MAIN STREET (OR 126) FACILITY PLAN • DRAFT • JANUARY 2022
CHAPTER 5 – IMPLEMENTING THE TOOLBOX OF SOLUTIONS 107
NEXT STEPS
Adoption of this Facility Plan is the first step toward achieving the shared vision expressed by the
Springfield community to create a safe and efficient Main Street for all users that supports
multimodal transportation, viable businesses, and community vitality. ODOT and the City of
Springfield are committed to achieving this vision and addressing the serious safety problem on
Main Street, which calls for expedited delivery of the first phase of improvements. To advance the
first phase of improvements, ODOT and the City of Springfield will work collaboratively to secure
funding. As part of this effort, the ODOT Region 2 Project Delivery Management Team will lead the
cost sharing strategy and implementation effort between different STIP programs. While the need
to move swiftly remains, ODOT and the City will continue to listen to stakeholders and make
adjustments in future design phases to ensure the community’s goals and objectives are met.