HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6022 07/15/2002
.'
ORDINANCE NO. 6022
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN (TRANS PLAN) TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE
WEST EUGENE P ARKW A Y WITHIN THE 20- YEAR FINANCIALLY
CONSTRAINED ROADWAY PROJECT LIST AND TO MAKE RELATED
A.MENDMENTS; AMENDING THE EUGENE SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) TO ADOPT EXCEPTIONS TO
STATEWIDE PLANNfNG GOALS 3, 4; II AND 14; AND ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
WHEREAS, Chapter IV ofthe Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan (Metro Pla"iJ) sett; fcrth procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan, which for
Springfield are nnplemented by the provisions of Article 7 of the Springfield
Devel()pment Code; and
WHEREAS, the Metro Plan identifies the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan (TransPlan) as a special purpose functional plan which forms the
basis for the Transportation Element of the Metro Plan and guides surface transportation
improvements in the metropolitan area; and
.
WHEREAS, on May 5, 1986, the City Council adopted TransPlan by Ordinance
No. 5328, and amended TransPlan on April 3, 1989 by Ordinance No. 5470 and on
September 21, 1992 by Ordinance No. 5655, and on March 6,2000, by Ordinance No.
5959; and
WHEREAS, on September 17,2001, the City Council enacted, Ordinance No.
5990, adopting a revised Transportation Element of the Metro Plan and adopting
revisions to the TransPlan; and
WHEREAS, on November 21,2001, following passage of Ballot Measure 20-54,
the Eugene City Council adopted Resolution No. 4694 initiating amendments to the West
Eugene Wetlands Plan, Metro Plan and TransPlan to facilitate construction of the West
Eugene Parkway; and
WHEREAS, following a February 20,2002, joint public hearing with the Eugene
and Lane County Planning Commissions and the Lane County Roads Advisory
Committee, the Springfield Planning Commission on April 16, 2002, recommended (4:2)
TransPlan amendments and Metro Plan amendments taking exception to Statewide
Planning Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14 to the Springfield City Council; and
.
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a joint public hearing on these
amendments on May 29,2002 with the Eugene City Council, the Lane County Board of
Commissioners and the Lane Transit District Board of Directors, and is now ready to take
action based upon the above recommendations and evidence and testimony already in the
>-
July w
0 - ~ Z
w ! a:
... > 5 0
0 ~ I-
(( (V ~
a. ..J
a. >-
<( "l 0 I-
oa~ ('f ()
C 0::: l' - LL
~ 0 ~ VI 0
LL ~ W
UJO" "U
>t-OlL!-
I- LL
UJ UJ'j ~ LL
((<( 00
record as well as the evidence and testimdily .~'jresented at the joint elected officials public
hearing; and
.
WHEREAS, evidence exists within the record indicating that the proposal meets
the requirements of applicable state and local law as described in the findings adopted in
support of this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Common Council of the City of Springfield does
ordain as follows:
Section 1: The TransPlan, included in the Metro Plan by Ordinance No. 5328,
enacted on May 5, 1986, and amended by Ordinance No. 5470, enacted on April 3, 1989,
Ordinance No. 5655, enacted on September 21, 1992, Ordinance No. 5959, enacted on
March 6,2000, and Ordinance No. 5990, enacted on September 17,2001, is hereby
further revised and adopted as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached and incorporated herein
by this reference.
Section 2: The revisions to the 20- Year Financially-Constrained project lists
included in Exhibit "A" are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of the Metro
Plan, as required by Metro Plan Policy F-9,page III-F-7, dated February 2002. Project
timing and estimated costs are not adopted as policy.
.
Section 3: Because a portion ofthe West Eugene Parkway is to be sited between
the urban growth boundary and the Metro Plan Boundary, Th~ Metro Plan is hereby
amended to include the map and list of affected tax lots as set out in Exhibit "B" attached
and incorporated herein by this reference, and to include the findings supporting
"reasons" exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14, as described and set
out in Exhibit "e" attached and incorporated herein by this reference.
FURTHER, although not part ofthis Ordinance except as described in Section 3,
the City Council adopts the legislative findings set forth in the attached Exhibit "C" in
support of these actions.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is
for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this 15th day of
July ,2002 by a vote of ~ in favor and ---..L-.- against.
Approved by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this 15th day of
2002.
. ATTEST:
(lli:t(~ lOu~
City Recorder
.
Exhibit A
Amendments to December 2001 TransPlan
The following list presents all proposed amendments to the adopted December 2001
TransPlan resulting from full inclusion of the West Eugene Parkway (WEP) in the 20-
Year Financially Constrained Roadway Projects list. The amendments are identified by
chapter and page number, and then presented, where possible, in legislative format.
Amendments to certain sections of TransPlan (for example, the project lists in Chapter 3
and Chapter 4) are extensive. In these cases, the summary below references the amended
section, which is then attached to this list reprinted in its entirety.
In some cases, it is not practical to present an amendment in legislative format (for
example, financial summary tables). In these cases both the original version from the
December 2001 adopted TransPlan and the draft proposed amended version are attached
to this list.
.
Chapter 1
Page 2
Compared to the future Trend Conditions, there will also be:
~ 8 percent less vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita,
~ 20.5 percent more trips,under one mile in length,
~ 7 percent fewer drive alone trips,
~ 29 percent more non-auto trips, and
~ 11 percent less carbon monoxide emissions.
Page 5
Because TransPlan serves as both the federally required Regional Transportation
Plan for the Eugene-Springfield area and as the Transportation Functional Plan
for Metro Plan, two planning horizons are referred to in the document - 2015 and
2021. The 2015 planning horizon is used to be consistent with the 2015 Metro
Plan planning horizon. In particular, forecasted regional land use allocations use
Metro Plan's 2015 land uses as a basis. The 2015 planning horizon is used in
conjunction with the Performance Measures contained in Chapter 4 that are a
requirement ofLCDC's Transportation Planning Rule.
.
A 2021 planning horizon has been developed to nieet federal requirements for
maintaining at least a 20-year financial constraint and air quality conformity
determination. Because there is no official land use allocation beyond 2015, the
2021 forecasts represent an extrapolation of2015 population and employment.
Revenue and Cost estimates used in TransPlan are for 2021.
Exhibit A - Page 1 .
TransPlan Amendments
Chapter 2 .
Page 14, Land Use Finding #10
10. Based op an analysis ofthe Regional Travel Forecasting Model results, an overall
outcome of nodal development implementation will be that the percentage of person
trips under one mile can be increased to approximately 15.9 percent of all trips; and,
on a regional basis, that trip lengths will be slightly longer in 2015 than under existing
conditions, but this will be offset, in part, by reduced trip lengths within nodal
development. areas.
Page 39, Finance Finding #2
2. TransPlan estimates that operations, maintenance, and preservation of the
metropolitan transportation system will cost $ 1.266 billion in 1997 dollars to
maintain at current levels to the year 2021, while revenues for this purpose, including
a regularly_ increasing state gas tax and federal forest receipts at current non- ,
guaranteed levels after the guarantee expires, are estimated at $ 1.031 million, leaving
a conservative estimated shortfall of about $ 235 million over the planning period
before the implementation of fiscal constraint strategies.
Chapter 3
Page 11, Table Summary of Capital Investment Actions Roadway Projects
(Both original a~opted and proposed amended tables are attached)
Pages 14-33, Tables 1a & 1b (Constrained & Future Roadway Projects)
(Amended tables in legislative format are attached)
.
Pages 40-54, Tables 3a & 3b (Constrained & Future Bicycle Projects)
(Amended tables in legislative format are attached)
Page 57
Total roadway costs for the planning horizon through Fiscal year 2021 are estimated to be
approximately $ 1.312 billion. For details about which capital projects have been
included in this total, see the Capital Investment Action project lists beginning on page 3-
11.
Page 67
Table 4 shows that under current TransPlan assumptions about standards, priorities, and
timing, the region faces a $ 441 million revenue shortfall over the planning horizon
through Fiscal year 2021. The entire shortfall occurs in two areas-OM&P in general,
and ODOT System Improvements.
Pages 69 & 70, Tables 4 & 5 (Unconstrained & Constrained Costs & Revenues)
(Both original adc,>pted and proposed amended tables are attached)
.
Exhibit A - Page 2
TransPlan Amendments
.
Page 73
Springfield
· Overall maintenance service levels are assumed to decrease by an amount
equal to 10 percent of the shortfall, or approximately $ 2.8 million.
Page 73
The above strategy packages will result in a financially constrained TransPlan over the
planning horizon through Fiscal year 2021. Transit activities, local system
improvements, and most bike and pedestrian projects are not financially constrained and
can be funded at the full level projected. OM&P in the city and state systems will be
reduced somewhat, but still meet applicable policy standards. The cities will also
implement a new locally controlled source of revenue to raise additional OM&P
revenues. State system improvement projects will be built on a priority basis as revenues
allow, with the remaining unfunded improvement projects placed on a future projects list
pending additional revenues. .
Page 75
The conformity analysis will be prepared based on a 20-year forecast (to 2021) of
population, employment, and traffic. The analysis will use the TransPlan Financially
Constrained Project Lists in development of the future year networks.
.
Chapter 4
Extensive amendments to the text, tables and graphics are presented in the attached
legislative format copy of the entire Chapter.
Appendix A
Amend seven of the nine maps as shown below (proposed amended maps are
attached):
Financially-Constrained Roadway Projects
. Remove project #312
· Remove project #333
· Remove project #506
· Limit extent of project #151 to extension of third lane over Willamette River Bridge
to fill in gap
. Remove project #60
· Add "Unprogrammed Study" project on Beltline, River Road to Coburg Road
(project # 555)
· Add WEP Phases IB, 2A & 2B - projects #337, #338 & #339
.
Future Roadway Projects
. Add project #312
. Add project #333
. Add project #506
Exhibit A - Page 3
TransPlan Amendments
· Add southern extent of project #151- southbound to westbound 1-105 off-ramp to 7th .
Avenue
. Add project #60
· Add new project - Franklin Blvd. "Urban Standards" project in Glenwood Area, from
Jenkins Drive to Mill Street (project # 839)
Federally Designated Roadway Functional Classification
. Add WEP Phases IB, 2A & 2B, designated as "Proposed Arterial"
Financially-Constrained Bikeway System Projects
. Remove project #411
. Remove project #333
. Remove project #60
. Add WEP Phases IB & 2A - projects #337 & #338 (2 components)
Priority Bikeway System Projects
. Remove project#411
. Remove project #60
. Add WEP Phases IB & 2A
Future Bikeway Projects
. Add project #411
. Add project #333
. Add project #6
.
Goods Movement and Intermodal Facilities
. Add WEP Phases IB, 2A & 2B, designated as "Proposed NHS"
Appendix F
Pages 5 & 13, Modify Findings 10 & 43 as shown above under amendments to
. Findings in Chapter 2
.
Exhibit A - Page 4
TransPlan Amendments
.
DECEMBER 2001
Project Category S tatns Total Cost EUGmE LANE CO. ODOT SPRINGFIELD
Future $57,936 $0 $5,705 $52,231 $0
New Arterial Link or Interchange Programmed $28,799 $1,116 $10,400 $17,283 $0
Unprogrammed $28,500 $0 $0 $17,000 $11,500
Future $146,982 $0 $0 $146,982 $0
Added Freeway Lanes or Major Programmed $21,449 $0 $5,500 $15,949 $0
Interchange Improvements
Unprogrammed $72,495 $0 $0 $72,495 $0
Arterial Capacity Improvements Programmed $2,246 $0 $500 $1,746 $0
Unprogrammed $12,400 $2,000 $2,000 $6,000 $2,400
New Collectors Future $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Unprogrammed $57,949 $23,620 $0 $0 $34,329
Future $11,956 $0 $0 $11,456 $500
Urban Standards Programmed $22,681 $9,176 $11,765 $0 $1,740
Unprogrammed $67,170 $26,885 $18,325 $6,850 $15,110
Study Programmed $3,725 $0 $0 $3,725 $0
Unprogrammed $2,200 $1,450 $0 $750 $0
Nodal Development Implementation $7,000 $5,400 $1,600
TOTAL: $543,488 $69,647 $54,195 $352,467 $67,179
.
FEBRUARY 2002
Project Category
"llIll!lN~l,u
Statns Total Cost EUGENE ODOT SPRINGFIELD
Future $23,705 $0 $18,000 $0
Programmed $28,799 $1,116 $17,283 $0
Unprogrammed $82,772 $0 $71,272 $11,500
Future $181,672 $0 $181,672 $0
Programmed $21,449 $0 $15,949 $0
Unprogrammed $54,805 $0 $54,805 $0
Future $4,530 $0 $4,530. $0
Programmed $2,246 $0 $1,746 $0
Unprogrammed $7,870 $2,000 $1,470 $2,400
Unprogrammed $57,949 $23,620 $0 $34,329
Future $22,206 $0 $16,706 $5,500
Programmed $22,681 $9,176 $0 $1,740
Unprogrammed $61,920 $26,885 $1,600 $15,110
Programmed $3,375 $0 $3,375 $0
Unprogrammed $3,050 $1,450 $1,600 $0
$7,000 $5,400 $1,600
$586,029 $69,647 $54,195 $390,008 $72,179
New Arterial Link or Interchange
Added Freeway Lanes or Major
Interchange Improvements
Arterial Capacity Improvements
New Collectors
Urban Standards
Study
Nodal Development Implementation
TOTAL:
.
Exhibit A - Page 5
TransPlan Amendments
.
Chapter 3: Table la-Financially Constrained
20-Year Capital Investment Actions: Roadway Projects
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
, Estimated
Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Project Category: New Arterial Link or Interchange
Status: Programmed
Jasper Road Main Street to Jasper Construct 4-lane arterial; lane County $10,400,000 3,2 66
Extension Road phasing to be determined;
improve RR X-ing at Jasper
Rd; at grade interim
improvement; grade
separation long-range
improvement
T eny Street Royal Avenue to Construct new 2 to 3-lane Eugene $1,116,000 0,44 487 .
Roosevelt Boulevard urban facility
West Eugene Seneca Road to Beltline W 1Hh - Garfield: 4-lane ODOT $17,283,000 1,3 336
Parkway, (1A) Road new construction; pending
Completion of a study of
Transportation improvements
In West Eugene
Status Sub-Total $28,799,000
Status: Unprogrammed
~91tliR9 Hisl:1"(ay "(est 11t1:1 ^ "9R1l9 19 ~9RliR1l9 "'iIl9RiRlll9 4 gQQI $17,OOg,gOg ~ ~
R99€9"911 ~91119"anl laRg€; R9'" RR XinS,
iRte~llaRgg @ '^(sP, gr3119
sgpar-ali9R @ Reg€9"glt aRll
tllrn laRg€ 9R '^/9€( 11t1l
^"9 (OOOT" ~^'9€t 11t1l
t>lgl'lll Cir; l..iA'liti: ~lag9 1)
Centennial 28th Street to 35th Street Construct 3-lane urban Springfield $3,000,000 0,5 930
Boulevard
.
TransPlan-Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
D@()@mB@r Januarv 200~+
Chapter 3, Page 14
Exhibit A - Page 6
TransPlan Amendments
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Pioneer Parkway Harlow Road to Beltline 4-5 lane minor arterial Springfield $8,500,000 768
Extension Road
WA~t Flloene Garfield Street to Sener.a W 11th - Garfield' 4-lane OOOT $34231 000 1 3 337
P~rkW;lV I1R\ ROHd new cons." Iclion continued-
oAnrtinn comnletinn of H studv
of trHn!=;oortHtion imnrovements
in West FuoAnA
West Fltnene West 11111 Avenue to ConstnJr.t two lanes of future OOOT $30 496 000 ? S6 33B
PRrkwHV I?A\ Reltline RO::ld 4-IHne rn:::uiw:=w
yYest Fllnene West 11Vl AvenuA to ConstnJ(~t remainina two IRnAS onOT $6 S4S 000 ?S6 339
Parkwav 12R\ Reltline Road
Status Sub-Total=$82. 772.00028,5(}(},(}(}(J
Project Category Sub- Total
$111.571,00057,299, ()()()
.
.
TransPlan-loint Adopting Officials Revisions
Deeember Janmn:y 200J-l-
Chapter 3, Page 15
Exhibit A - Page 7
TransPlan Amendments
,-.
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Cost Length Number
Project Category: Added Freeway Lanes or Major
Interchange Improvements
Status: Programmed
Beltline Highway Royal Avenue to Overcrossing at Royal, OOOT $14,699,000 409
Roosevelt Boulevard continue widening to 4 lanes
south to railroad structure,
construct Roosevelt
extension from Beltline to
Oanebo, full at grade signal
controlled intersection of
Beltline and Roosevelt
(OOOT: W, 11th N. city limits
stage 2)
1-5 @ Beltline Highway ROW Purchase OOOT $1,250,000 0 606 .
Oelta/Beltline Interim/safety improvements; Lane County $5,500,000 0 638
Interchange replace/revise existing
ramps; widen Delta
Highway bridge to 5 lanes
Status Sub-Total $21,449,000
Status: Unprogrammed
1-5 @ Beltline Highway Reconstruct interchange OOOT $53,300,000 0 606
and 1-5, upgrade Beltline
Road East to 5 lane urban
facility, and construct 1-5
bike and pedestrian bridge,
QeltliRe ~i!lR"'ay
Ri"er Reali te Celta
lli!lR"~ .
'^(illeR t9 9 laReg; SaRgtr' .st
Re'" ar "'ideR IlxistiR!l
'^'iIIarnelte Ri"er Iilrill!leg;
re"isg Oi"isiaR(Ri"9r ^"Il
rarnlls; r9taRgtr:YI;;lIr.glasat,1l
Ci"igi<;JR ^"9 frQrn Cio'igillR
Plasll t9 lileltliRe
CCOT
$1:1,:1gg,:lQg
~
~
TransPlan-Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
DecelMer Jannarv 200~+
Chapter 3, Page 16
.
I
Exhibit A - Page 8
TransPlan Amendments
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
1-105 Washington/Jefferson Extend third SB lane over ODOr ~.1,~05,000 0.~~5 151
Street Bridge bridge to 6th Ave exitraQQ
laRQ III Iltll ^ "Q eft rall'1p
Status Sub-Total=$54.805.00072,495,2(J(J
Project Category Sub- Total
$7~25~0009~9/~200
.
.
TransPlan-Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
D@e8IHB8r lannalY 200J-l-
Chapter 3, Page 17
Exhibit A - Page 9
TransPlan Amendments
.
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Jnrisdiction
Estimated
Cost Length Number
Project Category: Arterial Capacity Improvements
Status: Programmed
Belttine Highway @1-5 Safety improvements OOOT $1,746,000 0 607
Bloomberg McVay Highway to 30th Modification of connection Lane County, $500,000 0.4 297
Connector Avenue of McVay Highway to 30th OOOT
Avenue
Status Sub-Total $2,246,000
Status: Unprogrammed
42nd Street @ Marcola Road Traffic control improvements Springfield $200,000 0 712
6thl7th Intersection Garfield Street to Provide improvements such OOOT, $520,000 0 133 .
Improvement Washington/Jefferson as additional turn lanes and Eugene
Street signal illJProvements;
intersectionS include 6th/7th
Avenues at: Garfield,
Chambers,
Washington/Jefferson
Street Bridge
Beltline Highway @ Coburg Road Construct ramp and signal OOOT $500,000 0 622
improvements
Centennial @ 28th Street Traffic control improvements Springfield $200,000 0 924
Boulevard
Centennial @ 21st Street Traffic control improvements Springfield $200,000 0 927
Boulevard
Centennial Prescott Lane to Mill Reconstruct section to 4-5 Springfield $1,000,000 0.3 818
Boulevard Road lanes
Eugene-Springfield @ Mohawk Boulevard Add lanes on ramps OOOT $250,000 0,68 821
Highway (SR-126) Interchange
Harlow Road @ Pheasant Boulevard Traffic control improvements Springfield $200,000 0 744
Irving Road @ NW Gansborough entrance to Construct overpass over Lane County $2,000,000 0,3 530
Expressway Prairie Road NW Expressway and
railroad, Signalize access
on north side,
Main Street @ 48th Street Traffic control improvements Springfield $200,000 0 69
TransPlan-loint Adopting Officials Revisions
Decem.ber Tanwn:)' 200~+
Chapter 3, Page 18
.
I
Exhibit A - Page 10
TransPlan Amendments
.
Name
Geographic Estimated
Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
@ Mountaingate Drive Traffic control improvements Springfield $200,000 75
@ Pioneer Parkway Traffic control improvement~ Springfield $200,000 0 774
@ Daisy Street Signal improvement ODOT, $200,000 0 951
Springfield
Various Locations Traffic signals, intersection Eugene $2,000,000
upgrades, turn pockets, etc,
Main Street
Q Street
S 42nd Street
Traffic Control
Improvements
1M 1111:1 ^"llmUI
GI'IlIlR Hill RQalllQ
OaRllgg ^"IlRIlIl
IJpgr<lllg 19 5 I<lR9 umaR
fasili~
GOaT,
[Ug9R9, laRg
G9YRly
$4,5JO,Ogg
~333
Status Sub-Total=$7.870.00012,4{}(},(J{)(}
Project Category Sub- Total
$10.116.00014,646,000
.
.
TransPlan-Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
D8e8mB8f Janllarv200~+
Chapter 3, Page 19
Exhibit A - Page 11
TransPlan Amendments
.
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Future Collector C7 North-south in mid-Natron New 2 to 3-lane urban Springfield $1,512,000 0,56 51
site collector
Future Collector E Bailey Hill Road to New major collector Eugene $2,700,000 318
Bertelsen Road
Future Collector F Royal Avenue to Terry New major collector Eugene $1,890,000 0,7 429
Street
Future Collector H Future Collector G to New major collector Eugene $1,350,000 0.5 435
Royal Avenue
Future Collector J Awbrey Lane to Enid New major collector Eugene $2,160,000 0,8 441
Road
Future Collector 0 Barger Drive to Avalon , New neighborhood collector Eugene ,$1,800,000 0,5 447
Street
Future Collector P Avalon Street to Future New neighborhood collector Eugene $4,500,000 1,11 449
Collector F
Glacier Drive 55th Street to 48th Street Develop new, 2-lane urban Springfield $1,840,000 0,92 57
. facility
Glenwood 1-5 to laurel Hill Drive New collector Eugene $2,565,000 0.95 254
Boulevard
Extension
Hyacinth Street Irvington Drive to New neighborhood collector Eugene $600,000 0,16 537
lynnbrook Drive
Kinsrow Avenue 'Centennial Boulevard to New neighborhood collector Eugene $800,000 0,2 659
Garden Way
lakeview/Parkview Gilham Road to County New neighborhood collector Eugene $1,755,000 0,65 644
Farm Road
legacy Street Barger Drive to Avalon New major collector Eugene $800,000 0,2 445
Street
McKenzie-Gateway Within MDR site New 2 to 3-lane collector Springfield $2,160,000 0.8 756
MDR loop Collector into MDR site
MDR Site North-south within MDR Construct new 3-lane Springfield $1,440,000 0.4 762
site north-south collector
Mountaingate Drive Main Street to South 58th New 3-lane collector Springfield $2,430,000 0,9 78
Street
Mt Vernon Road Jasper Road Extension to Extend existing street as Springfield $540,000 0,2 81
Mountaingate Drive 2-lane collector
V Street 31 st Street to Marcola New 2 to 3-lane collector Springfield $1,755,000 0,65 m
Road
Vera Drive/Hayden 15th Street to 20th Street New 2 to 3-lane urban Springfield $918,000 0.34 780 !
. Bridge Road collector
TransPlan-Joint Adopting Officials Revisions D8c8mb8r January 200~-l-
Chapter 3, Page 21
Exhibit A - Page 13
TransPlan Amendments
.
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Cost Length Number
Yolanda Avenue
31 st Street to 34th Street Extend existing street as
2-lane collector
Springfield
$540,000
0.2
783
Status Sub-Total
$57,948,500
Project Category Sub-Total
$57,948,500
.
TransPlan-Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
Desemeef Januarv 200~+
Chapter 3, Page 22
.
I
Exhibit A - Page 14
TransPlan Amendments
.
Gateway/Game
Farm Rd, East
Gateway/Game Farm
Rd, East intersection
TransPI~n-Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
Exhibit A - Page 16
TransPlan Amendments
Intersection improvements
Springfield
Status Sub-Total
$400,000
0.25
$22,681,000
DeeelRbef Tannaty 200~+
Chapter 3, Page 24
786
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Street Ughting Various Locations Add street lighting on Eugene $1,000,000 -
Arterials/collectors
Thurston Road 72nd Street to UGB Upgrade to 3-lane urban Springfield $1,220,000 0,61 98
facility
Van Duyn Road Western Drive to Harlow Reconstruct to 2-lane urban Eugene $375,000 0,25 696
Road facility
Wilkes Drive River Road to River Loop Upgrade to 3-1ane urban Lane County $1,365,000 0,91 554
1 facility
Willow Creek Road 18th Avenue to UGB Upgrade to 2-lane urban Eugene $1,590,000 1,06 342
Facility
Bailey Hill Road Bertelsen to UGB Upgrade to urban facility Eugene $3,200,000 1.2 343
Dillard Road Gamet to UGB Upgrade to urban facility Eugene $2,000,000 1,0 298
South Willamette Spencer Crest to UGB Upgrade to urban facility Eugene $400,000 0,2 299
Summit Drive Fairmont to Floral Hill Dr. Upgrade to urban facility Eugene $500,000 0,3 452
Glenwood Blvd Franklin Blvd to 1-5 Upgrade to urban facility Springfield $800,000 0,5 836
. Traffic Calming Various Locations Neighborhood traffic calming Eugene $1,000,000 101
to address problems on
residential streets, including
collectors
Services for New Various Locations New public streets and Eugene $4.000,000 102
Development improvements to existing streets
Initiated by private development
and consistent with adopted CIP
Status Sub-Total=$61.920.00067,17.{},(J(J(}
Project Category Sub- Total $84.601.00089,851, (}(}()
.
TransPI~Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
DllCllm911r January 200J+
Chapter 3, Page 27
Exhibit A -Page 19
TransPlan Amendments
.
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Cost Length Number
Project Category: Study
Status: Programmed
1-5 @ Beltline
Study & Design
, @ Interchange
Project development work
ODOT
$3,375,000 -
606
Status Sub-Total
$3,375,000
Status: Unprogrammed
1-5 Interchange Willamette River south Comprehensive study of 1-5 ODOT $750,000 250
Study to 30lh Avenue interchanges
18th Avenue Bertelsen Road to Agate Corridor study to determine . Eugene $250,000 4,71 118
Street improvements
Chambers Street 8th Avenue to 18th Corridor Study to determine Eugene $250,000 0,8 136
Avenue improvements
Coburg Road , Crescent Avenue to Access management! Eugene $100,000 2,24 619
Oakway Road safety-operational study .
Ferry Street Bridge Oakway Road to Long-Range Capacity Eugene $250,000 1,08 139
Broadway Refinement Plan
South Bank Street Mill Street to Hilyard Develop refinement plan for Eugene, $250,000 178
Improvements Street street system ODOT
W 11th Avenue Beltline Road to Access Management, Eugene $100.000 2.74 332
Chambers Street Safety, and Operational
Study
Willamette 13th Avenue to 33rd Corridor study to determine Eugen~ $250,000 5,55 187
Street/Amazon Avenue improvements
Parkway/Patterson
Street!Hilyard Street
Main Street! 1-5 to UGB Access management plan ODOT/Springfield $100,000 6,0 838
Highway 126
Eugene-Springfield 1-5 to Main Corridor Study ODOT/Springfield $150,000 6.5 835
Hwy,
Main St. and 52nd 52nd to Main Interchange Plans ODOT/Springfield $100,000 1.5 96
SLlHwy 126 Int.
AAltline RivAr Rd to Coburn Rd Fl'ldlitv PIl'ln Studv onOT $sno nno 346 fifi5
Status Sub- T otal=$3.0 5 O. 00(}2,5 59, (J9(J
Project Category Sub-Total $6.425.0005,9-25,000
TransPlan-loint Adopting Officials Revisions
DeeeHl.loler Janmn:y 200~+
Chapter 3, Page 28
.
I
Exhibit A - Page 20
TransPlan Amendments
.
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Cost Length Number
Project Category: Nodal Development Implementation
Planning
Various
Locations
Planning for implementation
Of Nodal Development zoning
Eugene/Springfield
$5,000,000
Eugene Nodal
Development
Infrastructure Funding
Various
Locations
Differential Nodal Development
Infrastructure Cost *
Eugene
$2,000,000
Status Sub-Total
$7,000,000
Project Category Sub-Total
$7,000,000
.
Total Capital Projects: Roadway Projects
$353.915,50032~,613, 70(J
* For the Royal and Chase Gardens nodal development areas, allocate $2,000,000 for differential nodal development infrastructure costs,
Sources of funding include a mix of local discretion STP, SDCs, "locally controlled revenue source,' and other funding sources,
The amount required for differential nodal development infrastructure costs will be vastly more when all the Eugene priority nodal
development areas are included in this line item, Amend this line item at the first update to list the estimated differential cost of nodal
development infrastructure for the priority nodal development areas over the entire' fiscally constrained planning period.
Springfield will use the next three years of experience to develop an estimate of costs uniquely associated with nodal development in
Springfield on those nodes that are selected and protected pursuant to LCDC's approval of alternative performance measures, This
estimate would be included in the first update of the plan, subject to available funding,
.
TransPlan-loint Adopting Officials Revisions
Deeember January 200~+
Chapter 3, Page 29
Exhibit A - Page 21
TransPlan Amendments
.
Chapter 3: Table Ib-Future (Beyond 20-Years)
Capital Investment Actions: . Roadway Projects
. Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Cost Length Number
Project Category: New Arterial Link or Interchange
Status: Future,
Beaver Street Hunsaker Lane to Wilkes R.OW Acquisition, General Lane County $1.700.000 0,84 503
Arterial Drive construction.
Eugene-Springfield at Main Street Construct interchange ODOT $9,000,000 0 27
Highway (SR-126)
Division Avenue Delta Highway to Beaver New frontage road wI Lane County $4,005.000 0.89 512 .
Street Willamette River Bridge
Eugene-Springfield at 52nd Street Construct interchange ODOT $9,000,000 0 30
Highway (SR-126)
'Ne&! Eugene
PaFkway, (HI)
Garfield Street to Seneca W 11th Garfiold: 4 lane QDOT
ReaEl AOW eeA6tfll6tieR, 6eAtiAueEl;
ponding completion of a Gtudy
af tmm;portatioA iA'lpro\'ement6
in '.Me!:t Eugono
S34,231,OOG
~
Status Sub- Total=$23. 705.00057, 93f1, ()()()
Project Category Sub-Total
$23.705:00057,936,000
TransPlan-Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
Deeember Januarv 200~-l-
Chapter 3, Page 30
.
I
Exhibit A - Page 22
TransPlan Amendments
.
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Cost Length Number
Project Category: Added Freeway Lanes or Major
Interchange Improvements
Beltline Hiahwav
West 11th Avenue to
Roosevelt Boulevard
OOOT
$17000000
114
312
.
TransPlan-Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
December Januarv 200~+
Chapter 3, Page 31
Exhibit A - Page 23
TransPlan Amendments
.
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Cost Length Number
1-5
1-105 to Highway 58
(Goshen)
Widen remaining sections to
6 lanes
OOOT
$35,000,000' 5,66
260
1-5
@ Glenwood Interchange Reconfigure interchange,
address weaving, provide 6
lanes on freeway
OOOT
$10,000,000
256
1-5
@ Willamette
River/Franklin Boulevard
Interchange
Interchange reconstruction
to create one full
interchange to improve
operations and safety,
reconstruct ramps and
bridges to modem
standards. and provide for 6
lanes on 1-5
OOOT
$25,000,000
150
.
Beltline Hiahwav River Road to Delta Widen to 6 lanes' constnJct ODOT $13390200 173 506
Hiahwav new or widen existina
Willamette River Bridaes'
revise Division/River Ave
ramos' reconstruct/relocate
Division Ave from Division
Place to Beltline
1-105 Washinaton/,Iefferson Add lane to 6th Ave off-ramo ODOT $4 300 000 025 151
Street Bridae
Status Sub-Total $181.672.000.' 16, 98!,8(}(}
Project Category Sub-Total $181.672.0001f6,981,8{}(J
.
TransPlan-Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
Deeemeer Januarv 200~+ ,
Chapter 3, Page 32
Exhibit A - Page 24
TransPlan Amendments
.
Name
Geoi!ranhic
Limits
Descrintion
Estimated
.TurisdictionCost, Leni!th Number
ero;ect Cate!!ory: Arterial Capacity Improvenlents
Status: Future
T
Status Sub-Total
$4.530.000
Proiect Cate!!orv Suh- Total
$4.530.000
.
.
TransPlan-loint Adopting Officials Revisions
DeeeHl-eer Januarv 20021-
Chapter 3, Page 33
Exhibit A - Page 25
TransPlan Amendments
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Project Category: Urban Standards
Status: Future
48th Street Main Street to Daisy Upgrade to urban facility Springfield $300,000 901
Street
Jasper Road 57th/58th intersection Intersection improvements Springfield $200,000 0,5 100
Highway 99 Roosevelt Boulevard to Upgrade to urban facility ODOT $4,955,500 1.14 148
Garfield Street
McVay Highway 1-5 to Franklin Boulevard Upgrade to 3-lane urban ODOT $6,500,000 1,5 833
facility; intersection
improvements at 1-5 and .
Franklin Boulevard
Jasoer Road S 42nd Street to Jasoer Uoarade to 2 to 3-lane urban ODOT $5 250 000 35 60
Road Extension facilitv' intersection
imorovement at 42nd Street
and Jasoer Road
Franklin Blvd .Jenkins Drive to Mill SI Unmade 10 urban f"cilitv Snrinafield/ODOT $5 000 000 12 839
Status Sub- Total=$22. 20 5.50011, 955,5(J(J
Project Category Sub-Total $22.205.50011,955,500
Total Future Capital Projects: Roadway $232.112.500Jl~,873,30g
.
TransPlan-Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
December January 200~+
Chapter 3, Page 34
Exhibit A - Page 26
TransPlan Amendments
.
Chapter 3: Table 3a-Financially Constrained
20-Year Capital Investment Actions: Bicycle Projects
- -
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Cost Length Number
Project Category: Multi-Use Paths Without Road Project
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Millrace Path (Spr,) S, 2nd Street to S, 28th Multi-Use Path Springfield $2,340,000 1,60 840
Street
Oakmont Park Oakway Road to Coburg Route, Multi-Use Path Eugene $67.000 0,27 678
Road
Q Street Channel Centennial loop to Multi-Use Path Eugene $565,20'0 1,42 682
Garden Way Path
Spring Boulevard (B) 29th Avenue to 30th , Multi-Use Path Eugene $205,000 0.22 281
Avenue
Valley River Valley River Way to North Multi-Use Path Eugene $102,000 0,12 692
Connector (B) Bank Trail
Westmoreland Park Fillmore Street to Taylor Multi-Use Path Eugene $102,000 0.41 181
Path Street
Status Sub-Total $10,017,700
Project Category Sub-Total $14,732,700
.
TransPlan - Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
Deeemeer Januarv 200~+
Chapter 3, Page 41
.
Exhibit A - Page 28
TransPlan Amendments
.
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Cost . Length Number
Project Category: Multi-Use Paths With Road Project
. Status: Programmed
West Eugene Parkway Seltline Road to Seneca Multi-Use Path OOOT $0 1,65
Path (1A) , Road
Status Sub-Total $0
Status: Unprogrammed
Belt/ino PatR floeso\<elt BouleV3Hl to Multi Use PaUl GDOT $G 1.1 J
W. 11th N.'omJe
1-5 Bike Bridge Willakenzie Road to Postal Bridge ODOT $0 0,15
Way
West Euaene Parkway TerrY Street to Seltline Rd Multi-Use Path OOOT $0 088
Path 12A)
340
~
666
338
Status Sub- Total
$0
.
Project Category Sub- Total
$0
.
TransPlan - Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
Deeember JanuarY 200~+
Chapter 3, Page 42
Exhibit ~ - Page 29
TransPlan Amendments
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Project Category: On-Street Lanes or Routes With Road Project
Status: Programmed
11th Avenue Terry street to Danebo Striped Lane ODOT $0 0,49 398
Avenue
18th Avenue Bertelsen Road to Willow Striped Lane Eugene,Lane $0 0.85 303
Creek Road County
Ayres Road Delta Highway to Gilham Striped Lane Eugene $0 0,52 603
Road
Beaver Street Arterial Hunsaker Lane to Wilkes Striped Lane Lane County $0 0,92 503
Drive
Bertelsen Road 18th Avenue to Bailey Hill Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.60 315
Road
Coburg Road . Kinney Loop to Armitage Striped Lane/Shoulder Lane County $0 0,87 625
Bridge
Delta Highway Ayres Road to Green Striped Lane Eugene $0 0,68 635
Acres Road
Dillard Road 43rd Street to Garnet Striped Lane Eugene $0 0,39 233
Street .
Division Avenue Delta Highway to Beaver Striped Lane Lane County $0 0.47 512
Street (new frontage road)
Fox Hollow Road Donald Street to Cline Striped Lane Eugene, Lane $0 0,50 245
Road County
Goodpasture Island Delta Highway to Happy Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.33 664
Road Lane
Irvington Road River Road to Prairie Road Striped Lane Lane County $0 1.44 533
Prairie Road Carol Lane to Irvington Striped Lane Lane County $0 0,38 472
Drive
Roosevelt Boulevard Beltline Road to Danebo Striped Lane ODOT $0 0,24 475
Avenue
Royal Avenue Terry Street to Greenhill Striped Lane Lane County, $0 1,01 481
Road Eugene
West Eugene Parkway Seneca Road to Beltline Striped Lane ODOT $0 1.65 336
(1A) Road
Jasoer Road Extension Main Street to Jasoer Road Strioed Lane Lane County $0 32 66
Status Sub-Total
$0
TransPlan - Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
Deeemeer Januarv 200~+
Chapter 3, Page 43
.
Exhibit A - Page 30
TransPlan Amendments
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Status: Unprogrammed
28th Street Main Street to Centennial Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.70 909
Boulevard
31 st Street Hayden Bridge to U Street Striped Lane Lane County $0 0.57 765
35th Street Commercial Avenue to Striped Lane Springfield $0 0,57 918
Olympic Street
51sU52nd Street Main Street to High Banks Route, Striped Lane Springfield $0 1,20 6
Road
69th Street Main Street to Thurston Striped Lane Springfield $0 0,55 15
Road
Aspen Street West 0 Street to Menlo ' Striped Lane Lane County, $0 0,58 809
Loop Springfield
Beltline Road East Gateway Street to Game Striped Lane ODOT $0 0.70 718
Farm Road
Bethel Drive Roosevelt Boulevard to Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 1,69 414
Highway 99
Commercial Street 35th Street to 42nd Street Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.70 933
County Farm Loop West-to-East section Striped lane Lane County, $0 0,56 632
. Eugene
County Farm loop North-to-South section Striped lane $0 631
lane County, 0,53
Eugene
Daisy Street , 46th Street to 48th Street Striped lane Springfield $0 0,06 24
Elmira Road Bertelsen Road to Route Eugene $0 1,21 420
Highway 99
. Future Collector H Future Collector G to Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.47 435
Royal Avenue
Future Collector 0 Barger Drive to Future Striped lane or Route Eugene $0 0.49 447
Collector G
Game Farm Road 1-5 to Crescent Avenue Striped lane lane County $0 1,01 606
North
Game Farm Road Coburg Road to Crescent Striped Lane Lane County $0 1,30 654
North Avenue
Game Farm Road Beltline Road to Harlow Striped Lane Lane County, $0 0,90 737
South Road Springfield
Gilham Road Honeywood Street to Torr Striped lane or Route Eugene $0 1,03 662
Avenue
Glenwood Boulevard Judkins to Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.42 827
Glennwood Drive
.
, TransPlan - Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
Deeember Januarv 200~+
Chapter 3, Page 44
Exhibit A - Page 31
TransPlan Amendments
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
, Greenhill Road Barger Drive to W. 11th Striped Lane Lane County, $0 2,74 454
Avenue Eugene
Hayden Bridge Road Yolanda Avenue to Striped Lane Lane County $0 1,30 747
Marcola Road
Hayden Bridge Road Yolanda Avenue to Striped Lane Lane County $0 0.54 796
Marcola Road
Hunsaker Lane I Division Avenue to River Striped Lane Lane County $0 1,11 527
Beaver Street Road
Ja&por Rom;! S, 42nd Str-oet to Mt. Striped Lans GOaT $Q 1A2 eo
VornoR Road.
Jasper RO;Jd (B) Mt. VernOR Road to UGB Striped LaRS GDOT $(r--2,2Q g
~
Lakeview/Parkview Gilham Road to County Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.79 644
Farm Road
Laura Street Scotts Glen Drive to Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.40 750
Harlow Road
Maple Street Elmira Avenue to Route Eugene $0 0.15 469
Roosevelt Boulevard
Old Coburg Road Game Farm Road to Chad Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.34 680
Drive .
River Avenue River Road to Division Striped Lane Eugene $0 0,85 542
Avenue
S, 28th Street Main Street to Millrace Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.51 945
S, 32nd Street Main Street to Railroad Striped Lane Springfield $0 0,39 948
Crossing
S, 42nd Street Main Street to Jasper Striped Lane OOOT $0 0.80 954
Van Duyn Road Western Drive to Harlow . Route Eugene $0 0,25 696
Road
W, 11th A'/omm Oroonhill Road to Toll)' Stripod Lane GOaT, SQ 1,08 3J3 I
Streot E:IlQeR8,LaR8
County
Weyerhauser Haul 48th Street to 57th Street Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.91 57
Road
Wilkes Drive River Road to River Loop 1 Striped Lane Lane County $0 0,99. 554
West Ellaene Parkwav Hiahwav 99 to Seneca Rd Strined lane OOOT SO 064 337
!lID
West Ellaene Parkw:w West 11th tn Beltline Strined lane OOOT SO ? 38 338
@l
Status Sub- Total $0
Project Category Sub- Total $0
Deeemeer Januarv 200~+ .
TransPlan - Joint Adopting Officials Revisions Chapter 3, Page 45
Exhibit A - Page 32
TransPlan Amendments
.
TransPlan - Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
Deeember Januarv 200~+
'Chapter 3, Page 46
Exhibit A M Page 33
TransPlan Amendments
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
29th Avenue Pearl Street to Portland Striped Lane Eugene $90,000 0.15 206
Street
2nd Avenue Polk Street to Van Buren Route Eugene $0 0.25 124
Street
30th Avenue / Agate Street to 29th Striped Lane Eugene $528,000 0.91 209
Amazon Parkway Avenue
33rd Avenue Willamelle Street to Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.55 212
Hilyard Street
3rd/4th Connector Lincoln Street to High Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.43 180
Street
42nd Street Marcola Road to Railroad Striped Lane Springfield $0 1.10 713
Tracks
5th Street Centennial Boulevard to G Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.35 806
Street
66th Street Main Street to Thurston Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.55 12
Road
Augusta Street 1-5 Ramp to Floral Hill Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.98 218
Drive
Candlelight Drive / Barger Avenue to Royal Route Eugene $0 1.01 417
Danebo Avenue Avenue .
Centennial Boulevard Centennial boulevard @ Add sidewalk to bridge and ODOT, $50,000 0.00 610
Overpass 1-5 approaches, modify Eugene,
guardrail, striped lane Springfield
Chambers Street 24th Avenue to 28th Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.42 224
Avenue
Clinton Drive / Debrick Cal Young Road to Route Eugene $0 0.51 616
Road Willagillespie Road
Dillard Road Gamet Street to UGB Striped Lane Eugene $570,000 1.83 234
Donald Street 39th Avenue to Fox Route Eugene $0 0.62 236
Hollow Road
East/ West Amazon Hilyard Street to Fox Striped Lane Eugene $0 1.08 239
Drive Hollow Road/Dillard Road
Emerald Street/29th 24th Avenue to Route Eugene $0 0.82 242
Avenue Laurelwood Golf Course
and University Street
Franklin Boulevard Glenwood Boulevard to Striped Lane Eugene, $264,000 0.54 824
Springfield Bridges ODOT
Friendly Street 18th Avenue to 28th Striped Lane or Route Eugene $40,000 0.98 251
Avenue
G Street 5th Street to 28th Street Striped Lane or Route Springfield $9,500 1.60 899
Deeemeer Januarv 200~+ .
TransPlan - Joint Adopting Officials Revisions Chapter 3, Page 47
Exhibit A - Page 34
TransPlan Amendments
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Game Farm South Bellline to Deadmond Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.12 738
Ferry Road
Garfield Street Roosevelt Boulevard to Striped Lane Eugene $132,000 1.29 145
14th Avenue
Golden Gardens Jessen Drive to Barger Route Eugene $0 0.50 451
Drive
Greenhill Road Barger Drive to Airport Shoulder Lane County $209,000 1.47 457
Road
Greenhill Road Crow Road to W. 11 th Striped Lane/Shoulder Lane County $38,000 0.26 453
Avenue
Grove Street Silver Lane to Howard Striped Lane or Route Lane County $0 0.16 515
Avenue
High Street 3rd Avenue to 5th Avenue Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.25 185
Hilliard Lane N.,Park Avenue to W. Route Lane County $0 1.09 518
Bank Trail
Horn Lane N. Park Avenue to River Striped Lane or Route Lane County $144,000 0.75 521
Road
Howard Avenue \ River Road to N. Park Striped Lane or Route Lane County $0 0.96 524
Avenue
. Ivy Street 67th Street to 70th Street Route Springfield $0 0.30 99
Kinsrow Avenue Centennial Boulevard to Route Eugene $0 0.30 672
the East
Lake Drive / N. Park Maxwell Road to Striped Lane or Route Lane County $171,000 0.91 536
Avenue Northwest Expressway
Lincoln Street/ 5th Avenue to 18th Route, Striped Lane Eugene $0 1.14 160
Lawrence Street Avenue
Main Street and S. A Springfield Bridges to Striped Lane ODOT, $0 8.50 830
Street East UGB Springfield
McVay Highway 1-5 to 30th Avenue Striped Lane ODOT $114,000 0.71 834
Mill Street 10th to 15th Avenue Route Eugene $400,000 0.38 166
Mill Street S. A Street to Fairview Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.99 837
Drive
Minda Drive/Sally Way Norkenzie Road to Route Eugene $0 0.51 674
Norwood Street
Monroe 1st Avenue to Fem Ridge Striped Lane or Route Eugene $75,000 1.16 172
Street/Fairgrounds Path
N. 36th Street Main Street to Commercial Striped Lane or Route Springfield $100,000 0.30 939
Street
.
TransPlan - Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
DeEiemeer JanuarY 200~+
Chapter 3, Page 48
Exhibit A - Page 35
TransPlan Amendments
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
N. Park Avenue Maxwell Road to Horn Lane Striped Lane or Route Lane County $190,000 1.02 539
Nugget,15th,17th,19th Route Springfield $0 1.58 845
in Glenwood
Oakmont Way Oakway Road to Coburg Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.30 676
Road
Olympic Street (A) 21st Streel to Mohawk Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.26 942
Boulevard
Polk Street . 6th Avenue to 24th Avenue Striped Lane Eugene $400,000 1.39 175
Potato Hill Summit Length of Potato Hill route Route Springfield $0 1.52 84
Route (in future
subdivision)
Prairie Road Maxwell Road to Highway Striped Lane Eugene $58,000 0.15 495
99
Rainbow Drive West "0" Street to Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.55 848
Centennial Boulevard
S. 67th Street Ivy Street to Main Street Striped Lane or Route Springfield $42,000 0.30 92
S. 70th Street Main Street to Ivy Street Striped Lane Springfield $115,000 0.60 94
Seavey Loop Road / Coast Fork of Willametle Route or Shoulder Lane County $0 2.44 957
Franklin Boulevard River to 1-5 .
Seneca Road W.11th Avenue to 7th . Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.27 324
Place
Silver Lane Grove Street to River Road Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.89 548.
Spring Bou)evard (A) Fairmount Boulevard to Route Eugene $0 1.07 278
29th Avenue
Springfield Bridges Franklin Boulevard to Mill Striped Lane ODOT $0 0.68 857
Street
Summit Street Fairmount Boulevard to Route Eugene $0 0.31 287
Floral Hill Drive
Tandy Turn / Lariat Coburg Road to Oakway Route Eugene $0 0.48 686
Meadows Road
Thurston Road Billings Road to Highway Route or Shoulder Lane County $0 1.61 96
126
Torr Avenue Gilham Road to Locke Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.66 688
Road
Tyler Street 24th Avenue to 28th Route Eugene $0 0.37 290
Avenue
TransPlan - Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
Deeember Januarv 200~r.+
Chapter 3, Page 49
.
Exhibit A - Page 36
TransPlan Amendments
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Valley River Way (A) Valley River Drive to Striped Lane Eugene $200,000 0.23 694
Valley River Connector
Van Duyn Road / Western Drive to Route Eugene $0 0.61 698
Bogart Road Willakenzie Road
Walnut Avenue 15thAvenue to Fairmont Route Eugene $0 0.36 295
Boulevard
Weyerhaeuser Haul Booth Kelly Road to Main Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.46 90
Road Street
Wiliamelle Street 18th Avenue to 32nd Striped Lane Eugene $396,000 1.30 296
Avenue
Willamelle Street 11th Avenue to 18th Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.76 184
Avenue
Yolanda Avenue 31st Street to Hayden Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.80 784
Bridge Road
Status Sub-Total . $4,455,500
Project Category Sub-Total $4,455,500
Total Capital Projects: Bicycle Projects $19,188,200
.
.
TransPlan - Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
Deeemeer Januarv 200~+
Chapter 3, Page 50
Exhibit A - Page 37
TransPlan Amendments
.
.
.
Name
Geographic
Limits
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Cost Length Number
Description
Project Category: Multi-Use Paths With Road Project
Status:
Future
Beltline Path
Roosevelt Boulevard to
W. 11th Avenue
Multi-Use Path
ODOT
$0
113
411
Status Sub- Total
$0
Project Category Sub- Total
$0
TransPlan-Ioint Adopting Officials Revisions
DBeemeer Januarv 200~+
Chapter 3,Page 52
Exhibit A - Page 39
TransPlan Amendments.
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Cost Length Number
.
Project Category: On-Street Lanes or Routes With Road Project
Status: Future
Division Avenue Delta Highway to Beaver Striped Lane Lane County $0 0.47 512
Street (new frontage road)
Beaver Street Arterial Hunsaker Lane to Wilkes Striped Lane Lane County $0 0.92 503
Drive
McVay Highway 1-5 to Franklin Boulevard Striped Lane ODOT $0 1.50 833
Wost ElJ!'jORO Highway 99 to SonoGa Striflod LaRa OOOT $Q 0.64 aa7
Park'oVa} Read
W 11th Avenue Greenhill Road to Terrv Strined Lane OOOT $0 106 333
Street Euoene. Lane
Jasoer Road S. 42nd Street to Mt. Strioed Lane ODOT $0 1.42 60
Vernon Road
Franklin Blvd .Jenkins Drive to Mill Sf Strioed lane Snrinofield/ODOT $0 12 839
Jasoer Road (8) Mt Vemon Road to UGB Strioed Lane OOOT $0 220 63
South
Status Sub-Total
$0
.
Project Category Sub-Total
$0
.
TransPlan-Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
December Januarv 200~+
Chapter 3, Page 53
Exhibit A - Page 40
TransPlan Amendments
.
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Cost Length Number
Project Category: On-Street Lanes or Routes Without Road Project
Status: Future
Bethel Connector Rikhoff to Park Avenue Multi-Use Path Eugene $0 0.15 490
Broadway / Franklin Mill Street to East of 1-5 Striped Lane Eugene $0 1.91 182
Boulevard
Jefferson Street 13th Avenue to 18th Striped Lane Eugene $93,000 0.35 263
Avenue
Jefferson Street 18th Avenue to 28th Striped Lane Eugene $238,000 0.89 157
Avenue
Lorane Highway (A) Bailey Hill. Road to Shoulder . Lane County $0 4.32 321
Chambers Street
Portland Street / 27th Willamelle Street to 29th Route Eugene $89,000 0.89 275
Avenue Avenue
Spyglass Drive Cal Young Road to Route, Accessway Eugene $155.000 1.00 684
Oakway Road
W. 11th Avenue Chambers Street to Striped Lane Eugene, $0 3.00 334
Danebo Avenue ODOT
Jefferson! 5th to 13th Striped Lane Eugene $100,000 0.53
Washington
. Status Sub- Total $675,000
Project Category Sub- Total $675,000
Total Capital Projects: Bicycle Projects $14,299,000
.
TransPlan-Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
December Januarv 200~+
Chapter 3, Page 54
Exhibit A - Page 41
TransPlan Amendments
-1m
~x
QI::T'
~ .....
VlC"
""0 .....
..... M-
QI
~::t:>
::t:>1
3
(1)""0
~QI
0.. tC:l
3(1)
(I)
~.;:.
.M- N
Vl
TABLE 4 (January 2002)
TRANSPLAN COSTS & REVENUES and STRATEGIES
($ Millions)
Local (Eugene, Lane County,Sprlngfield) Components
...itf8.81ul.!_'.8IK~~
Cost
Revenue
Shortfall Potential Strategies
Implement New Local Revenue Solirce(s), Accept
Lower Pavement Condition Rating(s) (PCR), Reduce
Operations & Maintenance Service Levels, Add
. . Reimbursement Component to Transportation System
_~.!:!a~~_Qp.~!~~Lq!:'_~~_~~l nt~D_l!!!l_2~_~_P.~~_~~~~!~!1___________________J_______~q9__!_____~-~Q--l.------J 2q__Q~_':::~J9..e.!!l_~t~h~!.a~.l~.Q.9L__________________________
Implement New Local Revenue Source(s), Accept
Lower PCR, Reduce Operations & Maintenance
_~..e!!~~~~_Qp"~!!=,.!!?"f]!._~!~~~~!I-~~-~-Pr~~~!Y-~Lc:!D..---------_______J._____1Q9__~_______I~___L____1.~_.2.~~L~J:.~~~~~_~_1?~nd~.a.f.q~_Pr~~~!Y_~Lc:!D________
Lane County Operations, Maintenance & Preservation $ 112 $ 112 $ No Shortfall
Subtotal $ 513 $ 365 $ 148
1IItlII1IIIl_-
_9..iTt_f-.rt~!l!='JL~J!~~t<?!.2.xst~~!~P!..~Y~!!1~.tL----_---------____J_______1~9__~___~.30 ___L____=-__~9_~!!~!.!f~________________________________
Lane County System Improvements $ 48 $ 48 $ . - No Shortfall
Subtotal . $ 178 $ 178 $
"!a~
_~OC!~!~!Ii'~.2.E~~L~~~-MaJ!'l~!!.l!.'2ce ~ Pr~~_r:.'!~~9_'2.________!_______~_!._____:_____L______'L!.~~Ll!~_~..!.r:l_~~!' LOE~L Re~~!1!:1_~~~2~J.~2____________
_~~!LQ!f~!r..~t~!~~--~X~~-l!I-~..e.r?.~~~~!~-------~-------------_____!________1~___!_________!?.___L____:..___~9_~!!~!.!f~.!!.._------------------------------------------------
Local On-street Bike (w/o Road) System Improvements $ 4 $ 4 $ No Shortfall
Subtotal $ 23 $ 19 $ 4
Total $ 714 $ 562 $ 153
Lane Transit District (L TO) ./
-E~g-~~~~~~tr~~~~~~~i~-~i'!..~!~~~L~---------------------i-----+*~----~-----~-~~--_}------:-~~~~6m~}-------------------------------------
-;-ot;I------------------~--------------------------------------- $ 669 $ 669 $ ----------------------------------------------
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) .
g..QQT O..e..~~~!~!1~_Mai'2te'2~..r:lf_~.!i'r.e~~!='tio!]______________J____.1.~~__t-'___~_~!!..__L__..,-~~-~!?.9~E!.!:?..~! Me..!!"..<?E.~.@.?D A!~~..PC~~_____________
-~gg~ ~~{~~!f~;J~~~~~~~:--------------------------------i----~-3j~-~------y6*--_}----io5-~gsft~RJ~ojeCfsToHjlu-reTis1orno~orEfuifa------.
-;-otal------------------------------------------------------ $ 626 $ 337 $ 289 ------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL
$ 2,009 $ 1,568 $
441
All figures are rounded and are shown in 1997 dollars and are for the planning horizon through FY 2021.
.ODOT Facility Planning Studies are shown for information purposes only.
'.
.
.
! ._--~--
--I f'T1
~x
QJ::l'"
::s ....
VIe-
"'t:J ....
...... c-I"
QJ
::s)::o
)::0 I
3
(I)"'t:J
::SQJ
00l.Cl
3(1)
(I)
::s+:=o
c-I"W
VI
-
.
.
TABLE 5 (January 2002)
CONSTRAINED TRANSPLAN COSTS & REVENUES
($ Millions)
Local (Eugene, Lane County, Springfield) Components
.~"~1IIL~'.W.iiiS""'"
Cost Revenue Shortfall Comments on Constraint(s)
Implement new locally controlled source of
_~~_Q~_~~_~p_~~~!L~~~~_~~!l~~~~~P_~_~_!:~~~~~~1~~~______________~_______~9_~___~______~Q~___~_______=_____~~~~~_~~__________________________________________________
~P!1~J!~~J9_S?~~!~J~9!l_~~_~_~~~~!l_~~_S~_~J:!~~~~~9_~__________~________~_~___~________~~___~_______=_____~pJy_~~_~_~L~~1!~~_~~~!r_~~~~~_~______________________
Lane County Operations, Maintenance & Preservation $ 112 $ 112 $ No Shortfall
Subtotal $ 510 $ 510 $
Fitltllllrllffflfl1_
~~~_~!!~!~~Y_~~~~~~~_~Y_~~~~_~~Je~9~~~~~~___________________~_______1~_~___~_______1~~___~_______=_____~9_~~9_~f~!L________________~____________________________
Lane County System Improvements $ 48 . $ 48 $ No Shortfall
Subtotal $ 178 $ 178 $
11~"(~_
_~2P_~L~L~~LE~?S?.p-~!~_~2!l~~_~_~Lr:!~~!l_~!'_S~_~J:!~_~~~~~9_r:!_____t________~___t________i___t______=_____Lr:!9!~~~_Lr:!_~_~Y!_~9_~~!_'3_~~~_~~_~_~~~!9~(~L__________
~~p_~LS?!!:~~~~~t~L~~_~~~~~_~J~~~~y~~~_~~~___________________~________~_~___~________1~___~_______=____~~_~_~9_~f~!L_____________________________________________
Local On-street Bike (w/o Road) System Improvements $ 4 $ 4 $ No Shortfall
Subtotal $ 23 $ 23 $
Total $ 712 $ 712 $
~:r_~_~p~~~!L~~~~_~~!l~~~~~g_~_~_!:~~~_~~~~~2!l___________~______~_______1~5!___~______~~~___~_______=_____~2_~~9_~~!L_____________________________________________
.!:~g_?.~~~:~1~p..~~~~~:_~~~____________________________________ $ 171 $ 171 $ . ~~_~~~_~!~~~_____________________________________________
Total $ 669$ 669 $
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
s?.Q2.IgJe~!~~9_~~~_~~l~!~_~~_~9~_~_~.!"..~~~_r.Y..~~L~~_______________t______l~_~___t______l~~___~_______=_____~~9~..e!_~~~~~_~_~!r_~p~~~~!l_~~~~.!:~~~_______________
{5{5{5~~~~~~~~~~~3~~~;;~~~-~~--------------------------------~-------f6~---~------1-6~---~-------:-----~i5s~~~n~.;;~()lIelcrslfc)lFiJlfijrel[ist----------------------
Totai------------------------------------------------------------- $ 337 $ 337 $ ----------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL.
$ 1,718 $ 1,718 $.
All figures are rounded and are shown in 1997 dollars and are for the planning horizon through FY 2021.
*ODOT Facility Planning Studies are shown for information purposes only.
-I IT'1
~><
1lI:::r
:::::l -0,
VlC'"
"'0 -0.
--' c-t
III
:::::l)::o
)::01
3
ro"'O
:::::llll
0-l.Cl
3 ro
ro
.:::::l .;:.
c-t .;:.
VI
TABLE 4 (December 2001)
TRANSPLAN COSTS & REVENUES and STRATEGIES
($ Millions)
Local (Eugene, Lane County, Springfield) Components
Cost Revenue . Shortfall Potential Strategies
Implement New Local Revenue Source(s), Accept
Lower Pavement Condition Rating(s) (PCR), Reduce
Operations & Maintenance Service Levels, Add
Reimbursement Component to Transportation System
~~JI~!l~_~p~~~!L~~~~_~~j!l_~~~~~~_~_~_~.r.~~~~~L~~______________________~______~~~___~______1_~~___~_______2_1~__~~_~~!~~~~!l~~~_~~~Jl~~~2_____________~_________________
Implement New Local Revenue Source(s), Accept
Lower PCR, Reduce Operations & Maintenance
~P!l~JI~~l~_.QP..~!~JL<2!l_~~M_~L~!~~_~~.s~_~.!:!~~_~!:Y~~~_I).__________________t_______~?___!________~Q___l_______~?__~~!;'j9~_~~~~!~:._~~!_~9..~9j!'JiL~~.!:!~_~~!Y~~9_r:!___________
Lane County Operations. Maintenance & Preservation $ 107 $ 107 $ No Shortfall
Subtotal $ 492 $ 349 $ 142
~L!Y.~!!~L~Y~~J!~~~~~~~~~_L~Je~9~_~~~_~!~___________________________~_______1~P___!______1_~~__~_______:_____~_~~~~~J!__________________________________________________
Lane County System Improvements $ 48 . $ 48 $ - No Shortfall
Subtotal $ 178 $ 178 $
.h<2~_~U!L~~L~_E29_2P..~!~JL9!l_~:.M_~LI1!~!l_~~_c:.~_~.!:!~~~!:Y~~9_11_____________t________1__!_______:____J__________~__!~.9J~_<.!~_!~_~~~_~9..~~L~~~!~~~_~_~~!~~i~2.________________
.h9~_~L.Q!!:~!~~~~!!L~~_~~~!~_~1~J?.r.~y~~_I).!~___________________________~_____~__!?_~__~________l?___l~_____:_____~9_~~~~~J!__________________________________________________
Local On-street Bike (w/o Road) System Improvements $ 4 $ 4 $ No Shortfall
Subtotal $ 23 $ 19 $ 4
Total $ 693 $ 547 $ 146
Lane Transit District (L TO)
~~~-~~~~~L'l~~ir~~~~;;~~~-~~-~~~~~~~!L<2~-------------~------------~------~~{---~------~~--~------:-----~-~~~~~}--------------------------------------------------
Total-------------------------------------------------------------------- $ 648 $ . 648 $ ----------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
.Qp..Q!gJe~!~~!?!!~~_M~!~!~!l~!l~~_~E!!~~_ry_~~~~____________________~-----~11---~-----J.~LJ---------~Q-~~~~L~~~~M;!~~~~..n--~-~-~-~~r-r~=r=r"--------
OOOT System Improvements 'll 352 $ 142 $ 209 r-oslpone r-roJecls lO rUlure L.ISl or uO rllOl cUllu
To-tai--------------------------------------------------------------------- $ 592 $ 303 $ 289 ---------------;-------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL
$ 1,933 $ 1,498 $
435
All figures are shown in 1997 dollars and are for the planning horizon through FY 2020.
.
.
.
-l IT1
-SX
QJ :::r
:::l -'.
VlO'"
""0 -'.
--' c"+
QJ
:::l)::o
)::0/
3
m""O
:::lQJ
0. (.Q
3m
m
:::l+=-
c"+ CJ'1
VI
e
.
e
TABLE 5 (December 2001)
CONSTRAINED TRANSPLAN COSTS & REVENUES
($ Millions)
Local (Eugene, Lane County, Springfield) Components
tBBJ~'_!JJI_I,"llIIa~1IIIIItl1IIIBII
Cost Revenue Shortfall Comments on Constraint(s)
Implement new locally controlled source of
. _~~_Q~_~~_~p~~~!L~~~_~~!l~~~~~~_~_~_!:~~~~~~~l~~______________~_______~~_~___~______~~~___~______:.____~~y_~~_~~____________________________~_____________________
~P!1~~~J9...Qp~!~~l9~_~~_r~1.~l~~~~_~~_~~_~.E!~_~~!Y~9_~__________~______~.i___t___.:___~i__~______.:____~..epJy_f~_'!'~l1!~~!<.?!l_E.t~!.r~~~~_~_____________________
Lane County OpE;lrations, Maintenance & Preservation $ 107 $ 107 $ No Shortfall
Subtotal $ 489 $ 489 $
pg~_~.l_ .
_~ltY-~!!~!l~Y_~E.~~~~~~_~~~~~~_L'!'Je!9~~~~~!~__________________~_______!9_Q___~_______1~~___~_______.:_____~<.?_~~9_~~!L_~___________________________________________
Lane County System Improvements $ 48 $ 48 $ No Shortfall
S~~~ $ 1n $ 1n $
.
_~<.?~_~L~l~~lE~9...Qp..~!~~lS>!l~~_r~1.~ll}!~!l~~_~~_~.!:!~_~!Y.?~9_1!_____t________.i___t________i___~_______:.____Lr:!91~_~~_ll!..~_~~_~9E~!_'3..~~_I!~~_~E.~!9..~~L________
_~9~~L.Q!!:~!!~~t~L~~_~l~!~_~J~P..~~y~~~_~t~___________________~________j_~___~________1~___~_______.:_____~<.?_~~9_~~!L_~___________________________________________
Local On-street Bike (w/o Road) System Improvements $ 4 $ 4 $ No Shortfall
Subtotal $ 23 $ 23 $
Total $ 690 $ 690 $
_~:r_~_~p_~~~!l~~~~_~~J!l~~~~~~_~_~~~~~~~~~l9~_________________~_______1?~___~______.i?1:___~_______.:_____~<.?_~~9_~~!L_____________________________________________
LTD System Improvements $ 171 $ 171 $ No Shortfall
Totai----------------------------------------------------------- $ 648 $ 648 $ -------------------------------------------------------
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
{5~~~-~~~~~9i~~~~~~~;;1~~-~-~r!:~~-~~~E.~---------------~-------t~~---~-------t~~--~-------:-----~6~1t;~n~~~~jj~cf~fJ;~\~!lr~[T~~f~~---------------
Totai----------------------------------------------------------- $ 303 $ 303 $ -------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL
$ 1,642 $ 1,642 $
All figures are shown in 1997 dollars and are for the planning horizon through FY 2020.
TransPlan Chapter 4: Plan Performance and
Implementation Monitoring
.
Table of Contents
Introduction........... ............... ........... .................................. ........... .......... ...................... ................1
Part One: Context for Assessment of Plan Performance ..................................................................2
Part Two: Projected Plan Performance......... .................................. .... ............. ......... ................. .....4
Traffic Congestion Measures..................................... ........... ................... .................................:....7
Vehicle Miles Traveled and Trip Length Measures .....................................................................8
Mode Choice Measures.... ..... .... ...................... ...... ........ .... ..... ...... ................. ............... ....~.... .......9
Enviromnental Measures. ............ .............................. ........................... ..................................... .11
Land Use Measure~ ...........................:....... ..................... ....................... ....... ........................... ...12
Transportation System Measures............... ............. ........... .......................... ........................... ....12
Summary Assessment................. ........... ............,............. ................. ....................... ......... ......... .15
Part Three: TPR Alternative Performance Measures................. ............... ......................... ....... ....17
Background on LCDC Approval............................................................................................ ....17
Development of TransPlan's Alternative Performance Measures ..............................................18
Summary Assessment of TransPlan's TPR Compliance .............................................................19
Part Four:Plan Implementation Monitoring....................................:................................................26
Plan Monitoring Process.......................................................... .......................... ....................... .26
Part Five: TransPlan Update Cycle .................. ....................................................... ............. .........27
.
Introduction
This chapter describes how TransPlan is projected to perform and sets forth a monitoring program
to assess how the plan performs over time. The monitoring program ties plan goals, objectives,
and policies presented in Chapter Two to the implementation of actions presented in Chapter
Three. The program also aids in tracking the plan's performance in meeting fede~al and state
requirements.
Findings that result from analysis ofthese performance measures will allow for informed
decisions to be made as to how best implement the plan. For example, priorities or emphasis for
implementation actions may b~ adjusted, policies may be amended, and additional policies or
implementation actions may be recommended due to performance measure outcomes. Findings
may also influence budgeting and the type and phasing of capital projects included in the region's
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
The remainder of this chapter provides a context for the performance assessment, a presentation of
the performance of the plan, and an overview of the proposed program for monitoring the impacts
of plan implementation. This includes a presentation of the TPR alternative performance measures
approved by LCDC. .
.
TransPlan Jehu Adopting Officials Re'lisions
Dec@mber2001 Januarv 2002
Chapter 4, Page 1
Exhibit A - Page 46
TransPlan Amendments
.
Part One: Context for Assessment of Plan
Performance
Regional transportation planning has been carried out in the Eugene-Springfield area since the mid
1960s beginning with the Eugene-Springfield Area Transportation Study (ESATS) in 1967. T-
2000 in 1978 and TransPlan in 1986 followed ESATS. Between the time ESATS was completed
and the current update of TransPlan, there has been an evolution in what is expected from a
region's transportation system and commensurately with the decision making for and content of the
region's transportation plan. This evolution has included the following shifts:
From: Emphasis on methods and data in support of programming transportation system
, improvements.
To: Improved information on a wide-ranging set of impacts for a wide variety of
capital, operational, pricing, lifestyle, and land-use strategies.
From: A focus on the efficiency of highway networks and corresponding levels of service
(speed and travel time).
To: Multimodal systems operation and broad performance measurement.
.
From: A focus on how to get from point A to point B.
To: A broader context of transportation's role in a community and in the global,
national, state, and local economic market.
From: Acceptance of land use patterns as a given and not part of the solutions set.
To: Use ofland use strategies in connection with corresponding transportation policies
as a major strategy.
From: A focus on transportation system user benefits and costs.
To: Broader concern for the equitable distribution of benefits and costs within the
community.
ThesechaQ.ges have led to consideration of a more complex set of relationships, which makes it
important to consider a wide range of performance measures. The monitoring program provides
for assessment of multiple performance measures to address the comprehensive, sometimes
conflicting goals, objectives, and policies and to facilitate a broad discussion of issues among
diverse users.
Performance measures are the primary tools for quantitatively assessing the impacts and
achievements of plan implementation and are key criteria by which progress towards the plan
goals can be assessed. The performance measures provide a framework within which data that are
generated and collected can be presented in a meaningful way.
.
TransPlan ]eint Adopting Officials Rlwisions
December 2001 Tanuarv 2002
Chapter 4, Page 2
Exhibit A - Page 47
TransPlan Amendments
The performance measures are resUlts-oriented, meaning they are focused on assessing the
outcomes or effectiveness of transportation investments and other implementation actions. Results
from the ongoing plan performance and implementation monitoring program will be compiled and
presented to decision makers as the plan is implemented.
.
When making comparisons between plan costs and the plan performance presented in this chapter,
care should be taken to consider only the costs beyond those associated with the operation and
maintenance of the existing transportation system. The increase in costs for added roadway
capaCity, improved transit service, and improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian systems is a
relatively small proportion of the total plan cost. The overall cost for the Financially Constrained
20- Y ear Plan presented in Chapter 3 is $1.617 $1.714 billion. Of this total, 69 percent is
associated with the operation and maintenance of the existing transportation system. This leaves
31 percent or approximately $49+- $528 million associated with system improvements.
.
.
. TransPlan Joiat Adopting Officials R-evisions
D@\J@R!:b@r20()1 Januarv 2002
Chapter 4, Page 3
Exhibit A - Page 48.
TransPlan Amendments
.
Part Two: Projected Plan Performance
The combination of land use, transportation demand management (TDM), and transportation
system improvement (TSI) programs and capital investments included in TransPlan is the result of
a comprehensive evaluation of alternative scenarios. This technical analysis provided a process
to determine the relative significance of alternative scenarios and the desirability of one scenario
over another.
The main focus of reviewing the performance of the plan is to assess how the proposed
investments and actions are either:
1) Improving existing conditions, or
2) Avoiding undesirable conditions that would be present without the planned investments and
actions.
.
Table 6 shows data for existing conditions and projections for two future scenarios:
. Existing Conditions 1995, shows system performance as of 1995.
. The first future scenario, 2015 Trends, shows system performance for 1995 conditions
extended into the year 2015. This scenario shows projections of what is expected to happen
by 2015 under business as usual trends.
. The second future scenario, 2015 Financially Constrained TransPlan, shows projected draft
TransPlan performance for the year 2015 under conditions offmancial constraint. Like the
second scenario, it assumes implementation of land use and TDM strategies. Transit, bicycle,
and roadway capital actions are limited to fmancial resources expected to be available to the
region as discussed in Chapter 3. Capital actions identified as Future in Chapter 3 are not
included in this scenario.
For each future scenario presented in Table 6, the amount for each performance measure is listed
along with the percentage change in that performance measure from 1995 conditions. In the
descriptions of performance measures that follow, except where explicitly noted, comparisons are
drawn between 1995 Existing Conditions and the 2015 Financially Constrained TransPlan.
Chanl!es to performance measures resultinl! from the West Eugene Parkwav-related amendment to
TransPlan are nresented in this chanter in legislative format.
In general, implementation of the 2015 Financially Constrained TransPlan is projected to serve
the region's future travel needs for people and goods, while turning the transportation system and
the service it provides in a more desirable direction than existing trends. The proposed plan
reflects a set oftradeoffs among the communities' goals and objectives. A comprehensive set of
transportation system performance measures provides the framework for a meaningful comparison
of the scenarios.
.
TranspJan Joint Adopting Officials R-@visions
December 2001 Janll3ty,2002
Chapter 4, Page 4
Exhibit A - Page 49
TransPlan Amendments
-I l'Tl
""'Sx
QI::r
:::s .....
VlO'
-C .....
..... M-
QI
:::s)::>
)::>1
3
C'D-C
:::SQl
o.c.c
3ro
C'D
:::S(.1'l
M- 0
Vl
Table 6 - Summary of Kev Performance Measures (1)
,
1995 Existing 2015 Trends 2015 Flnanclany Constrained
Conditions TransPlan Scenario (2)
Category Key Description Amount % Change Amount % Change
from 1995 from 1995
Demographics Population (TransPlan Study Area) 209,800 296,500 41.3% 296,500 41.3%
Emoloyment (Trans Plan Studv Area) 106,900 153,000 43.1% 153,000 43.1%
PM1 Congested Miles of travel (percent of total VMT) 2.8% 10.6% 283.3% M.!Vo ~
Revised >>>>>>>>>> 5.0% 80.8%
PM2 Roadway Congestion Index 0.78 1.40 79.5% ~ ~
Congestion Revised >>>>>>>>>> 96% 23.1%
PM3 Network Vehicle Hours of Delay (Daily) 9,818 28,407 189.3% 19,416 97:8%
Revised >>>>>>>>>> 21,077 114.7%
PM4 % Transit Mode Share on Congested Corridors {'J 5.8% 10.0% 72.4%
PM5a Internal VMT (no commercial vehicles) 2,305,779 3,508,913 52% 3,224,037 ~
Revised >>>>>>>>>> 3,232,977 40%
Vehicle Miles Traveled PM5b Internal VMT/Capita 10.99 11.83 8% 4G,87 -4%
and Trip Length Revised >>>>>>>>>> 10.90 -1%
PM6 AveraQe Trip LenQth (miles) 3.7 3.9 6% 3.6 -1.7%
PM7 % Person Trips Under 1 Mile 14.5% 13.2% -9% ~ 40:-9%
Revised >>>>>>>>>> 15.9% 9.6%
Mode Shares - Ail PM8a Walk 8.93% 7.92% -11% ~ -7:-8%
Trips Revised >>>>>>>>>> 9.52% 6.6%
PM8b Bike 3.68% 3.32% -10% 3.64% -1.1%
PM8c Transit 1.83% 1.95% 7% ~ 48,.6!X,
Revised >>>>>>>>>> 2.73% 49.2%
PM8d Shared Ride (2 or more) 42.04% 44.30% 5% 44.53% 5.9%
PM8e Drive Alone 43.52% 42.52% -2% ~ -9,.6%
Revised >>>>>>>>>> 39.57% -9.1%
PM8f % Non-Auto Trips 14.43% 13.18% -9% 17.00% 17.8%
PM8a Person Trips per Auto Trip 1.59 1.61 2% 1.7 7.2%
PM9 Average Fuel Efficiency (VMT/Gal.) 19.7 19.1 -3% 18.9 -44%
Environmental Revised >>>>>>>>>> 19.2 -2.5%
PM10 CO Emissions (Weekday Tons) 1~4.4 1~::>.;:S 7'70 ~ ~
Rewsed >>>>>>>>>> 111.1 -10.7%
PMll IAcres 01 zonea nodal developmenr ~,UUU
Land Use PM12 % of dwelling units built In nodes :.!;:S.;:SU'7o
PM13 % of New "Total" Emplovment In Nodes 40'70
.
.
.
-f I"T1
~x
Q.I:::r
::s ... .
VIe-
-0 ....
...... ("'to
Q.I
::s::x::o
::X::OI
3
(\)-0
::SQ.l
o..lO
3(\)
(\)
::sCJ1
("'to -
VI
.
.
.
Table 6 .. Summary of Key Performance Measures (1)
1995 Existing 2015 Trends 2015 Financially Constrained
Conditions TransPlan Scenario (')
Category Key Description Amount % Change Amount % Change
from 1995 from 1995
PM14 % of Roadwav Miles with Sidewalks 58% 68% 18% 70% 20.9%
PM15 Ratio of Bikeway to Arterial and Collector Miles (PM24) 44% 46% 5% 82-% ~
Revised >>>>>>>>>> 81% 85.1%
PM16 % of Roadwavs in Fair or Better Condition 85% 80% -6% 80% -5.9%
PM17 % of Households Within 1/4 Mile of a Transit Stop 92% 92% 0% 92% 0.0%
PM18 Transit Service Hours per Capita 1.29 1.69 31% 1.99 54.3%
PM19 % Households with Access to 10-minute Transit Service 23% 23% 0% 88% 281.8%
System Characteristics PM20 % Employment with Access to 1 O-minute Transit Service 52% 52% 0% 91% 75.0%
PM21 Bikeway Miles 126.6 135.9 7% ~ ~
Revised >>>>>>>>>> 257.8 103.6%
PM22 Priority Bikeway Miles +4-
Revised >>>>>>>>>> 75.3
PM23 Arterial and Collector Miles 325.6 331.8 2% 3a-1-:9 &4-%
Revised >>>>>>>>>> 355.8 9.3%
PM24 Arterial and Collector Miles (excluding fwys) 290.5 296.7 2% ~ ~
Revised >>>>>>>>>> 319.6 10.0%
(1) Note - this table is presented in legislative format to highlight the changes associated with the West Eugene Parkway-related amendments. Performance Measures that changed have been crossed
out with the new number presented below them.
(2) Note - these scenarios factor in the 10 percent vehicle trip rate reduction allowed in the Transportation Planning Rule amendments for mixed-use pedestrian friendly areas. This reduction has been
applied to nodal development areas identified in the Draft TransP/an.
(3) Note - Measures in bold Italics are the TPR alternative performance measures approved by LCDC.
.
The data presented in this chapter stem from extensive computer modeling analyses of different
combinations ofland use, TDM, and TSI programs and capital investments. The analysis draws
on recent surveys of transportation patterns and behavior in the Eugene-Springfield region.
Readers should interpret the data as indicating the magnitude and general direction of change, and
should not attach great significance to the apparent precision of the figures.
Traffic Congestion Measures
Population
Employment-
Congested Miles of Travel
Roadway Congestion Index
Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay
% Transit on Congested Corridors
Percent Changes in Congestion M
(% change from 1995)
Percent Change
~
o
~
I
~
~
~
o
<0
N
o
0>
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CI2 It:l co ...... "<I' ~
...... ...... ...... CI2 CI2 CI2 ~
283fo
~
o
189"10:
.
Ql! 115%
I · 2015 Trends m 2015 Financially Constrained TransPlan Scenario I
PM 1: Congested Miles of Travel
This measure represents congested miles of travel as a percentage of total vehicle miles traveled.
High levels of congested miles of travel can indicate that the system is not operating efficiently.
The evaluation of future plan alternatives shows that, regardless of the strategies employed,
congestion will increase significantly over existing conditions. One objective of the planning
effort is to minimize the increase in congested miles of travel. Under the Financially Constrained
TransPlan, congested miles of travel is $-A 5.0 percent of total miles traveled, an increase ef-84.
of 81 percent over 1995 conditions.
PM 2: Roadway Congestion Index
The Roadway Congestion Index (RCI) is a measure of congestion on the region's freeways and
arterials. This measure is based on a method developed to estimate relative regional congestion
for urbanized areas in the U.S. It is a measure of the regional system of freeways and arterials that
does not account for specific bottlenecks. An index value greater than 1 indicates generally
congested conditions area-wide. A value less than one means that, while congestion may occur
.
TransPlan Joint Adopting Officials R-e'.'isions
D@cember2001 Jannary, 2002
Chapter 4, Page 7
Exhibit A - Page 52
TransPlan Amendments
.
during certain periods on specific facilities, on average, the freeways and arterials are relatively
uncongested. The objective is to avoid area-wide congestion represented by values of 1 or
greater. A lower index value relative tothe trend indicates that the plan will have a positive
impact on managing congestion. The Financially Constrairied TransPlan RCI of .,9&. 96 is less
than 1 and thus indicates that while congestion might occur at peak traffic times, on average,
congestion would remain relatively low on freeways and arterials. In comparison, the region's
2015 RCI is below Portlarid's 1994 value of 1.11.
PM 3: Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay
Daily vehicle hours of delay provides another measure of the level of congestion. Very similar to
congested miles of travel, it is expected to increase significantly in the future. However, as
expressed earlier, while congestion will increase over existing conditions, the investments
proposed in the Financially Constrained TransPlan minimize the increase in vehicle hours of
delay over what would be experienced under trend conditions. While Daily Vehicle Hours of
Delay is expected to increase by 98- 115 percent over 1995 conditions, this is approximately eoo
half two thirds of what is expected under trend conditions.
PM 4: % Transit Mode share on Congested Corridors
.
The % Transit Mode Share on Congested corridors is the ratio of transit person trips to total
person trips on congested facilities during PM peak hour. An increase in this measure is a direct
indication of reduced reliance on the automobile. Increasing transit mode share on the congested
corridors by 72 percent over the 1995 base is a significant shift in reliance on the automobile.
Vehicle,MiIes Traveled and Trip Length Measures
PM 5: Daily Vehicle M17es of Travel Per Capita
PM 5a is a measure of the total daily VMT by trips made within the metropolitan area by area
residents (internal trips) and PM 5b presents VMT divided by the region's population. Under the
Financially Constrained TransPlan, VMT per capita decreases slightly showing no increase over
the 20-year period. The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) seeks no increase in VMT per capita
over ten years and a 5 percent reduction over 20 years.
Reasons for not meeting this VMT reduction target include a high proportion of growth in the
outlying parts of the urban growth boundary (UGH), and few and small contiguous areas of higher
density. Growth in outlying parts of the UGH has the effect of increasing average trip lengths in
these areas. Limited areas of higher density limits the effectiveness of transit and alternative mode
strategies. The region's model estimates that trips to and from these growth areas are 21 percent
longer than the regional average trip length.
.
TransPlan Joint Adopting Offieials R~visions
Deeemeer lOO I Jannary, 2002
Chapter 4, Page 8
Exhibit A - Page 53
TransPlan Amendments
Percent Changes in VMf and Trip Length Measures
(% change from 1995)
.
Pen:ent Change
-20% -10%
0%
111'/.
20'/.
311'/.
40%
50'10
60%
% Person Trips < I Mile
;
j
-92%
!
52%
Population
Fmployment
internal VMf
Internal VMf/Capita
Average Trip Length (miles)
I- 2015 Trends El2015 Financially Constrained TransPlan Scenario I
Amendments to the TPR require areas not meeting the VMT reduction target to seek approval from
the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for the use of alternative measures
in demonstrating reduced reliance on the automobile. This process is discussed further in Part
Three: TPR Alternate Performance Measures of this chapter..
PM 6 and PM7: Average Trip Length and Percentage of Person Trips Under 1
Mile
Shorter trip distance is one factor that contributes to making the use of alternative modes more
attractive. As presented in Table 6, trip length reflects the average distance for trips taken within
the region by all modes and does not include trips made through the region. The objective is to
reduce average trip length. Percentage of person trips under 1 mile provides a measure of the
plan's specific impact on short trips. The objective here is to increase the percentage of trips
under 1 mile.
.
Average trip length is projected to decrease slightly from 3.7 miles to 3.6 miles under the
Financially Constrained TransPlan. As discussed under PM 5, an explanation for why this change
is not greater lies in the fact that a large amount of growth over the planning period that is taking
place on the edges of existing development in the region.
The percentage of trips under 1 mile is expected to increase to 16.1 percent. This reflects the
impact of the plan's proposed nodal development strategy.
Mode Choice Measures
PM8: Mode Shares (All Trips)
This measure shows the relative share of the region's trips taken by each mode of transportation.
The objective is to reduce drive-alone auto trips while increasing the number of trips taken by
other modes. Measures PM 8a through PM 8e indicate the relative percentage share for walk,
.
TransPlan Joiat Adopting Officials R~'JYisions
D@cember2001 Januarv 2002
Chapter 4, Page 9
Exhibit A - Page 54
TransPlan Amendments
.
bike, bus, shared-ride auto, and drive-alone auto trips. The most significant changes are the 4&{}
49.2 percent increase in transit mode share and the 9,J. 9.1 percent decline in drive-alone trips.
The decline in bike mode share is due in large part to the significant improvements in transit
provided by Bus Rapid Transit. As shown in PM 8f, there is an overall increase in the use of
alternative modes under the Financially Constrained TransPlan.
PM 8f is the sum of all non-auto (walk, bike, and bus) trips. Model analysis indicates that non-
auto mode shares increase by about 18 percent under the Financially Constrained TransPlan. PM
8g provides an aggregate estimate of the region's reliance on the auto. Total person trips taken in
the region are divided by the total number of auto trips. The objective is to increase the overall
number of person trips taken relative to total auto trips. Model results suggest that person trips per
auto trip will increase by approximately 7 percent under the Financially Constrained TransPlan.
Percent Change in Mode Share Measures - AD T .
(% change from 1995)
Percent Change
-20010 -10% 0% 10010 20010 30010
40%
50010
60%
Drive Alone
-2.0"/0
43%
43%
Population
.
Employment
Walk
-11.0"/0
Bike
-10.0"/0 .
i
Transit
7.0%
<Wi 49.2%
Shared Ride (2 or more)
% Non - Auto Trips
-9.J -9.1%
-9.1%
r7,8"/O
Person Trips per Auto Trip
7.2"/0
112015 Trends iii 2015 Financiall Constrained TransPlan Scenario
.
TransPlan Joint Adopting Officials R-evisions
: D@cemb@r 2001 J annarv 20D?
Chapter 4, Page 10
Exhibit A ~ Page 55
TransPlan Amendments
Environmental Measures
PM 9: Average Fuel Economy (Miles per Gallon)
This measure provides an estimate of fuel use under the three scenarios. The objective is to
increase fuel economy. Fuel economy is directly related to levels of congestion. Higher levels of
congestion result in more fuel use and lower fuel economy. The Financially Constrained
TransPlan's lower fuel economy is a result of increased congestion over existing conditions.
However, the fuel economy achieved by the Financially Constrained TransPlan is higher than that
achieved under the trend condition.
PM 10: Vehicle Emissions (Annual Tons of Carbon Monoxide)
Vehicle emissions is a measure of plan air quality impact. The Eugene-Springfield area is
required to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards for various pollutants. Of primary
concern to the transportation system are the standards for carbon monoxide. The region is
currently in compliance with the standards for this pollutant. The region will continue to be in
compliance with the carbon monoxide standard in the future. Vehicle fleet turnover and stricter
emission controls on newer vehicles are factors that contribute to lower emissions in future
scenanos.
Percentage Change in Environmental Measures
(% change from 1995)
Percentage Change
-20"10
0%
30"10
40%
10"10 .
20"10
-10%
Population
Employment
Avg Fuel Efficiency (VMT/Gal.)
: -33% $
-2.5%~
co Emissions (Weekday Tons)
-10.7%
112015 Trends. 2015 Financiall Constrained TransPlan Scenario
TransPlan Joint Adopting Officials R-e'1isions
D@c@mber2001 Jannarv 2002
Chapter 4, Page 11
Exhibit A - Page 56
TransPlan Amendments
50"10
43%
43%
.
.
.
.
Land Use Measures
The three plan measures related to nodal development - Acres of Zoned Nodal Development,
Percent of Dwelling Units Built in Nodes and Percent of New "Total" Employment in Nodes -
are all indicators of plan implementation. They are measures directly intended "to result in a
significant increase in the share of trips made by alternative modes. The Percent of Dwelling
Units Built in Nodes and Percent of New "Total" Employment in Nodes measures are both
market response measures in that they reflect the development sector response to the public
policies proposed for nodal development. They reflect the benefits coming from changes in
development anticipated for nodal development. These measures are defmed below.
PM 11: Acres of Zoned Nodal Development
The number of acres zoned for nodal development in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
PM 12: % of Dwelling Units Built in Nodes
The percentage of new dwelling units in Eugene-Springfield permitted for construction within an
area designated for nodal development
PM 13: % of New Total Employment in Nodes
. The percentage of new employment in Eugene-Springfield located within an area designated for
nodal development. Calculation of the measure excludes employment that would not likely locate
in a nodal area (e.g., heavy industrial).
Transportation System Measures
The following set of measures provides information on changes to various parts of the region's
transportation system. Where the previous sets of performance measures reflected changes in and
impacts of the region's demand for transportation, the measure described below reflects changes in
and impacts of the region' s ~ of transportation. Investments in non-auto systems increase the
convenience and practicality of their use, thereby improving travel choices. Investments in the
roadway system to address safety and congestion issues allow all modes to function more
effectively and efficiently.
PM 14: Percentage of Roadway Miles with Sidewalks
This measure indicates the percentage of the total roadway system (local collector and arterial,
excluding freeways) on which there are sidewalks on at least one side. This percentage has been
. increasing over several years as new development occurs and roads are built to current city codes.
Projects that raise existing collectors and arterials to urban standards (adding curb, gutter,
sidewalks, and bikeways) are another factor explaining the increases. .
.
TransPlan Joint }.eepting Officials R~wisions
DeC0mber 2001 Janllllty 2002
Chapter 4, Page 12
Exhibit A - Page 57
TransPlan Amendments
- 5a'1o
Pqmdion
PIqJIoyImlt
% ofRdwy Miles wi1h Si:IewaIks
Ratio ofBike Mi 10 ArtICbIl Mi
% ofRdwys inFaiJiBetIa"
amtim
% lIhkk W!m l/4 Mile oIT!lImit
Stql
T!lImit Service Hems per Capi1a
% lMM; wlAi:1:= 10 I ()..rnin
Transit
% Fmp w1Ai:1:= 10 l()..rnin
Transit Svc
Bikeway Miles
Priority Bikeway Miles
AI1frial aOO Colb::llr Miles
AI1frial aOO Colb::llr Miles
~Fwy3)
I~<mngem~~~
(% dJangI! ium 1995)
.
0'10
5a'1o
100'10
15a'1o
m'1o
25(J'1o
300J
.41%
41%
~ 43-,1,
43%
-5.9% .
-5.9"10
~ r"
543%
281.8",1,
.
75JJ%
~ 103.6',1,
~ 753Jmb
E12015 TnnIs
· 2015F
ConsIrairm TI3RiP1an SanIrio
PM 15: Ratio of Bikeway miles to Arterial and Collector Miles
This measure indicates the percentage of total bikeway miles (both on- and off-street) compared to
total arterial and collector roadways (excluding freeways). Because of the proposed addition of
several miles of off~street bikeways, additional new and reconstructed roadway miles with
.
TransPlan Joint :\dopting Officials R-evisions
D@l:]@me@r 2001. Jannarv 2002
Chapter 4, Page 13
Exhibit A - Page 58
TransPlan AmeRdments
.
bikeways, and the proposed striping of several miles of existing roadway, this ratio is expected to
increase substantially from 44 percent today to ~ 81 percent in 2015.
PM 16: Percentage of Roadways in Fair or Better Condition
This measure provides a summary of the overall pavement condition of the region's roadways.
Currently, 85 percent of the region's roadways are in fair or better condition. The objective is to
maintain at least 80 percent of the roadways in fair or better condition. The ability to maintain that
standard is dependent upon financial priorities identified during the draft TransPlan review;
Maintaining the roadway condition at this level helps minimize the cost of future system.
PM 17: Percentage of Households Within ~ Mile ofa Transit Stop
This measure provides an indication of the geographic coverage of Lane Transit District's service.
Currently, 92 percent of the households in the region 'are within 'l4 mile of a transit stop. The
objective is to maintain that level of coverage. Given the transit system's maturitY and extensive
geographic coverage, focus is not on achieving 100 percent coverage but on improving the
convenience of existing service.
.
PM 18: Transit Service Hoursper Capita
This measure shows the amount of annual transit service (in hours) per person in the region. The
objective in the plan is to increase transit service hours, ideally in terms of the frequency of
service (e.g., change from service every 15 minutes to service every ten minutes). The increases
in service hours projected for the Trend condition are necessary to offset delays caused by
increased traffic congestion. They assume no increases in service frequency, but are necessary to
maintain existing frequency of service. The 2015 Financially Constrained TransPlan increases (to
1.99 service hours per capita) reflect substantial increases in service frequency with the
implementation of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).
PM 19: Percentage of Households with Access to Ten-Minute Transit Service
Frequency of service is one of the key factors in making public transportation more attractive. The
frequency of service proposed in the extensive neighborhood feeder system and interconnected
trunk lines of the BRT system is one ofthe primary reasons explaining the 48.6 percent increase in
transit mode shares. PM19 presents the percentage of households in the region with access to ten-
minute transit service frequencies. The proposed BRT system would increase the percentage of
households with access to ten-minute service frequencies from 23 percent under existing
conditions to 88 percent in 2015 under the Financially Constrained TransPlan. This represents an
increase of approximately 282 percent.
.
PM 20: Percentage of Employment with Access to Ten-Minute Transit Service
Similar to PMI9, PM20 presents the percentage of employment in the region with access to ten-
minute service frequency. The proposed BRT system would increase the percentage of
employment with access to ten-minute service frequencies from 52 percent under existing
TransPlan Joint Adopting Officials Rliwisions
December 2001 Januarv. 2002
Chapter 4, Page 14
Exhibit A - Page 59
TransPlan Amendments
conditions to 91 percent in 2015 under the Financially Constrained TransPlan. This represents an
increase of approximately 75 percent.
.
PM 21: Bikeway Miles
This measure indicates the additional bikeway miles and percentage change in bikeway miles
anticipated over the planning period. As described under PM15, additions to the off-street system
and striping of existing roadways result in a significant increase in bikeway miles (103 percent
over existing conditions). .
PM 22: Arterial and Collector Miles
This measure indicates the additional roadway centerline miles and percentage change in roadway
centerline miles anticipated over the planning period. Total miles of collector and arterials are
proposed to increase by 8-9.3 percent from 325.6 to ~ 355.8.
PM 23: Arterial and Collector Miles (excludingfreeways)
This measure is similar to PM19a except that it excludes freeway miles. Total miles of collector
and arterials, excluding fr~eways, are proposed to increase by about 9- 10 percent from 290.5 to
~319.6. .
Summary Assessment
This section provides an overall assessment of the plan's performance. A more detailed
assessment of the plan's compliance with Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requirements is
provided in Part Three: TPR Alternative Performance Measures.
.
Over the past 25 years, growth in the region has been fairly compact. This is in part due to the
limitations put on partitioning of parcels outside of city limits and allowing development to occur
only with the extension of public facilities. Thus, infill and redevelopment have been taking place
over time and, as a result, a large portion of future development will occur within the UGB on the
edges of existing development. As demonstrated above, growth on the edges leads to longer
overall trip lengths, which in turn, makes non-auto modes less attractive. This makes it difficult to
achieve VMT reductions within the planning period.
However, the Financially Constrained TransPlan has been shown to perform much better than
trend conditions in minimizing increases in congested miles of travel, and minimizing area-wide
congestion. An overall outcome stemming from implementation of nodal development is that the
region is able to increase the percentage of person trips less than one mile in length to
approximately 16 percent.
Investments in non-auto modes (particularly BRT) and implementation of nodal development
strategies improve choices available for travel and contribute to the Financially Constrained
TransPlan's ability to increase levels of non-auto mode share of all trips over existing conditions
(increase from 14.1% to 17%). Increases in the percentage ofhouseh01ds and employment with
access to ten-minute transit service are the basis for the 48.6 percent increase in transit mode
share. The Financially Constrained TransPlan also calls for increases in the percentage of
.
TransPlan Jomt f.dopting Officials R€yisioas
D@c@mb@r2001 Januarv 2002
Chapter 4, Page 15
Exhibit A - Page 60
TransPlan Amendments
.
.
.
roadway miles with sidewalks and a significant increase in the number of bikeway miles. As
noted above, investments in alternative modes increase their convenience and practicality. This
improves the transportation choices available to the region's residents.
Financial constraint limits the resources available to make improvements to the roadway system.
This is the primaiy explanation for the increase in the region's congestion levels. Limited
expansion of the roadway system is also a contributing factor to the reductions in the drive alone
mode share. The increases in the region's congestion levels have the general effect of making the
auto mode less attractive. However, congestion, in and of itself, is not a major determinant in
shifts to alternative modes. Congestion increases in much higher proportion than the shifts to
alternative modes. The primary factor contributing to the increase in use of alternative modes are
the investments made directly in each alternative mode.
Continued development of the region's TDM program provides incentives that also make use of
alternative modes more attractive. TDM also provides a low-cost means of helping to address
transportation demand in specific areas surrounding congested facilities.
Overall, the performance measures presented in this chapter clearly point to a reduced reliance on
the automobile. A longer timeframe than the planning period is required to accomplish the full .
benefits of several aspects of the proposed plan. Nodal development may take 30 to 40 years
before its full benefits are realized in the region. BRT will be implemented incrementally over the.
planning period and will require additional time for its full benefits to be realized. It is important
to pursue the balanced set of strategies in the proposed plan to set the stage for future benefits.
TransPlan Joint .^.dopting Officials R~Hqsions
D@c@mb@r2001 Januarv 2002
Chapter 4, Page 16
r
I
r
~ Exhibit A - Page 61
I: TransPl an Amendments
!
i
Part Three: TPR Alternative Performance Measures
.
Background on LCDC Approval
Oregon's Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires that TransPlan comply with certain
performance measures (either a Vehicle Miles Traveled per capita target or alternative
measures). As described in Table 6 (Chapter 4, Page 5), VMT per capita is expected to
remain virtually unchanged through 2015 (I-percent decrease). As a result, the region will not
meet the reduction in VMT per capita called for in the TPR. The TPR provides that, should a
plan not meet the VMT reduction targets, alternative measures can be developed to
demonstrate compliance with the TPR. The alternative measures must demonstrate that:
(A) Achieving the alternative standard will result ina reduction in reliance on
automobiles;
(B) Achieving the alternative standard will accomplish a significant increase in the
availability or convenience of alternative modes of transportation;
(C) Achieving the alternative standard is likely to result in a significant increase in the
share of trips made by alternative modes, including walking, bicycling, ride sharing
and transit;
(D) VMT per capita is unlikely to increase by more than 5 percent; and,
(E) The alternative standard is measurable and reasonably related to achieving the goal
of reduced reliance on the automobile as described in OAR 660-012-0000.
.
Alternative Performance Measures were developed to address this requirement. While these
measures have been incorporated into Table 6, a more detailed description of the measures and
related interim benchmarks are presented in Table 7. These measures were approved by LCDC on
May 4th, 2001. The Commission Order approving the measures is attached as Appendix G.
Based on its review, the Commission approved the proposed alternative standard with the
following conditions:
.1. Assure that the methodology for calculating non-auto mode split is adjusted to
account for improved counting of non-auto trips to assure that results in achieving
this standard are not the result of improved counting of non-auto trips.
2. Develop a definition of qualifying dwelling units and employment in nodes that
includes only those dwelling units and employment that are clearly consistent with
implementing the nodal development strategy.
3. Revise the "interim benchmarks" for dwellings and employment in nodes to be
clearly consistent with achieving the 20-year performance standard.
.
TransPlan Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
D@c@me@r 2001 Jannary, 2002
Chapter 4, Page 17
Exhibit A - Page 62
TransPlan Amendments
.
The first condition will be addressed by adjusting both base year and future year model output.
This will assure that changes in future year forecasts are not the result of improvements in the
model. 0
The second condition will be addressed by using TPR definition of "mixed-use, pedestrian-
friendly" development contained in TPR Section 0060 (7)(a)-(b) dealing with Plan and Land Use
Regulation Amendments. This Section of the TPR identifies the following characteristics of
"mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly" development:
.
(A) A concentration of a variety of land uses in a well-defined area, including the following:
(i) medium to high density residential development (12 or more units per acre);
(ii) offices or office buildings;
(iii) retail stores and services;
(iv) restaurants; and,
(v) public open space or private open space which is available for public use, such as a
park or plaza.
(B) Generally include civic or cultural uses;
(C) A core commercial area where multi-story buildings are permitted;
(D) Buildings and building entrances oriented to streets; .
(E) Street connections and crossings that make the center safe and conveniently accessible
from adjacent areas;
(F) A network of streets and, where appropriate, accessways and major driveways that make
it attractive and highly convenient for people to walk between uses within the center or
neighborhood, including streets and major driveways within the center with wide
sidewalks and other features, including pedestrian-oriented street crossings, street trees,
pedestrian-scale lighting and on-street parking;
(G) One or more transit stops (in urban areas with fixed route transit service); and
(H) Limit or do not allow low-intensity or land extensive uses, such as most industrial uses,
automobile sales and services, and drive-through services.
The third condition involved restating the interim benchmarks for dwelling units and employment
in nodes such that the percentages are of an interim total rather than the ultimate total. Table 7
provides these performance measures calculated in both ways.
Development of TransPlan's Alternative Performance Measures
Multiple objectives are set forth in the TPR for demonstrating compliance - reduced reliance on
the auto, increase in the availability or convenience of alternative modes, and increase in the use
of alternative modes. The strongest way to measure compliance with the TPR is through a
framework of multiple performance measures. As well, the complex interrelationship among the
plan's set of goals, objectives, policies, and suggested implementation measures calls for
consideration of multiple performance measures in assessing plan progress. .
.
An underlying purpose of the TPR is to promote the development of plans that lead to a reduced
reliance on the automobile. The alternative performance measures are meant to provide an
objective indicator of the improvement in the transportation system achieved through
implementation of the plan. In particular, it is important to measure the implementation of and
TransPlan Joint Adopting Officials Revisionf>
D@~8mb8r 2001 January 2002
Chapter 4, Page 18
Exhibit A - Page 63
TransPlan Amendments
response to those elements of the plan that most directly contribute to reduced reliance on the
automobile. For example, Bus Rapid Transit and Nodal Development are key elements of
TransPlan that contribute to reduced reliance on the automobile.
.
The framework of alternative measures should therefore include performance measures that
capture both the supply (plan implementation) and demand (travel or market response) for
transportation in the Eugene-Springfield area. In addition, where possible, these measures should
provide a direct indication of the region's progress in implementing key elements in the plan that
contribute to reduced reliance on the auto. This approach ties the plan's implementation effort to
expected results. Table 7 provides an indication for each measure as to its type (plan
implementation or travel/market response).
Summary Assessment of TransPlan's TPR Compliance
A. Demonstratine: the "Sie:nificance" of Alternative Measures
One of the main challenges present in development of alternative measures is demonstrating why
and how a particular target represents a "significant" change in reliance on the auto. The term
"significant" is inherently subjective. What is "significant" from one perspective can well be
'''insignificant'' from another perspective.
A key measUre of whether the expected reduction in reliance on the automobile is 'significant' is
whether local governments have committed to every reasonable effort to accomplish reduced
reliance. In the development of Trans Plan over the past 9 years, the region has gone to
considerable effort to identify a wide range of strategies to reduce reliance on the auto. The more
ambitious strategies ranged from TDM pricing measures (increased parking fees (tripling) in
central Eugene; reduced transit fare; bridge tolls; $1.00 per gallon gas tax;) to restrictions on
development to force concentration of development (some land in the UGB would be restricted
from developing by 2015), and 100 percent exclusive bus lanes.
.
These alternative plan concepts were presented to the region's planning commissions and elected
officials in the form of a Decision Package. The feedback from these groups indicated that there
was considerable interest in an overall approach that integrated land use, system improvements,
and demand management. They focused on support of nodal development, bus rapid transit and
expanded voluntary TDM as key strategies to be pursued in TransPlan. However, there was no
policy-level support for TDM pricing measures, constraining development, or mandatory TDM
techniques.
The proposed alternative performance measures assessed below rely heavily on the
implementation of the key strategies identified in the process described above.
.
TransPlan Joint Adoptiag Officials R-e'lisions
Dec@mber20g1 Janll31V 2002
Chapter 4, Page 19
Exhibit A - Page 64
TransPlan Amendments
.
B. Elements of Trans Plan Directly Contributing to Reduced Reliance on the Auto:
Achieving a reduction in automobile reliance is dependent on the success of implementing the
following key elements of TransPlan and the degree to which each option is developed. As
mentioned above, four key elements identified by TransPlan policy officials include Nodal
Development, Bus Rapid Transit, Transportation Demand Management and Priority Bikeway
Miles.
As residential, retail and commercial densities increase
in specific areas, urban design features can be
implemented that give more emphasis to the mobility of
pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes. The addition of
parking constraints within a limited area further affects
the use of the automobile. Connecting nodal
developments with a fixed, frequent transit service provides competition for similar trips that
would have originally been made using an automobile. Through TDM, providing comprehensive
information about alternative transportation programs, services and facilities to residents and
employees in nodal developments insures that options other than driving can begin to be
considered. .
Mixed Uses & Density Design
Elements of Nodal Development
.
The diagram to the left depicts the synergistic
relationship that exists between each of the proposed
elements and their combined ability to reduce automobile
dependency. The effect of combining TSI, TDM and
Land Use policies, programs and services is relative to
the degree in which auto dependency is diminished.
The more robust the implementation of TSI, TDM and Land Use, the greater the effect the
combination will have reducing automobile reliance.
The integrated nature of the plan elements means that changes in any of the individual elements
will affect the outcome of the alternative performance measures. For example, while nodal
development and BRT have a primary affect on reducing Percent Non-Auto Trips, changes in
TDM, bikeway and other plan strategies also contribute to the reduction.
Nodal Development - By design, nodal development reduces the need for individual trips made by
automobile within the node. The proximity of residential clusters to retail and commercial
services, coupled with at-grade pedestrian and bicycle facilities, fosters movement by alternative
modes within the node. A range of designs exist that can directly affect the amount of drive alone
traffic that occurs within and through the node. As the integration of designs for pedestrian, bicycle
and transit are enhanced, the accessibility and movement of the automobile through this
environment starts to diminish.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - BRT provides a frequent and highly reliable source of transportation
that can compete with the automobile. The more frequent and reliable transit service becomes, the
easier it is for patrons to board and use the service. People have a tendency to avoid using transit
because it cannot compete with the ease and convenience their own automobile affords them. As
.
TransPlan Joint Adopting Officials R@yisions
Exhi bit A - Page 6.5
TransPlan Amendments
D@C:@fR9@f 20tH Jannarv 2002
Chapter 4, Page 20
proposed in TransPlan the service will provide a quick and easy transportation solution for a
whole variety of trip purposes and will compete well with the travel time of the automobile along
major corridors. As such, the service will start to attract more riders. As the time between buses
using the BRT corridor diminishes, so to does the need for using a schedule. Connecting viable
nodes along the BRTcorridor creates the ability for more riders to use the service to get to and
from the destinations they want to go to.
.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) - TDM is the essential management of information
that can be provided to prospective users of alternative means of transportation to diminish their
reliance on driving to and from destinations via their own automobiles. An essential component in
establishing TDM programs is marketing. The more attractive TDM options become, the easier
they are to use; however, in order to be used the public needs to be made aware that various
programs; facilities and services exist. Nodal development coupled with TDM marketing and
services effectively reduces the reliance of single occupancy automobile trips.
Priority Bikeway Miles - Priority bikeway projects consist of those projects that are along an
essential core route on which the overall system depends, fill in a critical gap in the existing
bicycle system, or overcome a barrier where no other nearby existing or programmed bikeway
alternatives exist (e.g., river, major street, highway), or significantly improve bicycle users safety
in a given corridor. As such, they are the key additions to the bikeway system that support nodal
development and an increase in the use of this alternative mode.
C. Analysis
The assessment of compliance below focuses on the five objectives listed in the TPR.
I
.
TPR Obiective A:
on automobiles.
Achieving the alternative standard will result in a reduction' in reliance
The plan's performance on this objective can be measured using the Travel Response
performance measures. In general, the travel response described below relies on implementation
of the nodal development, Bus Rapid Transit, and expanded TDM strategies set forth in TransPlan,
and the Priority Bikeway Miles.
Reduced reliance on the auto is indicated in the forecasted 18 percent increase in the Percent Non-
Auto Trips, a measure of the relative proportion of trips occurring by alternative modes. This
increase is particularly significant when compared to the 2015 Trend Scenario which indicates a 9
percent decrease without implementation of the plan. An increase in the percent of the region's
trips taken by alternative modes is a direct measure of reduced reliance on the auto. An increase
indicates that improvements made to alternative modes have been successful in attracting more
people to use those alternatives for some trips. Percent Non-Auto Trips is a good measure of the
cumulative effect ofthe implementation of all of TransPlan's key strategies.
The Percent Transit Mode Share on Congested Corridors measure also directly indicates
reduced reliance on the automobile. The target of increasing transit mode share on the congested
corridors by 72 percent over the 1995 base is a significant shift in reliance on the automobile. The
fact that this target specifically calls for reduced reliance on the automobile in the areas of greatest
.
TransPlan . Joint Adopting Officials R@visions
Dec@mber2()Ol January, 2002
Chapter 4, Page 21
Exhibit A - Page 66
TransPlan Amendments
.
.
.
congestion is also of significance. By doing so, the measure targets reduced reliance on the
automobile in those areas where the impact will be the greatest.
TPR Obiective B: Achieving the alternative standard will accomplish a significant increase
in the availability or convenience of alternative modes of transportation.
The plan's performance on this objective can be measured using Plan Implementation and other
measures. These measures reflect the implementation effort made by the adopting agencies in
nodal development, TDM, and alternative modes improvements (e.g., additional Priority Bikeway
miles, etc.).
The additional 74 miles of Priority Bikeway Miles proposed in TransPlan represent a 58 percent
increase in total-bikeway miles. This is part of Trans Plan's overall planned increase in total
bikeway miles of 104 percent. An increase in bikeway miles is a direct measure of the
availability and convenience of alternative modes and is expected to result in an increase in the
use of those modes. One of the key aspects of the bike system planning effort was to identify and
address existing gaps and barriers in the existing system. These gaps and barriers are addressed in
the bicycle project list, and are identified as the "Priority Bikeways," thus increasing the
convenience and availability of the bike mode. This measure provides a direct indication of the
public policy effort in TransPlan toward reducing reliance on the auto and increasing the
availability of alternative modes.
Both the Percent Transit Mode Share on Congested Corridors and the Percent Non-Auto Trips
also are indicators of increased availability and convenience of alternative modes. Achieving the
72 percent increase in transit mode share along the congested corridors is a direct result of more
frequent service. The proposed BRT system would provide 10-minute service along its corridors.
The 10-minute threshold is a critical one for transit service because it is considered to be the level
of service at which riders do not need schedules. This increase in convenience is one of the main
reasons for the 72 percent increase in mode share on congested corridors. This is part of an
overall increase in transit mode share of 49 percent.
TPR Obiective C: Achieving the alternative standard is likely to result in a significant
increase in the share of trips made by alternative modes, including walking, bicycling,
ridesharing and transit.
Virtually all ofthe plan's six performance measures are relevant to this objective. As already
described above, the 72 percent increase in Transit Mode Share on Congested Corridors and the
18 percent increase in Non-Auto Trips both show a significant increase in the share of trips made
by alternative modes as a result of implementation actions in the plan.
Also already described above is the direct relationship between the Priority Bikeway Miles
measure and the likely result of additional bike trips.
- The three plan measures related to nodal development - Acres of Zoned Nodal Development,
Percent of Dwelling Units Built in Nodes and Percent of New "Total" Employment in Nodes-
are all indicators of plan iniplementation measures directly intended "to result in a significant
TransPlan Joiet Adofltiag Offieials Revisions
Dec@mber 2001 Jannarv 2002
Chapter 4, Page 22
Exhibit A - Page 67
TransPlan Amendments
increase in the share of trips made by alternative modes". The Percent of Dwelling Units Built
in Nodes and Percent of New "Total" Employment in Nodes measures are both market response
measures in that they reflect the development sector response to the public policies proposed for
nodal development. They reflect the benefits coming from changes in development anticipated for
nodal development. The very definition of nodal development included iri TransPlan states that:
Nodal development is a mixed-use pedestrian-friendly land use pattern that
seeks to increase concentrations of population and employment in well-
defmed areas with good transit service, a mix of diverse and compatible
land uses, and public and private improvements designed to be pedestrian
and transit oriented. (emphasis added)
.
The TransPlan definition of nodes and nodal development continues, stating in part that:
Fundamental characteristics of Nodal Development require:
· Design elements that support pedestrian environments and
encourage transit use, walking and bicycling;
· A transit stop which is within walking distance (generally 1/4 mile)
of anywhere in the node;
· Mixed uses so that services are available within walking distance
These requirements are directly related to increasing the use ofaltemative modes. The nodal
development measures and their integration into the overall TransPlan strategy are the basis for the
increase in Percent Non-Auto Trips and the Percent Transit Mode Share on Congested
Corridors. Nodal development in TransPlan also plays a significant role in allowing the region's
VMT per capita to remain virtually unchanged over the planning horiZon.
.
TPR Obiective D:
VMT per capita is unlikely to increase by more than 5 percent.
As indicated in Table 6, VMT per capita in the Eugene-Springfield area is expected to remain
virtUally unchanged through 2015 (1 percent decrease).
TPR Obiective E: The alternative standard is measurable and reasonably related to
achieving the goal of reduced reliance on the automobile as described in OAR 660-012-0000.
The measurability of each of the performance measures weighed heavily in the MPC
subcommittee's selection process. The relationship of these measures to reduced reliance on the
automobile is referenced in the assessment of other objectives. The table below summarizes the
measurability of each of the proposed measures. While each measure relies on different data, the
region currently maintains all of the underlying information required to track these measures.
I Measure Update Process/Reliability
.
The mode choice model relies on current data on the existing transportation system (traffic
Percent Non-Auto Trips counts, transit ridership, roadway speeds, etc.) and travel behavior data (typically through
travel surveys). Estimates are as reliable as the model being used. The model is most
reliable when based on an updated travel survev and current system data.
.
TransPlan Joiat Adopting Officials Revisions
Deeemb@r 200 I Janll3ty. 2002
Chapter 4, Page 23
Exhibit A - Page 68
TransPlan Amendments
.
.
.
Percent Transit Mode LTD updates its ridership data frequently. Traffic volumes are updated regularly. Very
Share on Congested reliable.
Corridors
Priority Bikeway Miles This measure would be updated based on the sum ofthe distances of bikeway projects
determined to be "priority." Very reliable.
Acres of zoned nodal , This measure would be updated as each city takes action to zone parcels for nodal
development development. Very reliable.
Percent of dwelling units This measure would be updated periodically through analysis of building permits. Very
built in nodes reliable.
.. Requires taking employment files and "cleaning" them to establish correct address
Percent of New "Total" (geographic location). GIS is then used to estimate new employment in nodes. This is
Employment in Nodes typically done on a regular basis (every two years). Fairly reliable. Need to define
"excluded" employment to equate to standard employment codes used in the state
employment files.
D. Summary:
The process employed for the development of Trans Plan considered a wide range of strategies to
reduce reliance on the automobile. The strategies identified by the adopting officials for inclusion
in TransPlan represent a significant commitment to the objectives of the TPR.
The process used in developing the measures represents an extensive effort on the part of local
policy officials to identifY the measures that would document the region's implementation of key
strategies in TransPlan which achieve state and local goals.
TransPlan .feint J'.dopting Officials R..wisions
D@c@mb@r2001 Januarv 2002
Chapter 4, Page 24
Exhibit A - Page 69
TransPlan Amendments
Table 7
Alternative TPR Performance Measures for the Eugene-Springfield MPO
(approved by LCDC on May 4th, 2001)
Measure Key Plan Plan 1995 2005 2010 2015
Element Implementation
or
Travel/Market
Response
Alternative Travel 14.43% 17%
% Non-Auto Modes Response
Trips Wa1k=8.93% 15% 16% Walk=IO%
Bike=3.68% Bike=4%
Bus=1.83% Bus=3%
% Transit Transit Travel
Mode Share Response 5.8% 10.0%
on 6.8% 8.0%
Congested 5.9% in 1999
Corridors
Priority Bicycle Plan
Bikeway Implementation 15 miles . 45 miles 74 miles
Miles
Acres of Nodal Plan 2,000 acres
zoned nodal Development Implementation 1,000 acres 1,500 acres zoned for
nodal
development development
%of Nodal Market 2.5% 14.5%
dwelling Development Response 23.3% of
units bullt in 5.6% 20.4% new Dus
nodes
% of New Nodal Market 10% 25%
"Total" Development Response 45%
Employment 18.1% 32.6
in Nodes
Internal 2,305,779 3,224,037
VMT
VMT/Capita 11 10.9
Note that % of dwelling units and employment in nodes are expressed fIrst as a percentage of the
planning horizon total and second as an interim year total (e.g., the % of dwelling units in nodes in
2005 is 2.5% ofthe 2015 total new dwelling units and 5.6% of the new dwelling units built by
2005).
TransPlan Joint AdoptiBg OffiCials R-evision&
D@cemtler2001 JanuarY 2002
Chapter 4, Page 25
Exhibit A - Page 70
TransPlan Amendments
.
.
.
.
Part Four:Plan Implementation Monitoring'
Plan implementation monitoring is an ongoing program of data collection and analyses for
providing feedback to policy makers and the public on the progress of the policies and actions in
TransPlan. Monitoring allows local jurisdictions to assess how well the plan is performing and
complying with federal and state requirements and to detennine when steps need to be taken to
keep the plan on course. Monitoring examines the effectiveness of policy implementation efforts
through the collection and analysis of data for various performance measures. Lane Council of
Governments will coordinate the plan implementation monitoring program in cooperation with
implementing agencies.
Plan Monitoring Process
The ongoing plan monitoring process includes the following components:
.
1. Review of trends, assumptions, and new opportunities;
2. Inventory of actions taken to implement TransPlan policies;
3. Analysis of transportation system performance using the performance measures presented
above; and
4. Recommended actions and corrective steps, including potential plan amendments during the
next update cycle.
The second component of the plan monitoring process involves tracking how local jurisdictions
and regional and state agencies are applying TransPlan policies. Implementation of Planning and
Program Actions and Capital Investment Actions from Chapter 3 will be summarized.
The third component of the plan monitoring process involves collecting data to assess
transportation system performance in relation to the performance measures. This analysis will
provide a comprehensive view of how the transportation system as a whole is performing. The
analysis will indicate ' when additional actions need to be taken. The need may become apparent to
identify different perforInance measures.
The fourth component of the plan monitoring process involves identifying actions and making
recommendations as to how the plan can be implemented most effectively. In many cases, these
actions will involve increased or decreased emphasis on existing policies and implementation
actions. In other cases, plan monitoring will indicate that new or modified policies and
implementation actions are necessary. Modifications to the plan will most often be made during
the regular plan update process, occurring every three years. Should modifications need to be
made to the plan between updates, the plan amendment process will be used. The TransPlan
amendment and up<ll\te processes are described in Appendix C: TransPlan Update Process
Documentation.
.
TransPlan Joint f.dopting Officials Revisions
D@e@ma@r200t January, 2002
Chapter 4, Page 26
Exhibit A - Page 71
TransPlan Amendments
Part Five: 'TransPlan Update Cycle
To keep the plan relevant to current conditions, federal legislation requires an update of the plan
every three years. Specifically, the federal guidelines state that the plan:
.
"...shal/ be reviewed and updated triennial/y...to confirm its validity and its consistency with
current and forecasted transportation and land use conditions and trends and to extend the
forecast period. "
The planning process envisioned in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) is
a dynamic activity that effectively integrates current operational and preservation considerations
with longer term mobility, .environmental, and development concerns. This more frequent update
requirement reflects the perspective that the function of the TSP is moving from a documentation of
system development to contemporary decision tool. The three-year update cycle maintains the
technical utility of the plan and its ability to serve the needs of local decision makers.
The table below shows the proposed update process, with TransPlan adoption in mid-200 1.
Minor updates would extend and adjust forecasts of land uses and the transportation system and
update priorities. A major update will add a review of policies, priorities, and major projects.
Air quality conformity analysis and financial constraint analysis would be prepared for each
update as required by federal legislation.
Schedule for TransPlan Updates .
Year Update
2001 Major
2002
2003
2004 Minor
2005
2006
2007 Major
2008
2009
2010 Minor
.
TransPlan Joint Adopting Officials R-evlsions
D@sem9@r2001 Jannarv 2002
Chapter 4, Page 27
Exhibit A - Page 72
TransPlan Amendments
.
~~~;~~"" ~'"'
s~;% :~~ .J~~~,~f
~ ~(:'t~ ~ =.::'1 "~~ :-.' i?
"'d: /""
Programmed Intersections
.... Added Fwy Lanes/Major Interchange Imps
A Arterial Capacity Improvements
... Study
11\
~J
'E-
Fi nanci ally-Constrai nad
Roadway Projects
~
~
.\~ ~
.... '" _< ~r~
Eugene-Springfield Metro Area
This map illustrates the roadway projects planned as
capital investment actions for a 20-year planning horizon.
The map reflects the general location of programmed and
unprogrammed projects contained in the Capital Investment
Actions Roadway Projects list. These projects are
considered necessary to adequately meet regional
transportation needs for the TransPlan 20-year planning
horizon and are part of the financially constrained plan.
Jurisdictions responsible for these projects are the Cities
of Eugene and Springfield, Lane County, and the Oregon
Department of Transportation.
Note: This map is illustrative and should be used for
reference only. The map depicts approximate locations of
existing and proposM transportation facilities.
.
Ie
I
I
Areas identified as nodal development areas are
considered to have potential for this type of land
use pattern, Other areas not designated for nodal
development may be found to have potential for
.
'.
Legena
i: ~ .~ 'f...~.
f:e.;._ ..;: ~, ~ ~d
~~ '..
I
j.
/'\/ Urban Growth Boundary
:!:
Future Intersections
.
.
.
New Arterial Link or Interchange
Added Fwy Lanes or Major Interchange Imps.
Urban Standards
Future
Roadway Projects
~
Future Projects
N New Arterial Link or Interchange
N Added Fwy Lanes or Major Interchange Imps.
N New Collectors
N Arterial Capacity Improvement
N Urban Standards
Eugene-Springfield Metro Area
This map illustrates the roadway projects not planned for
construction during the 20-year planning period. The map
reflects the general location of future projects contained
in the Capital Investment Actions Roadway Projects list.
Jurisdictions responsible for these projects are the Cities
of Eugene and Springfield, Lane County, and the Oregon
Department of Transportation.
.
.
N
+
o
Miles
Note: This map is illustrative and should be used for
.
.
.
-\J
,"Urban Growth Boundary
Bicycle Routes
,', " on-streeUwith road projecUUnprogrammed
, "
/\/on-streeUwith road projecUProgrammed
N on-streeUwithout road projecUUnprogrammed
N on-streeUwithout road projecUProgrammed
,\' off-streeUwith road projecUUnprogrammed
1\' off-streeUwith road projecUProgrammed
N... off-streeUwithout road projecUUnprogrammed
N off-streeUwithout road projecUProgrammed
N existing off-street
N existing on-street
o Nodal Development Areas
Note: This map is illustrative and should be used for
rAferen!":A on Iv. ThA m::m rlAoir:t~ ~oDmxim;:ltA IO!":;:ltion!'; of
F i na ncially-Constrai nad
Bikeway System Projects
Eugene-Springfield Metro Area
This map shows the existing bicycle system and the general
location of bikeways for construction. The range of bikeway
projects includes striped lanes, bike routes, and multi-use
paths. All planned bicycle system improvementsare included
in theTransPlan project lists. Other Proposed Bikeways (future)
are not shown on this map.
Areas identified for nodal development areas are considered
to have potential for this type of land use pattern. Other areas not
designated for nodal development may be found to have potential
for nodal development.
.
.
.
~.. "'~.? '---1.'11)1- ~-t~ ~ "ft ~ ~\ ~.... '-H~l--: ~.-.:: .., ~ ~r~~'
:~ ~ I (. ~! ~ ~ a' 'r," ~it~ ~"' \~ ~ ~ ~ ~~....~: ~:!..\\;*,.;, it" ~ (' ~ \"'~''f ;{I ~ ." ~~ ~ l'~ ~ ~
~- ;:: "~Ie ~..;"'~ ~;JI. ",il ~"\( ~ ti;~- a ----lI:lr~ :~~~N~J":'~~ ~~~~ ..~ ~r !I {~~ :;;:;;
<. , . l ~ -,", J'! . , · Pli;.. ~ A . l:a..' J' ~ ~ ~ ~i,C "l'> '-')I
i~ -......... I ~~j e""--Ji!1' .- ~ ---~.: .. a K'"""'r -"" ~ ~ "II "'l t5 ofj ,~'1!i!l'!"" ,\{i;! :~~
1 .'~ ~';r :-. ~.. ., '. ' ".~f:. ~": ,,<' \!;~:~ \\\J",....~~I+~~,. ~~=;~~~ Do ~ ~I~"~,~ ~:. l~:~ ~ ~I
~ ' II . !:< ~l\~ ff'l~-...." . >~ I ,I ~ "....,~...III~, ~~- ~,,"'~ .l~ ' ~~ ~'" . _~I
· P'.- :, ''''',. .~. ,!O,.......'" ~ 1 I'~~~-~...:) ;'~~~~ ,ll~ ~ ~ ~~'a~d. ~ '" ~\'...~ " Ii ~Il1JY >, :~ ~
~ .. / '.,.~ . ~ - .~It;' ~ dall.'i!lA.[~ ~i' ~ ~:!:..:f 'r.i ..... ~~. ~ ~l~, .... 1 ' ....
; ~.- " , ',' . , ~ .";. 4i r- ~ ,-, '.,-~ _.-IJ -- 1.\t""'~.f~ -: - . ". :::rJl.a - ~.....~ ""'!!.- ~l1f/ . - ,!I ". ~:
l _:l' ,J,.~ ----- IF,~_ ~X: ,I "'533' ""',- .,.,.,. - :J..K~~' - I:i", B'. ""' .",,~, .V--
~ ~}~-:'l~.g1Y.:.. '~~ \l-!"'l"''''-'~i~r-HW ,~'\,~ ~. ""~~
~. : . ""'~~~l(~,!, ,: J~ ~~, 4(-$. ~.trl'ffEJ)I_~.<! I~~~"" IjJ
· ~~. -~ ~_CUNt~. .., f~tc.~_~._.l.\~ j\~. ~\,.....,o~____ \"~57.....~.tM'~.ii'11 ilj~tr --' r ~ f ~~~~~ .
L,,'~\ '~~1L~~ i,- .. -.- - ~~~~ :~V'~'~=<-"---= w~J ~.,.~ ~I ti~~""-"'" a ~~ ~. ~ .', I~~ .j~:J;~l-':< ~
~~, ~~ ~~~\;;. ~\,~..-~- L.p", ~"\.. . .~ 1T1::'"l'i.~ , '-~'~ ~ ; 11>;.. ~
.~ ...., .. ,.~. ..;-p-", ,- If;;#', ~-~~'~I-~~'~:';'~- ,~~ '~-_.." it. '=.z~"" III r,~ .".1 t'" t' ICl ,t' .', , , Note: This map is illustrative and should be used for
' ~. i '( -G it-' ~< .fl.. '. 'L._.": 'l~f-~='''':''"~~~~~~-~~.~~ ~Ilt> ,~. '~... ':-~I' : It",i ~~'lt. f, , " Urban Growth Boundary reference only, The map depicts approximate locations of
. ~.' i: "~-I'~ 'j t..~ ~~~'.. ~'l ~'.- :_~. a ~\..... ~~~~. ,~~"!'. >'!:!rI ... ~ ~~ ~ t \,!k ^. existing and proposed transportation facilities and land uses.
W" ii' ",,,'tEt' ~~\; _L\"!. ......, ",...J - .,::~ I 1......,,;: --~ ~.irJ!fQ1 ~1f.' ~ f,~~"" , ~ ~
,,~"~';l! ',.iI1 ~~~ ~\ -'fl'~-~~~~~~ -~~:t.~~1- !~~:~H~~~..~j:J'''!.mbr]-~I~~l~ 0.00 LI ~ f~: ~ ~~I 'iJ--~' I:J.....'.,' ~"rlb~.~. ~~." r;; \ f" ""l ~ " '.~
~ II .~I.I..,I' ~~~~:.....:"' --- -~... .. JJ. _CUAV ,".' Z * c: '::-:'-.:l! 11~'J.ili!~ 1&;~~' t! ~- :Y. ., 4'.....~~f ,:.\..a ~ - ~ II' ~. ~l ~.".J Jfrit
~,2.c^ t,.:~", .'~}r.~!~~1.,'-""r"f1---'~~- . .1;,..: ~:'~\'~\ 'ffl.JLI~,-.~,~:~...:r _ If,.[>;.. -. 9 . ,. ~" '';;'\~<Illli.:}\l.'''''' 'i i/' .~
r l:;;~>" r;t'i1,~3 'j';'-"""'ii'- 4.' 1-'2;; ~ ,..........It ~ 8'" ~_.~~...'"E,__ ~~ J" "'vc~;;ee a I!I ':!ll4~ "" '! ,r :
· '~x;if: ' ~~:?/:?lZ~I:'. -~jl~! . f ~ " ; ". ~ .--=-~\ ~1 ~;. r- "":fr~~ ~9;'7J.r ~.., , f!]' ~~ ,}J} ~~ .~, .~~\~:'.,,~~ 'ar~t! . /, ": ~ .~'~~:Z~
I-:~~~~~ : ,... . -:1 .. ~~:. . < ' '.';';" ,-. '-;. \\1 ~ ~~., _ .W.......- ...Jlb::~ ' -, ;.';!!J fl ) ~; ''';;~'1 ,,: ___~ '" - ~ ,-~.' .'-. ,-, If ",J: ;'" ;t. . , - "~" ~
~t .;: ' '~.' - .~~ ~- fr- ~.JI~. ~ -..;:.' -_-:. a >.:",t "'i,~,~\\ "" ~ ~'fii';"-' __..~ ~'4E -'ii. . r~-'; I' '~~ 6 ~'f,:taio,:, ~~. --=---e -..--...:, :~<:~..~\_~._.l! rf ; ~ '. 0..';
. :,':-'...-.~< .~~,'" - [. "''''::\:';''?ff'!\l: ~ ~ . F .~~' ~,-,~ ''i~ >- ~ '" t..~t~\,",'.....B". '_,.. ~.J..~;r.;:;..r.._ ~fL I'. ;',. -'.' ,. ,,_ ! .', :'
" - c it '.1 ~~ ''',''.1..-'.'' . ~'':'C'' j .. < 'IiOOorJ \u /I ,~ _' _ ...." .....l i ,'i;;;-;~1 . 'j' ...,.,...____ ~, I ;_11 _.. . ...' "-
. ./l cii ~. . _l;"i.::!A~"_.:'" , :::, ~t'" In, ..J.~,,,, ~i : 1 ~~ ..;,a ," ~ ~f _.i:I'~: .~ -~'~Ii( , ....1i ;':;;:~f ' J:: (1., ?
.!;':-"-, - [:ti' .kr.:.~' . il '~~\' ~ .4;"".. ~;:" .2J~......,._..A0v-~~~\",;u"EJ~::; ~~. rrm ~~'fJjii~,. .f~~ :~.- . \ ~-~~.. ~.~-"~~~"'._.:t~,,:~ _~ . ' ~t
JJ" '~':.. :' > ~ '.. '.:~ 1'. "',' ,.'. ,. . ~ f)"J i,; ..' ',' ~ ":"'. ' ;;'1. ."' " ',1.";' ~, _ ~~':~:.: ". .~--';,.. ., <~;.~ ~ ' ,
....' -:l'.. ~ "-.~' "-.....:: '.; ...."O..:1.I..__~.,.<,., ,', o~: ~ '"'!."!.--.- ;:.',... '. '1-' ~~ ~ ;" '0 -At - ':;'" ~.~ ~"~"'~ ~&."~..." ::..I'-"....:;;.~.
., iiflI '- -. ""=, "~"'i1lI/)M!t!1.O"';;'i~""'.'" . ~J:i!_.'_ $.;,',,";'" ...-.~ "-j """""'/.:. "" .. '."". .;r. ~ ! _ '" -. ~. '.""" _.'~..,..g ,
, : , · . ~!!::F r'~';";.-~'" ":..~. 'H':';'" S"ti "'!,~,,,,~~~:'? .' .,,:;.:~::::
' '1<'" :l :;:,,~.~,l i~~":~"- , ;7,;'_' L:::..(:~..;;; ~.'.', -- -, , If"." ,'" -.,' ., .,"" ~\.....~ ~'~ '~"" "',,:,'_~c"".
i..'~.~..:.'.... /-; ~~.,~~~~",~ ......;'".lO.~'--- ~~m> HA _ ~.I'''~'''.N('':'\:' 'ii" 'l"""'~iJ::']" rf~'" "'1"'~r' ~ 51 ~.", ~...L1;~~~a~~, ':~::'''':'. .'-~~'~:o.~;~~i.:
~t ~. , ,~,~]~,,,~ I t~.::~.:=~::) , - , ~'-:..-..-<!:. '~'~. __.... ."!. "'.'.:~ ~.' ~";'- k ~~f!;.!t'~~.~8:..'~);':':i .- l~.l.\:t<' ~ .~' ti1,~ ~<~4~]L~~,'", '" :'_:'~:;:' _.~,
t......,~ .. - ~e-:~-~~ ol~ ~- ,',,;;~ 1h.-. ..;~.~ - . ~~.::. .'. ,', -,~!,'. ."II;.<!~,I; 1r::'Y;Tl~"1l' -..... ' ~ '>::1[t ~_.'""-- ". f9 "...,....H.~..V~~ " ......;.....,;.;..;,,,...-'.i&li.
;~ b1!!.!'\x h '~'.~I .r~.. ~ ur..~_~",o!,iQ:. , ...'l:. ~~<,,.,,J. "",.';t~U>lLU'~.nll'J"'~';_::',~"~~"";",,,,..., ....."... j,.;l,;'\<e! . ,~;;;;:::'f1l~.r~";~:-U--~~i' .r~"""'-= ~~.,
, t,~" ':j . g l:L '.... ~1'(,~.t..~ .~ ,.., ; - ij'~ is ---~'TI::::; IIl!II Bl l:l II EO" I - . , ." ,- ~ -.~ ":;~: ......~ - I '.; . 1 ~ 9ir i - ~~; .. -1 f ,', ,~I: _.i, . > "~I, ~
,~ ~_~,_': ~ "':'-~""'i ~"-"":IL_~'J: ~ 109 'I~.'J.~' I'I'! P en .~~-J. Uti' 61 .., f ~ " '.'''0',
V> ~- ", ' · w ;;~--,.! ~".~7"'"~' jI~~,.~:~~j ~.rt. {.~ 1m, ,..~ ~r:J t~.. ,.1, -; .' I~; ~ 110. i : '~> ~'l ~",-~:~:;Ji[t~ ( ~ c~g~.. - p~~ i1++'5,~1, , "!~ - . ~.~:. ...,~~ '~~1l8~ofjnt.f~~">";}';>:~
~ ~..K.""T'-,..., .---:~. 'c .'~'.'" .I~:.~M ~ Iii" 'T:!!i'~ ~ ~r]~...''':' " .,' ~...' I~ ." '...., 'i:'?:i!:. ".' .en ~'.W' :~~':-:.':_".'~.'." '~~7"~ ~,.:.;"~~.~J..I...,,,....._ "i' ,~ "~ '. f' .f ""cr~!" ',~",I II:' .,'
. . .~ .",:sr'~'J ~ c.' ':.,~~{~,,-~~, lJ1~~;'~":" ' (~Cl\ F~.?-I r.'r;~,i' -I -; iN - i"~; ---- - ..- ~"""".I":" m.t. ._:..,...."..::.;r.... . ~~rf' r:;l" r.f \~ <f,.,\{-'J".~' .. ~.
'., ..... '" ,., -"'~f' l'.,w ~. '... . . ' . ~:f7; 1ft,' ~'c <,'r-, >" .' '. ,. _. 'J J,J
'. -, .. ~ "".. " -... q~ .. ' I"r"~'.:~",,"., ....~.'.~...~.. .:...'_~ ~.~~ ~" 4
'~7 .>,.1 '. .. ~ ,:,'". iiJ. .' ~ l. ~ I' .!t' ...Ii ... .~.. _ ' - ,--..:5---..~ ~-;;
"1-, . \' :.:... l~ 7- \c .:...~, ~~. g S'~ ~ ~~> ~II , ','i"' ~"'~, '~'::; ~~:~~.., , j?~__ _. _ '.' ..
i:', 'f' .~ j':~ .. .; . ~ . - ":;1' ~.. t ~ .. :;~;"'~' .. l\~ ;;';';__' _~(;J,'_ _'&. ''''4
~~i,- .. ~,., ,I ....~.. i~~\ib1~~~:<; ..' '" ..' '.\&.... ~~"'~\,'~ "''l
.' ~ ",r:"f; ~,'"'' . ''',,' ~,;;:' ...~ ~ · "':~ ~ ~ _':~~ l~"~' ~~1i\~;.j,;' ,f"
1! ~:" ." ;W~ ~ 11 ' ....~..> ~.~ .{\...:;~..' ." ~r.:~ C.:.. ': ~ ~~~ ,. ." "'.~~:':1 ~'~l ~1 !"- !M.tf:~' iT, ;~CY'i::~-;<;;' .,:l.~.
. . , . \. ~ ''T~J:'~ ~.:,~' ~ ~,-.~--..;.. . .,.; "., =-- . '.' .,' ;i:;a, ; ~~1! , ''<. ~~ .~
I;~~' , ...!.)''!f,.... . '"';"'." ". . .il .'.'" '.\..::.,~, '-'~ . '. '. " .~1'~ , , '-:),0 ~ . .r .'
' -'.' Ii'.l "41 .., ,"'Ii '.r. '~~ ..~,.
; . , . . '!, ~ :-'.,,~ -. "c""ir,"' . ',I '...'!":,_,. t . ,. ~ 1
~. < I . " '. ~fk:.:,.,."" '11 ,1IlI .~. .'" . , " < ~ / t'''' ..c-:-t, . .' :...-" (,Jr..; ~f"" . 1
. ' 1),' ," 'i.~' r" ~";';";. "'''. 1:1. .I".' . IIl1 ~. ". ~. ..."",...,ij,.t ~ ~""'" ',.;r.~ ~ ~. ~.'.,"\ ~/ . ,
f.....' '"';!!l:. ~'i \.eit ~ >>. ~:IJ r--~_'~~- '1.' .. ~.."". ~1..'I:'. . :, ~{Ii ':- Jll.~~' ~~
,~~ 0'; "'"'~IIlI''' ... ,,~"... ~~. ,J. Ilr. .
· Ii " .,. ,;.i' 'it. <\. ~ ,.;Jrh:J.. # .. IIlo. "" _,~ ~ L" ~ ".~ ~.
.~:::~~l.\1.~~~~~. '\;",3~~; ';'" · AJi :-If' - ,,'~. .t!i';( . ,,<;'~" . ,,: . ": · " ..' "j~. ' I +N
l .::~, . ; i:1...::",~Jii '~~:;CJY~, ''t' :lm'li? ~.}iI'i . o!l.!],,., " ,,' _,
~ ~~~~~;:..~~...: ~"':iil ,-~~........."'!'t' j; ~ ,;< ". . "or .' ~ .- :, ~'" J'i!).\ '-' .,io\
Nt:, i ~:~k~l~~ ; .t~rt4>. ,,1 d .f d. ;,~ r.t ~ .J
.~
.
n
".'11,-;.
./ '11.
Planned or Programmed Priority Bikeways
On-street Bikeways (/anes, shoulders, and routes)
N
Priority Bikeway
System Projects
Off-street Bikeways (mu/tiple-use paths)
N
c=I Nodal Development Areas
Eugene-Springfield Metro Area
TransPlan Bikeway Projects Selected
by Connectivity and Safety Criteria
Areas identified as nodal development areas
are considered to have potential for this type
of land use pattern. Other areas not designated for
nodal development may be found to have potential
for nodal development.
!~
~'
~..
'r
,
,.
,,,:{J
:/.
1 0 1
I
Mles
... . . . .
" .. " t. . . .....ut.:.
I.
.
.
LC:~C:IIU
", Urban Growth Boundary
Future
Bikeway Projects
Eugene-Springfield Metro Area
Bicycle Routes (Future)
/'v" on-street/with road project/Future
N on-street/without road project/Future
N off-street/without road project/Future
,,' off-street/with road project/Future
This map illustrates bikeway projects not planned for
construction during the 20-year TransPlan planning period.
Proposed bikeways (future) are not included as projects
in the planning period because they are strictly for
recreational use, because land use activities such
as active quarrying currently do not allow them to be
built, or because funds have not yet been identified for .
their completion.
Note: This map is illustrative and should be used for
reference only. The map depicts approximate locations of
I.
.
.
:(
Further study in west Eugene is expected to result in
amendments to these projects and potentially other
projects in TransPlan.
Note: This map is illustrative and should be used for
reference only. The map depicts approximate locations of
existing and proposed transportation facilities.
Leg e no
Interstate Highways
-
Principal Arterials
Federally Designated
Roadway Functional
Classification
Eugene-Springfield Metro Area
This map illustrates the roadway functional classification
as adopted by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC)
on October 22, 1992 and as modified in Eugene's Arterial
and Collector Street Plan, adapted in November, 1999.
The functional classification is based on federal criteria
and definitions for urban roads. Local jurisdictions may
adopt street classifications that supersede the
designations on this map, for local planning and pOlicy
purposes. Proposed arterials and collectors are further
described in the project list.
Minor Arterials
Proposed Arterials
Major Collectors
Neighborhood Collectors
Proposed Collectors
Local Roads
Urban Growth Boundary
.
.
.
Legena
U Id
Ii I n ustrial Zoned Areas (not
including Eugene wetlands)
National Highway System (NHS)
.. =-: West Eugene Parkway (proposed)
-- NHS Connectors
Freight and Passenger
Intermodal Facilities
A Air/Truck Freight Facilities
T
p
S
I
l
Truck/Rail Freight Facilities
Pipeline/Truck Freight Facilities
Amtrak Station
Inter-City Bus Station
Lane Transit District Station
- - I Urban Growth Boundary
Further study in west Eugene is expected to result in
amendments to these projects and potentially other
projects in TransPlan.
Note: This map is illustrative and should be used for
reference only. The map depicts approximate locations of
F'xistinn ",nrl nrnnnC:F'rl tr",nsnnrt",tinn f",,,ilitjpc:
Goods Movement and
Intermodal Facilities
Eugene-Springfield Metro Area
This map illustrates regional transportation facilities
and land uses related to goods movement. The region's
goods movement system consists of the following
elements: truck, rail, air, and pipeline. These
elements must all function cohesively for the region's
goods movement to operate efficiently.
.
.
.
~I...~ C"''i5' w ~ M"O;l-'1 W16<ck~
~\e2 . 1- 1"5-02 k'J t;~J G7C .
"
Exhibit A
SUMMARY LIST OF WEP-RELA TED AMENDMENTS TO TRANSPLAN
(Based on December 2001 Adopted TransPlan)
The following list presents all proposed amendments to the adopted December 2001
TransPlan resulting from full inclusion of the West Eugene Parkway (WEP). The
amendments are identified by chapter and page number, and then presented, where
possible, in legislative format.
Amendments tocertain sections of TransPlan (for example, the project Iistsand
Chapter 4) are extensive. In these cases, the summary below references the amended
section, which is then attached to this list reprinted in its entirety.
In some cases, it is not practical to present an amendment in legislative format (for
example, maps and financial summary tables). In these cases both the original version
adopted in December 2001 and the draft proposed amended version are attached to
this list.
Chapter 1
Page 2
Compared to the future Trend Conditions, there will also be:
Q 8 percent less vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita,
Q ~ 20;5 percent more trips under one mile in length,
Q 7 percent fewer drive alone trips,
Q 29 percent more non-auto trips, and
Q 11 percent less carbon monoxide emissions.
Page 5
Because TransPlan serves as both the federally required Regional
Transportation Plan for the Eugene-Springfield area and as the Transportation
Functional Plan for Metro Plan, two planning horizons are referred to in the
document - 2015 and 20201. The 2015 planning horizon is used to be
consistent with the 2015 Metro Plan planning horizon. In particular, forecasted
regional land use allocations use Metro Plan's 2015 land uses as a basis. The
2015 planning horizon is used in conjunction with the Performance Measures
contained in Chapter 4 that are a requirement of LCDC's Transportation Planning
Rule.
A 20201 planning horizon has been developed to meet federal requirements for
maintainina at least a 20-year financial constraint and air quality conformity
determination. Because there is no official land use allocation beyond 2015, the
Exhibit A - Page 1
TransPlan Amendments
>I
202G1 forecasts represent an extrapolation of 2015 population and employment. .
Revenue and Cost estimates used in TransPlan are for 202Gl.
Chapter 2
Page 14, land Use Finding #10
10. Based on an analysis of the Regional Travel Forecasting Model results, an overall
outcome of nodal development implementation will be that the percentage of person
trips under one mile can be increased to approximately ~ 15.9 percent of all trips;
and, on a regional basis, that trip lengths will be slightly longer in 2015 than under
existing conditions, but this will be offset, in part, byreduced trip lengths within nodal
development areas.
Page 39, Finance Finding #2
2. TransPlan estimates that operations, maintenance, and preservation of the
metropolitan transportation system will cost $~ 1.266 billion in 1997 dollars to
maintain at current levels to the year 202G1, while revenues for this purpose,
including a regularly increasing state gas tax and federal forest receipts at current
. non-guaranteed levels after the guarantee expires, are estimated at $983 1.031
ffiQillion, leaving a conservative estimated shortfall of about $~ 235 million over
the planning period before the implementation of fiscal constraint strategies.
Chapter 3
Page 11, Table Summary of Capital Investment Actions Roadway Projects
(Both original adopted and proposed amended tables are attached)
Pages 14-33, Tables 1a & 1b (Constrained & Future Roadway Projects)
(Amended tables in legislative format are attached)
Pages 40-54, Tables 3a & 3b(Constrained & Future Bicycle Projects)
(Amended tables in legislative format are attached)
Page 57
Total roadway costs for the planning horizon through Fiscal year 202Gl are estimated to
be approximately $~ 1.312 billion. For details about which capital projects have
been included in this total, see the Capital Investment Action project lists beginning on
page 3-11.
Page 67 .
Table 4 shows that under current TransPlan,assumptions about standards, priorities,
and timing, the region faces a $~ 441 million revenue shortfall over the planning
horizon through Fiscal year 202Gl. The entire shortfall occurs in two areas-OM&P in
general, and ODOT System Improvements.
Pages 69 & 70, Tables 4 & 5 (Unconstrained & Constrained Costs & Revenues)
(Both original adopted and proposed amended tables are attached)
Exhibit A - Page 2
TransPlan Amendments
.
.
.
.
.
'..
Page 73
Springfield
. Overall maintenance service levels are assumed to decrease by an amount
equal to 10 percent of the shortfall, or approximately $~ 2.8 million.
Page 73
The above strategy packages will result in a financially constrained TransPlan over the
planning horizon through Fiscal year 20201. Transit activities, local system .
improvements, and most bike and pedestrian projects are not financially constrained
and can be funded at the full level projected. OM&P in the city and state systems will
be reduced somewhat, but still meet applicable policy standards. The cities will also
implement a new locally controlled source of revenue to raise additional OM&P
revenues. State system improvement projects will be built on a priority basis as
revenues allow, with the remaining unfunded improvement projects placed on a future
projects list pending additional revenues.
Page 75
The conformity analysis will be prepared based on a 20-year forecast (to 202G1) of
population, employment, and traffic. The analysis will use the TransPlan Financially
Constrained Project Lists in development of the future year networks.
,
Chapter 4
Extensive amendments to the text, tables and graphics are presented in the
attached legislative format copy of the entire Chapter.
Appendix A
Amend seven of the nine maps as shown below (proposed amended maps are
attached):
Financially-Constrained Roadway Projects
. Remove project #312
. Remove project #333
.'. Remove project #506
. Limit extent of project #151 to extension of third lane over Willamette River
Bridge to fill in gap
. Remove project #60
. Add "Unprogrammed Study" project on Beltline, River Road to Coburg
Road (project #.555)
. Add WEP Phases 1 B, 2A & 2B - projects #337, #338 & #339
Future Roadway Projects
. Add project #312
. Add project #333
. Add project #506
Exhibit A - Page 3
TransPlan Amendments
i
· Add southern extent of project #151 - southbound to westbound 1-105 off- .
ramp to 7th Avenue
. Add project #60
. Add new project - Franklin Blvd. "Urban Standards" project in Glenwood
Area, from Jenkins Drive to Mill Street (project # 839)
Federally Designated Roadway Functional Classification
. Add WEP Phases 1 B, 2A & 2B, designated as "Proposed Arterial"
Financially-Constrained Bikeway System Projects
. Remove project #411
. Remove project #333
. Remove project #60
. Add WEP Phases 1 B & 2A - projects #337 & #338 (2 components)
Priority Bikeway System Projects
. Remove project #411
. Remove project #60
. Add WEP Phases 1 B & 2A
Future Bikeway Projects
. Add project #411
. Add project #333
. Add project #60
Goods Movement and Intermodal Facilities
. Add WEP Phases 1 H, 2A & 2B, designated as "Proposed NHS"
Appendix F
Pages 5 & 13, Modify Findings 10 & 43 as shown above under amen'dments to
Findings in Chapter 2
Exhibit A - Page 4
TransPlan Amendments
.
.
.
.
.
<'<'<<.",..'<' ... . '"'~.""_'"'.'W'W''''''<" . ..".Ww."..__,..,..,.w<...M..w.._..... m.... "W.WW.....,,,.'w....,w'"..w
Chapter3: Table la-Financially Constrained
20-Year Capital Investment Actions: RoadwayProjects
. '.'."'w".'.<'< .....WWW.W~w.mwW..w>~.W..m.~m".w...ww..w..._w.....w.mw.w.w~w..w....m...mm.....WW
\.
"""""..".".'
L'. ""^"'~"V"~__"
~~." '>-""~.t ~_".a_.,_.y.~'"
'm,'
Estimated
Jurisdiction . Cost Length Number
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
'WW..,.,
:::a
Project Category: New Arterial Link or Interchange
Status: Programmed
Jasper Road
Extension
, Main Street to Jasper
Road
Construct 4-lane arterial;
phasing to be determined;
improve RR X-ing at Jasper
Rd; at grade interim
improvement; grade
separation long-range
improvement
Lane County
$10,400,000
66
3.2
Terry Street
. Eugene
Royal Avenue to
Roosevelt Boulevard
Construct new 2 to 3-lane
urban facility
$1,116,000
0.44
487
Seneca Road to Beltline W 11th - Garfield: 4-lane ODOT
Road new construction; 1l9Aaing
CeFRplotioA ef a stlldy ef
TfaAsller-tatieA imllre'/9FR9Ats
11'1 West ~lIg0A9
West Eugene
Parkway, (1A)
$17,283,000
336
1.3
Status: Unprogrammed
891tliA9 HigR'....ay
W9st11 tJ:\ IW9AII9 te
RoeS9v91t Elell19vara
Status Sub-Total
$28,799,000
GeAtiAII9 wiaoAiAg t9 1
lanes; n9W RR XiRg,
intercJ:\aRg9 @ W~P, graae
soparatieA @ Rees9'l9lt aAa
tllrR laA9& OR '.'V9st11th
Ave (OOOT: We&t 11tJ:\
NortR City Limits Stag9 J)
ODOT
$17,009,Ogg
+.44-~
Centennial
Boulevard
Springfield
$3,000,000
930
28th Street to 35th Street Construct 3-lane urban
0.5
TransPlan-Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
Deeemeer January 200~+
Chapter 3, Page 14
Exhibit A - Page 6
TransPlan Amendments
, ..
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Li mi ts Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Pioneer Parkway Harlow Road to Beltline 4-5 lane minor arterial Springfield $8,500,000 768
Extension Road
West Euqene Garfield Street to Seneca W 11 th - Garfield: 4-lane ODOT $34,231,000 1.3 337
Parkway, (1B) Road new construction, continued
West Euqene West 111h Avenue to Construct two lanes of future ODOT $30,496,000 2.56 338
Parkway (2A) Beltline Road 4-lane roadway
West Euqene West 11l1l Avenue to Construct remaininq two lanes ODOT $6,545,000 2.56 339
Parkway (2B) Beltline Road
Status Sub-TotaC$82, 772.00028,500,000
Project Category Sub-Total $111.571.00057,299,{){){)
.
.
Exhibit A - Page 7
TransPlan Amendments
Deeember January 200f.+
Chapter 3, Page 15
TransPlan-Joint Adopting Officials Revisions
~ l'T1
~x
QJ::l'"
::I -I.
V! c:r
-0 -I,
...... ("1-
QJ
::I)::>>
)::>> I
3
ro-o
::IQJ
0-10
3ro
ro
::I (J1
("1-0
V!
.
.
.
r-
Table 6 - Summary of Key Performance Measures (1)
1995 Existing 2015 Trends 2015 Financially Constrained
Conditions TransP/an Scenario ~)
Category Key Description Amount % Change Amount % Change
from 1995 from 1995
Demographics Population (TransPlan Studv Area) 209,800 296,500 41.3% 296,500 41.3%
Emplovment (TransPlan Study Area) 106,900 153,000 43.1% 153,000 43.1%
PM1 Congested Miles of travel (percent of total VMT) 2.8% 10.6% 283.3% a4% 844%
Rev~ed >>>>>>>>>> 5.0% 80.8%
PM2 Roadway Congestion Index 0.78 1.40 79.5% ~ ~
Congestion Rev~ed >>>>>>>>>> 96% 23.1%
PM3 Network Vehicle Hours of Delay (Daily) 9,818 28,407 189.3% 19,1Hi ~
REVISED MA Y '02 >>>>>>>>>> 18,924 92.7%
PM4 % Transit Mode Share on Congested Corridors (3) 5.8% 10.0% 72.4%
PM5a Internal VMT (no commercial vehicles) 2,305,779 3;508,913 52% 3,221,937 ~
Revised >>>>>>>>>> 3,232,977 40%
Vehicle Miles Traveled PM5b Internal VMT/Capita 10.99 11.83 8% .m.8+ -1-!K.
and Trip length ~ Revised >>>>>>>>>> 10.90 -1%
PM6 Averaoe Trip Lenoth (miles) 3.7 3.9 6% 3.6 -1.7%
PM7 % Person Trips Under 1 Mile 14.5% 13.2% -9% ~ ~
Revised >>>>>>>>>> 15.9% 9.6%
Mode Shares - All PM8a Walk 8.93% 7.92% -11% ~ +,.lJ!JI.,
Trips Revised >>>>>>>>>> 9.52% 6.6%
PM8b Bike 3.68% 3.32% -10% 3.64% -1.1%
PM8c Transit 1.83% 1.95% 7% ~ ~
Revised >>>>>>>>>> 2.73% 49.2%
PM8d Shared Ride (2 or more) 42.04% . 44.30% 5% 44.53% 5.9%
PM8e Drive Alone 43.52% 42.52% -2% ~ ~
Rev~ed >>>>>>>>>> 39.57% -9.1%
PM8f % Non-Auto Trips 14.43% 13.18% -9% 17.00% 17.8%
PM80 Person Trips per Auto Trip 1.59 1.61 2% 1.7 7.2%
PM9 Average Fuel Efficiency (VMT/Gal.) 19.7 19.1 -3% 18.9 ~
Environmental Rev~ed >>>>>>>>>> 19.2 -2.5%
PM10 CO Emissions (Weekday Tons) 124.4 125.3 1% ~ ~
Rev~ed >>>>>>>>>> 111.1 -10.7%
I-'M11 IAcres of zoned nodal development 2,000
land Use PM12 % of dwelling units built in nodes 23.30%
PM13 % of New "Total" Emolovment in Nodes 4b%
Exhibit B
.
Proposed Exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3, 4,11 and 14
for the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project Alignment
1002
HI'-P 17 0'" 30~
> 1101 : .l'
~ .
: ,
~ .
:
(') 1101 1
III 11ft 1 ...
II: :
. ~ 1101 .
.:: ",. :
:
" = .
. ...
-c noc :
= !
0 1100 I
"" ,tOO
It.
IC"
252
t1AP
Ii as ZS'
II..
.
"
)
~ NIELSEN RD l
~i
'''1
.c E40l)
1100 \
..../"
253
not
'1004
.C"
l'
1p
.
~
I 0 1000 ~OOO
l ~E IN FEET
3000,
4000---''':'-''' )
~ NORTH ..........
Exhibit B
Page 1 of2
')
Map 170430:
Map 170431:
Map 170525:
Proposed Exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3, 4,11 and 14
for the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project Alignment:
List of Effected Tax Lots*
.
Tax Lot 1402
Tax Lot 1406
TaX Lot 1410
Tax Lot 1600
Tax Lot 1800
Tax Lot 1801
Tax Lot 1900
Tax Lot 2201
Tax Lot 2202
Tax Lot 2204
Tax Lot 2400
Tax Lot 1100
Tax Lot 100
Tax Lot 101
Tax Lot 200
Tax Lot 2400
.
* Generally, only a portion of the tax lot is effected. The map on page 1 of this Exhibit shows the
general location of the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project aligmilent.
. '
Exhibit B
Page 2 of2
.
..'I'
.
It. '
.
.
~~ ~ kw-~ i ~:J.-'lI).oo1.. O<-~iQ
~kQ ~ ~ cjL 1-(~-o-""2-
Exhibit C
Findings of Consistency of TransPlan Amendments and
Metro Plan Amendments with Criteria for
Refinement Plan Amendments and Metro Plan Amendments
Metro Plan Amendment and Refinement Plan Amendment Criteria
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Transportation System Plan (TransPlan) was adopted as a
refinement plan to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) by the
Eugene and Springfield city councils, Lane County Board of Commissioners and Lane Transit
District Board in 1986. TransPlan was revised and adopted by these adopting officials in 2001,
effective November 30,2001. The revisions are incorporated in the December 2001 TransPlan.
The criteria for amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan) are in Section 9.7730(3) of the Eugene Code, Springfield Development Code (SDC)
7.070(3), and Lane Code 12.225(2). These criteria, which are identical, are:
(a) the amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by
the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
(b) adoption of the amendments must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Section 9.8424 of the Eugene Land Use Code and Section 9.145(2) of the Lane Code
Urbanizable Area Land Use and Zoning list the criteria for refinement plan amendments. The
Eugene Land Use Code applies within the Eugene City limits; the Lane Code Urbanizable Area
Land Use and Zoning applies within the area between the Eugene city limits and the urban
growth boundary. In the findings below, text from the Eugene Land Use Code is printed in bold;
text from the Lane Code Urbanizable Area Land Use and Zoning (where there is comparable
text) is printed directly under' the Eugene Land Use Code text and is underlined.
The fmdings below demonstrate consistency of the amendments to the December 2001 Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation System Plan (TransPlan) and to the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) with the criteria for Metro Plan
amendments and refmement plan amendments. Consistency with the statewide planning goals
and with the Metro Plan are criteria for approval of both Metro Plan amendments and refinement
plan amendments. Therefore, the fmdings below, although organized by refmement plan
amendment criteria, demonstrate compliance with both Metro Plan amendment and refinement
plan amendment criteria.
Section 9.8424 (1)
Section 9.145(2)
The plan amendment is consistent with all of the following:
... the proposed change is consistent with the following approval criteria
TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
Exhibit C -- Findings
Page 1
t,
(a)' Statewide Planning Goals
[Comparable refinement plan amendment criterion not included in Lane Code Urbanizable Area
Land Use and Zoning.]
.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan is a local comprehensive plan
acknowledged by the state's Land Conservation and Development Commission, and the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation System Plan (TransPlan) is an adopted refinement
plan to the Metro Plan.
Several amendments to the text and maps of the December 2001 TransPlan are proposed to
include the entire West Eugene Parkway in the 20- Y ear Financially-Constrained roadway project
list. In addition, amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan) and Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan to take exceptions to Statewide Planning
Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14 for property within the West Eugene Parkway alignment and outside the
Urban Growth Boundary are required in conjunction with adoption of the TransPlan
amendments.
Findings supporting exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3,4, 11 and 14 for the West Eugene
Parkway Modified Project and demonstrating project consistency with other applicable Statewide
Planning Goals, prepared for the Oregon Department of Transportation, are incorporated by
reference in this document and attached as Exhibits "C-l," "C-2," and "C-3." The Exhibit "C-
1," "C-2," and C-3" findings address only that portion of the West Eugene Parkway that is west
of Beltline, as portions east of Beltline have already been acknowledged as consistent with the .
Statewide Planning Goals.
Goal]: Citizen Involvement
To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved
in all phases of the planning process.
Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971 establishes procedures for Metro Plan and refinement plan
amendments. Under the August 1,2001 Land Use Code, notice requirements for refmement plan
amendments exceed the notice requirements for Metro Plan amendments. On January 4, 2002,
notice of the proposed amendments to TransPlan, the Metro Plan and the Lane County Rural
Comprehensive Plan and the West Eugene Wetlands Plan was delivered to the Department of
Land Conservation and Development. An amended notice, including revised date of final
hearing, was delivered to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on February 1,
2002. Section 9.7520 of the August 1,2001 Eugene Code requires that written notice of the
refinement plan amendment hearing and the nature of the request be mailed at least 30 days
before the planning commission public hearing to the Lane County and Springfield planning
directors, all neighborhood groups officially recognized by the city council and community
organizations that have submitted written requests for notification. On January 18, 2002, written
notice of the February 20,2002 joint public hearing of the Eugene, Lane County and Springfield
planning commissions and the Lane County Roads Advisory Committee (LCRAC) was mailed
to a consolidated list of interested parties provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation .
(West Eugene Parkway list), Lane Council of Governments (TransPlan testimony list) and
TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
Exhibit C -- Findings
Page 2
"
.
.
.
Eugene staff (West Eugene Wetlands Plan agency list and other interested parties).
Approximately 1,500 notices were mailed. The Eugene Code also requires that a legal ad be
published at least 20 days in advance of the public hearing. The legal ad was published in the
Eugene Register-Guard on January 30, 2002. In addition, the city has developed a West Eugene
Parkway web site. The public hearing notice and maps and the staff report were published on the
web site. This notification exceeds the requirements of the Eugene Code. The Metro Plan and
refinement plan amendment process includes two public hearings: the first before the planning
commissions and roads advisory committee and the second before the adopting officials. Those
who provided their mailing address with their written or oral testimony to the planning commis-
sions and LCRAC received written notice of the joint adopting officials public hearing. These
hearings provide ample opportunity for public involvement consistent with Goal 1.
Therefore, these amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan comply with Goal 1.
Goal2: Land Use Planning
Goal 2, Land Use Planning includes two parts. Part I, Planning, addresses general planning and
coordination requirements; Part II, Exceptions, addresses exceptions to statewide planning goals.
Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units and that
opportunities be provided for review and comment by affected governmental units. The Goal
defines "Affected Governmental Units" as "those local governments, state and federal agencies
and special districts which have programs, land ownerships, or responsibilities within the area
included in the plan." To comply withthe Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City coordinated
the adoption of these amendments with all affected governmental units. Specifically, notice was
mailed to: Lane County, Springfield and Lane Transit District, which are parties to the decision;
the Lane Council of Governments; the following Federal agencies: Federal Highway
Administration, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Park Service, Federal Aviation Administration, and Department of Housing and Urban
Development; and the following state agencies: Department of Transportation, Department of
Land Conservation and Development, Division of State Lands, Department of Environmental
Quality, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture and State Historic Preservation
Office.
Findings demonstrating an adequate factual base supporting the shift in West Eugene Parkway
alignment from the 1990 Approved Design to the Modified Project and justifying exceptions to
Statewide Planning Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14 are set forth in the following documents provided by
the Oregon Department of Transportation, attached and incorporated herein by this reference:
Exhibit "C-I ": West Eugene Parkway Modified Project - Consistency with the Statewide
Planning Goals and Transportation Planning Rule, prepared for ODOT by Mark
J. Greenfield.
Exhibit "C-I ": Alternatives Considered - West Eugene Parkway, prepared for ODOT by Jay
McRae, CH2M Hill
Exhibit "C-3": Incompatible Adjacent Land Uses in the WEP Project Area, prepared for ODOT
TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
Exhibit C -- Findings
Page 3
by Sheryl Christensen
.
Therefore, the amendments comply with Goal 2.
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Findings justifying an exception to Goal 3 for the portion of the West Eugene Parkway Modified
Project alignment located outside the urban growth boundary are set forth in the following
documents provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation, attached and incorporated
herein by this reference:
Exhibit "C-1 ": West Eugene Parkway Modified Project - Consistency with the Statewide
Planning Goals and Transportation Planning Rule, prepared for ODOT by Mark
J. Greenfield.
Exhibit "C-2": Alternatives Considered - West Eugene Parkway, prepared for ODOT by Jay
McRae, CH2M Hill
Exhibit "C-3": Incompatible Adjacent Land Uses in the WEP Project Area, prepared for ODOT
by Sheryl Christensen
Goal 4: Forest Lands
To conserve forestlands. . .
Findings justifying an exception to Goal 4 for the portion of the West Eugene Parkway Modified .
Project alignment located outside the urban growth boundary are set forth in the following
documents provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation, attached and incorporated
herein by this reference:
Exhibit "C-1 ": West Eugene Parkway Modified Project - Consistency with th,e Statewide
Planning Goals and Transportation Planning Rule, prepared for ODOT by Mark
J. Greenfield.
Exhibit "C-2": Alternatives Considered- West Eugene Parkway, prepared for ODOTby Jay
McRae, CH2M Hill
Exhibit "C-3": Incompatible Adjacent Land Uses in the WEP Project Area, prepared for ODOT
by Sheryl Christensen
Goal 5: aDen SDaces, Scenic and Historic Areas. and Natural Areas
-
To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources.
The Goal 5 natural resource inventory for the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan acknowledged in 1982 is shown on Map 3, Metropolitan Area General Plan Background
Report, Natural Features & Airport Limitation Areas. Following acknowledgment of the Metro
Plan, in 1992, Eugene and Lane County adopted the West Eugene Wetlarids Plan (WEWP),
which expanded the wetlands inventory for this area. The WEWP was subsequently amended in
1995, 1998, 1999 and 2000.
The West Eugene Parkway does not effect any of the area's inventoried significant GoalS
.
TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
Exhibit C -- Findings
Page 4
.
.
.
resources. The West Eugene Parkway crosses over areas that were once included on that
inventory, but all of those areas were later included in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, which
superseded the inventory for its plan area. Nevertheless, due to the testimony calling for Goal 5
analysis, such analysis is provided by incorporation of the Exhibit "C-l" findings.
The West Eugene Wetlands Plan is an approved wetland conservation plan as defined in ORS
196.800(15). Approval for the plan as a Wetland Conservation Plan was originally granted by
the Oregon Division of State Lands in September 1994 and was amended by Final Order 97-003
in September 1997. In 1999, as required by ORS 196.684, DSL conducted a five-year review of
plan implementation and issued Modified Final Order 99-003. On April 18, 2002, Division of
State Lands Final Order 02-001 approved the amended West Eugene Wetlands Plan (November
2000), with conditions, as a Wetland Conservation Plan under ORS 196.678 to ORS 196.684.
Generally, conditions relate to Plan reporting and implementation; additional conditions related
to Plan amendment and five-year DSL review cite ORS 196.684 requirements.
ORS 196.684(8) specifies the relationship between Wetland Conservation Plan approval and
compliance with Goal 5:
"Wetland conservation plans approved by the Director of the Division of State Lands
pursuant to ORS 196.668 to 196.692 shall be deemed to comply with the requirements of
any statewide planning goals related to wetlands, other than estuarine wetlands, for those
areas, uses and activities which are regulated by the plan." [See also, ORS 197.279]
Approval of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan by the Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) as
provided by law, satisfies all the requirements of any applicable statewide planning goal related
to wetlands (including Goal 5) for those areas, uses and activities which are regulated by the
plan.
, The findings of goal compliance made as part of initial adoption of the WEWP and of adoption
of subsequent amendments remain essentially unaffected by these amendments. The
fundamental program developed for Goal 5 compliance essentially remains unchanged. The
policies and criteria of the WEWP operate as a tool to further Goal 5 compliance by assisting in
determining the significance of wetland resources, the conflicts and the economic, social,
environmental and energy values involved in protecting the resource. That analysis approaches
the wetlands of West Eugene as part of an interconnected natural system rather than as separate,
discrete sites. The focus remains inside the West Eugene Wetlands Plan boundary, keeping in
mind that the larger system of which these wetlands are a part extends beyond this and other
political boundaries.
The West Eugene Wetlands Plan was developed in coordination with several key state and
federal agencies involved in wetlands regulation and planning: Division of State Lands (DSL),
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Plan was also coordinated with local offices of
other applicable local, state and federal agencies. ODOT has requested comments from these
TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
Exhibit C -- Findings
Page 5
agencies on the August 1997 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the West
Eugene Parkway.
.
In 2000, the Bureau of Land Management was offered cooperator status in preparation of the
Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement for the West Eugene Parkway. In October
2000 BLM accepted formal cooperator status and has submitted comments on the August 1997
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
Additional findings demonstrating compliance of the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project
alignment with Goal 5 are set forth in Exhibit "C-l" provided by the Oregon Department of
Transportation, attached and incorporated herein by this reference: West Eugene Parkway
Modified Project - Consistency with the Statewide Planning Goals and Transportation Planning
Rule, prepared for ODOT by Mark 1. Greenfield.
Therefore, the amendments to TransPlan are consistent with Goal 5.
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.
Findings demonstrating compliance of the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project alignment
with Goal 6 are set forth in Exhibit "C-l " provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation,
attached and incorporated herein by this reference: West Eugene Parkway Modified Project - .
Consistency with the Statewide Planning Goals and Transportation Planning Rule, prepared for
ODOT by Mark 1. Greenfield.
Goal 7: Areas Subiect to Natural Disasters and Hazards
To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards.
Findings demonstrating compliance of the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project alignment
with Goal 7 are setforth in Exhibit "C-I" provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation,
attached and incorporated herein by this reference: West Eugene Parkway Modified Project-
Consistency with the Statewide Planning Goals and Transportation Planning Rule, prepared for
ODOT by Mark J. Greenfield.
Goal 8: Recreational Needs
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate,
to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts.
In July 2001, the Bureau of Land Management approved the Recreation, Access, and
Environmental Education Plan for the West Eugene Wetlands. This Plan was prepared jointly by
the Bureau of Land Management, City of Eugene and Lane Council of Governments. Following
page 5 of the Plan is a map entitled "All Proposed Facilities." The West Eugene Parkway is
shown on this map as "Planned Parkway Alignment." The West Eugene Parkway Modified
Project alignment is also shown on the map entitled "Management Areas" following page 20 of .
the Plan as "Planned West Eugene Parkway."
TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
Exhibit C -- Findings
Page 6
.
.
.
Page 20 of the report states: "In the event that the West Eugene Wetland Plan is amended in the
future to allow for new or planned roadways or otherprojects, the management areas Map would
be refined accordingly." Therefore, although the Planned Transportation Corridor wetlan~
designation had not been applied to the Modified Project alignment at the time the Recreation,
Access, and Environmental Education Plan for the West Eugene Wetlands was approved, this
Plan acknowledged the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project alignment as a planned project
and provided for further refinement of the plan following amendment to the West Eugene
Wetlands Plan to apply the Planned Transportation Corridor wetland designation.
Additional findings demonstrating compliance of the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project
alignment with Goal 8 are set forth in Exhibit "C-l " provided by the Oregon Department of
Transportation, attached and incorporated herein by this reference: West Eugene Parkway
Modified Project - Consistency with the Statewide Planning Goals and Transportation Planning
Rule, prepared for ODOT by Mark J. Greenfield.
Therefore, these amendments comply with Goal 8.
Goal 9: Economic Develovment
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital
to the health, welfare and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
The primary purposes of the West Eugene Parkway, as stated in the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (August 1997), include:
· Provide a major access-controlled east-west connecting arterial for intra- and inter-
regional and citywide travel through the western half of the City of Eugene, between
Highway 126 to the west and the 1-5/1-105 corridor to the east.
· Improve access to the West Eugene industrial area via direct connections with only
strategic crossroads, thereby supporting orderly and planned growth.
· Better link West Eugene residential areas with downtown, thereby supporting orderly and
planned growth.
· Relieve congestion and improve safety on West 11 th Avenue, by removing most intra- and
inter-regional and some local traffic from the busiest and most hazardous section of West
11 th Avenue. '
As documented in the SEISand summarized on page 1-1, "These improvements are needed
because of deficiencies in the east-west roadway system, which is failing to support efficient and
safe local, citywide, and regional movement of people, goods and services through West Eugene.
West 11th Avenue from the Oak Hill area and as far east as Garfield Street includes numerous
features that impede safe and efficient travel, including:
· Numerous signals and intersections
· Extensive commercial development with direct access to the facility
· A complicated connector between West 11 th Avenue and the 6th and 7th Avenue Couplet
by way of Garfield Street, including two signals and two 90-degree turns
· Highly congested conditions, especially during peak traffic hours
TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
Exhibit C -- Findings
Page 7
Presently, existing access linkage to the West Eugene industrial area is circuitous. Access .
problems also apply to links between existing and developing residential areas in West Eugene
and downtown Eugene."
The West Eugene Parkway will replace West 11 th Avenue as the western portion of State
Highway 126 through Eugene. Adding this new limited-access roadway to the regional roadway
system will facilitate economic development.
Findings demonstrating compliance of the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project alignment
with Goal 9 are set forth in Exhibit "C-l" provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation,
, attached and incorporated herein by this reference: West Eugene Parkway Modified Project-
Consistency with the Statewide Planning Goals and Transportation Planning Rule, prepared for
ODOT by Mark 1. Greenfield. .
Therefore, these amendments comply with Goal 9.
Goal 1 0: Housing
To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Findings demonstrating compliance of the West Eugene Parkway modified project located inside
the urban growth boundary and justifying an exception to Goal 11 for the portion of the West
Eugene Parkway Modified Project alignment located outside the urban growth boundary are set
forth in the following documents provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation, attached
and incorporated herein by this reference:
Exhibit "C-l": West Eugene Parkway Modified Project -, Consistency with the Statewide
Planning Goals and Transportation Planning Rule, prepared for ODOT by Mark
J. Greenfield.
Exhibit "C-2": Alternatives Considered - West Eugel1e Parkway, prepared for ODOT by Jay
McRae, CH2M Hill
Exhibit "C-3": Incompatible Adjacent Land Uses in the WEP Project Area, prepared for ODOT
by Sheryl Christensen
Goal 12: TransDortation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
and State Transportation Planning Rule, OAR 660, Division 12.
The West Eugene Parkway was first proposed as the "6th/7th Extension" in the T-2000 Plan
.
TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
Exhibit C -- Findings
Page 8
.
.
.
adopted in 1978 by Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and the Lane Transit District. The public
reviewed and commented on a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project in
1985-86. That process determined the general route of the proposed 4-lane roadway, which was
re-named the West Eugene Parkway. Under the provision of the City Charter that requires a vote
on a limited-access throughway, the City Council placed a measure on the ballot in November
1986 asking whether or not the West Eugene Parkway should be constructed along the east-west
route preferred by the City Council. The voters approved the measure.
The project was included in the 1986 TransPlan, which superseded the T -2000 Plan, Although a
final EIS was issued in 1990, subsequent funding constraints and environmental concerns
resulted in phasing the project in four distinct phases, and additional environmental studies to
augment the original EIS work. A draft supplemental EIS was issued for public comment in
1997, and the final supplemental EIS is pending.
On December 2000, Eugene received a letter from ODOT specifying land use actions necessary
to move forward with the conclusion of the final supplemental Environmental 'Impact Statement
for the West Eugene Parkway and construction of Unit I-A of that project. Although state
administrative rules do not require completion of land use actions for future phases of a project
prior to issuance of an Environmental Impact Statement, both the federal Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) had submitted letters to
ODOT stating that all land use actions must be completed prior to issuance of the final
supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the West Eugene Parkway,
In November 2001, Eugene voters approved a ballot measure directing the City "to pursue
funding and transportation and land use approvals to facilitate construction of the West Eugene
Parkway."
Findings demonstratfng consistency of the December 2001 revised Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Transportation System Plan (TransPlan) with the Transportation Planning
Rule were provided as an exhibit to the local jurisdiction ordinances adopting TransPlan.
Findings to support the proposed amendments are based, in large part, on the changes to the
December 2001 TransPlan roadway and bikeway system networks and TransPlan performance
measures resulting from the proposed amendments.
The following provides a summary of proposed revisions to the roadway and bikeway system
networks resulting from the proposed amendments.
The shifts in roadway projects result in an increase in Arterial and Collector Miles from 351.9 in
the December 2001 TransPlan to 355.8 with the proposed amendments in Arterial and Collector
Miles (excluding freeways) from 315.7 in the December 2001 TransPlan to 319.6 with the
proposed amendments. The net change is an increase of 3.9 miles.
These shifts in roadway projects also require corresponding shifts to the Bikeway project lists:
the West Eugene Parkway phases IB and 2A are added to the 20-YearFinancially-Constrained
Bikeway System list and the following projects are deferred to the Future Bikeway System list:
TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
Exhibit C -- Findings
Page 9
Beltline, Roosevelt to West 11th (#411); West 11th, Terry Street to Green Hill Road (#333) and .
Jasper Road, S 42nd Street to Mt. Vernon Road (#60). Altogether, these changes result in an
increase in Total Bikeway Miles from 257.6 in the December 2001 TransPlan t0257.8 with the
proposed amendments and an increase in Priority Bikeway Miles from 74 in the December 2001
TransPlan to 75.3 with the proposed amendments. The net change is an increase of.2 Total
Bikeway Miles and an increase of 1.3 Priority Bikeway Miles.
The revised roadway and bikeway networks were used to model the effects of the proposed
amendments on TransPlan Performance Measures included in Chapter 4 of TransPlan. All of the
measures that are determined by model output show change, but most of the changes would be
considered minor. Of the changes shown in the table below only one is to an Alternative
Performance Measure approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission -
Priority Bikeway Miles. Although the network changes result in a 1.3 mile increase in the 2015
miles, no change is proposed to the Alternative Performance Measure. The LCDC-approved
2015 target and interim benchmarks will remain as approved by tl).e Commission and adopting
officials.
The following provides a summary of the changes based on roadway and bikeway network
changes and model results:
Category Key Description 2015 Financially- 2015 Financially-
Constrained Constrained
TransPlan TransPlan
(I 2/0 1) (wi Amendments
Congestion PMl Congested Miles of Travel (percent 5.1% 5.0%
I of total VMT)
I
PM2 Roadway Congestion Index 97.9% 96%
-
PM3 Network Vehicle Hours of Delay 19,416 18,924
(Daily)
-
Vehicle Miles PM5a Internal VMT (no commercial 3,224,037 3,232,977
I
Traveled & Trip vehicles)
Length
PM5b Internal VMT/Capita lO.87 lO.90
PM7 % Person Trips Under 1 Mile 16.1% 15.9%
I Mode Shares, PM8a Walk 9.63 9.52
All Trips
PM8c Transit 2.72 2.73
PM8e Drive Alone 39.48 39.57
Environmental PM9 Average Fuel Efficiency (VMT/Gal) 18.9 19.2
PMlO CO Emissions (Weekday Tons) 111.8 111.1
TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
Exhibit C -- Findings
Page 10
.
.
.
.
.
System PM15 Ratio of Bikeway to Arterial and 82% 81%
Characteristics Collector Miles (PM24)
PM21 Bikeway Miles 257.6 257.8
PM22 Priority Bikeway Miles * 74 75.3
--
PM23 Arterial and Collector Miles 351.9 355.8
PM24 Arterial and Collector Miles 315.7 319.6
(excluding freeways)
* LCDC-Approved Alternative Performance Measure
These amendments to TransPlan will allow completion of the final supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement for the West Eugene Parkway while resulting in only minor revisions to the
2015 Financially-Constrained performance measures.
Compliance with OAR 660-012-0060:
Under ORS 660-0120-0060(1), amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use
regulations which "significantly affect" a transportation facility must "assure that allowed land
uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g., level
of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility." If there is no significant effect, OAR
660-012-0060 does not apply. Under OAR 660-012-0060(2), a plan or land use regulation
amendment "significantly affects" a transportation facility if it (a) changes the acknowledged
functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (b) changes standards
implementing the functional classification system; (c) allows types or levels of land uses which
would result in levels of travel or access inconsistent with the functional classification of the
facility; or (d) reduces the performance standards of the facility below the minimum acceptable
level identified in the TSP.
None of the TransPlan roadway amendments fall within items (a) through (c) above. To
determine if any of the amendments to the 20-Year Financially Constrained Roadway project list
reduce the performance standards of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified
in the TSP, the 2015 pm peak hour level of service for the WEP-related amendment package was
compared with the 2015 pm peak hour level of service for the December 2001 TransPlan.
Seventeen (17) locations were analyzed. Based on the level of service analysis, projected level of
service at all locations except two either stays the same or improves under the WEP-related
amendment package. The two exceptions are: Beltline, River Road-Delta, where the 2015 pm
peak'hour level of service decreases from LOS D to LOS E eastbound and from LOS E to LOS F
westbound; and Beltline, north of West 11 th Avenue, where the 2015 pm peak hour level of
services decreases for LOS C or better to LOS D eastbound.
OAR 660-012-0060(1) provides four remedies when a proposed Plan amendment "significantly
affects a transportation facility," anyone of which is sufficient to address the Transportation
Planning Rule requirement. For the TransPlan amendments, the relevant remedy is (l)(b) which
states: "Amending the TSP to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed
TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
Exhibit C -- Findings
Page 11
land uses consistent with the requirements of this division."
.
The package of TransPlan roadway amendments includes moving the Beltline, River Road-Delta
project and the Beltline, Stage 3 (Roosevelt to West 11'h) project from the 20- Year Financially
Constrained roadway project list to the Future roadway project list. Both the 20- Y ear
Financially-Constrained project list and the Future project list are included in Chapter 3 of
TransPlan, the Transportation System Plan, and are considered part of the Transportation System
Plan under the Transportation Planning Rule. The requirement for adoption of a 20- Y ear
Financially Constrained project list is a federal rather than a state requirement. Although the
Future project list is not adopted by reference as part of the Metro Plan, the Beltline, River Road-
Delta project will remain a part of TransPlan in compliance with 660-012-0060(1)(b). If the
Beltline, River Road-Delta project were proposed for removal from both the 20- Year and Future
lists in TransPlan, this remedy would not be met and other remedies would be required for
compliance with the OAR 660-012-0060.
As demonstrated by the findings above, while the package of TransPlan amendments will result
in a reduction in the 2015 pm peak hour level of service at two of the seventeen locations
evaluated, retaining the Beltline, River Road-Delta project and the Beltline, Stage 3 (Roosevelt to
West Il'h) project on the TransPlan Future list meets the requirements of OAR 660-012-0060(1).
Additional findings demonstrating compliance of the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project
alignment with Goal 12 and the Transportation Planning Rule are set forth in Exhibit "C-l"
pr~vided by the Oregon DePkartment of.Tfiradnsppo~ation, attac~ed and i~chorphorSated h~rdein hI y t~is .
relerence: West Eugene Par way ModI Ie rOJect - ConsIstency WIt t e tatewI e P anmng
Goals and Transportation Planning Rule, prepared for ODOT by Mark J. Greenfield.
Therefore, these amendments comply with Goal 12.
Goal]]: Energy Conservation
To conserve energy.
Findings demonstrating compliance of the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project alignment
with Goal 13 are set forth in Exhibit "C-l /I provided by the Oregon Department of
Transportation, attached and incorporated herein by this reference: West Eugene Parkway
Modified Project - Consistency with the Statewide Planning Goals and Transportation Planning
Rule, prepared for ODOT by Mark J. Greenfield.
Goal]4: Urbanization
To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use.
Findings demonstrating compliance with Goal 14 for the portion of the West Eugene Parkway
Modified Project alignment located within the urban growth boundary and justifying an
exception to Goal 14 for the portion of the West Eugene Parkway Modified Project alignment .
located outside the urban growth boundary are set forth in the following documents provided by
TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
Exhibit C -- Findings
Page 12
.
.
.
the Oregon Department of Transportation, attached and incorporated herein by this reference:
Exhibit "C-l ": West Eugene Parkway Modified Project - Consistency with the Statewide
Planning Goals and Transportation Planning Rule, prepared for ODOT by Mark
J. Greenfield.
Exhibit "C-2": Alternatives Considered - West Eugene Parkway, prepared for ODOT by Jay
McRae, CH2M Hill
Exhibit "C-3": Incompatible Adjacent Land Uses in the WEP Project Area, prepared for ODOT
by Sheryl Christensen
Goal IS: Willamette River Greenway
Goal 16: Estuarine Resources
Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands
Goal IS: Beaches and Dunes
Goal 19: Ocean Resources
These goals do not apply.
(b) Applicable provisions of the Metro Plan
Uti The plan amendment is consistent with the Metropolitan Area General Plan:
The Metropolitan Plan contains the following policies which are applicable to the proposed
amendments:
Economic Element Policy 18, page III-B-5: "Encourage the development of transportation
facilities which would improve access to industrial and commercial areas and improve freight
movement capabilities by implementing the policies and projects in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan). . ."
Transportation Policy F-16, page III-F-9: "Promote or develop a regional roadway system that
meets combined needs for travel through, within,' and outside the region."
Transportation Policy F-29, page III-F-ll: "Support reasonable and reliable travel times for
freight/goods movement in the Eugene-Springfield region.
The primary purposes of the West Eugene Parkway, as stated in the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (August 1997), include:
· Provide a major access-controlled east-west connecting arterial for intra- and '
inter-regional and citywide travel through the western half of the City of Eugene,
between Highway 126 to the west and the 1-5/1-105 corridor to the east.
· Improve access to the West Eugene industrial area via direct connections with
only strategic crossroads, thereby supporting orderly and planned growth.
· Better link West Eugene residential areas with downtown, thereby supporting
orderly and planned growth.
. Relieve congestion and improve safety on West 11 th Avenue, by removing most
TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
Exhibit C -- Findings
Page 13
intra- and inter-regional and some local traffic from the busiest and most
hazardous section of West 11 th Avenue.
.
AS,documented in the SEIS and summarized on page 1-1, "These improvements are
needed because of deficiencies in the east-west roadway system, which is failing to
support efficient and safe local, citywide, and regional movement of people, goods and
services through West Eugene. West 11 th Avenue from the Oak Hill area and as far east
as Garfield Street includes numerous features that impede safe and efficient travel,
including:
· Numerous signals and intersections
· Extensive commercial development with direct access to the facility
. A complicated connector between West 11 th Avenue and the 6th and 7th Avenue
Couplet by way of Garfield Street, including two signals and two 90-degree turns
· HigWy congested conditions, especially during peak traffic hours
Presently, existing access linkage to the West Eugene industrial area is circuitous. Access
problems also apply to links between existing and developing residential areas in West
Eugene and downtown Eugene."
The West Eugene Parkway will replace West 11 th Avenue as the western portion of State
Highway 126 through Eugene. Adding this new limited-access roadway to the regional
roadway system will implement these Metro Plan policies.
.
Environmental Resources Policy 28, page III-C-I0: "Local governments shall protect endangered
and threatened plant and wildlife species, as recognized on a legally adopted statewide list, after
notice and opportunity for public input."
Findings in quotations were provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation:
"The Approved Design for the West Eugene Parkway was selected in the 1990 Record of
Decision (ROD) after completion of a Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Subsequent to issuance of the FEIS in 1990, new inventory information was developed,
and regulatory provisions codified, regarding wetlands and rare plant species in West
Eugene. Specifically, it became appa,rent that the Approved Design could result in
substantial impacts to rare wetlands and to "endangered" or "threatened" plant species
that are concentrated in the west end of the project and south of the railroad tracks. These
new circumstances prompted the need to reevaluate the WEP alignment west of Terry
Street to the Highway 126 connection."
To address this new information, and other issues related to traffic operations, a Modified
Project was developed. The Modified Project was evaluated through a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement published in 1997.
"The Modified Project was selected as the Preferred Alternative over the Approved
Design for the following reasons:
.
TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
Exhibit C -- Findings
Page 14
.
.
.
,. .'"
.
The Modified Project has less impacts on state and federally listed species. The
Approved Design would have required removing 22 plants of the Willamette
Valley Daisy and 17 clumps with 2,200 stems of the White-topped aster. The
Modified Project will require removal of no Willamette Valley daisies and 3
clumps with 517 stems of the White-topped aster. The Modified Project is "likely
to adversely affect" Fender's blue butterfly because ofthe possibility of incidental
takes resulting from butterfly impacts with vehicles using the facility. The
Approved Design would have had similar or greater impacts to the butterfly since
the alignment of that alternative is closer to the nearest population of Kincaid's
lupine known to be serving as a host to the butterfly."
"Three species found in the area of the West Eugene Parkway were federally listed as
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act on January 25, 2000, after
release of the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Fender's blue
butterfly, its host plant Kincaid's lupine, and the Willamette Valley Daisy.
"A Biological Assessment was prepared in 1996 to evaluate project impacts to the
federally listed Bradshaw's lomatium, the Willamette Valley daisy (which was proposed
for listing at that time), and White-topped aster (a species of concern). ODOT initiated
informal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and received
concurrence from USFWS that the project would have no effect on those species in a
letter dated March 26, 1997.
"ODOT prepared a Biological Assessment of project impacts to Fender's blue butterfly
and Kincaid's lupine and initiated formal consultation with USFWS in December 1999,
prior to the formal listing of those species. USFWS prepared a Biological Opinion (June
6, 2000) which concurred with ODOr s determination that the project would have no
effect on Kincaid's lupine and was likely to adversely affect but not jeopardize Fender's
blue butterfly. The Biological Opinion reiterated USFWS's early concurrence that the
[Modified] project would have no effect on Bradshaw's lomatium, the Willamette Valley
daisy, or White-topped aster."
Under these amendments the majority of known populations of listed rare plants in the
Plan area would be protected and Fender's blue butterfly, while likely to be adversely
affected, will not be jeopardized. Therefore, these amendments are consistent with this
policy.
TransportatIon Policy F-38,page III-F-14: "The City of Eugene will maintain transportation
performance and improve safety by improving system efficiency and management before adding
capacity to the transportation system under Eugene's jurisdiction. (Eugene-Specific finance
policy)
Addition of the remaining phases of the West Eugene Parkway to the 20- Year
Financially-Constrained roadway project list will add capacity to the transportation
system. Since the West Eugene Parkway is under the jurisdiction of the Oregon
TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
Exhibit C -- Findings
Page 15
Department of Transportation, this policy does not apply. Ifit did apply, however, .
passage by the voters of Eugene of Ballot Measure 20-54, directing the City to pursue
, funding and transportation and land use approvals to facilitate construction of the West
Eugene Parkway, would provide the justification to add this new facility to the system
before using the higher-priority measures outlined in the Policy Definition/Intent
, statement accompanying this policy.
(c) Remaining portions of the refinement plan.
Dll The plan amendment is consistent with the remaining portions of the refinement plan:
A determination of consistency of the proposed amendments with remaining portions of the
refinement plan is based on review of the net changes to the roadway and bikeway system
networks and changes to the TransPlan performance measures.
The following provides a summary of proposed revisions to the roadway and bikeway system
networks resulting from the proposed amendments.
The shifts in roadway projects result in an increase in Arterial and Collector Miles from 351.9 in
the December 2001 TransPlan to 355.8 with the proposed amendments in Arterial and Collector
Miles (excluding freeways) from 315.7 in the December 2001 TransPlan to 319.6 with the
proposed amendments. The net change is an increase of3.9 miles.
These shifts in roadway projects also req~ire corresponding shifts to the Bikeway project lists: .
the West Eugene Parkway phases IB and 2A are added to the 20-Year Financially-Constrained
Bikeway System list and the following projects are deferred to the Future Bikeway System list:
Beltline, Roosevelt to West 11th (#411); West 1 rh, Terry Street to Green Hill Road (#333) and
Jasper Road, S 42nd Street to Mt. Vernon Road (#60). Altogether, these changes result in an
increase in Total Bikeway Miles from 257.6 in the December 2001 TransPlan to 257.8 with the
proposed amendments and an increase in Priority Bikeway Miles from 74 in the December 2001
TransPlan to 75.3 with the proposed amendments. The net change is an increase of.2 Total
Bikeway Miles and an increase of 1.3 Priority Bikeway Miles.
The revised roadway and bikeway networks were used to model the effects of the proposed
amendments on TransPlan Performance Measures included in Chapter 4 of TransPlan. All of the
measures that are determined by model output show change, but most of the changes would be
considered minor. Of the changes shown in the table below, only one is to an Alternative
Performance Measure approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission -
Priority Bikeway Miles. Although the network changes result in a 1.3 mile increase in the 2015
miles, no change is proposed to the Alternative Performance Measure. The LCDC-approved
2015 target and interim benchmarks will remain as approved by the Commission.
The following provides a summary of the changes based on roadway and bikeway network
changes and model results:
.
TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
Exhibit C -- Findings
Page 16
.
.
.
Category Key e Description 2015 Financially- 2015 Financially- ]
Constrained Constrained
TransPlan TransPlan
(12/01) (wi Amendments
.....------
Congestion PMl Congested Miles of Travel (percent 5.1% 5.0%
of total VMT)
PM2 Roadway Congestion Index 97.9% 96%
PM3 Network Vehicle Hours of Delay 19,416 18,924
(Daily)
Vehicle Miles PM5a Internal VMT (no commercial 3,224,037 3,232,977
Traveled & Trip vehicles)
Length
PM5b Internal VMT/Capita 10.87 10.90
,
PM7 % Person Trips Under I Mile 16.1% 15.9%
I Mode Shares, PM8a Walk 9.63 9.52
! All Trips
l-
I
i PM8c Transit I 2.72 2.73
i I-PM8e
Drive Alone 39.48 39.57
Environmental PM9 A verage Fuel Efficiency (VMT/Gal) 18.9 19.2
PMI0 CO Emissions (Weekday Tons) 111.8 lll.I
System PM15 Ratio of Bikeway to Arterial and 82% 81%
I Characteristics Collector Miles (PM24)
PM21 Bikeway Miles 257.6 257.8
I
I PM22 Priority Bikeway Miles * 74 75.3
:
I PM23 Arterial and Collector Miles 351.9 355.8
I
PM24 Arterial and Collector Miles 315.7 319.6
(excluding freeways)
* LCDC-Approved Alternative Performance Measure
The evaluation provided above demonstrates that the proposed amendments are consistent with
the remaining portions of TransPlan.
Section 9.8424(2)
The plan amendment is found to address one or more of the
following:
The plan amendment is found to address one or more of the following:
Section 9. 145(c)
(a) An error in the publication of the plan.
Will An error in the publication of the plan:
TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
Exhibit C -- Findings
Page 17
'. . ".
This criterion is not applicable.
.
(b) New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal.
(OOJ Incorporation into the plan of new inventory material which relates to a statewide goal: or
This criterion is not applicable.
(c) New or amended community policies
~ A change in public policy
The 1986 TransPlan provided for development of the West Eugene Parkway along the route of
the Approved Design selected in the 1990 Record of Decision of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement. The subsequent re-evaluation of the Approved Design route resulted in a
Supplemental Environrriental Impact Statement and selection of the Modified Project route as the
preferred, alternative.
In December 2000, Eugene received a letter from the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) specifying land use actions necessary to move forward with the conclusion of the final
supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the West Eugene Parkway and construction of
Unit I-A of that project. Although state administrative rules do not require completion of land
use actions for future phases of a project prior to issuance of an Environmental Impact Statement,
both the federal Bureau of land Management (BLM) and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHW A) had submitted letters to ODOT stating that all land use actions must be completed prior .
to issuance of the final supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the West Eugene
Parkway.
On December 11 and 13,2000, the Eugene City Council considered a request by ODOT to
initiate land use actions and amend TransPlan (still in draft form at that time) to comply with the
BLM and FHW A requirements. On December 13, 2000, the Council directed the City Manager
not to initiate the Plan amendments.
In August 2001, City Council passed Resolution No. 4678, calling a special election for
November 6, 2001. That resolution placed two measures concerning transportation alternatives
for west Eugene on the November ballot. Measure 20-53 "Transportation Improvements in West
Eugene, Not Including the West Eugene Parkway" asked: "Shall City work with government
partners to pursue comprehensive transportation and land use strategies and projects for west
Eugene?" Measure 20-54 "West Eugene Parkway" asked voters: "Shall City pursue funding and
transportation and land use approvals to facilitate construction of the West Eugene Parkway?"
In adopting TransPlan following the August 2001 decision to call a special election but prior to
the November 6, 2001 election, the TransPlan adopting officials recognized that amendments to
TransPlan would need to be considered if either of the ballot measures passed.
On November 6, 2001, Eugene voters approved Ballot Measure 20-54; Ballot Measure 20-53 .
failed. Although the voters had already approved the route of the West Eugene Parkway in
TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
Exhibit C -- Findings
Page 18
. .. ..' .,' " , ... .. '-
.
.
.
November 1986, the November 2001 ballot measure asked whether the City should pursue
funding and transportation and land use approvals to facilitate construction of the West Eugene
Parkway. As such, the November 2001 ballot measure was a refinement of the November 1986
ballot measure and represents an "amended community policy" or "change in public policy."
On November 28,2001, the Eugene City Council passed Resolution No. 4694, initiating
amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan (Metro Plan) and Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) to
facilitate construction of the West Eugene Parkway. This action by the City Council was in
direct response to the November 6, 2001 vote approving Ballot Measure 20-54.
Amending TransPlan to include the entire West Eugene Parkway in the 20-Year Financially
Constrained roadway project list and allow conclusion of the final supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement addresses this refinement plan amendment criterion.
(d) New or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute, state
regulation, statewide planning goal, or state agency land use plan.
[Comparable refinement plan amendment criterion not included in Lane Code Urbanizable Area
Land Use and Zoning.]
This criterion does not apply.
(e) A change of circumstances in a substantial manner not anticipated in the plan;"
WG}, A change in circumstances in a substantial manner not anticipated in the plan:
This criterion does not apply.
ccordTransPlanExhC71 02fnl. wpd
TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
Exhibit C -- Findings
Page 19