HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/01/2010 Work Session
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, MARCH 1,2010
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 1,2010 at 6:30 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ralston, Leezer, Simmons, and Pishioneri. Also present
were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy,
City Recorder Amy Sowa, and members of the staff
Councilors Lundberg and Wylie were absent (excused). Councilor Wylie was travelling to Hawaii and
Councilor Lundberg was in Washington DC for United Front.
1. Main Street Pedestrian Crossing.
Civil Engineer Richard Perry presented the staff report on this item.
Mayor Leiken said he received a call from Sonny Chickering from ODOT who said he would not be
able to be to attend tonight's meeting. He noted the letter in the packet from Mr. Chickering.
Mr. Perry said the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) requested that Council review the
proposed pedestrian crossing improvements on Main Street at 51st and support the closure ofa local
business's access to Main Street.
During the March 2nd, 2009 work session, Council requested periodic updates from Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) regarding pedestrian safety on Main Street. ODOT had made
progress towards implementing a pedestrian Safety Study on the corridor and during the interim, had
made additional progress toward immediate improvements. Working with Lane Transit District
(L TD) and City staff, ODOT had developed a preliminary design fora pedestrian crossing on Main
Street near 51st Street at a location with a high crash rate. The concept would utilize a warning beacon
known as a Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) and the existing median at that location.
Improved street lighting at this crossing location would also be considered with the final design.
Several alternative designs were considered by ODOT and the supporting agency personnel. After
considering the impacts and overall safety improvements, staff supported the proposed design. The
challenge with this design was that it required closure of an access to a local business. The business
had 3 other access points to their site; one on Main Street and two on N 51 st Street.
The key factor that required the closure of this access was that for the crossing to be safe, the bus must
stop beyond the crosswalk creating a "far-side" stop. This configuration would increase visibility
between vehicles and pedestrians who were attempting to cross when buses were present. Because of
the existing intersections and driveway locations, the stop must be moved to the west to allow for
placement of the crosswalk and create the "far.side" stop situation. This would place the stop location
immediately in front of the access causing additional conflicts and safety concerns. Therefore, closing
the access would reduce the additional hazard for pedestrians and allow the crossing to be constructed
with a far-side stop configuration.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 1, 2010
Page 2
ODOT sent a letter to the property owner on Feb. 10,2010 to determine if there was any opposition to
closing the access. The property owner resides out of state and the local business owner was a tenant
at the site. As of February 18th, 2010, the property owner had not responded to ODOT. Even if the
business or property owner objected to the access closure, ODOT had the authority to proceed with the
closure because the driveway was never permitted.
ODOT would like to inform the Council of the proposed pedestrian improvement and the associated
driveway closure before embarking on the improvements and closing the access, and was seeking
Council support for the safety improvement project.
Councilor Simmons said he was supportive of the crosswalk component to assist with those crossing
the street in this area; however, the consequences of closing the western driveway of the Driftwood
needed to include feedback from the owners. If they had the LID stop in the location presented in the
agenda packet, traffic would'weave to get around the bus. As people made that weave, they would be
looking at the traffic hazard ahead of their travel, and would also have pedestrians nearby which meant
a lot of conflict for the driver. The concept of moving the bus stop didn't take into account that when
the lift was dropped it would be in the middle of South 51st. A flat spot was needed to get the
wheelchair off the lift and away from the bus safely. On the west side, if the bus stop was west of the
Driftwood as proposed, that conflict was flipped 180 degrees. h created a complex intersection for
vehicles coming onto Main Street from 51st Street and vehicles turning left from Main onto 51 sl Street.
They needed to be careful of any unintended consequences of this design. The concept of the
crosswalk was fine, but the other implications were complicated for pedestrians, bus drivers, and
vehicles. He discussed the driveway going into NorthWest Community Credit Union and the traffic
going in and out of there turning in front of the bus when stopped. Those things needed to be carefully
resolved. He noted that lighting was also a problem.
Mr. Perry referred to the ADA access issue presented by Councilor Simmons. L TD consulted on that
issue and had determined this location would allow for a flat landing to disembark. L TO was worried
that if they were curbside, riders could end up in the parking lot, putting them in danger. In addition,
additional lighting would be placed in that area to light up the crosswalk. There would be a pedestrian
activated crossing beacon located at this site. This type of beacon was in place on Bailey Hill Road in
Eugene. The beacon would be placed in the median as well as on the shoulder, visible from about one
mile away, to provide a good indication to drivers that pedestrians wanted to use the crosswalk. He
referred to the weave motion of vehicles getting around LTD. Unfortunately, due to the nature of Main
Street, that hazard existed throughout the corridor at all bus stops. They had tried to come up with a
design that would minimize the negative impacts and maximize the positive. The initial design did
more harm than good. Moving the stop to the far side of the crossing and closing the access would
make a safer condition. They did discuss leaving the access open with the bus stopping at the access,
but determined through internal discussions that would create more hazards. He discussed the far side
stop and the near side stop and why they chose to go with the far side stop. The group felt this was the
best opportunity taking into account the vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
Councilor Leezer said she appreciated that they would be using flashing beacons. She asked if there
was any way a portion of the parking lot could be taken so the bus could pull off, eliminating the
weaVIng Issue.
Mr. Perry said OOOT was trying to do this expeditiously. Doing a pull out would require right-of-way
acquisition which would take much more time and money. It was a great idea, but was not feasible at
this time.
City of Springfield
Council :Work Session Minutes
March 1,2010
Page 3
Councilor Pishioneri complimented staff for great turnaround time on this project. He referred to the
crossing on Olympic which was similar and asked if there had been any pedestrian/vehicle accidents at
that location since the improvements. He was pleased with the design. Because it was so busy, people
would try to slow down. Having the bus stop after the crosswalk was a good idea, as was adding light
on the west side. He noted that the business owners had been contacted. He asked if they had
responded.
Mr. Perry said there were initial discussions with the tenant of the building (Driftwood) when they
were proposing closure of the east access. The tenant had actually made that proposal. ODOT was in
the process of contacting them along with City staff about the western access being closed. The
property owner had been contacted, who deferred it to the business owner.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if that was the potential pushback regarding access closure that Mr.
Chickering referred to in his letter. Yes. Councilor Pishioneri said he was supportive of the design.
Mayor Leiken asked if the speed limit was discussed.
Mr. Perry said it was discussed internally and with ODOT. The consensus was that the road had been
designed for that speed. If the speed was reduced farther, most people would travel at what was
comfortable to them. If others travelled at the newer lower speed, there was a huge speed differential
which caused another safety concern. Until the road was redesigned to cause lower speed, lowering the
speed limit would have an ill effect.
Mayor Leiken said it was rare when people drove 40 mph on that road.
Councilor Pishioneri said east of 58th Street, the speed limit was set at 45. He would like to see it
reduced to 40 mph.
Mr. Perry said he would talk with ODOT about that. That area was not included in the crossing area,
but he believed it was included in the safety corridor study.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 6:52 p.m.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
Attest:
~~