HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6260 07/06/2010
ORDINANCE NO. 6260
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN (TRANSPLAN) TO
ADJUST THE PLANNING PERIOD FROM YEAR 2015 TO YEAR 2027; TO
REMOVE COMPLETED PROJECTS FROM THE PROJECT LISTS; AND TO
MAKE RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN; AND ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
The City Council of the City of Springfield finds that:
WHEREAS, Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan (Metro Plan) sets forth procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan, which for
Springfield are implemented by the provisions of Chapter 5 of the Springfield
Development 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, the TransPlan serves the goals, objectives and policies of the Metro
Plan by addressing a variety of transportation issues and includes project lists and maps
identifying financially constrained roadway projects and future roadway projects; and
WHEREAS, The City Council adopted TransPlan by Ordinance No. 5328,
enacted on May 5, 1986, which was subsequently 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, Ordinance No. 5990 enacted on
September 17, 2001, Ordinance No. 6022 enacted on July 15, 2002, and Ordinance No.
6240 enacted on April 6, 2009, adopting a revised Transportation Element of the Metro
Plan and adopting revisions to TransPlan.
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2007, the Metropolitan Policy Committee adopted
an update to the federally-required Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); the update
included extending the RTP's planning period to 2031 and deleting projects that had been
completed or that were determined to be no longer needed; and
WHEREAS, following a public hearing on April 7 2009, the Springfield
Planning Commission recommended to the Springfield City Council that TransPlan be
amended to adjust the planning period from year 2015 to year 2024, to remove completed
transportation projects from TransPlan's project lists, and to make related amendments to
the Metro Plan. On September 1, 2009, following Eugene, Springfield and Lane
County's adoption of coordinated population forecasts, the Springfield Planning
Commission recommended to the Springfield City Council that the previously-
recommended 2024 planning period be adjusted to reflect the newly adopted population
numbers; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2010, the City Council conducted a public hearing on
these amendments, and is now ready to take action based upon the above
recommendations and the evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the
evidence and testimony presented at the public hearings held on adopting revisions to
TransPlan and to the Metro Plan; and
WHEREAS, substantial evidence exists within the record that the proposal meets
the requirements of Chapter 5 of the Springfield Development Code and the requirements
of applicable state and local law as described in the findings adopted in support of this
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, amendments of the project lists in TransPlan require simultaneous
amendment of the same project lists in the Metro Plan as described by Policy F.9,
Chapter III, of the Metro Plan; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Common Council of the City of Springfield does
ordain as follows:
Section 1. TransPlan, adopted by Ordinance No. 5328, enacted on May 5,
1986, which was subsequently 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, Ordinance No. 5990 enacted on September 17, 2001, Ordinance No.
6022 enacted on July 15, 2002, and Ordinance No. 6240 enacted on April 6, 2009
is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A attached and incorporated herein by this
reference,
Section 2. The revisions to the 20- Year Financially-Constrained Roadway
Projects list 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. Project timing and
estimated costs are not adopted as policy.
Section 3. The Metro Plan, Transportation Element, Chapter III, Section F, is
hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit B attached and incorporated herein by this
reference,
Section 4. The City Council adopts the findings set forth in the attached
Exhibit C in support of this action.
Section 5. 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 hereof.
ORDINANCE NO. 6260
Section 6: Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided by
Section 2,110 of the Springfield Municipal Code 1997, this Ordinance shall become
effective upon the date that all of the following have occurred: (a) the ordinance has been
acknowledged as provided by ORS 197.625; (b) at least 30 days have passed since the
date the ordinance was approved; and (c) both the Eugene City Council and the Lane
County Board of Commissioners have adopted ordinances containing identical provisions
to those described in Sections 1-3 of this Ordinance.
Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this ~ day of
July ,2010 by a vote of ~ in favor ~ against.
Approved by the Mayor of the Cit
July ,2010.
ATTEST:
CitYR~
REVIEWED & PP OVED
AS TO J=..' " /
!.~.
DATE:
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
ORDINANCE NO. 6260
: Exhibit A
Trends 'and Issues
The region is anticipating significant population and employment growth. The population of the
Eugene-Springfield area is expected to grow by 41 percent by [~] 20,27. Employment in the
region is expected to grow by 43 percent during that same period. A forecast of trends during the
planning pe~od points to several issues should land use patterns and travel behavior continue as
. they exist today.
. c> Congestion would rise dramatically, increasing the cost of travel and reducing the efficiency of the region's
roadway network. Congested miles of travel would increase from 2.8 percent oftQtal miles traveled to 10.6
percent, a 283 percent increase, Vehicle miles traveled per Capita would go from 10.99 to 11.83, a 7.7 percent
increase.
c> One of the primary roles played by public agencies is in the provision of transportation system infrastructure.
Without a balanced approach to the development of future improvements, little change will be made in th~
transportation choices available to the region. . With little improvement in choices, the proportion of drive alone
auto trips would increase while the proportion of alternative modes use would decrease. .
c> Shorter trip distance is one factor that contributes to making the use of alternative modes more attractive. The
percentage of total trips under one mile in length would decline by 9.2 percent.
Overview of the Regional Transportation Syste~ Plan
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) guides regional
transportation system planning and development m the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area
TransPlan includes provisions for meeting the transportation demand of a projected population
of 296,500 in the TransPlan Study Area, [resideBts 0'Jer a 20 year plaaning horizon] while
addressing transportation issues and making changes that can contribute to improvements in the
region's quality of life and economic vitality. As discussed u~der the "Participating Agencies,
Geographic Area and Planning Period" s.f!ction of this Chapter, the TransPlan Study 4rea is
an area extending beyond the UGB and Metro Plan boundary that is uSed for transportation
. modeling purposes.
There is a great deal of flexibility in choosing how the region's transportation demand is met via
supply decisions and demand management strategies. With the balanced and integrated
combination of land use, transit, demand management, and bicycle strategi~s included in .
TransPlan, significant progress can be made away from the trends, Notably, while congestion
will still increase significantly over existing conditionS, TransPlan's proposed combination of
strategies will help reduce future congestion by 48 percent over forec~ed trends,
Comnared to the future Trend Conditions, there will also be:
c> . 8 percent less vehicle miles traveled (VMO per capita,
c> 20.5 percent more trips under one mile in length,
c> 7 percent fewer drive alone trips,
c> 29 percent more non-auto trips, and
c> 11 percent less carbon monoxide emissions.
TramPlan
July 2002
Chapter 1, Page 2
concepts indicated that TDM strategies can contribute ~o greater use of modes
such as bicycling, walking, transit, and carpoo~ng,
TransPlan focuses on voluntary demand management strategies, such as
incentives, i.e., free or reduced-cost bus pass programs, In the future, the region
may explore opportunities to establish market-based, user-pay programs to offset
subsidization of the ~e cost of automobile use and other transportation services,
The region can maintain conformity with air quality standards over the next 20 '
years.
The computer model indicated that the region will be able to maintain conformity
with existing national air quality standards through implementation of any of the
alternative plan concepts. Despite traffic growth, the offsetting effects of less-
polluting and more fuel-efficient new vehicles will cause a net decline in
emissions, even under trend conditions, The attainment and maintenance of air
quality standards is primarily due to improved auto emission technology, rather
than reduced reliance on autos.
Participating Agencies, [aDd] Geographic Area and
Planning Period
TransPlan represents a coordinated effort of public agencies and citizens, The local jurisdictions
involved in regional transportation planning include the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG),
the cities of Eugene and Springfield, Lane County, and Lane Transit District (LID). Other
agencies involved in the planning process include the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT), the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAP A), Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD), Federal Highway Administration (FHW A), and the
Federal Transit Agency (FT A).
The TransPlan study area is illustrated in Figure 1. As shown on Figure 1, the study area is an
area extending beyond the UGB and Metro Plan boundary.
When TramPlan was updated in 2001, it was anticipated that the TransPlan Study Area's
population would reach 296,500 in 2015. It is now anticipated that the TramPlan Study
Area's population will not reach 296,500 until approximately ~027. Since the transportation
modeling for the TransPlan Study Area was based on a projected population of 296,500,
TransPlan guides regional and transportation system planning and development in the
TransPlan Study Area until 2027. Accordingly, TramPlan's planning period has been
updated to 2027. AdditionaUy, the Regional Transportation Work Plan, adopted by the Land
Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) on October 16, 2008, required an
adjustment to TransPlan's planning period to more accurately reflect the year that the plan's
study area would hit the projected population and to bring TransPlan's planning period closer
to the planning period of the planning period of the federally-required Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP).
TransP/an
July 2002
Chapter 1, Page 5
Even though TransPlan's planning period is extended until 2027, TransPlan continues to
contain some references to 2015. References to 2015 remain in TransPlan when the 2015
year is in conjunction with percentages reached using the Regional Travel Forecasting
Model; this model predictsfuture human choices based on more than just projected
population. References to 2015 also remain in TransPlan in terms of the LCDC-approved
alternative'performance measures (Order Ol-LCDC-024); these references arefound in
Chapter 4 to TransPlan. -rile local governments intend to meet the 2015 alternative
performance measure goals regardless of population. Further, because TransPlan was
originally adopted to servers] as ~] the federally required RTP [Regional TFanSf>ortatien
Plan for the Eagene 8fJringfield area and as the Transp0rtatioB Funetienal Plan for the E'Ngs1'le
Springfield ..4Fea Ge1'lersl Plan (A/etr8 Plan)] in addition to the state-required regional
transportation system plan, TransPlan includes references to a [, 1:\":0 planniag horizons are
referred to in the dOeUlllEmt 2015 ana 2921, The 2915 pliniiBg horizan is used to be eoasistent
v.ith the 20 15 ~4etro Plan planning horizon, In partieulai", fereeasted regional land use
aUoeatioBslise Metro Plan's 2015 land lises as a basis. The 2015 planning horizon iS1:lSea in
eonjtlfletion v.ita the Performanee ~4easares eOBtaifled in Chapter 4 that are a reqW.fefReBt of
LCDC' 5 Transportatien Planning Rule.] [A] 2021 planning [herizofl] year [has been deYleleped
to meet] that met federal requirements[for maintaining at least a 20 year flnaneial eonstFaint and
air qeality eonfermity determination]. While TransPlan no longer serves as thefederally
required RTP, references to the 2021 planning year remain throughout this document.
[Beeal::lse there is Be offieialland use alloeation beyond 2015, the 2020 fefeeasts repr-eseBt an
eKtrapolation of 20 15 populatioB and employment,]Revenue and Cost estimates used in
TransPlan are for 2021.
TransPlan Legal Status and Adopted 'Sections
Local jurisdictions will adopt TransPlan as the region's transportation plan. The portions
of TransPlan that will be adopted as Metro Plan policy amendments include goals, policies
and 20-year ilScally constrained Capital Investment Action project lists (programmed and
unprogrammed projects).
Under state law, TransPlan is a functional plan of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan'Area
General Plan (Metro Plan). The Metro Plan is the official long-range general plan (public
policy document) for the region comprised of the cities of Eugene and Springfield and
metropolitan Lane County, The Metro Plan establishes the broad framework upon which
Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County make coordinated land use decisions, As a functional
plan, TransPlan must be consistent with the Metro Plan, Metro Plan amendments required for
consistency will be adopted by the elected officials concurrent with the adoption of TransPlan,
See Appendix F: Metro Plan Text Amendments for a description of proposed amendments, -
TramPlan
July 2002
Chapter 1, Page 6
. )
Transportation Dem,and Management Policies
TransPlan transportation demand management (TDM) policies direct the development and
implementation of actions that encourage the use of modes other than single-occupant vehicles to
meet daily travel needs. The TDM policies support changes in travel behavior to reduce traffic
congestion and the need for additional road capacity and parking and to support desired patterns
of development.
TDM Findings
TDM addresses federal ISTEA and state TPR requirements to reduce reliance on the
automobile, thus helping to postpone the need for expensive capital improvements, The need for
TDM stems from an increasing demand for and a constrained supply of road ~apacity, created by
the combined effects of an accelerated rate of population growth (41 % projected increase from
1995 to [~] 2027) and increasing highway construction and maintenance costs; for example,
the City of Eugene increased the Transportation systems development charges by a total of 15
percent to account for inflation from 1993-1996.
1. The Regional Travel Forecasting Modelrevealed that average daily traffic on most major
streets is growing by 2-3 percent per year. Based on 1994 Commuter Pack Survey results,
half of the local residents find roads are congested at various ~es of the day;. and the vast
majority finds roads are congested during morning and evening rush hours.
2, The COMSIS TDM Strategy Evaluation Model, used in August, 1997 to evaluate the impact
ofTDM strategies, found that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips are reduced up
to 3 percent by voluntary strategies (e.g., employer-paid bus pass program) and up to 10
percent by mandatory strategies (e.g" m~datory employer support); that requiring
employers to increase the cost of employee parking is far more effective than reducing
, employee. transit costs; and that a strong package of voluntary strategies has a greater impact
on VMT and vehicle trips than a weak package of mandatory strategies.
3, Lane Transit District (LTD) system ridership has increased 53 percent since the first group
pass program was implemented in 1987 with University of Oregon students and employees,
4, The OHP recognizes that TDM strategies can be implemented to reduce trips and impacts to
inajor transportation facilities, 'such as freeway interchanges, postponing the need for
investments incapacity-increasing projects,
5, The study, An Evaluation of Pricing Policies for Addressing Transportation Problems
(ECONorthwest, July 1995), found that implementation of congestion pricing in the Eugene-
Springfield area would be premature because the level of public acceptance is low and the
costs of implementation are substantial; and that 'parking pricing is the only TDM pricing
strategy that would be cost-effective during the 20-year planning period.
TramP/an
July 2002
Chapter 2, Page 19
Chapter 3: Table la-Financially CO'nstrained
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 fell1 3tll:~~l R\llC1J Ay~"ue b., COh6l",.cll,~~. 2 1\1 a lafls Ct1gCftt $1,116,999 9.11 187
Rco~..~lt Botllc..8M t1l'be" feelli!)
West Eugene Seneca Road to BeltJine W 11th - Galfleld: +lane ODOT $17,283,000 1.3 336
Parkway, (1A) Road new construction
Status Sub-Total. $28,799,000
StatuS: Unprogrammed
Centennial 28th Street to 35th Street Construct 3-lane urban Springfield . $3,000,000 0.5 930
Boulevartl
TramPlan
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 14
Geographic. Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Pi6l,c.er r 61 knA.r I 1c,lv.. ",-,ad Lv BlWltt;. tIC: 4-B ICIII~ 1111'Jut at b::. lal SlJI Illy fttdd $6,~Qu,OOO I 100
C^~,.vi~J . Read
West Eugene Garfield Street to Seneca W 11th - Garfield: 4-lane ODOT $34,231,000 1.3337Parkway ~
(18) Road newconsbuction, continued
West Eugene West 11th Avenue to Construct two lanel!! of future ODOT $30,496,000 2.56 338
Parkway (2A) Beltline Road 4-lane roadway
West Eugene West 11'" Avenue to Construct remaining two lanes ODOT $6.~45,OOO 2.56 339
Parkway (28) Beltline Road
Status SutJ-Total
. $82,772,000
Project Category Sub-Total
$111,571,000
TransPlan
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 15
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Cost Length Number
Project Category: Added Freeway Lanes or Major
Interchange Improvements
Status: Programmed
BeltliRe IligRn8~
R8)81 f..efltt8 te
Reese. elt Bettle . are
G.ercr6ofling 8t RO)f1I. ()a~
6eRtiRtt8 nidcRiRg to ( 111"'~~
~Owtl, l\., lu:l.vud ~huwl"'lw.
SBRstRlet Reeee.elt
oxt.ans's" frell, Beltlinc te.
Bl1l,~b", (..II ~t ~,&d~ ",:~"..I
eBRtFelleEl iRtereeelieR 8f
Beltli"e ll"d R~el\~ ..ell
(CaeT. '.."(.1111, rt..i~ Jj",ib..
stege.iT-
$14,683.888
4-sa
1-5
@ Beltline Highway
ROW Purchase
OOOT
$1,250,000
o
606
DeIta/BeIUine
Interchange
Interim/safety improvements; Lane County
replace/revise existing
ramps;.widen Delta
Highway bridge to 5 lanes
$5,500,000
~
638
Status Sub- Total
$21,449,000
Status: Unprogrammet!
1-5
@ Beltline Highway
Reconstruct interchange
and 1-5. upgrade Beltline
Road East to 5 lane urban
facility, and construct 1-5
bike and pedestrian bridge.
ODOT
$53,300.000
o
606
TransPlan
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 16
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Cost Length Number
Project Category: Arterial Capacity Improvements
Status: Programmed
BeltUnc Iliah..8~ @IS GBfaty i"'lSre..~m~l'Its OOO:r $1,7,(6,888 8 S8:-
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
8tftRth IAterseetieA Garfield Street te rre~de i",,,re.eme,,ta St:letl GEleT, $SE8,eee e lSB
1""re'JeFReRt '.l\,'ast\iRgteFl.'Je1fefS8A 86 8sditi8F1afttlFR 18Aes aAd El:IgeFle)
ell tel tIJl;~"al ;11''''' VVIGlllg, ,ha.
illlb'........[;\:>..l> i1,dud6 6t! flth
.J\..eAtleS at Garfield,
Ohambers,
WeshiflgteAo'Jeffet S8A
SWeet 8riEtle
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 41-5 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 @ Ph~.sant 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
TramPlan
July 2002
~apter 3, Page 18
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Project Category: New Collectors
Status: Unprogrammed
19th Street Yolanda Avenue to Extend existing street as Springfield $891,000 0.33 703
Hayden Bridge Road 2-lane collector
30th Street Main Street to Centennial New collector street Springfield $904.500 0.67 915
Boulevard
36th Street Yolanda Avenue to Extend existing street as Springfield $1,701,000 0.63 709
Marcola Road 2-lane collector per Local
Street Plan.
54th Street Main Street to Daisy New 2-lane collector Springfield $756,000 0.28 87
Street
79th Street Main Street to Thurston New 2 to 3-18ne collector Springfield $1,000,000 0.37 18
Road
A.ralaFl €treet QFeeAt:liII Reas te (,:ew1 ~Je.. "'sjar Ballester iy!eAe $819,999 9.3 1~
Street-
{,~",i"~' '^'~y <ramn ~aAR !ia.t?u' t; MeR "pgFEuile ~ t8 :lIaRs WAlaR ipFiRlfield t1,212,999 e.1@ 721
....1'11:1 BeldA eeFlRester faeiJ~
Qaisy iAst 1itt:! itrs9tte 18tl:1 iRet ~Ie'" 2 te ~ laRe lIAl8F1 €fJFiFl!fiels C929,999 9.27 21
UdCfltsisR fssilif> , tfafile BBRtral
improvements
Future Collector A Gilham to County Farm New neighborhood collector Eugene $1,890,000 0.7 651
Road @ Locke Street
Future Collector C1 Unda Lane - Jasper Road New 2 to 3-lane urban Springfield $1,350,000 0.5 33
Extension . collector
Future Collector C2 Jasper Road - New 2 to 3-lane urban Springfield $3,510,000 1.3 36
Mountaingate c:;ollector
Future Collector C3 Jasper Road Extension - New 2 to 3-lane urban Springfield . $1,890,000 0.7 39
East Natron cOllector
Future Collector C4 East-west in Mid-Natron New 2 to 3-lane urban Springfield $1,620,000 0.6 42
site collector
Future Collector C5 Loop Rd in South Natron New 2 to 3-lane urban Springfield $2,700,000 45
Site collector
Future Collector C6 Mt Vemon Road - Jasper New 2 to 3-lane urban Springfield $2,700,000 48
Road Extension collector
TransP/an
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 20
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 Hili 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 majorcoflector 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
Ola"~.ood I S te Ln.l:ffalllill Dri.~ tJe.. eellaeter Cl:flJePle $2,565,888 8.95 25.4
Q8i:11e Jare
U""..$;O/l
WyasiRtR itreet 1~'iRgtQR QR"S t9 ~Ie'u R9i9~~OJ:Rg~H' G911gstgr &lIg9R9 iiOO. (JOQ Q1~ ~17
l~R"R19" QA"S
l(iASr:O'u ^''9RWe ~9Rt9RRial Q9..ls'~", tQ ~Ie'u R9igI:l99r:R99" s911eGt9r EW1l9A9 sa9O,OOO O~ GGO
gSF8eFl '~.'a~
balte i9' '/PaRt'iw" QilRa~ Read t9 C9YRt!! ~Ie'" A9igRIil9R:1Sfl" GolleGter IiwgG'R9 t1.'1~~.OOO O&f V~A
;-8"" Read
begasy itreet SaFfler Qr:i"e te AvaleR Ne'l.J ~aj8r eellester El:IgeRe $888,888 8.2 115
~
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
M9wRtaiRgst9 QW'9 MaiA $tJeet t9 i9w#! nUl tole'" 3 laRB sallester Sf3RRgfieIEl S2,139,999 9.9 18
-Qfeet-
Mt Vernon Road Jasper Road Extension to Extend existing street as . Springfield $540,000 0.2 81
Mountaingate Drive 2-Jane collector
V Street 31st Street to Marcola New 2 to 3-Jane colledor Springfield $1,755,000 0.65 777
Road
Vera DrivelHayden 15th Street to 20th Street New 2 to 3-Jane urban Springfield $918,000 0.34 780
Bridge Road collector
TransPlan July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 21
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Cost Length Number
Project Category: Urban Standards
Status: Programmed
[18tl' Avc:nn..""
AYr&3 Road
Bertelsen Road
Bbltbl6611 R.:oad t(.. '/iillun 1::I~/4de 16 i lai16ljubal,
Creel€ Read feeilit1"
Delta IlighnlaY to Gilham UP9.6de to 2 to SooJane t:ll bal.
Road . faeilit}"
18th Avenue to Bailey HDI Upgrade to 2 to 3-Iane urban
Road facility
Ctlgene,Lsfle
CSYRty
Ctlg!ne
Eugene
$1,98&,999
$1..262,e88
$1,035,000
9.71
393
a.52
683
0.6
315
825
CgbUJg RgaGl
KiRAey Leep te ^FR4itags RsseRstntst te ~ laRe YFBaR
.psfh faeilit} 18 bleB, ttlFft laAe @
JBRt eARA., NFal
laAe CetlAt}
52,389,999 1.19
Delta l=Iigt-J':ay
€86
Ayres ReaEl te BemiAe bI,greEle Ie 3 laAe t1FBSA
Read fasilily
EI:I(iJeAe
5999,999 9.91
Dillard Road
Fox Hollow Road
43rd Street to Garnet Upgrade to 2-1ane urban
Street facility
Donald Street to UGB Upgrade to 2-lane urban
facility
Eugene
Eugene, Lane
County
$450,000 0.34
$841,000 0.5
233
245
&67
Carden \.:8~
GistefS Vie.. A.-BAtte Ie l.:JI'gF8se Ie 2 Ie a laAe YFBaA
Centenflial B8ttle..SfS fseilil}'
I;ttgeAe
~1 ,71 &,999 9.'7&
664
Goodpasture
Island Road
Delta Highway to Happy Upgrade to 2-lane urban
Lane facility
Eugene
$413,000
0.19
18&
(;FeeAJ::lill ReaEl
~JaFtR QaYAElary ef..l)iFpaFt ClesiRg sf SJli&tiR@I reaEl BREI
Ie AiFpeFt Reaa realigRMeRt sf Bast
bSttfl8Sfl" at airpeft I'fI8l'e~ .
LaAa CSYAty,
l;ygeAe
~3,999,gg9
a.98
533
1F\~RgteR ReaEl
River ReaEl Ie PreiFie Reaa Up,FaEle te 2 te ~ laAe YFBaR
'faeiIKY-
baAe CSYFltr
f2,SS9,999
111
f~2
PreiFie ReaEl Carel laAa Ie 1F>'iAgtSR
DFil:e
Royal Avenue Terry Street to Greenhill
Road
ReesAstFYet ts 3 laAe YFBaA
faeilily
Upgrade to 3-Iane urban
. facility
laRB CeyMy
Lane County,
Eugene
$825,ggg
g 25
481
8In:;ltvll-'M~u.tJlR:ll UII\AJIII 31. tu Puca.! Bl.
UtJy. cadb tu "'I ba.. facifit)
Cdg61.a
$2,680,000
1.01
459
Seward Sl Wayside to Manor
Connection
Upgrade to local urban
standards
Gateway/Hariow GatewaylHariow
Intersection
Intersection improvements
Gateway/Game Gateway/Game Farm
Farm Rd. East Rd. Eastintersection
Intersection improvements
TransP/an
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield
Status Sub-Total
$1,495,9ge
9..
$40,000
0.25
$1,300,000
0.5
$400,000
0.25
$22,681,000
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 23 0
787
785
786
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
StatuS: Unprogrammed
28th Street Main Street to Centennial Widen/provide sidewalks Springfield $1,050,000 0.7 909
Boulevard and bike lanes; provide
intersection and signal
improvements at Main Street
31st Street Hayden Bridge Road to U Upgrade to 2 to 3-1ane urban Lane County $1,275.000 0.85 765
Street facility
35th Street Commercial Avenue to Upgrade to 3-la08 urban Springfield $920,000 0.46 918
Olympic Street facility
42nd Street Marcola Road to Railroad Reconstruct to 3-lane urban Springfield $2,060,000 1.03 713
Tracks facility
48th Street Main Street to G Street Upgrade to 2-la08 urban Springfield $720,000 0.48 3
facility
52nd Street G Street to Upgrade to 2-lane urban Springfield $300,000 0.2 6
Eugene-Springfield facility
Highway (SR 126)
69th Street Main Street to Thurston Widen on east side of Springfield $840.000 0.56 15
Road roadway
Agate Street 30th Avenue to Black Oak Upgrade to 2-lane urban Eugene $585,000 0.39 215
Road facility
Aspen Street West D Street to Reconstruct to 2 to 3-Iane Lane County, $750,000 0.5 809
Centennial Boulevard urban facility Springfield
Baldy VieW Lane Deadmond Ferry Road to Upgrade to urban standards Springfield $420,000 0.28 715
the end of dedicated
right-of-way
Bethel Drive Roosevelt Boulevard to Upgrade to 2-la08 urban Eugene $2,500;000 1.68 414
Highway 99 facility
Cel'ltel'l"ial BJ~~t Maret) Ohase te I 5 YI'!f8se te tfr6SA f8eil~ ~tf8eFle Ii 199,999 9.1 i~7
(R8R~ 6i&l8)
Commercial Street 35th Street to 42nd Street Upgrade to 3-la08 urban Springfield $1,620.000 0.81 933
facility
County Fann Loop North-to-South Section Upgrade to 3-lane urban Lane County, $825,000 0.55 631
facility Eugene
County Fann Loop West-te-East Section Upgrade to 2-lane urban Lane County, $795,000 0.53 632
facility Eugene
Deadmond Ferry Baldy VieW Lane to Upgrade to urban standards Springfield $1,095.000 0.73 724
Road McKenzie River
Division Avenue Division Place to River Upgrade to 2 to 3-lane urban Eugene $1,720,000 0.86 509
Avenue facility
, Ch"ire Read Bertelsefl Read te W"grad6 16 2 laR6 tlreSR CtlgeRe $1,81 s,eee 1.21 -429
TramPlan July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 24
Highway 99 facility
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
G Street 48th Street to 52nd Street Upgrade to 2-lane urban Springfield $465,000 0.31 54
facility
Oaltle raft'l, ~eluf S~bt:JfIg Read t() I S 1::Jt'~, gd~ l\., ~ to 8 Ig.... UI b.!.1I Cu,,'Vt l~, Lall,", ~!, 1 36,686 1.3 6:t4
.ftoJeFtI:l fseili~ eetlR~
Game Farm Road Game Farm Road East to Upgrade to 2-lane urban Lane County, $1,395,000 0.93 737
South Harlow Road facility Springfield
<€i1I:1SFR Read ~IeFtI:lSFRFRe6t NS'ff IJPBFaSS 18 ~ laRs YFIilSR BYj9R9 iigg,Oog g ~i 662 '
Celleeter Ie :\~Fe8 Re8e faeUit'"
Greenhill Road Barger Drive to West 11 th Upgrade to 2 to 3-lane urban Lane County, $5,000,000 2.5 454
Avenue facility Eugene
Greenhill Road Barger Drive to Airport Rural widening and Lane County $2,000,000 2 485
Road intersection modifications
Hayden Bridge Yolanda Avenue to Reconstruct to 2-lane urban Lane County $2,310,000 1.54 747
Road Marcola Road facility
Hunsaker Lane I Division Avenue to River Upgrade to 2-lane urban Lane County $1,710,000 1.14 527
Beaver Street Road facility
Jeppesen Acres Gilham Road to Upgrade to 2-1ane urban Eugene $525,000 0.35 670
Road Providence Street facility
Laura Street Scotts Glen Drive to Widen to 3-lane urban Springfield $800,000 0.4 750
Harlow Road facility
Maple Sll (let Ree.38.elt Settle.aM t6 l:JI'gl'tle6 t8 2 la"6 ttrb8R Cttg81'18 $219,999 9.11 189
I!(fl ,;,,(. RDil8 feeili!)
61d Oobtil Q Road Oall,<:- rarm Read te Oha8 l:J"~1'88C. ta a leRe ttrb81'1 Ctfgt...e 5525,999 9.95 S8e
D.;v'V faaili!)
oRi';er .lI.. erule Rivsr Read te gi'~6ieR blPBFaaS Ie 2 tel i laRB WAJaR EI:.Ig9R9 $1,700.QQQ Qe5 ~<l2
A.!I ,~c. fa eilif)
Ri"er Resd CsFtl:lsge A SIUle te \A ~B8F1 te 3 ISFI's tlR:lSFl baRe ~etlFl~ i999,999 9.38 fi1fi
S64CO.. ElI:.6 facility ,
S. 28th Street Main Street to Millrace Upgrade to 3-lane urban Springfield $2,000,000 0.67 945
facility
'8 ~~Rd Street ~ ~aiR €tfeet te RaUFesd I:If!lBFBEfe 1e a 18Re t1rIa8f1 SI'fiftgfiele $8ge,8e8 8.4 948
..feeiIHy-
S. 12R8 Gtf eet MaiR &tfeet te Ja8f!ler ReaeRMftlet te 2 Ie a laRe 999T 51,Ege,eee 9.8 95.4
tt1'88f1 faeilit), etlFt3s,
silfa.. all~.(I. Il' ,8 hilus. IIlPl.a3
TransP/an
July 2002
Chapter 3t Page 25
Name
Geographic
Limits
Descrip:tioD
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Cost Length Number
Project Category: Study
Status: Programmed
r .,. ,. e ieltriR8
. $twiy i. QiniSA
e IRte_aRge
Prejeet Ete 'elSplReRt . sF<<
gsm-
C3,27i,999
898
Status Sub- Total
$3,375,000
. '
Status: Unprogrammed
1-5 Interchange Willamette River south Comprehensive study of 1-5 OOOT $750,000 - 250
Study to 30th 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
Co burg Road Crescent Avenue to Access management/ Eugene $100,000 2.24 619
Oakway Road safety-operational study
I r err) atreet Bridae Oalt..ay Rcad te L5f1a Rafla.... S8P8eit~ LtlaeFle i:ae9,999 1.98 139
Bre8d..8~ Rcfi"emel.t Plsl.
SCtftR 88f11( &treet Mill Gtl'eet 18 I iii) 8f8 e8.eI6~ fefiFl8ffteflt "lsR fer Ctlaefle. $269,999 178
IA'lJ!lFB.8IR8Rte StFeet etFeet 8)8t8IR GB01"
W 11th Avenue BeltJine Road to Access Management, Eugene $100,000 2.74 332
Chambers Street Safety, and Operational
Study
Wi/Jamette 13th Avenue to 33rd Corridor study to determine Eugene $250,000 5.55 187
Street/Amazon Avenue improvements
Parkway/Patterson
Street/Hilyard Street
Main Street/ 1-5 to UGB Access management plan OOOT/Springfield $100,000 6.0 838
Highway 126
Eugene-Springfield 1-5 to Main Corridor Study OOOT/Springfield $150,000 6.5 835
Hwy.
Main St. and 5200 52nd to Main Interchange Plans OOOT/Springfield $100,000 1.5 96
St./Hwy 126 Int.
Beltline River Rd to Coburg Rd Facility Plan Study OOOT $500,000 3.46 555
Status Sub-Total $3,050,000
Project Category Sub-Total $6,425,000
TramPlan
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 27
-
-
Chapter 3: Table 2 - Financially Constrained
20-Year Capital Investment Actions: Transit Projects
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Estimated
Cost
Number
Proje~t Category: Buses and Bus Maintenance
Bus Purchases
I ~aA8ieA ef
0"er8tiflD 8855
New & replacement buses
$41.155,000
1110.1315
CleAneed Aear
rf8f1ldifl BJ JEt
E;MI3SflSiaFl af enistifl!
eJleretiafl SRd MsiFlteR8f18e
S6.ge9.9ge
1929
Project Category Sub- Total
$46,155,000
TransPlan
~,2002
Chapter 3, Page 3S
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Estimated
Cost
Number
Project Category: Stops and Stations
Project Type: General Stops and Stations
9 Park and Ride Lots To be determined Park-and-Ride lots along $9,000,000 1105,1305,1345
major corridors
^ wtlSR StaffeR VieiAit) ef ^~~e" rl'fol.!ft!1 Jtt\li':>lI alld J 1,000,600 1140
8lcadh..III1 Pet,l\-cllId-l'(ldt: lul
l~C &tatteR La"e Oemmtf"i~ D.~.."d Lee Shdfu.. JB06,060 112~
Ex"81.6icl'l 001le;6
Passenger Boarding Various locations Pads, Benches & Shelters $1,500.000 1130,1330,1355
Improvements
nil. & ~IU;IIl;l """"ll, uf 11 U. AYl;l TI'8I.J161 .stelti~", ,,~'.sibl) S1,999,999 1319 i
Statiol'l and Bc.IUine 1liahnA) Parlt an..'! ruda let
Oatenay & Beltlil.6 Vil:il,il) {)r T,,:,,,~rg. Qh:.li",.., ...."'~~;bl, J 1,666,666 13BO"
StatieR Cats'ray SR" SelliRe Jol'Ny PaFk 8A" Ri"e let
Project Type Sub-Total $14,000,000
Project Type: Stops and Stations in Nodal Development Areas
Passenger Boarding Various locations Pads. Benches & Shelters $1,500,000 1130,1330,1355
Improvements
~pRRitisld StatteR ge'J.'RtS'\'R ipRR(ffiel" ~ Ie.. trSR6it StetiSFl. $5.999,999 118S
Barger & Beltline Vicinity of Barger Transfer station $1,000,000 1310
Station Rd and Beltline Highway
ChurchiJIStation Vicinity of 18th Transfer station $1,000,000 1335
Avenue and Bailey Hili Road
Coburg & Beltline Vicinity of Coburg Transfer station $1,000.000. 1120
Station Rd and BeltUne Highway
Mohawk & Olympic Vicinity of Mohawk Transfer station $1,000,000 1325
Station Blvd and Olympic
Project Type Sub-Total $10,500,000
Projed Category Sub-Total $24,500,000
Total Capital Projects: Transit System $170,655,000
TransPlan
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 37
Chapter 3: Table 3a-Financially Constrained
20-Year Capital Investment Actions: Bicycle Projects .
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
. Project Category: Multi-.Use Paths Without Road Project
Status: Programmed
42REI Street Pathway Mar:sElla ReaEl te RailreaEl Multi Yse P.a#l SpAAgfielEl $616.000 4..4{) 795
"J:r:aGks
East 8aAlt Trail Q\\~e66e 8AElge te Multi .Use Path EugeAe $1.600.000 ~ 644
Greew::ay 8FiElge
Fem RiElge Path 1/2 T.eRY Street t9 GreeR Hill ~ll'ti \Jee Path E:llgeRe $2,600,000 2.91 Q3
ReaEl .
Status Sub- Total $4,715,000
Status: Unprogrammed
5th Avenue. Garfield Street to Route, Multi-Use Path Eugene $36,000 0.21 127
Chambers Street
5th Avenue Connector Garfield Street to Multi..lJse Path ODOT $205,000 0.36 130
(WEP) McKinley Street
Avalon Street (A) Candlelight Drive to Multi..lJse Path/Route Eugene $74,500 0.36 403
Beltline Path
Booth Kelly Road 28th Street to Multi-Use Path Springfield $245,08& Z:'4 921
Weyerhauser Truck Road
By Gulty Extension Mill Street to 5th Street Multi-Use Path Springfield, $80,000 0.11 812
Willamalane
Delta Ponds Path East Bank Trail to Robin Multi-Use Path and Bridge Eugene $1,372,000 1.06 637
Hood Lane
GaFGeA \\fay .' GaRee CaRal te N. BaAk Multi \Jee Path rygeAe $206,000 0.14 G6G
KAiskemsGl(er BFiElge +Fail
CeAReGter
1-5 Path Harlow Road to Chad Multi..lJse Path Eugene $716,OqO 0.89 668
McKenzie River Path 42nd Street to 52nd Multi-Use Path and Striped Springfield $2,620,000 1.55 753
Street Lane
Millrace Path (Eug.) (C) Moss Street Multi-Use Path Eugene $933.QQO. 0.51 169
to Rail underpass
Millrace Path (Spr.) 28th Stleet to 32nd Street Multi-Use Path Springfield $150,000 0.40 859
TramP/an
J'uty2002
Chapter 3, Page 40
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 1840
Street
Oakm9Rt PaR< Qalw:ay ReaEl te Ceowrg RElwte, Mwlti Use Path t;;:wgeRe $&7,ggO 0.27 &+i
ReaEl
Q Street Channel Centennial Loop to Multi-Use Path Eugene $565,200 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
Connedor (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
PrQject Category Sub-Total $14,732,700
TransPlan
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 41
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Le~gth Number
Project Category: On-Street Lanes or Routes With Road Project
Status: Programmed
11 tA .^.veRue T.eFry Street ta DaRebe Str:iJ:leEl lane' GDo:I" $0 0.<19 3Q3
.~.venYe
18th ftNeAue 8eFtelseR Reas te '.^Jillelf: Stripes laRS El:lgeRe,LaRe $0 0.86 303
Greek Reas Cel:lRty
AYles ReaEl Qelta HigAt'JaY te Gilham StripeEl LaRe &l:Igene SO Q:-&2 GQ3
ReaEl
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
Cebufg ReaEl Kinney leep te .^.rmitage Str:ipea lanehihel:llEler bane CewR~ $Q Q:87 m
Br:idge
Delta HigR"'aY Ayres Reaa te' Green Stripes laRe Ial:lgeRe $0 (Mi8 G3t
ft.ares Reaa
Dillard Road 43rd Street to Gamet 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
",,:iRgten Reas Ri'~r ReaEl te PraiFie Read itripeEl LaRe . laRe CeI:lRt} $0 1.44 i33
Prairie ReBEl Garel baRe tg '''''ingteR StFipeElLaRe lane CeI:lR~ $0 Q.38 ~
DR' Ie
Reeset'elt 8el:lle\faFEf 8eltliRe Read te Daneee 8tRpeEl LaRe gDOr $0 Q.24 47&
ft/JeRl:le
Royal Avenue. Terry Street to Greenhill Striped Lane Lane County. $0 1.01 481
Road Eugene
weSt Eugene Parkway Seneca Road to Belt/ine Striped Lane ODOT $0 1.65 336
(1A) Road
Status Sub-Total $0
TransPlan
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 43,
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 Springfi~ld $0 0.57 918
Olympic Street
51 st/52nd Street Main Street to High Banks Route, StripeCl 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 StreeUo Menlo Striped Lane Lane County, $0 0.58 809
Loop Springfield
Beltline Road East Gateway Street to Game Striped Lane OOOT. $0 0.70 718
Fann Road
Bethel D'l'ive 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-ta-East section Striped Lane Lane County, $0 0.56 632
Eugene
County Farm Loop North-ta-South section Striped lane Lane County, $0 0.53 631
Eugene
Daisy Street 46th Street to 48th Street Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.06 24
Elmira Read DeMISSA Read te Reute EygsR8' $0 1.21 ~
llig~':.'ay 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
Colledor G
Game Farm Road 1-5 to Crescent Avenue Striped Lane Lane County $0 1.01 606
North
Game Fa~ Reael Gebl:lFg Rea" te CrseGaAt Smps" baRe laAe Cel:lRt" $0 .yo G&4
NeRh N/SAYS
Game Farm Road Beltline Road to Harlow Striped Lane Lane County, $0 0.90 737
South Road Springfield
Gilham Road Honeywood Street Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 1.03 662
To Torr Avenue
Glenwood Boulevard Judkins to Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.42 827
Glennwood Drive
TramP/an
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 44
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Greenhill Road Barger Drive to W. 11 th 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
HaydeR BRdge Read YelaRda .~veRwe te StFiped baRe baRe Csw~ $Q 0.54 +96
MaFGela Read
Hunsaker Lane I Division Avenue to River Striped Lane Lane County $0 1.11 527
Beaver Street Road
Jasper Road (B) Mt. Vernon Road to UGB Striped Lane ODOT $0 2.20 63
South
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 Strest ElMira .~I~RYe tEl Rawte (;;:wgeRe $0 0.1~ 469
Reese'JeIt BsylevaFEi
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 Springfietcf $0 0.51 945
S. 32RB Street MaiR Street ts Rail read StFiped laRe SpFiRgfielEl $0 Q.3Q Q43
GressiRg
S. ~2Rd Street Main Street te Jasper StFiped baRe ODOT $0 g.ag 9&4
Van Duyn Road Western Drive to Harlow Route Eugene $0 0.25 696
Road
County
Weyerhauser Haul 48th Street to 57th Street Striped lane Sprin~field $0 0.91 57
Road
Wilkes Drive River Road to River Loop, 1 Striped Lane Lane County $0 0.99 554
West Eugene Parkway Highway 99 to Seneca Rd Striped Lane ODOT '$0 0.64 337
(1B)
West Eugene Parkway West 11111 to Beltline Striped Lane ODOT $0 2.38 338
(2A)
Status Sub- Total $0
Project Category Sub-Total $0
TramP/an
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 45
Trq,nsPlan
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 46
TransPlan
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 47
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Game Fafm Sewtll DellliRe te l;)eadmeRd Striped baRS SpRRgfieh:f $0 Q.12 733
rellY Read
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. 11th 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 Route Eugene $0 0.30 672
Boulevard to 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
r Milln - DAd G. ... S"FiAgfieIEl 8riElgee te SWipe" beRe gl;)O+, S9 B fig no
Shovel C~~t l::IOD Springfield
McVay Highway 1-5 to 30th Avenue Striped Lane OooT $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 Fern Ridge Striped Lane or Route Eugene $75,000 1.16 172
Street/Fairgrounds Path
N. 36th Street Main Street to Commercial Striped ~ne or Route Springfield $100,000 0.30 939
Street
TransPlan
July 2002
Chapter3, Page 48 .
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
Oakm9Rt Wa'j Gakway Read te C99wrg StFiped baRe er ReYle &:YgeRe $0 Q.3O &76
Read
Olympic Street (A) 21 st Street 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
Petate 1=1111 SYFRmit leRgtl=l sf Petate l=IiII FElYte Rewte SpFiRgfield $0 .:l-:i2 i4
ReYte (iR Myre
sI:l9di~isieR)
Prairie Road Maxwell Road to Highway Striped Lane Eugene $58,000 0.15 495
99
Rainbow Orive 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 I Coast Fork of Willamette 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 Boulevard (A) Fairmount Boulevard to Route Eugene $0 1.07 278
29th Avenue
Springfield Bridges Franklin Boulevard to Mill Striped Lane OOOT $0 0.68 857
Street
Summit Street Fairmount Boulevard to Route Eugene $0 0.31 287
Floral Hill Drive
Tandy Turn I 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
TramP/an
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 49
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 15th Avenue to Fainnont Route Eugene $0 . 0.36 295
Boulevard
\^JeyeFAaeyssr Hayl 8eetJ:l Kelly Reaa te Main StRpeEl baRe SpFingfielEl $0 O.~& 90
Reaa Street
Willamette Street 18th Avenue to 32nd Striped Lane Eugene $396,000 1.30 296
Avenue
'MillaFRstte Street 11tJ:l l":leRye te 18th Swipea laRe eygene $0 0.76 -1M
A\'eRYS
,Yolanda Avenue 31 st Street to Hayden Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.80 784
Bridge Road
Status Sub-Totill U,455,500
Project Category Sub-Total $4,455,500
Total Capital Projects: Bicycle Projects $19,188,200
TramPlan
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 50
Part Five: Parking Management Plan
This plan discusses Capital Investment Actions and presents Planning and Program Actions
related to parking management that meet the parking requirements of the TPR, while maintaining
a parking supply that supports the economic health of the community. Parking management
needs to be looked at regionally, while providing jwisdictional flexibility.
Parking management strategies are an important part of an integrated set of implementation
actions that support nodal development, system ~provements, and. demand management. A vast
supply of free and subsidized parking can encourage automobile use over transit use, A limited,
rather than abundant supply of parking can encourage use of non-auto modes, especially transit.
There is also a direct relationship between the price of parking and the use of public transit.
Parking management strategies address both the supply and demand for vehicle parking, They
contribute to balancing travel demand. with the region among the various modes of transportation
available, Parking management strategies are effective in increasing the use of alternative
modes, especially when combined with other TDM strategies. Supportive TDM programs
include carpool/van pool pr~grams, preferential parking and reserved spaces for carpooling, and
parking pricing.
TPR Requirements for. Parking Space Reduction
The TPR requires a parking plan that achieves a 10 percent reduction in the number of parking
spaces per Capita in the metropolitan area over the 20-year planning period, For the Eugene-
Springfield region, the TPR reduction goal is .514, If the level of parking density (spaces per
developed acre) remains constant and land development and population forecasts are accurate,
then the level of parking spaces per capita will be reduced by more than the 10 percent reduction
required by the TPR,
Estimated Parking Supply 1995 to [~2027
1995 [~1 2027 r~12027 TPR Goal
ZonelPI~n Total Spac~s Total Spaces Total Spaces
Designation Spaces Per Spaces Per Spaces Per
Capita Capita Capita
Commercial 51,259 .229 57,865 ,194 61,618 .207
Industrial 27,622 ,124 30,200 .101 33,205 .111
Institutional 48,692 ,218 49,067 .165 58,534 ,196
Total 127,573 .571 137,132 .460 153,357 .514
Capital Investment Actions
Capital Investment Actions that support non-auto modes have an indirect impact on parking
needs by lowering the demand for spaces in higher density areas. For example, Park-and-Ride
facilities can contribute to lowering the demand for parking in downtown areas, Transit Capital
Investment Actions call for the establishment of Park- and-Ride facilities throughout the Eugene-
Springfield ar~a.
TransP/an
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 97
Part Two: Projected Plan Performance
The combination of land use, transportation demand management (IDM), 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,
T~ble 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, [~]2027 Trends, shows system perfonnance. for 1995 conditions
extended into the year [~] 2027, This scenario shows projections of what is expected to
happen by [~] 2027 under business as usual trends.
· The second future scenario, [~] 2027 ~inancially Constrained TramPlan, shows
projected draft TransPlan perfonnance for the year [~] 2027 under conditions of financial
constraint. Like the second scenario, it assumes implementation of land use and TDM
strategies. Transit, bicycle, and roadway capital actions are limited to financial 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 perfonnance 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 [~] 2027 Financially Constrained
TransPlan. Changes to performance measures resul~g from the West Eugene Parkway-related
amendment to TransPlan are presented in this chapter in legislative format.
In general, implementation of the [~] 2027 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 et~U'adeoffs among the communities' goals and objectives. A
comprehensive set of transportation sys~em performance measures provides the framework for a
meaningful comparison of the scenarios.
TramP/an
July 2002
Chapter 4, Page 4
Table 6 . Summary of Key Performance Measures (1'
t4
1995 Existing "2~1rrends 24\1 Financially Constralud
Conditions 2., TransPllln Seenario (I)
Category' Key Desc~iption Amount " Change Amount " C" ""ge
from 1995 from 1995
Demographics Pooulatlon {TransPlan Studv Area} . 209 800 296.500 41.3% 296 500 41.3%
Emolovment (TransPlan Studv Area) 106.900 153 000 43.1% 163.000 43.1%
PM1 Con'gested M lies of travel (percent of total VM T) 2.8% 10.6% 283.3% .
5.0% 80.8%
PM2 Roadway Congestion Index 0.78 1.40 79.5%
Congestion 96% 23.1, %.
PM3 Network Vehicle Hours of Delay (Dally) 9,818 28,407 189.3%
18 924 92.7%
PM4 " Transit Mode Share on Conaested Corridors (II 5.8% 10.0% 72.4%
PM5a Internal VMT (no commercial vehicles) 2,305.779 3,508,913 52%
3 232 977 40%
Vehicle Miles Traveled PM5b Internal VMT'/Cspita 10.99 11.83 8%
and Trip Length 10.90 -1%
PM6 Aversne TrlD Lennth {m lIes\ 3.7 3.9 6% 3.6 -1.7%
PM7 % Person Trips Under 1 Mile 14.5% 13.2% -9%
15.9% 9.6%
M ode Shares. All PM8a Walk 8.93% 7.92% -11%
Trips 9.52%_ 6.6%
PM8b Bike 3.68% 3.32% -10%- 3.64% -1.1%
PM8c Transit 1.83% 1.95% 7%
2.73% 49.2%
PM8d Shared Ride {2 or more\ 42.04% 44.30% 5% 44.63% 5.9%
PM8e Drive Alone 43.52% 42.52% -2%
39.57% -9.1%
PM8f " Non.A uto Tr/ns 14.43% 13.18% -9% 17 .00% 17.8%
PM8n P.erson Trios DerAuto TriD 1.59 1.61 2% 1.7 7.2%
PM9 Average Fuel Efficiency (VMT/Gal.) 19.7 19.1 -3%
Envlronme.ntal 19.2 -2.5%
PM10 CO Emissions (Weekday Tons) 124.4 125.3 1%
111.1 -10.7%
PMfl . Acres of zoned noaal developm ent 7.000
Land Use PM12 " of dwelling units built In nodes 23.30%
PM13 " of New "Tota'" Emn'ovment In Nodes. " 45%
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%
81% 85.1 %
PM16 % of Roadwavs In Fair or Better Condition 85% 80% -6% 80% -5.9%
. PM17 % of Households Within 1/4 M lie of a Transit StOD 92% 92% 0% 92% 0.0%
PM18 Transit Service Hours Der CaDlta 1.29 1.69 31% 1.99 54.3%
PM19 % Households with Access to 10-mlnute Transit Service 23% 23% 0% 88% 281.8%
System Characteristics PM20 % EmDlovmentwlth Access to 10-mlnute Transit Service 52% 52% 0% 91% 75.0%
PM21 Bikeway Miles 126.6 135.9 7%
257.8 103.6%
PM22 Priority Blleeway Miles
75.3
PM23 Arterial and Collector Miles 325.6 331.8 2%
355.8 9.3%
PM24 Arterial and Collector M lies (excluding fwys) 290.5 296.7 2%
319.6 10.0%
[lTNcITe -tIlese scenarios factor n the 10 percent vehiCle trip rate reduction allowed In the Transportation Planning Rule amendments for mixed-use pecJeSTrTan friendly areas. This reduction has been
applied to no~,1 developm ent areas Identified In the Drart TransPlan.
(2) Note - M8;,,Ilures In bold ".IIcs are the TPR alternallve performance measures approved by LCDC.
TramP/an
July 2002 Chapter 4, Page 5 .
uncongested. ,The objective is to avoid area-wide congestion represented by values of 1 or
greater. A lower index value relative to the trend indicates that the plan will have a positive
impact on managing congestion, The Financially Constrained TransPlan RCI of . 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
[~] 2027 RCI is below Portland'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 115 percent over 1995 conditions, this is approximately 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,
Vehiele Miles Traveled and Trip Length Measures
PM~: Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel Per Capita
PM Sa 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, VM.T@er 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 (DGB), and few and small contiguous areas of
higher density, Growth in outlying parts of the UGB,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.
TransP/an
July 2002
Chapter 4, Page 7
IPaua. tOllmges III VMraodnip l.e8gth --I
(% change from 1995)
. -2()OAJ -10% 0%
Percent 0Jange
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
FmpIoyment
Internal VMT
Internal VMI'/Capita
Average Trip Length (miles)
-1. "'A
52%
Population
% Person Tri~ <: 1 Mile
-9.2'*
,- 2~Trends 112ot&inancially Constrained TransPlan Scenario I
Amendments to the TPR require areas not meeting the VMT reduction target to seek approval
from the Land Conservation and Devel()pment Commission (LCDC) for the use of alternative
, measures in demonstrating reduced reliance oil the automobile. This process is discussed further
in Part Three: TPRAlternate 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 in~lude 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 devel9pment 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
. TransPlan
. July 2002
Chapter 4, Page 8
other modes. Measures PM 8a through PM 8e indicate the relative percentage share for walk,
bike, bus, shared-ride auto, and drive-alone auto trips. The most significant changes are the 49.2
percent increase in transit mode share and the 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 8:f, 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 nori-
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.
IPercent Change in Mode Share Measures - All lOpsl
' (% change from 1995) ,
Percent Change
-200fc. -100fc. OOfc. 10% 2{)Ofc. 30%
40%
Population
Employment
Walk
Bike
I
I-
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
I1SOAJ
I
i
-11.0%
Transit
-lO.O'AJ
I
I
i
!
i~
I
,
!
~ -9.1~
-9.1%
!
i
1
I
Shared Ride (2 or more)
Drive Alone
% Non - Auto Trips
Person Trips per Auto Trip
TransPlan
July 2002
Chapter 4, Page 9
50010
60%
43% !;.'
43%
I
!
i
I
!
!
t' 49.2%
!
;
I
!
i
I
i
I
i
!
I
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 Fin~cially 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
scenarios.
Percentage Change in Environmental Measures
(% change from 1995)
Percentage Change
-20010
-100A
0%
10%
20%
30%
40010
50%
Population
1
I
i
J
I
I
I .
I -3.3%
-2.5% 4riJJ(,
!
I
43%
43%
Employment
Avg Fuel Efficiency (VMT/GaJ.)
co Emissions (Weekday Tons)
-10.7%
11l2~Trends · 2~inanciallY Constrained TransPlan Scenario I
TransPlan
July 2002
Chapter 4, Page 10
1Fe\S~mS)Dn~~
(O.IochaDge fnm 1995)
-5<Jl1o
0'.10
5<Jl.lo
100%
150'.10
200'10
75(Jl.lo
300'1c
41004
I
4~%
I
"/0
4~o4
Pq1Jlaticn
i
;
\ i
Flqioyrn'lJt
%ofRdwy Mles with SidawIks
;
i
i
I
i8501%
I
Ratio of Bike M to ArtICbll M
%of~ inFairJBettfr
Oniiticn
i
I
i
I
I
I
31.OJ~
54.3%
%Hhlc:k WIin 1/4 Mle af"Iiamit
&q>
1iansit Service Hoors perClpita
281.8%
%lWCk wAi:J:I:ss to lo.mn
Tramit
!
I
7S.OJ/o I
i
I
!
i
;
i
I
I
~
i
%FnpwAca:ss to lo.mn
Transit Svc
~
I
I
,
i
!
i
~ 1006104! .
I
i
i
I
I
Bikeway Mles
;
I
i
;4 7S.3/rriles
i
I
i
;
I
Priaity Bikeway Mles
i
L~o4 I
~~I
i
I
i
Artmal and Cblleda' Mles
Artmal and Cbllecbr Mles
(FJcchding Fwys)
lI~rmds
.~Y~~.ed'IblmPlan Scenario
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
TramPlan
July 2002
Chapter 4, Page 12
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 [~]2027.
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 of a 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 ~ mile ofa 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 Hours per Capita
This measure shows the amount of annu8l 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 [~]2027 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 of the 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-miilute service frequencies from 23
percent under existing conditions to 88 percent in [~] 2027 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 PM19, 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
TramPlan
July 2002
Chapter 4, Page 13
employment with access to ten-minute service frequencies from 52 percent under existing
conditions to 91 percent in [~] 2027 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 percen~ge change in bikeway miles
anticipated over the planning period. As described under PMI5, 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 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 freeways, are proposed to increase by about 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 UOB
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 minlmi7~ing 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 BR T) 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 of households and employment with
access to ten-minute transit service are the basis for the 48.6 percent increase in transit mode
TransPlan
July 2002
Chapter 4, Page 14
transit because it cannot c~mpete with the ease and convenience their own automobile affords
them. As 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 BRT corridor creates the ability for more riders to lise the service to get to
and from the destinations they want to go to.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) - TOM 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 TOM 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 TOM 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 signific~tly 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.
TPR Obiective A: Achieving the alternative standard will result in. a reduction in reliance on
automobiles,
The plan's performance on this objective can be measmed 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 TOM strategies set forth in
TransPlan, and the Priority Bikeway Miles,
Reduced reliance on the auto is indicated in the foiecasted 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 [~] 2027 Trend Scenario which
indicates a 9 percent decrease without implementation of the plan. An increase in the percent of
the region's tOps 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 of the nnplementation of all of TransPlan' s key strategie~.
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
TransPlan
July 2002
Chapter 4, Page 20
Exhibit B
F. Transportation Element
The Transportation Element addresses surface and air transportation in the metropolitan area,
TransPlan, the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan, provides the basis
for the surface transportation portions of this element and the Eugene Airport Master Plan
provides the basis for the air transportation portions,
TransPlan guides regional transportation system planning in the metropolitan area to serve [:fef-a
20 year period and seo'es] the transportation planning needs of [the] a projected population of
296,500 in the TransPlan Study Area (fn 11),1 The TransPlan Study Area is an area extending
beyond the UGB and Metro Plan boundary that is used for transportation modeling purposes.
TransPlan establishes the framework upon which all public agencies_ can make consistent and
coordinated transportation planning decisions, Goals and policies in TransPlan are contained in
this Transportation Element and are part of the adopted Metro Plan, TransPlan project lists and
project maps are also adopted as part of the Metro Plan,
This element complies with State Transportation Goa112, "To provide and encourage a safe,
convenient, and economic transportation system," Three types of transportation planning
strategies are reflected in the goals and policies in this element: Transportation demand
management (TDM), land use, and system improvements, TDM strategies focus on reducing
demands placed on the transportation system, and thus system costs, by providing incentives to
redistribute or eliminate vehicle trips and by encou~aging alternative modes, Land use strategies
focus on encouraging development patterns that reduce the need for automobiles, reduce trip
lengths, and support the use of alternative modes, System improvements focus on increasing
efficiency and adding capacity or new facilities to the existing highway, transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian systems,
Together, these strategies form a balanced policy framework for meeting local and state
transportation goals to: increase urban public transit ridership; reduce reliance on the
automobile; substitute automobile trips with alternative modes, such as walking and biking; and
reduce automobile energy consumption and transportation costs, Consistent with this approach,
the policies in this element are presented in the following categories: .
Not all Transportation Element policies will apply to a specific transportation-related decision,
When conformance with adopted policy is required, policies in this and other Metro Plan
elements will be examined to determine which policies are relevant and can be applied. When
policies support varying positions, decision makers will seek a balance of all applicable policies,
Goals are timeless, but some policies will expire as they are implemented.
Goals
1, Provide an integrated transportation and land use system that supports choices in modes
of travel and development patterns that will reduce reliance on the automobile and
enhance livability, economic opportunity, and the quality of life.
[fB 11: The TrB:BsPlan StHay :\rea is 8ft Mea Hsea fer tfanSfJertatieB meaeliBg fJlll'fJeses. The 296,599 fJrejeetea
fJepHlatiaB fer this area inelHses the estimates 2915 pepHlatieB af2&6,999 far tlie DGB plHs an atlaitieBa119,5999
prejeetea fJapHlatieB far the TraRsfJertatiaB .'\Balysis laBes that exteBs beyeBs the UGH.]
Attachment 3-1
Transportation Demand Management
Findings
14, TDM addresses federal Transportation Equity Actfor the 21st Century (TEA 21) and
state TPR requirements to reduce reliance on the automobile, thus helping to postpone the
need for expensive capital improvements, The need for TDM stems from an increasing
demand for and a constrained supply of road capacity, created by the combined effects of
an accelerated rate of population growth (41 % projected increase from 1995 to [~]
2027) and increasing highway construction costs; for example, the City of Eugene
increased the transportation systems development charge by a total of 15 percent to
account for inflation from 1993-1996,
Attachment 3-2
ExhibitC
FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY
Metro Plan Amendment Criteria
Criteria to be used to evaluate amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Regional Transportation System
Plan (TransPlan) and the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) are found in
Springfield Development Code, Chapter 5, Section 5,14-135( C )(1-2), Eugene Code Section 9,7730(3),
and Lane Code Section 12,225(2)(a) &(b) and all reads as follows:
(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 amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
This application involves text amendments (non-site specific) and project list amendments to TransPlan,
a special purpose functional plan, and text amendments (non-site specific) to the Metro Plan (hereinafter
referred to as "the amendments"), The process for making the amendments to TransPlan and the Metro
Plan are identical; requiring that the three jurisdictions follow the "Type I" amendment process, To
become effective, the amendments to TransPlan the Metro Plan must be approved by all three governing
bodies,
. Criterion A. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL CONSISTENCY:
Based on the findings set forth below, the amendments are consistent with applicable Statewide Planning
Goals and interpretive rules,
GOAL 1 - CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the
opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
The Cities of Springfie1d'and Eugene and Lane County have acknowledged citizen involvement programs
and acknowledged processes for securing citizen input on all proposed Metro Plan amendments, The
governing bodies code provisions require that notice of the proposed amendments be given and public
hearings be held prior to adoption, Notification of the proposed amendments and opportunities for public
participation in these amendments were consistent with the acknowledged citizen involvement programs,
The governing bodies' code provisions implement Statewide Planning Goal 1 by requiring that notice of
the proposed land use code amendment be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption,
Consideration of the amendments will begin with a joint Planning Commission work session on April 7,
2009, followed by a public hearing, .
On October 16, 2008, the City of Springfield provided notice of the proposed amendment to the 20-year
planning period in TransPlan from 2015 to 2023 to the Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD), That notice included copies of the proposal previously approved by the
Metropolitan Policy Committee for inclusion in the federal RTP in November, 2007, and a copy of the
report that went to the Springfield City Council for the October 6, 2008, initiation of this amendment.
The identical proposal was reviewed and approved by the Joint Elected Officials of Eugene, Springfield
1
and Lane County on September 15,2008, prior to being submitted to the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) in October as part of the proposed work program for the update of
TransPlan, Each of these and activities and meetings were noticed and included opportunities for citizen
involvement and comment.
The October 2008 DLCD notice was revised on January 29,2009, to add the proposed removal of the
completed projects, and to clarify that Metro Plan amendments were also necessary, and that Eugene and
Lane County would be participants as well, The DLCD notice was revised again on February 6, 2009, to
provide specific proposed text amendments and to provide the new (postponed) date for the first
evidentiary hearing,
Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was mailed to all persons who had requested such notice on March
6,2009, thirty (30) days prior to the first hearing, Notice was published in the Register Guard, the area's
general circulation newspaper, on March 18,2009, twenty (20) days before the first hearing, The
proposed amendments were available for inspection at the Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County
planning offices, The process leading up to the adoption of the amendments provided numerous
opportunities for public involvement.
We find that the process for adopting these amendments complies with Statewide Planning Goal 1 since it
complies with, and surpasses, the requirements of the State's citizen involvement provisions,
GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework
as a basis for all decisions and actions related to the use of land and to assure an adequate factual base
for such decisions and actions.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy tool that provides a
basis for decision-making in this area, The Metro Plan was acknowledged by the State in 1982 to be in
compliance with statewide planning goals, The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation
Plan (TransPlan) is a function plan of the Metro Plan, which forms the basis for the Transportation
Element of the Metro Plan and guides surface transportation improvements in the metropolitan area,
TranPlan was acknowledged by the State to be in compliance with statewide planning goal.
These findings and the record show that there is an adequate factual base for City's decision concerning
the amendments, 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 2
coordination requirement is met when the adopting governmental bodies engage in an exchange, or invite
such an exchange, between the adopting bodies and any affected governmental unit and when the
adopting bodies use the information obtained in the exchange to balance the needs of the citizens. To
comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the three jurisdictions coordinated the review of these
amendments with all affected governmental units, Notice of the proposed amendments and information
about where the materials would be available for review was mailed to all parties that had requested such
notice,
There are no Goal 2 exceptions required for the amendments, Therefore, the amendments are consistent
with Statewide Planning Goal 2.
GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURAL LANDS: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
2
The amendments will not change or conflict with the policies of the Metro Plan or TransPlan regarding
agricultural lands since these amendments continue to reflect the growth planned for and accommodated
by the existing, acknowledged Metro, Plan and TransPlan. Goa13 is not relevant and the amendments do
not affect the area's compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 3,
GOAL 4 - FOREST LAND: To conserve forest lands for forest use.
The amendments will not change any policies or plan diagram designations of the Metro Plan or
TransPlan, nor do the amendments impact any forest lands, Goal 4 is not relevant and the amendments do
not affect the area's compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 4, 'Therefore, the amendments comply
with Goal 4,
GOAL 5 - OPEN SPACE, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, NATURAL RESOURCES: To
conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources.
The following administrative rule (OAR 660-023-0250) is applicable to this post-acknowledgement plan
amendment (PAPA) request:
(3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration ofa PAPA unless the PAPA
affects a Goal 5 resource, For purposes of this section, a PAPA wouldafJect a Goal 5 resource
only if:
(a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or land
use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address
specific requirements of Goal 5;
(b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant
Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or
(c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted
demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the
amended UGB area. '
The amendments do not affect a GoalS resource, Specifically, the amendments do not create or amend a
list of GoalS resources, do not amend a plan or code provision adopted in order to protect a significant
GoalS resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5, do not allow new uses that could be
conflicting uses with a particular GoalS resource site, and do not amend the acknowledged Urban Growth
Boundary, Therefore, Goal 5 does not apply to these plan amendments.
GOAL 6 -AIR, WATER, AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY: To maintain and improve the
quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.
Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air,
water and land from impacts of those discharges, TransPlan currently contains policies related to
nodal development, transportation demand management and the encouragement of additional
alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycles and pedestrian use, These policies are
related to the need to maintain and improve the air quality in the metropolitan area, The amendments
will not impact any of these policies and no new projects are proposed; the project list amendments
consist only of deleting completed projects. Projects already identified in TransPlan will be designed
3
and constructed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, Therefore, the
amendments are consistent with Goal 6,
GOAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS: To protect life and property from natural
disasters and hazards.
Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people and
property from natural hazards such as land slides, The amendments do not address potential natural
disasters, Further, the amendments do not affect the current restrictions on development in areas subject
to natural hazards, nor allow for new development that could result in a natural hazard, Therefore, the
amendments are consistent with Goal 7,
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 destinations resorts.
Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreation facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned with the
provisions of those facilities in non-urban areas of the State, The amendments do not affect the current
provisions for recreation areas, facilities or recreational opportunities, nor will the amendments affect
access to existing or future recreational facilities, Further, the amendments do not change the Metro Plan
and TranPlan policies that support access to recreational facilities with the Metropolitan area and to
recreations opportunities outside the area or delete any planned transportation projects that would make
recreational facilities more available, Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 8,
GOAL 9 - ECONOMY OF THE STATE: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the statefor
a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
The amendments will not impact the supply of industrial or commercial lands and will not change or
conflict with the economic policies of Metro Plan, The amendments do not change the TransPlan and
Metro Plan policies directed toward enhancing the economic opportunity available within the Eugene-
Springfield area by assuring adequate public facilities and infrastructure to provide a transportation
system that is efficient, safe, interconnected and economically viable and fiscally stable, Additionally, the
amendments do not change the TransPlan and Metro Plan policies related to the movement of goods;
those policies adopted to further the goal of using the public facilities infrastructure to support responsible
economic development. The Oregon Transportation Plan recognizes that goods movement of all types
makes a significant contribution to the region's economy and wealth and contributes to residents' quality
of life, Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 9,
GOAL 10 - HOUSING: To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state.
The amendments will not impact the supply or residential lands and will not result in any change or
conflict with the housing policies of the Metro Plan, Additionally, the amendments will not change any
of the policies in TransPlan and the Metro Plan related to nodal development and transit-supportive land
use patterns and development; those policies adopted to expand housing opportunities for the region's
citizens, Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goall 0,
4
GOAL 11 - PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and
efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development.
~~ Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area has an acknowledged Public Facilities and Services Plan
(PFSP), The amendments will not result in any change or conflict with the PFSP,
GOAL 12 - TRANSPORTATION: To provide and encourage 'a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), as defined in Oregon
Administratiye Rule OAR 660-012-0000, et seq, The proposed amendments are consistent with all
applicable provisions of OAR 660-012-0016, Further, the amendments are consistent with, and required
by, the Regional Transportation Work Plan approved pursuant to OAR 660-012-0016(2)(b) by the Land
Conservation and Development Commission on October 16, 2008,
The TPR states that when amendments to a functional plan would significantly affect an existing or
planned transportation facility the local government shall put in place measures to assure that the. allowed
land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards (level of service,
volume to capacity ratio, etc,) of the facility, Adoption of the amendments will not significantly affect an
existing or planned transportation facility,
Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 12,
GOAL 13 - ENERGY CONSERV A TION: To conserve energy.
The Energy Goal is a general planning goal that callS' for land and uses developed on the land to be
managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound
economic principles, The proposed amendments will not change the Metro Plan or TransPlan provisions
related to promoting more compact development, encouraging the use of alternate modes of transportation
and providing a transportation system design to increase the efficiency of travel wherever possible,
Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 13,
GOAL 14 - URBANIZATION: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban
. land use.
The amendments will not change the TransPlan and Metro Plan provisions adopted to preserve the
distinction between urban and rural uses through the development of policies and programs that provide
for more efficient urban uses within the UGB, thus preserving rural lands for rural uses. Accordingly, the
amendments comply with Goal 14,
GOAL 15 - WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the
natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the
Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.
The Willamette River Greenway area with the Urban Growth Boundary is governed by existing local
provisions that have been acknowledged as complying with Goal 15, Those provisions will be unchanged
5
by the amendments, The amendments will not change TransPlan's and the Metro Plan's provisions
related to the protection and maintenance of the scenic, historical, economic and recreational qualities of
lands along the Willamette River, Further, the amendments will not affect TransPlan's and the Metro
Plan's comp1i~ce with Goal 15, Therefore, the amendments comply with Goa115,
GOALS 16-19 - COASTAL GOALS: (Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelines, Beaches and
Dunes, and Ocean Resources)
There are no estuarine resources, shorelines, beaches, dunes, or ocean resources located within the Metro
Plan or TransPlan boundary, Accordingly, Goals 16, 17, 18, and 19 are not applicable,
Criterion B. Adoption of the amendlllCJlt must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
TransPlan guides regional transportation system planning and development in the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan area, The region covered by TransPlan is the "TransPlan Study Area", which is an area
extending beyond the UGB and Metro Plan boundary that is used for transportation modeling purposes,
TransPlan includes provisions for meeting the transportation demand of a projected population of
296,500 in the TransPlan Study Area, When TransPlan was updated in 2001, it was anticipated that the
TransPlan Study Area's population would reach 296,500 in 2015, It is now anticipated that the TransPlan
Study Area's population will not reach 296,500 until approximately 2027, Since the transportation
modeling for the TransP1an Study Area was based on a projected population of 296,500, TransPlan
guides regional and transportation system planning and development in the Transportation Study Area
until 2027,
The proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and TransPlan will not make the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent. While the proposed TransPlan amendments necessitate that the text of the Metro Plan's
Transportation Element be amended to ensure internal consistency of the Metro Plan; these needed Metro
Plan text amendments are proposed along with the TransPlan amendments, Together, the proposed.
amendments to the Metro Plan and to TransPlan are consistent with each other and the other provisions
of the Metro Plan, Additionally, the amendments are consistent with applicable Metro Plan findings and
policies; specific findings and policies being discussed below,
B. Economic Element
B.18 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) and the Eugene Airport Master Plan.
The amendments to TransPlan's project lists, which delete transportation projects that have been
constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy B,18, Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan's
project lists identify the following transportations p!.ojects as having been completed: Jasper Road
Extension, Project No, 66 (Construct 4-1ane arterial); Pioneer Parkway Extension, Project No, 768
(Construct 4-5 lane minor arterial); Belt1ine Highway, Project No, 409 (Widening to 4 lanes, construction
of Roosevelt extension),
F. Transportation Element
6
F.4 Require improvements that encourage transit, bicycles, and pedestrians in new commercial,
public, miXed use, and multi-unit residential development.
The amendments to TransPlan's project lists, which delete transportation projects that have been
constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy FA, Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan's
project lists identify the following transit, pedestrian and bicycle projects as having been completed:
Expansion of Glenwood [Bus] Operating' Base, Project 1320 (expansion of existing operation and
maintenance); Autzen Stadium, Project No, 1140 (construction of transfer station and park-and-ride lot); ,
LCC Station Expansion, Project No, 1125 (expansion of LCC station); 11th and Belt1ine Station, Project
No, 1340 (construction of transfer station); Gateway and Belt1ine Station, Project No. 1350 (construction
of transfer station); Springfield Station, Project No, 1355 (construction of new transit station); 42nd Street
Pathway, Project No, 795 (multi-use path); East Bank Trail, Project No. 641 (multi-use path); Fern Ridge
Path #2, Project No, 423 (multi-use path); Garden Way/Knickerbocker Bridge Connector, Project No, 660
(multi-use path); Oakway Road to Coburg Road, Project No. 678 (route, multi-use path),
F.9 Adopt by reference, as part of the Metro Plan, the 20-Year Capital Investment Actions
project lists contained in TransPlan. Project timing and estimated costs are not adopted as
policy. .
The proposed amendments to the project lists contained in TransPlan will be adopted by reference into
the Metro Plan, demonstrating consistency with this policy,
F.18 Improve transit service and facilities to increase the system's accessibility, attractiveness,
and convenience for all users, include the transportation disadvantaged population.
The amendments to TransPlan's project lists, which delete transportation projects that have been
constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy F,18, Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan's
project lists identify the. following transit projects as having been completed: Expansion of Glenwood
Operating Base, Project 1320 (expansion of existing operation and maintenance); Autzen Stadium, Project
No, 1140 (construction of transfer station and park-and-ride lot); LCC Station Expansion, Project No,
1125 (expansion of LCC station); 11th and Beltline Station, Project No. 1340 (construction of transfer
station); Gateway and Be1tline Station, Project No, 1350 (construction of transfer station); Springfield
Station, Project No, 1355 (construction of new transit station)
F.21 Expand the Park-and-Ride system within the metropolitan area and nearby communities.
The amendments to TransPlan's project lists, which delete transportation projects that have been
constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy F .21, Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan's
project lists identify the following park-and-ride project as having been completed: Autzen Stadium,
Project No, 1140 (construction of transfer station and'park-and-ride lot),
F.22 Construct and improve the region's bikeway system and provide bicycle system support
facilities for both new development and redevelopment/expansion.
The amendments to TransPlan's project lists, which delete transportation projects that have been
constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy F,22, Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan's
project lists identify the following bicycle projects as having been completed: 42nd Street Pathway,
Project No, 795 (multi-use path); East Bank Trail, Project No, 641 (multi-use path); Fern Ridge Path #2,
7
Project No, 423 (multi-use path); Garden WaylKnickerbocker Bridge Connector, Project No, 660 (multi-
use path); Oakway Road to Coburg Road, Project No, 678 (route, multi-use path),
F.26 Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land uses and is
designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking.
The amendments to TransPlan's project lists, which delete transportation projects that have been
constructed, "demonstrate consistency with Policy F,26, Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan's
project lists identify the following pedestrian and bicycle projects as having been completed: 42nd Street
Pathway, Project No, 795 (multi-use path); East Bank Trail, Project No, 641 (multi-use path); Fern Ridge
Path #2, Project No, 423 (multi-use path); Garden WaylKnickerbocker Bridge Connector, Project No, 660
(multi-use path); Oakway Road to Coburg Road, Project No, 678 (route, multi-use path),
F.27 Provide for a continuous pedestrian network with reasonably direct travel routes between
destination points.
The amendments to TransPlan's project lists, which delete transportation projects that have been
constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy F,27, Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan's
project lists identify the following pedestrian projects as having been completed: 42nd Street Pathway,
Project No. 795 (multi-use path); East Bank Trail, Project No, 641 (multi-use path); Fern Ridge Path #2,
Project No, 423 (multi-use path); Garden WaylKnickerbocker Bridge Connector, Project No, 660 (multi-
use path); Oakway Road to Coburg Road, Project No, 678 (route, multi-use path),
CONCLUSION
The proposed amendments meet all applicable standards and criteria in the Eugene Land Us Code OR
Springfield Development Code OR Lane County Code. The proposed amendments are consistent with
the applicable Metro Plan policies as discussed in these findings,
8
00223443.DOC;1
00223286.DOC;1
9
~ City Manager's Office
MEMORANDUM
City of Eugene
700 Pearl Street
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5010
(541) 682-5414 FAX
www.eugene-or.gov
Date: June 10, 2010
To: Joint Elected Officials
From: Jon Ruiz, City of Eugene Manager
Gino Grimaldi, City of Springfield Manager
Jeff Spartz, Lane County Administrator
Subject: REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Progress Update
Since March 2009, the Joint Elected Officials (JEO) have had several discussions and taken action on the
current state of the regional economy, On February 26,2010 the JEO approved a regional economic
development plan, (See Attachl11ent A for the Building Our Next Economy - Regional Prosperity Economic
Development Plan.) This memo provides an update on work currently underway to support the six strategies
outlined in the plan, The work represents a significant partnership of many of the region's institutions and
organizations to move forward with well-developed and newly emerging actions,
BACKGRqUND
In March 2009, the JEO fIrSt expressed an interest in holding a Regional Economic Summit to coordinate a
collaborative response to the economic situation and formed a sub-committee (ED Task Force) for this purpose,
In June 2009, the JEO approved a framework for developing a regional economic development plan to better
position our regional economy to take advantage of economic opportunities that align with our area's assets and
values,
A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) composed of key stakeholders in our regional economy drafted a
recommended list of strategies and tactics to encourage regional economic development. At the September
meeting, the JEO approved the recommended draft list and asked that it be reviewed at the economic summit
organized by the ED Task Force, .
The. strategies were reviewed and discussed at a Regional Prosperity Summit on November 19,2009. With over
300 participants, the Summit provided broad community input on where our region needs to go and offered
insights into the initiatives that government leaders should advance, Following the summit, the JEO approved a
regional economic plan at the February 26,2010 meeting. The plan includes five principals, six strategies, and
seven critical initiatives, The six strategies are listed below with their more formal name in parentheses.
1, Business Expansion and Retention (Growing Local Opportunities)
2. Entrepreneurial Infrastructure (Creative Economy)
3. Workforce Development (Talent for Tomorrow)
4, Land and Physical Infrastructure (Basic Needs of Business)
5, Economic Identity (Quality of Life)
6, Targeted Industries (Key Industries)
PROGRESS
Though the initial discussions were driven by the three JEO jurisdictions, the work to implement the strategies
necessitates a much broader partnership of institutions and organizations, The matrix in Attachnlent B lists the
strategies and a summary of the actions (based on initiatives/tactics) that are progressing with the lead
organization(s) and the stata's~ The 17. individual actions are led by 10 different organizations. Some of the
actions reflect previously implemented or ongoing work that is now set in the context of the regional economic
development plan. Many of these actions, however, are new and being implemented in direct response to the
JEO's work. Lane County, the City of Eugene, and the Eugene Chamber of Commerce have also each taken
action or are scheduled to increase resources to support economic development. Below are a few highlights of
the work in progress for each strategy,
1, Business Retention and Expansion: The Lane Community College Small Business Developm:tllf€';
Center is tbe lead in convening a group of service partners to form a one-stop service center to assist
area businesses. Participating partners include: Lane Council of Governments, City of Eugene, City of
Springfield, Lane County, and eDev, Plans are underway to provide a centralized service and referral
program for businesses in the region with both physical locations and a well developed web presence,
The combination ofLCC's presence throughout the county, together with dynamic web-based education
and information tools will greatly enhance businesses' access to and benefit from these services, A
seamless referral system will create ready access to the variety of assistance and fmancial programs
offered by the other partners, .
2, Entrepreneurial Infrastructure: The Eugene Chamber of Commerce sponsors both the ongoing Southern
Willamette Angel Network and the annual Willamette Angel Conference. The Network hopes to
stimulate regional investor interest to work with and fund emerging enterprises. The conference is
designed to generate interest and participation among both investors and emerging enterprises, The
conference was successfully completed in May and included the recruitment and training of 33 angel
investors from the Willamette Valley, 17 from Eugene/Springfield, The Chamber is committed to
growing this effort,
3, Workforce Development: The Lane Workforce Partnership has undertaken a wide variety of actions to
support the training needs.ofboth workers and industry. The importance of matching training offerings
with the needs of regional industries was stressed during the Summit. Lane Workforce has convened a
number of industry-interest panels to help calibrate training curricula to the needs of industry. Lane
W orkf.e.rce is currently convening the following industry groups: Lane Manufacturing Skills Alliance,
the Community Healthcare Education Network, and the Green Jobs Taskforce,
4, Land and Physical Infrastructure: Both the cities of Eugene and Springfield have been assessing
commercial and industrial land supplies. Eugene has completed its Comprehensive Land Assessment
(ECLA) process, During the Envision Eugene process, the City will consider land supply together with
economic development goals. The City of Springfield has concluded its commerciallindustriallands
analyses. Springfield is working on local Economic Development objectives and strategies that will
factor into discussions of supply adequacy, redevelopment goals and discussion of the urban growth
boundary .
5, Economic Identity: A robust marketing/branding effort led by Travel Lane County will enhance
business awareness of assistance resources and contribute to the region's economic identity, Both the
cities of Eugene and Springfield continue to work on downtown vibrancy as part of the strategy to
attract and retain business investment and a talented workforce, Eugene is moving ahead with the Beam
redevelopment, the construction of the LCe downtown center, improvements to the public markets and
expanded public safety services, Springfield is working on a Downtown District Urban Design Plan and
Implementation Strategy to help guide upcoming urban renewal investments.
6, Targeted Industries: Lane County staff have been working on several potential clean-tech industry
developments, Lane County has been providing feasibility analyses, site consultation, research support,
and assistance with funding options, City of Eugene staff have been collaborating with Lane county on
proposed developments inside Eugene,
NEXT STEPS
Significant progress has been made on a variety of initiatives that advance the goals of the JEO plan and the
approved strategies, The following are suggested next steps to build upon this momentum.
. Continued development of business assistance efforts with emphasis on the "seamless" referral system,
web based tools and marketing and outreach efforts.
. Expansion of efforts to assist entrepreneurial development emphasizing peer networks, funding tools and
enhancing community connections with The University of Oregon and Lane Community College.
. Convention of a youth career awareness task force of education, labor and business representatives by Lane
Workforce Partnership to explore the development of a campaign to promote awareness of "middle skills"
jobs and careers throughout Lane County.
· Collaboration between Lane Workforce Partnership and Lane Community College, the Oregon
Employment Department, and the Oregon Workforce Investment Board, to implement a National Career
Readiness Certificate initiative in the Fall of2010,
· Completion of land analyses by the Cities of Eugene and Springfield, together with consideration of
economic development goals,
· Continued work on cultural and amenity projects that contribute to the region's economic identity
including downtown redevelopment and the proposed indoor track facility,
· Expansion of the number of contributing partners; formalizing the acce~tance of the regional economic
development plan among the partners; and encouraging each to make a specific commitment ofprogram
effort and resources
ATTACHMENTS
A. Building Our Next Economy - Regional Prosperity Economic Development Plan
B, Progress Matrix - Regional Economic Development Plan