HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Miscellaneous 4/7/2009
.
,
Planning & Development
Planning
MEMORANDUM
City of Eugene
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5377
(541) 682-5572 FAX
www.eugene-or.gov
Date: April ?, 2009
To: Springfield Planning Commission
Engene Planning Commission
Lane County Planning Commission
From: Kurt Yeiter, Senior Planner
City of Eugene
Subject: Additional Information for Proposed TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments
In response to questions received prior to this evening's public hearing, the following
information is offered.
Ql: The dates used/or the planning period are proposed to extend/rom 2015 to 2024. The
Agenda Item summary also states that the adopted RTP planning period is 2031. The work plan
goal stated that appropriate jurisdictions would make amendments to the MetroPlanlTransPlan
to achieve RTPITSP "consistency". While 2024 is closer to 2031 than 2015, the dates are not, in
my view, "consistent". Is this intentional or an oversight?
The amendment proposed at this time is an interim step that reduces the inconsistency between
the state-required Regional Transportation System Plan and the federally-required Regiomil .
Transportation Plan without .need of future population projections or adjustments to land use
designations. The current amendment reflects the actual growth rate of recent years and the
growth rate projection prepared for Eugene and Springfield using "safe harbor" methodology.
This methodology is satisfactory to OOOT and OLeo at this juncture even though the planning
periods do not exactly align. A more robust calibration will occur towards the end of the multi- .
year work plan, when a new Regional Transportation System Plan is adopted, one that will
. incorporate information from the two cities' buildable lands assessments now underway (the
work plan is Attachment F of the Agenda Item Summary).
Q2: Attachment B provides calculations for horizon years 2025 and 2030, not 2024. Was 2024
extrapolated/rom the 2025 figure?
Yes, the year 2024 was calculated as when the target population would most likely be reached by
extrapolating/interpolating from the 2025 and 2030 figures, using simple math.
Q3: Regarding the issue 0/ deleting projects that have been completed, I belieVf"ihaJ,j!"f!If./. . d
completed projects are not listed. Has the list been thoroughly reviewed?' UaU::: n~CelVe
APR 7 l009
Planner: BJ
.
.
Staff is reviewing the list more thoroughly and found that there may be additional project that
can be removed from the Regional Transportation System Plan, including projects that were
completed after the federally-required 2031 Regional Transportation Plan was adopted in
November 2007. For example, the following additional projects in Eugene can be removed from
the project lists:
. Terry Street, p. 14
. I-l05,p.17
. Glenwood Boulevard Extension, p. 21
. River Avenue, p. 25
. River Avenue bike lane, p. 45
. 1 Oth Avenue bike lane, p. 46
. Friendly Street bike lane/route, p. 47
. Monroe Street bike lane/route, p. 48
It is the infent of these amendments.to only remove projects that have been completed, not
projects that can be removed for other policy reasons.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commissions recommend to their respective elected
officials that the Regional Transportation System Plan project lists be updated to delete all
projects completed by the time ofthe elected officials' hearing on this matter.
Q4: The West Eugene Parkway project is still listed, though the work plan suggests they are to
be deleted.
The West Eugene Parkway was removed by the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) from the
2031 Regional Transportation Plan and, therefore, must also be removed eventually from the
Regional Transportation System Plan. Removing the West Eugene Parkway requires co-
adoption by Eugene and Lane County and will be processed separately. The amendments .
currently proposed only remove projects that have been completed.
.
SPRINGFIELD '
.
Greg Mott
Community Planning and Revttalization
Planning Manager
{Full Packet}
AGENDA
EUGENE, SPRINGFIELD, AND LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Springfield Ubrary Meeting Room
,.225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477
Phone: (541) 682-5481
Web site: www.eugene-or.goY
The Eugene, Springfield, and Lane Planning Commissions welcome your interest in this agenda item. Feel free to
come and go as you please during the meeting. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing
impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation
can also be provided with 48 hours notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 726-2700.
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF
EUGENE, SPRINGFIELD, AND LANE COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSIONS
DATE: Tuesday, April 7, 2009
LOCATION: Springfield Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield
TIME:
Work Session: 5:30 p.m.
Public Hearing: 6:00 p.m.
TransPlan Horizon Year and Removal of Completed Projects
(Eugene files MA 09-1; Springfield file LRP2008-00014; Lane County file PA 095108)
Proposal: Non-site specific text amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Regional
Transportation System Plan ("TransPlan") to adjust the planning period from year
2015 to year 2024 to reflect actual growth rates since plan adoption; and to remove
completed transportation projects from TransPlan's project lists. Amendments to the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan ("Metro Plan") are also proposed
to maintain consistency between TransPlan and the Metro Plan. '
Lead StafT: Kurt Yeiter, Senior Planner, City of Eugene, 682-8379
Greg Mott, Planning Manager, City of Springfield, 726-3774
Stephanie Schulz, Senior Planner, Lane County, 682-3958
APR 7 l009
over for meetin format and Plannin Commission rosters
Planner;
.
.
Public Bearin!!: Meetin!!: Format:
1. Work Session (commences at 5:30):
A. Each Commission chair declares the meeting open
B. Commissioner introductions
C. Staff presentation: Kurt Yeiter
2. Open public hearing (not before 6:00)
3. Questions from the Planning Commission.
4. Close public hearing.
5. Planning Commission discussion/action.
6. Each Commission Chair adjourns meeting for hislher Commission
City of Eu!!:ene Plannin!!: Commission Members: Heidi Beierle, Phillip Carroll, (Chair), Rick Duncan, Randy
Hledik, Ann Kneeland, (Vice Chair), Jobn Lawless, Jeffery Mills
Lane County Planuin!!: Commission Members: Lisa Arkin, (Chair), Steve Dignam, Todd Johnston, Tony
McCown, Nancy Nichols, Robert Noble, (Vice Chair), Howard Shapiro, Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki, John Sullivan
Sprinl!:field Plannin!!: Commission Members: Lee Beyer, Frank Cross, (Chair), Johnny Kirschenmann, (Vice
Chair), Steve Moe, Sean VanGordon, Sheri Moore, Eric Smith,
.
.
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
April 7, 2009
TO:
Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County Planning Commissions
FROM:
Kurt Yeiter, Senior Planner, Eugene Planning Division,
Greg Mott, Planning Manager, City of Springfield,
Stephanie Schulz, Planner, Lane County Land Management Division
ITEM TITLE:
Public Hearing for TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments:
TransPlan Planning Period and Removal of Completed Projects
(Eugene files MA 09-1; Springfield file LRP2008-000l4; Lane County file no. PA
09-5108)
I. ACTION REQUESTED:
Hold a public hearing on the proposed TransPlan and Metro Plan amendments. The Planning
Commissions could choose to take action after the close of the hearing. The Planning Commissions
actions will consist of each Commission making a recommendation to its respective elected bodies.
II. BRIEFING STATEMENT:
On April 7, 2009, the Planning Commissions of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County will hold a public
hearing on the following:
1. Non-site specific text amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Regional Transportation
System Plan (TransPlan) to adjust the planning period from year 2015 to year 2024 to
project the average growth rate that has occurred since TransPlan's adoption. (Attachment
C)
2. Remove completed transportation projects from TransPlan's project lists. (Attachment A)
3. Non-site specific text amendments in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan (Metro Plan) needed to maintain consistency between TransPlan and the Metro Plan.
(Attachments C and D)
ill. BACKGROUND:
On November 8, 2007, the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) adopted an update to the federally-
required Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). This update extended the RTP's planning period to 2031,
deleted projects that had been completed or that were determined to be no longer needed, moved projects
from the Illustrative Project List (beyond 20-years) to the Financially Constrained 20-Year Capital
Investment Actions List and made several other changes to proposed projects. MPC's adoption of the
updated RTP triggered a state Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requirement that Eugene, Springfield
and Lane County do one of the following by November 8, 2008:
1 of 4 . Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: 8J
.
.
1. Make findings that TransPlan is consistent with the RTP; or
2. Update TransPlan to be consistent with the RTP; or
3. Get approved by the state Land Conservation and Development Commission
(LCDC) a work plan for making TransPlan consistent with the RTP.
Eugene, Springfield and Lane County concluded that it was unlikely that DLCD would support a finding
that TransPlan is consistent with the RTP, nor could they update TransPlan by November 8, 2008, to be
consistent with the RTP. Accordingly, the three jurisdictions sought LCDC's approval of a work plan.
On October 16,2008, LCDC approved (with conditions) the Regional Transportation Work Plan ("the
Work Plan"). The Work Plan represents a logical, programmatic approach to aligning and updating the
regional land use and transportation plans.
The Work Plan requires, as a first step, that the local jurisdictions amend TransPlan in the following
manner: delete transportation projects that have been completed; delete the West Eugene Parkway (WEP);
move four ODOT Highway projects from the Illustrative list to the Financially Constrained list; and,
adjust TransPlan's planning period. A copy of the Work Plan is attached to this Agenda Item Summary
(AIS) as Exhibit F. This public hearing is to consider two of these required amendments: deletion of the
completed projects and adjustment to TransPlan's 20-year planning horizon. Separate hearings will be
held at a later date to consider the other TransPlan amendments required by the Work Plan.
IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
1. Project List Amendments: As noted above, when the MPC updated the federally-
required RTP in November, 2007, among other amendments made to the RTP, the MPC deleted the
projects that have been built. These built/completed projects should now be deleted from TransPlan.
Since the Metro Plan incorporates by reference TransPlan's project lists, the Metro Plan must also be
"amended" to acknowledge the changes to the project lists that are contained in TransPlan and
incorporated by reference in the Metro Plan.
2. TransPlan Text Amendments: 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 2024.
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
Transportation Study Area until 2024. Accordingly, the proposed amendment updates TransPlan's
planning period to 2024.
As noted above, LCDC's Regional Transportation Work Plan requires 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 federally-
required RTP. Additionally, as year 2015 approaches, ODOT, the agency that funds many of the
significant regional transportation projects, has expressed concern that this region no longer has a
sufficiently long-range transportation plan. The proposed TransPlan amendmenW reflect the year at
2 of 4 . uate Received
APR 7 2U09
Planner: BJ
.
.
which the planned population will be reached is an interim measure necessary to comply with the Work
Plan and to more accurately reflect current conditions for the benefit of the agencies funding
transportation projects, TransPlan and the Metro Plan will be revised again over the next few years to
provide integrated land use and transportation strategies for a new 20-year planning period in accordance
with the Work Plan.
3. Metro Plan Text Amendments: The goals and policies in TransPlan are contained in the
Metro Plan Transportation Element and are part of the adopted Metro Plan. Also, as noted above,
TransPlan's project lists and project maps are adopted as part of the Metro Plan. Although the project
lists are not physically maintained in the Metro Plan, but rather maintained in TransPlan, the Metro Plan
needs to be amended to simultaneously incorporate changes to the project list resulting from the removal
of completed projects. Further, amendments to TransPlan 's planning period require some text
amendments to the Metro Plan in order for the two documents to remain consistent. The proposed text
amendments to the Metro Plan are set forth in Attachment D.
V. APPLICATION, REFERRALS AND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES:
In September 2008, the Eugene City Council, Springfield City Council, and Lane County Board of
Commissioners approved and submitted to LCDC a work plan that included the task of making the
proposed amendments. As noted above, LCDC approved the work plan on October 16, 2008. Notice of
these two proposed amendments has been given to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development on October 16, 2008, revised on January 29,2009 to add the proposed removal of the
completed projects and to clarify that Metro Plan amendments were also necessary. The DLCD notice
was revised again on February 6, 2009. Notice of this public hearing was mailed to all interested parties
requesting such notice and posted on March 6, 2009. Notice of this public hearing was published in the
Register Guard newspaper on March 18, 2009.
The Planning Departments received no letters of public testimony at time of writing this Agenda Item
Summary. Any additional written comments received after the preparation of this staff report will be
provided to the Planning Commissions at the public hearing for inclusion into the public record.
VI. APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan, this region's Transportation
System Plan) guides regional transportation system planning and development in the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan area. TransPlan is a functional plan of the Metro Plan, thus, the amendment process for
TransPlan is the same as that for the Metro Plan.
The Eugene, Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions will address relevant approval criteria
in making their recommendations on the requests to the Eugene and Springfield City Councils and the
Lane County Board of County Commissioners. Criteria to be used to evaluate TransPlan and Metro
Plan text amendments are found in Springfield Development Code, Chapter 5, Section 5.l4-135( C )(1-
2); Eugene Code Section 9.7730(3); and Lane Code Section 12.225(2)(a) and (b) and 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.
. 3 of 4 Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
Testimony and evidence of those testifying should be directed toward the applicable criteria of the code,
as described above.
The Planning Commissions' recommendations must be based on evidence and testimony in the record
that is responsive to the required approval criteria The Planning Commissions may recommend
approval, approval with modifications, or denial of the requested amendments. The requests will be heard
before the elected officials in a separate joint public hearing at a date to be determiIied following Planning
Commission action.
Vll. RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the available information and materials in the record and the preliminary [mdings, included as
Attachment E, staff recommends approval of the proposed TransPlan and Metro Plan amendments.
If the Planning Commissions would like to take action after the close of the public hearing, staffs
recommended motion is: Move to recommend that, based on the [mdings of consistency set forth in
Attachment E, and the evidence and testimony entered into the record which also supports the conclusion
of consistency with the applicable criteria, the City CouncillBoard of Commissioners adopt the
amendments to TransPlan and the Metro Plan as set forth in Exhibits A, C, and D.
VIII. ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Proposed TransPlan Project List Amendments
Attachment B: Preliminary Calculations for TransPlan Planning Period
Attachment C: Proposed TransPlan Text Amendments
Attachment D: Proposed Text Amendments to the Metro Plan
Attachment E: Findings of Consistency
Attachment F: LCDC Work Plan
IX. FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Please contact Kurt Yeiter, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, 99 W. 10th Avenue,
Eugene, OR 97401, by telephone at 541-682-8379 or via email at kurt.m.veiter@ci.eugene.or.us.
Or
Greg Mort, Planning Manager, City of Springfield: 541-726-3774, gmott@ci.springfield.or.us
Stephanie Schulz, Planner, Lane County: 541-682-3958, Stephanie.Schulz@co.lane.or.us
40f4
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
Attachment A
Completed Projects to be Removed from TransPlan
The projects checked and marked with the word "Delete" have been
completed and are proposed to be removed from TransPlan.
Date Received
APR 7 Z009
Planner: BJ
.
.
I
\
....,.
Chapter 3: Table la-Financially Constrained
20- Year Capital Investment Actions: Roadway Projects
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Estimated
Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Project Category: New Arterial Link or Interchange
Status: Programmed -./
Jasper Road Main Street to Jasper Construct +lane arterial; Lane County $10,400,000 3.2 66
'De-\ e.-te.- Extension Road phasing to be determined;
improve RR X-ing at Jasper
Rd; at grade interim
improvement; grade
separation long-range
improvement
lerry Street Royal Avenue to Construct new 2 to 3-lane Eugene $1,116,000 0.44 487 (,
Roosevelt Boulevard urban facillly
West Eugene Seneca Road to Bettline W 11th. Garfield: 4-lane 0001 $17,283,ooD 1.3 336
part<way, (1A) Road new construcUon
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
Boulevard
TransPlan
Date Received
APR 7 t009
Planner: BJ
July 2002
Chapter 3. Page 14
. .
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Nnmber
"be...\e.te,.. Pioneer Pa~y Hartow Road to BelUine 4-5laoe rrunor arterial Springfield $8,500,000 768 ./
Extension Road
West Eugene Garfield Street to Seneca W 11th- Garlield: 4-lane Door $34,231,000 1.3337Parkway,
(16) Road new construction. continued
West Eugene West 11Vl Avenue to Construct two lanes of future DOOr $30,496,000 2.56 338
Parkway (lA) SelUine Road 4-lane roadway
West Eugene West 11'" Avenue to Construct remaining two lanes DOOr $6,545,000 2.56 339
Parkway (26) Beltfine Road
Status Sub-Total $82,772,000
Project Category Sub-Total $111,571,000
Date Recei\lp.d
TransPlan
API< 7 za09
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 15
Planner: dJ
.
.
/ '.
1\ '."
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Estimated
Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Project Category: Added Freeway Lanes or Major
Interchange Improvements
Staius: Programmed
Beltline Highway Royal Avenue to Overcrosslng at Royal, ODOT $14,699,000 4O9 V-
Roosevelt Boulevard continue widening to 4 lanes
De-! e. fe, south to railroad structure,
construct Roosevelt
extension from Beltline to
Oanebo, tuff at grade slgnat
controlled b11en>ection of
BelUine and Roosevelt
(ODOT: W. 11th N. city limijo
stage 2)
1-5 @ BelUine Highway ROW Purchase ODOT $1.250,000 0 606 I,
DeltalBeltline Interirnlsafety Improvements: Lane Counly '.
$5,500,000 0 638
Interchange replace/revise existing
ramps; widen Delta
Highway bridge to 5 lanes
Status Sub-Total $2I;449,OOO
Status: Unprogrammed
~5 @ Bemine Highway Reconstrudime~ange ODOT $53,300,000 0 606
and 1-5, upgrade BeWlne
Road East to 5 lane urban
facility, and construct 1-5
bike and pedestrian bridge.
TransP/an
Date Received
. APR 7 2009
(
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 16
Planner: BJ
.
.
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Estimated
Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
1-105
Washington/Jefferson Extend U1ird SB lane over ODOT
Street Bridge bridge to 6th Ave exit
.$1,505,000 025
151
Status Sub-Total
$54,805,000
Project Category Sub-Total
$76,254,000
TransPlan
Date Received
APR 7 2009
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 17
Planner: BJ
.
.
f .
\,:"
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
J nrisdiction
Estimated
. Cost Length Nnmber
Project Category: Arterial Capacity Improvements
Status: Programmed
De..! eA e... Beltline Highway @1-5 Safety mprovements OOOT 51,746.000 0 607 ,/
DtleJe. Bloomberg McVay Highway 1D 30th ModIfication of connection Lane County, 5500,000 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 5200,000 0 712
6thf7th Intersection Garfield SIreetlD Provide Improvements such OOOT. 5520,000 0 133 V (
Improvement Washington/Jefferson as adcfrtlonal turn lanes and Eugene
De-Jete... Street signal improvements:
intersections include 6t1l17th
Avenues at Garfield.
Chambers.
Washington/Jefferson
street Bridge
BelUlne Highway @ Coburg Road Construct ramp and signal OooT 5500,000 0 622
improvements
Centennial @ 28th SIreet Traffic control Improvements Springfield 5200.000 0 924
Boulevard
Centennial @ 21st SIreet Traffic control improvements Springfield 5200,000 0 927
Boulevard
Centennial Prescott Lane to MiQ Reconstrud section to 4--5 Springfield 51,000,000 0.3 818
Boulevard Road lanes
Eugene-Springfield @ Mohawk Boulevard Add lanes on ramps OOOT 5250,000 0.68 821
Highway (SR-12S) Interchange
Harrow Road @ Pheasant Boulevard Traffic control Improvements Springfield 5200,000 0 744
Irving Road @ NW Gansborough entrance to Construct overpass over Lane County 52.000,000 0.3 530
Expressway Prairie Road NW Expressway and
railroad. Signalize access
on north side.
Main Street @ 48th SIreet Traffic control improvements Springfield $200.000 0 69
(
TransPlan . Date Received July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 1&
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jnrisdiction Cost Length Number
Main Street @ Mountaingate Drive Traffic control improvements Spring1ield $200,000 75
QStreel @ Pioneer Parkway Traffic control improvements Sprtng1ield $200,000 0 IT;'
S 42nd Slree! @ Daisy Street Signal Improvement ODOT, $200,000 0 951
Sprtng1ield
Traffic Control Various locations Traffic signals, intersection Eugene $2,000,000
Improvements upgrades, turn pockets, ete.
Stofus Sub- Total $7,870,000
Project Category Sub-Total $10,116,000
TransPIan
Date Received
APR 7 2009
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 19
Planner: BJ
.
.
f'
1:- .
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 2-1ane colledor
30th Street Main Street to Centennial New cofJedor street Springfield $904.500 0.67 915
Boulevard
36th Street Yolanda Avenue to Extend existing street as Springfield $1.701.000 0.63 709
Marco!a 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-lane collector Springfield $1,000,000 0.37 16 (
Road
1.J~\e,t e... Avalon street GreenhiD Road to T eny New major collector Eugene $810,000 0.3 432 ---
Street
Qe,\e.,,-\-e.,.. Cardinal Way Game Farm Road to MDR Upgrade 2 to 3-lane urban Springfield $1,242,000 0.46 721 ./
rn:'rth-south connector facility
De. \€. \~ Daisy Street 46th Slreet to 48th Street New 2 to 3--Iane urban Springfield $929,ooo 0,27 24 ./
Extension facility, traffic control
improvements
Future Collector A Gilham to County Farm New neighborhood colledor Eugene $1,890,000 0.7 651
Road @ Locl<e Street
Future Collector C1 Unda lane - Jasper Road New 2 to 3-1ane 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 collector
Future Colle_ 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 MIG-Natron New 2 to 3-lane urban Springfield $1,820,000 0.6 42
site collector
Future Colledor C5 Loop Rd In South Natron New 2 to 3-lane urban Springfield $2,700,000 45
Site collector
Future Colle_ C6 M1 Vernon Road. Jasper New 2 to 3..fane urban Springfield ' $2,700,000 48
Road Extension collector
,.....
TransPlan Date Received July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 20
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Project Category: Urban Standards
Status: Programmed
J f 18th Avenue
Dil. t e. fe"
l:t-1e.Je... Ayres Road
De \ e +t
Dele+(
Bertelsen Road
Coburg Road
Delta Highway
Dillard Road
Fox Hollow Road
'[y i e k Garden Way
Goodpasture
Island Road
'\.)e,\e., t.e.,. Greenhill Road
De Ie -h: IrvingtonRoad
De) d-e.- Prairie Road
Royal Avenue
Bertelsen Road to Willow Upgrade to 2-lane urban
Creek Road facmty
Delta Highway to Gilham Upgrade to 2 to 3-Iane urban
Road faciUty
18th Avenue to Bailey Hm Upgrade to 2 to 3-lane urban
Road facility
Kmney Loop to Armitage Reconstruct to 3-lane urban
Park facUlty to UGB, turn lane @
park entrance, rural
Ayres Road to Beltline Upgrade to 3-lane urban
Road facility
43rd Street to Gamet
Street
Upgrade to 2~lane urban
faoility
Upgrade to 2-la"e uman
facility
Donald Street to UGB
Sisters View Avenue to Upgrade to 2 10 3-lane urban
Centennial Boulevard facility
Delta Highway to Happy Upgrade to 2-1ane urban
Lane facmly
North Boundary of Airport Closing of existing road and
to Airport Road realignment of east
boundary of airport property
River Road to Prairie Road Upgrade to 2 to 3~lane urban
facinty
Carol Lane 10 lrvington Reconstruct to 3-lane urban
Drive racUity
Terry Street to Greenhin Upgrade to 3-lane urban
Road facility
[) e Ie f e.. Shellon-Mc:Murphey Lincoln S1. to Pearl Sl
IX--Ie.Je...
Seward Sl
Connection
Gateway/Harlow
Gateway/Game
Farm Rd. East
TransPlan
Upgrade to urban faciuty
Wayside to Manor
Upgrade to local urban
standards
GatewaylHarlow
Intersection
Intersection improvements
Gateway/Game Farm
Rd. East lntersection
Intersection Improvements
Jurisdiction
Eugene, Lane
County
Eugene
Eugene
Lane County
Eugene
Eugene
Eugene, Lane
County
Eugene
Eugene
Lane County.
Eugene
Lane County
Lane County
Lane County,
Eugene
Eugene
Springfield
Springfield
Springfield
Status Sub- Total
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
Estimated
Cost Length Number
$1,065,000 0.71
$1,262,000 0.52
$1,035,000
$2,380,000 1.1 9
$900,000 0.91
$450,000 0.34
$841,000 0.5
$1,715,000
$413,000
$3,000,000
$2,880,000
$825,000
$2,680,000
$1,496,000
$40,000
$1.300,000 0.5
$400,000
$22,681,000
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 23
0.75
0.19
2.06
1.44
0.35
1.01
0.4
0.25
0.26
0,6
450
303
.....--
603
0/"
315
626
V'
635
0/"
233
245
667
/
664
486
./'
533
/""
,/"
472
.w1
v
787
785
/
786
.
.
, '
~. :
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jnrisdiction Cost Length Number
Status: Unprogrammed
28th Street Main Street to Centennial Widenlprovide sidewalks Springfield $1,050,000 0.7 909
Boulevard and bike lanes; provide
intersection and signal
improvements at MaIn Street
3101 Street Hayden Bridge Road to U Upgrade to 2 to 3-lane urban Lane County $1,275,000 0.85 765
Streel facility
35th Streel Commerdal Avenue to Upgrade to 3-lane urban Springfield $920,000 0046 918
Olympic Street facUity
42nd Street Marcola Road to Railroad ReconstnJct to 3-lane urban Springfield $2,060,000 1.03 713
Tracks facUity
48th Slreet Main Street to G Street Upgrade to 2..Jane urban Springfield $120,000 OAB 3
facility
52nd Streel G Street to Upgrade to 2-1ane urban Springfield $300,000 0,2 6
Eugene-Springfield facility
Highway (SR 126)
I
691hSlreet Main Street to Thurston Widen on east side of Springfield $840,000 0,58 15 l,
Road roadway
Agate Street 30th Avenue to Black Oak Upgrade to 2-Jane urban Eugene $5B5,000 0.39 215
Road facility
Aspen Street West 0 Street to Reconstrud to 2 to 3-1ane Lane County I $750,000 0.5 B09
Centennial Boulevard urban facility Springfield
Baldy View Lane Deadmond Ferry Road to Upgrade to urban standards Springfield $420,000 0.28 715
lhe end of dedicated
right-of-way
Bethel Drive Roosevelt Boulevard to Upgrade to 2-lane urban Eugene $2,500,000 1.68 414
Highway gg facility
\:::e.-\ e.-k- Centennial Blvd_ March Chase to 1-5 Upgrade to uroan facility Eugene $400,000 0.4 697 ,/
(north side)
Commercial Street 35th Street to 42nd Street Upgrade to 3-la08 urban Springfield $1,620,000 0.81 933
facirJly
County Farm Loop North-to-South Section Upgrade to 3-laoo urban Lane County, $825,000 0.55 631
facility Eugene
County Farm Loop West-to-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 raality
Elmira Road (
Bertelsen Road to Upgrade to 2Mlane urban Eugene $1,815,000 1.21 420 ,
TransPlan Date Received July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 24
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jnrisdiction Cost Length Number
Future conector C7 North-south in mid-Natron New 2 to 3-laoe urban Springfield $1,512,000 0.56 51
site colledor
Future Collector E . Bailey Hill Road to New major collector Eugene $2,700,000 1 318
Bertelsen Road
Future Collector F Royal Avenue to Teny New major collector Eugene $1,890,000 0.7 429
Street
Future Collector H Future Collector G to New major collector Eugene $1,350,000 0.5 435
Royal Avenue
Future CoUector J, Awbrey Lane to Enid New major collector Eugene $2,180,000 0.8 441
Road
Future Collector 0 Barger Drive to Avalon New neighborhood rolledor Eugene $1,800,000 0.5 447
street
Future Collector P Avalon Street to Future New neighborhood conector Eugene $4,500,000 1.11 449
Collector F
Glacier Drive 55th ?treet to 48th Street Develop new, Z-Iane urban Springfield $1,840,000 0.92 57
facility
Glenwood 1-5 to Laurel Hill Drive New collector Eugene $2,565,000 0.95 254
Boulevard
Extension
.'t;e'\e,,~e..- Hyacinth street Irvinglon Drive to New neighborhood collector Eugene $600,000 0.16 537 ...--
Lynnbrook Drive
\::le..k..\-<.. Kinsrow Avenue CentennIal Boulevard to New neighborhood collector Eugene $800,000 02 659 V
Garden Way
t:;e...\.e.--\--c... LakeviewlParkvlew Gilham Road to County New neighborhood canedor Eugene $1,755,000 0.65 844 ....-
Farm Road
'\::le....\U-t:,.. legacy Street Barger Drive to Avalon New major collector Eugene $800,000 02 445 .......-
Street
McKenzie.-Gafeway Within MOO site New 2 to 3-Jane collector Springfield $2,160,000 0.8 756
MDR Loop Collector into MDR site
MDRSlte North-south within MDR Construct new 3-lane Springfield $1,440,000 0.4 762
site north.south collector
't,)e.\e.r .h:..... Mountaingate Drive Main Street to South 581h New 3-lane collector Springfield $2,430,000. 0.9 78 ..-
Street
Mt Vernon Road Jasper Road Extenston to Extend existing street as Springfield . $540,000 0.2 81
Mountaingate Drive 2.lane collector
V Street 31st Street to Marcola New 2 to 3-lane colledor Springfield $1,755,000 0.65 m
Road
Vera DrivelHayden 15th Street to 20th Street New 2 to 3-lane urban Springfield $918,000 0.34 780.
Bridge Road collector
TransPlan Date Received July 2002
APR Chapter 3, Page 21
7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Estimated
Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Yolanda Avenue
31st Street to 34th Street Ex1end existing street as
2.lane colledor
Springfield
$540,000
0.2
783
TransPlan
Status Sub-Total
Project Category Sub-Total
Date Received
APR 7 Z009
Planner: BJ
$57,948,500
$57,948,500
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 22
,1~
(
,
(
.
.
Highway 99 facility
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
G street 48th Street to 52nd Street Upgrade to 2-1ane urban Springfield $465,000 0.31 54
faCIlity
OeJ e ~L Game Farm Road Coburg Road to J..5 Upgrade to 2 to 3-fane urban Eugene, lane $2,150,000 1.3 654 ,./
North facility County
Game Farm R.oad Game Farm Road East to Upgrade to 2-laoe urban lane County, $1,395,000 0.93 737
Soulh Harlow Road facility Springfield
be-\'e..A-e...- Gilham Road Northernmost New Upgrade to 2~lane urban Eugene $690,000 0.46 662 .---
Collector to Ayres Road faClTrty
GreentJin Road Barger Drive to West 11th 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 J DMslon Avenue to River Upgrade to 2-1ane urban Lane County $1,710,000 1.14 527
Beaver Street Road facility
Jeppesen Acres Gilham Road to Upgrade to 2-laoe 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 Street Roosevelt Boulevard to Upgrade to 2-lane urban Eugene $210,000 0.14 459
Elmira Road facility
Old Coburg Road Game Fann Road to Chad Upgrade to 3-lane urban Eugene $525,000 . 0.35 680
Drive facUity
River Avenue River Road to Division Upgrade to 2 to 3-lane urban Eugene $1,700,000 0.85 542
Avenue faCility
Ot Ie +G River Road Carthage Avenue to Widen to 3-tane urban lane O:lunty $900,000 0.38 545 .."....-
Beacon Drive facility
S. 28th street Main Street to Millrace Upgrade to 3-lane urban Springfield $2,000,000 0.67 945
Deltte... facility
S. 32nd Straet Main Street to Railroad Upgrade to 3-lane urban Spnngfield $800,000 0.4 948 ".----
facility'
.,..., J } S. 42nd Street Main street to Jasper Reconstruct to 2 to 3-lane ODOT $1,600,000 0.8 954
I.A!let(.... urban facility; curbs, ./"
sidewalks and bike lanes
TransPlan
Date Received
APR 7 2009
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 25
Planner: BJ
.
.
Geographic Estimated (
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Street lighting Various Locations Add street fighting on Eugene $1,000,000 ~
Arterialslconectors
Thurston Road nnd Street to UGB Upgrade to 3-lane urban Springfield $1.220,000 0.61 98
faciUty
Van Ouyn Road Western Drive to Harlow Reconstruct to 2-lane uman Eugene $375,000 0.25 696
Road fadUty
Wdkes Drive River Road to River loop Upgrade to 3-lane urban Lane County $1,365,000 0,91 554
1 facility
Willow Creek Road 18th Avenue to UGB Upgrade to 2-1300 urban Eugene $1,590,000 1,06 342
Facility
Bailey HiD Road Bertelsen to UGB Upgrade to urban faolfty Eugene $3,200,000 1.2 343
Dillard Road Gamet to UGB Upgrade to urban facllity Eugene $2,000,000 1.0 298
South Willamette Spencer Crest to UGB Upgrade to urban facility Eugene $400,000 0.2 299
SumrnttDrive Fairmont to Floral Hm Dr. Upgrade to urban facility Eugene $500,000 0.3 452
Glenwood Blvd Franklin Btvd to '-5 Upgrade to wban facJJUy Springfield $600,000 0,5 836
Traffic Calming Various locations Neighborhood traffic calming Eugene $1,000,000 101
to address problems on
resldentJal streets, Inclucfmg
collectors (
Services for New Various Locations New public streets and Eugene $4,000,000 102
Development Improvements to eJdsting streets
Initiated by private development
and consistent with adopted CIP
Status Sub-Total $61,920,000
Project Category Sub-Total $84,601,000
TramPian
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
July 2002
Chapler 3, Page 26
.
.
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Cost Length Number
Project Category: Study
Status: Programmed
De-It +e...
1-5 @ Beltline
Study & Design
@ Interchange
Project development work
ODOT
$3,375,000 -
606
....-
Status Sub-Total
$3,375,000
Status: Unprogrammed
5-5 Interchange Willamette River south Comprehensive study of 1-5 ODDT $750,000 - 250
Study to 301h Avenue Interchanges
18th Avenue Bertelsen Road to Agate Conidor study to determine Eugene $250,000 4.71 118
Street improvements
Chambers Street 8th Avenue to 18th Corridor Study to determine Eugene $250,000 0.8 136
Avenue Improvements
Coburg Road Crescent Avenue to Access management! Eugene $100,000 224 619
Ce k..J." FeTTY SlJee1Bridge Oakway Road safety-operatlonal study
Oakway Road to Long-Range Capaclly Eugene $250,000 1.08 139 ~
Broadway Refinement Plan
De. I e.. +e.. SOuth Bank Street Mill street to Hilyard Develop refinement plan for Eugene, $250,000 178 .....-
Improvements Street street system ODOT
W11thAvenue BeltJine Road to Access Management. Eugene $100,000 2.74 332
Chambers Street Safety, and Operational
Study
VIIillarnette 13th Avenue to 33rd Corridor study to detennine Eugene $250,000 5.55 187
Street/Amazon Avenue improvements
PartwaylPatterson
Street/Hilyard Street
Maln SjreeV , ~5 to UGB A~s ma;nagement plan ODOTISplingfield " $100,000 6.0 838
Highway 126'
Eugene-Spririgfield l-5toMaln Corridor Study ODOTlSpringfield $150,000 6.5 835
Hwy.
Main Sl and 52nd 52nd to Main Interchange Plans ODOTISplinglield $100,000 1.5 96
Bt/Hwy 126 Inl
BelUine River Rd to Coburg Rd Facility Plan Study .oDOT $500,000 3.46 555
Status Sub-Total $3,050,000
Project Category Sub-Total $6,425,000
TransPlan
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
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
Project Category: Buses and Bus Maintenance
Bus Purchases
b.e~C*-e.. Expansion of
... Operating Base
New & replacement buses
$41,155,000
1110,1315
Glenwood near
Franklin Blvd
Expansion of existing
operation and maintenance
$5,000,000
1320
/
Project Category Sub-Total
$46,155,000
TransPlan
Date Received
APR 7 2009
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 35
Planner: BJ
.
.
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 /
'i)e..\e.te... Aulzen Station Vicinity of Autze" Transfer station and $1,000,000 1140
Stadium Park-and.Ride lot
"U€.. \e..~~ LCC Slation Lane Community E:xpand Lee Station $500,000 1125. /
Expansion College
Passenger Boarding Various locations "'ads, Benches & Shellers $1,500,000 1130,1330,1355
Improvements
'tJe\e.~e... 11lh&Beltline Vicinii)' of 11lhAve iransferstatIon, possibly $1,000,000 1340 ./
Station and Beltllne Highway Park-.and-Ride lot
De.\e~ Gateway & Beltline Vicinity of Transfer station. possibly $1,000,000 1350 /
Station Gateway and BeltUne Hwy Park.and-Ride lot
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 /
Ue.,\e... +e:.... Springfield Station Downtown Springfield New transit station $5,000,000 1135
Barger & Seltlina Vicinity of Barger Transfer station $1,000,000 1310
Station Rd and Beltline Highway
Churchill Station Vicinity of 18th Transfer station $1,000,000 1335
Avenue and Bailey Hill Road
Coburg & Beltline Vicinity of Coburg Transfer station $1,000,000 1120
Station Ref and Bellline Highway
Mohawk & Olympic VICinity of Mohawk Transfer station $1,000,000 1325
Station Blvd and Olympic
Project Type Sub-Total $10,500,000
Project Category Sub-Total $24,500,000
Total Capital Projects: Transit System $170,655,000
TransPlan
Date Received
APR 7 2009
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 37
Planner: 8J
.
.
(
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
De-! e- f-e- 42nd Street Pathway Marcola Road to Railroad Mulll-Use Path Springfield $615,000 1,10 795 ",.....
Tracks
De-Ide.- East Bank Trail Owosso Bridge to Mulll-Use Path Eugene $1,500,000 2.02 641 ,../
Greenway Bridge
r:>t.idc. Fern Ridge Path #2 Teny Street to Green Hill Multi-Use Path Eugene $2,600,000 2.01 423 V-
Road
Status Sub-Total $4,715,000
Status: Unprogrammed
5th Avenue Garfield SlreellD Route, Multi-Use Path Eugene $36,000 021 127
Chamber.; Street ,
5th Avenue Connector Garfield SlreellD Multi-Use Path ODOT $205,000 0.36 130
(WEP) McKinley Street
Avalon Streel (A) CandleUght Drive ID Multi-Use Path/Route Eugene $74,500 0.36 403
Settline Path
Booth Keny Road 28th Street to Multi-Use Path Springfield $245,000 2.14 921
Weyerhauser Truck Road
By Gully Extension Min Street to 5th Street Multi~Use Path Springfield, $60,000 0.11 612
Willamalane
Delta Ponds Path East Bank Trail to Robin Mulfi..Use Path and Bridge Eugene $1,372,000 1.06 637
Hood Lane
De, !efe.. Garden Way I Canoe Canal to N. Bank Multi.Use Path Eugene $205,000 0.14 660 ,/'
Knickerbocker Bridge Trail
Connector
1.5 Path Har10w Road to Chad Multi-Use Pa1h Eugene $716,000 0.89 666
McKenzie River Path 42nd Street to 520d Multi-Use Path and Sbiped Springfield $2,620,000 1.55 753
Slreet Lane
Millrace Path (Eug.) (C) Moss Street to Rail Multi-Use Path Eugene $933,000 0.51 169
underpass
Millrace Path (Spr.) 28th Streello 32nd Street Multi-Use Path Springfield $150,000 0.40 859
rronsPlan
. Date Received
APR 7 l009
July 2002
Chapter 3, Pag~ 40
Planner: BJ
.
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
Millrace Path (Spr.) S. 2nd street to S. 28th Mulfi-Use Path Springfield $2.340.000 1.60 840
Street
D.t.ld~ Oakmant Park: Oakway Road to Coburg Route. Multi-Use Path Eugene .$67.000 027 678 .r-
Road
Q Street Channel Centennial loop to MufU-Use Path Eugene $665,200 1.42 682
Garden Way Path
Sprlng Boulevard (B) 29th Avenue to 30th Multi-Use Path Eugene $205,000 022 281
Avenue
Valley River Valley RIver Way to North MuItl-Use Palh Eugene $102,000 0.12 692
Connector (B) Bank TraD
Westmoreland Palt Fillmore Street to Taylor Multi~Use Path Eugene $102,000 0.41 181
Path street
Status Sub-Total $10,017,700
Project Category Sub-Total $14,732,700
TransPlan
Date Received
APR 7 2009
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 41
Planner: BJ
.
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Lengtb Number
Project Category: On-Street Lanes or Routes With Road Project
Status: Programmed
bele-k 11th Avenue Terry Street to Danebo Striped Lane OOOT $0 0.49 398 .,/
Avenue
De.I d-e,.. 18th Avenue Bertelsen Road to Willow Striped Lane Eugene, Lane $0 0.85 303 ,/"
Creek Road County
Dele..h.- Ayres Road Delta Highway to Gilham Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.52 603 /'
Road
Beaver Street Mertal Hunsaker Lane to Wilkes Striped Lane Lane County $0 0.92 503
Drive
Bertelsen Road 18th Avenue to Bailey HiD striped lane Eugene $0 0.60 315
Road
Df,lek Coburg Road Kinney Loop 10 Armitage Striped Lane/Shoulder Lane County $0 0.87 625 ./
Bridge
'De let<.. Delta Highway Ayres Road to Green Striped Lana Eugene $0 0.68 635 ./
Aaes Road
Dillard Road 43rd Street 10 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 Honow Road Donald Street to COne Striped Lane Eugene,Lane $0 0.50 245
Road County
Goodpasture Island Della Highway to Happy Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.33 664
Road Lane
[)eJeh. Jrvlngton Road River Road to Prairie Road Striped Lane lane County $0 1.44 533 .,-/'
De-Ide... Prairie Road Carol Lane to Irvlnglon .Striped Lane Lane County $0 0.38 472 --
Drive
De.id-e., Roosevelt BouleVard BeltJine Road to Danebo Striped Lane OooT $0 024 475 l/"
Avenue
Royal Avenue Terry Street 10 GreenhlO Striped Lane Lane County, $0 1.01 481
Road Eugene
West Eugene Par1may Seneca Road to SelUina Striped Lane OOOT $0 1.65 338
(1A) Road
Status Sub-Total $0
TransPlan
Date Received
APR 7 2009
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 43
Planner: BJ
.
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Numher
Status: Unprogrammed
28th street Main Street to Centennial Strfped Lane Spring8eld $I) 0.70 909
Boulevard
31st Street Hayden Bridge to U street Striped Lane lane Courity $0 0.57 765
35th Street Commercial Avenue to Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.57 918
Olympic Street
51sV52nd street Main Street to High Banks Route, Striped Lane Spring8eld $0 1.20 6
Road
69th Street Main Street to Thurston Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.55 15
Rood
Aspen Street West D Street to Menlo Striped Lane . Lane COunty, $0 0.58 809
Loop Spring8eld
Beltline Road East Gateway Street to Game Striped Lane OOOT $0 0.70 718
Farm Road
Bethel DrIve Roosevelt Boulevard to Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 1.69 414
Highway 99
Commercial Street 35th Street 10 4200 Street Striped Lane Springfield $I) 0.70 933
County Farm loop West.to-East section Slriped Lane Lane County, $0 0.56 632
Eugene
County Farm Loop North-to-South section Striped lane Lane County, SO 0.53 631
Eugene
Daisy Street 46th Street to 48th Street Sbiped Lane Springfield SO 0.06 24
Elmira Road Bertelsen Road to Route Eugene SO 1.21 420
Highway 99
Future Collector H Future conector G to Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.47 435
Royal Avenue
Future CoDect.or 0 Barger Drive to Future Slriped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.49 447
Collector G
Game Farm Road 1-5 to Crescent Avenue Striped Lane Lane County SO 1.01 606
North ./
De..ltfe... Game Farm Road Coburg Road to Crescent Striped Lane lane County SO 1.30 654
North Avenue
Game Farm Road Beltline Road to Hanow Striped Lane Lane County, So 0.90 737
South Roed Springfield
Gilham Road Honeywood Street to Torr Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 1.03 662
Avenue
Glenwood Boulevard Judkins to Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.42 827
Glennwood Drive
TransPlan
Date Received
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 44
APR 7 2009
PlannAr: K,J
.
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Lengtb Number
Greenhill Road Barger Drive to W. 11th Striped lane Lane County, $0 2.74 454
Avenue Eugene
Hayden Bridge Road Yolanda Avenue ID Striped Lane Lane County $0 1.30 747
Marcola Road
De/<./-e.... Hayden Bridge Road Yolanda Avenue to Striped Lane Lane County $0 0.54 798 ./
Marcola Road
Hunsaker Lane' Dlvision Avenue to River Striped Lane Lane County $0 1.11 527
Beaver Sb"eet Road
Jasper Road (B) Mt Vernon Road to, UGB Striped Lane OOOT $0 220 63
South
LakeviewlParkview Gilham Road to County Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.79 644
Farm Road
laura Street Scotls Glen Drive to Striped Lane Springlleld $0 0.40 750
Harlow Road
Maple Street Elmira Avenue to Route Eugene $0 0.15 469
Roosevelt Boulevard
Old Coburg Road Game Farm Road 10 Chad Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.34 660
Drive
River Avenue River Road to Division Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.85 542
Avenue
S. 28th Street Main Street to Millrace Striped Lene Sprin9field $0 0.51 945
\:)e \e..lrc... s. 32nd Street Main Street to Railroad Striped ~ne Springfield $0 0.39 948 ./'
Crossing /
odete.. S. 4200 Street Main Street to Jasper Sbiped Lane OOOT $0 0.80 954
Van Duyn Road Western Drive to Harlow Route Eugene $0 025 696
Road
County
Weyerhauser Haul 481h Street to 57th Street Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.91 57
Road
Wilkes Drive River Road fo River Loop 1 Striped Lane lane County $0 0.S9 554
West Eugene ParkWay Highway 99 to Seneca Rd Striped Lane OOOT $0 0.64 337
(18)
West Eugene Parkway West 11'1> to Beltline Striped Lane OOOT $0 2.38 338
(2A)
Status Sub-Total $0
Project Category Sub-Total $0
TransPIan
Date Received
APR 7 2009
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 45
Planner: BJ
.
.
I.
, .
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Nnmber
Project Category: On-Street Lanes or Routes Without Road Project
[)ell-h. Status: Programmed ./
14111 Street S. A Streel to G Street S1rlped Lane Springfield $0 0.55 803
28111 Street Centennial Boulevard to Striped Lane Springfleld $0 0.26 912
Olympic Street
De\de.... 58th Street High Banks Road to Striped lane Springfield $0 0.17 9 ./'
Thurston Road
7th Avenue Bailey Hill Road to Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.90 306
McKinley Sireet
Bailey Hill Road 5111 Avenue to W. 11111 Sfriped lane Eugene $0 0.27 309
Avenue ./
De It /-( Centennial Boulevard 5111 Street to 28111 Street Striped lane Springfield $0 1.63 815
McKinley Street 5th Avenue to 7th Avenue Route Eugene $0 0.19 163
Del t I-c Mohawk Boulevard G Street to Marcola Road Striped lane Springfield $0 0.96 843 ./'
D{ It ./-eO' Roosevelt Boulevard Danebo Avenue to Teny Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.51 478 ,../
Street
~ Status Sub-Total $0
Status: Unprogrammed
10th Avenue Lincoln Street to High Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.45 103
Street
11th Avenue Chambers Street to Striped Lane Eugene $30,000 1.04 106
lIncoln Street
13th Avenue Chambers Street to Striped lane Eugene $30.000 0.96 109
Lawrence street
De. h I-e.. 16th Avenue Alder Street to Agale street Sbiped lane Eugene $0 0.73 115 ./
1st Avenue Bertelsen Road to Seneca Striped lane or Route Eugene $0 1.12 491
Road
Ddel-e... 21st Street Main Street to Olympic Striped lane Springfteld $0 0.92 906 /
Street
24th Avenue Chambers street to Striped Lane or Route Eugene $60,000 0.82 121
Jefferson Street
De I e:f.e.. 28th Avenue Frtendly Street to Tyler Sfriped lane Eugene $0 0.70 203 ~
Street
TransP/an
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: 8J
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 46
(-. .
,
.
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction Cost Length Number
29th Avenue Pearl Street to porUand Striped Lane Eugene . $90,000 0.15 206
Street
2nd Avenue Polk Street to Van Buren Route Eugene $0 025 124
Slreet
3001 Avenue I Agate Streel to 29th Striped Lane Eugene $528,000 0.91 209
Amazon Parkway Avenue
33rd Avenue VvUlamette Street to Striped lane or Route Eugene $0 0.55 212
Hilyard Slreet /'
De-Ieh. 3rd/4th Connector Uncoln Street to High Striped lane or Route Eugene $0 0.43 180
Street
42nd Street Marcola Road to Railroad Striped Lene Springfield $0 1.10 713
. Tracks
5th Street Centennial Boulevard to G Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.35 808
Street
66111 Street Main street to Thurston Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.55 12
Road
Augusta Street 1-5-Ramp to Floral HiD Sbiped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.98 218
Drive
Candlelight Drive I Barger Avenue to Royal Route Eugene $0 1.01 417
Danebo Avenue Avenue
Dde.te.. Centennial Boulevard Centennial boulevard @ Add sidewalk to bridge and OooT, $50,000 0.00 610 /'
Overpass 1-5 approaches, modify Eugene.
guardrail, striped lane Springfield
Chambers Street 24th Awnue to 28th Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.42 224
Avenue
crmlco Drive I Debrick eal Young Road to Roule Eugene $0 0.51 616
Road WillagUlespJe Road
Dillard Road Gamet Street to UGB Striped Lane Eugene $570,000 1.83 234
Donald Street 39th Avenue to Fox Roule Eugene $0 0.62 236
HoUow Road
De. \e. \ e.. EaSV West Amazon Hilyard Street to Fox Striped Lane Eugene $0 1.06 239 ,,/"
Or1ve Hollow RoadlOllIard Road
Emerald street129th 24th Avenue to Roule Eugene $0 0.82 242
Avenue Laurelwood Go~ Course
and Unrverslty Street
De.}th. Franklin Boulevard Glenwood Boulevard to Striped Lane Eugene, $264,000 0.64 824 /
Springfield Bridges ODOT
Friendly Street 16th Avenue to 28th Striped Lene or Route Eugene $40,000 0.98 251
Avenue
G Street 5111 Street io 28111 Street Striped Lene Of Route Springfield $9,500 1.60 899
TransPlan
Date Received
APR 7 2009
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 47
Planner: BJ
.
.
(
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jurisdiction . Cost Length Number
'De Ie Ie... Game Fann South Beltline to Deadmond Striped Lane Springfield $0 0.12 738 ./
Fel'TY Road
Garfield Street Roosevelt Boulevard to Striped lane Eugene $132,000 129 145
14th Avenue
Golden Gardens Jessen Drive to Barger Route Eugene $0 0.50 451
Drive
GreenhIA Road Ba'!ler Drive to Airport Shoulder Lane Cotmty $209,000 1.47 457
Road
Greenhill Road Crow Road to W.11th Striped lane/Shoulder Lane County $38,000 0.28 453
Avenue
Grove Street Silver Lane to Howard Striped lane or Route Lane County $0 0.16 515
Avenue
High Street 3"' Avenue to 5th Avenue Striped lane or Route Eugene $0 025 185
Hilfiard lane N. Park Avenue to W. Route LeneCounty $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. Pane Sbiped Lane or Route lane County $0 0.96 524
Avenue
Ivy Street 67th Street to 70th Street Route Sprtngfield $0 0.30 99 f
Kinsrow Avenue Centennial Boulevard to Route Eugene $0 0.30 672
the East
lake Drive I N. Park Maxwell Road to Striped lane or Route LeneCounty $171,000 0.91 536
Avenue Northwest Expressway
LinC<lln Street! 5th Avenue to 18th Route, Striped Lane . Eugene $0 1.14 160
Lawrence Street Avenue
f)tl e fe.. Main Street and S. A Sprtngfield Brtdges to Sbiped Lane ODOT, $0 8.60 830 ./
Street East UGB Sprtngfield
McVay Highway 1~5 to 30th Avenue Striped Lane ODOT $114,000 0.71 834
Mill Street 1Dlh to 15th Avenue Route Eugene $400,000 0.38 166
Mill Street S. A Street to Fairvlew Striped Lene Sprtngfield $0 0,99 837
Drive
Minda Drive/Sally Way Norkenzle 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
Stree1lFairgrounds Path
N. 36th Street Main Street to Commercial Striped Lane or Route Sprtngfield $100,000 0.30 939
Street
TransP/an
Date Received
(
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 48
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jnrisdiction 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 '1.56 6<15
In Glenwood ./
DeJek <?akmont Way Oakway Road 10 Coburg Striped Lane or Route Eugene $0 0.30 . 576
Road
Olympic Street (A) 21st streetto Mohawk . Striped Lane Springfield $0 0,26 942
Boulevard
Polk Street 6th Avenue to 24th Avenue Striped lane Eugene $400,000 1.39 175
DeJeh Potato Hill Summit Length of Potato Hill route Route Spnngfield $0 1.52 6<1/
Route [m future
subdMslon)
Prairie Road MaxweJJ Road to Highway Slnped Lene Eugene $56,000 0.15 495
99
Rainbow Drive West "0" Street to Striped Lane Spnngfield $0 0.55 646
Centennial Boulevard
S. 67th Slree! Ivy Street to Main Street Striped lane or Route Spnngfield $42,000 0.30 92
S. 70th Street Main Slreet to Ivy street Striped Lane Springfield $115,000 .0.50 94
Seavey Loop Road I Coast Fork of WiHamette 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 $0 027 324
Place
SUver lane Grove Street to River Road Strlped lane Eugene $0 0.69 548
Spring Boulevard (A) Fairmount Boulevard to Route Eugene $0 1.07 278
29th Avenue
Dihk Springfield Bridges Franklin Boulevard to MJU Striped Lane ODOT $0 0.56 657 ./
Slreet
Summit Street Fairmount Boulevard to Route Eugene $0 0.31 287
Floral Hnl 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 0,66 668
Road
Tyler Street 24th Avenue to 28th Route Eugene $0 0.37 290
Awnue
TransPlan
Date Received
APR 7 2009
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 49
Planner: BJ
.
.
Geographic Estimated
Name Limits Description Jnrisdiction Cost Length Numher
Valley River Way (A) Valley River Drive to Striped Lane Eugene $200,000 023 594
VaUey River Connector
Van Duyn Roael I Western Drtve to Route Eugene $0 0,51 598
Bogart Road Willakerllie Road
Walnut Avenue 15th Avenue to Fainnont Route Eugene $0 0.36 295
Boulevard
De-Ie:!-e. Wey~euser Haul Booth Kelly Road to Main Striped Lane SpJingfield $!I 0.45 90/
Road Street
Wiltamette Street 18th Avenue to 32nd Striped Lane Eugene $396,000 1.30 295
Avenue
D<1ie+e.... Willamette Street 11th Avenue to 18th Striped Lane Eugene $0 0.76 184 ,/
Avenue
Yolanda Avenue 31st Street to Hayden Striped Lane SpJingfield $0 0.60 784
Bridge Road
Status Sub- Total $4,455,500
Project Category Sub-Total U,455,500
Total Capital Projects: Bicycle Projects $19,188,200
!.
TransPlan
Date Received
APR 7 2009
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 50
Planner: BJ'
.
.
Name
Geographic
Limits
Description
Jurisdiction
Estimated
Cost Length N nm her
Project Category: On-Street Lanes or Routes Without Road Project
(-
Status: Future
Bethel Connector Rikhoff to Park Avenue Multi-Use Path Eugene $0 0.15
Broadway I Franklin Mill Street 10 East of 1-5 Striped Lane Eugene $0 1.91
Boulevard
Jefferson Street 13th Avenue to 18th Striped Lane Eugene $93,000 0.35
Avenue
Jefferson Street 18th Avenue to 26th Striped Lane Eugene $238,000 0.89
Avenue
~\e\-e.. Lorane Highway (A) Bailey Hill Road (0 Shoulder lane County $0 4.32
Chambers Street
Portland Street' 27th VVillametle street to 29th Roule Eugene $89,000 0.89
Avenue Avenue
Sp)'glass Drive Cal Young Road to Route, Acressway Eugene $155,000 1.00
Oakway Road
W.11thAvenue Chambers Street to Striped Lane Eugene, $0 3.00
Danebo Avenue OOOT
Jefferson! SG\to 13" Striped Lane Eugene .100,000 0.53
Washington
Status Sub- Totol $675,000
Project Category Sub~Total $675,000
Total Capital Projects: Bicycle Projects $14,299,000
'490
182
263
157
321 V"'"
275
684
334
. ,
( :.
TramP/an
Date Received
APR 7 2009
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 54
Planner: BJ
.
..
Attachment B
Preliminary Calculations for TransPlan Planning Period
I
;
I
I
i
I
I
,
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: 8..1
.
.,
r'(
qr.,.gp .
?; I
Preliminary Calculations for rrallsPlall Horizon Year
1. Design Population for Eugene - Springfield Urban Growth Boundary: 286,000
2. 2008 Certified Populations (not including unincorporated areas in UGB):
Eugene 154,620
Springfield 58,005
Lane County 345, 880
3 Estimated percentage of total County population (including city UGBS)I:
Eugene 51.46%
Springfield 19.19"10 .
4. Projected Lane County Total population?
Year 2020
Year 2025
Year 2030
5. Projected Eugene-Sprlngfield Populations (including all UGB):3
Eugene (51.46%)
Year 2020
Year 2025
Year 2030
Springfield (19.19%)
Year 2020
Year 2025
Year 2030
. Total Eugene + Springfield
Year 2020
Year 2025
Year 2030
6. A vemge annual Eugene-Springfield population increase 2020 - 20301:
7. Year Eugene-Springfield population including UGB reaches 286,0004:
387,574
409,159
430,454
199,446
210,553
221,512
74,375
78,518
82,604
273,821
289,071
304,116
1.11 %
2024
I As calculated for the Eugene and Springfield safe hmbor amendment, May 2008, and attacbed to this
memorandum. ~t,l'1
2 Prepared by the Oregon Office of Economic ~ty and available at the following website:
htlp:l/www.oregon.gov/DASiDEAldocs/demographic/pop_componeols.xls
, Calculated by multiplying the perc.eoIllge of each city of the total County population (line 3) against the OBA
projected ColIDty population (line 4) .
Calculated by increasing projected Eugene-Springfield tota1 population (line 5) by average annual rate increase
(line 6) beginning from year 2020.
Date Received
I\PR 7 2009
Plannp.r: H H
SBfII Harbor Population Foraoulll for Urban GrowIh Boundary Areas In Lan. CounlV
May,20OS
231~ 14
080 0
0 440
4440 320.
310 1480
000 090
BOO 0
eo
..
aao 0
81710 -34 880
610 271 640 880
F_ 40 380
0
"U 0
- ~
S>> J>
:::J '" CD
= :c
:::s
CD ..." to
"" n
'""'!l = :0
. .. <=
u:> :;:'
00 -
;D
c..... Q"
2
GJllWthRol...
.... ....
"'""
381 oeo 387948
443 948
-
46 977
A"
2
I1Ile lhen ocluaI
on_
IBlIona
-
C.1DocumenlsOftdSolll,..."lOII8l1041l.ooal !IefI/rIIISlTompo...y InlemslFIIll8\Ol.KSllI8wIIIf~~
1.11
.11%
,."
.,,
1,11
1.11
",'"
, 1
", %
1.11%
I,"
.
.
-_._------~-_._~.-
.
.
Attachment C
Proposed Text Amendments for TransPlan
(TransPlan, Page 2)
Overview of the Regional Transportation System Plan
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) guides regional
transportation system planning and development in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
TransPlan includes provisions for meeting the transportation demand of a proi ected population
of 296.500 in the TransPlan Studv Area,resiaents oyer a 20 year planning horizon while
addressing transportation issues and making changes that can contribute to improvements in the
regions quality ofli{i! and economic vitality. As discussed under the "Participating Agencies.
Geographic Area and Plamling Period" section of this Chapter. the TransPlan Studv Area is an
area extending bevond the UGB and Metro Plan boundary that is used for transPortation
modeling pumoses.
(TransPlan, Page 5)
Participating Agencies-aaG-, Geographic Area and Plannin!! Period
TransPlan represents a coordinated effort .. , .
The TransPlan study area is illustrated in Figure I. As shown on Figure I. the studv area is an
area extending bevond the UGB and Metro Plan boundarv.
When TransPlan was updated in 2001. it was anticipated that the TransPlan Studv 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 approximatelv 2024. Since the transportation modeling
for the TransPlan Studv Area was based on a proiected population of296.500. TransPlan guides
regional and transportation svstem planning and deyelopment in the Transportation Studv Area
unti12024. Accordinglv. TransPlan's planning period has been updated to 2024. Additionallv.
the Regional Transportation Work Plan. adopted bv the Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC) on October 16. 2008. required an adiustment to TransPlan's planning
period to more accuratelv reflect the year that the plan's studv area would hit the proiected
population and to bring Tram,plan's planning period closer to the planning period of the
federally-required Regional TransPortation Plan (RTP).
Even though TransPlan's plamling period is extended to 2024. TransPlan continues to contain
some references to 2015. References to 2015 remain in TransPlan when the 2015 vear is in
conjunction with percentages reached using the Regional Travel Forecasting Model: this model
predicts future human choices based on more than iust proiected population. References to 2015
also remain in TransPlan in tenus of the LCDC-approved altemative performance measures
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
(Order 01-LCDC-024); these references are found in Chapter 4 of TransPlan. The local
governments intend to meet the 2015 alternative performance measure goals regardless of
population. Further, BQecause TransPlan was originally adopted to serves as OO#l-the federally:
required RTP.Regioaal Transportation Plan for tile Eag611s SprillgfieJaarell ana as tile
Transportation Function Plan for 11m Eugene EpFil'/gfietd UetFepelittm Area General p.Jan
(Motre Pkm),in addition to the State-required regional transportation svstem plan. TransPlan
includes references to a two planning horizOl'lS-ElFe referrcd to in the doe:IffiGHt: 2015 and 202l.
The 2015 planning harizoB is useEko be eonsisooBt with the 2015 Mws PIM planuiag horizafl.
lR particular, the forecasted regional laud use-aYaeations use the Metre Pla."l'~ 2G! 5llllld uses as
a basis. Tile 2015 plllllRing Ilorizon is used it] cOllneetioB '.vith the Parformanee Measures
eontained in Cl1.apler 1 tl:at are a requirement oftfle-.band. COHservatioB. and DS'/elopmeBt
CommissieB's (LCDC) Transportatian Planning Rule (TPR).
-A-2021 planning l1.olizoDvear-_has beeD development to meetthat met -federal requirements,---fer
maintai,ung at leant a 20 year financial eOl1strai:1t alul air EjUaBty eOHformity determination.
While TransPlan no longer serves as the federally required RTP. references to the 2021 planning
year remain throughout this document. Becatlse thilre is no offieialland use alloeatiol1 beyond
2015, the lOll foreeasts mpressnt an elltrapolatioB of2015 population ana employmont.
Revenue and Cost estimated used in TransPlan are for 2021.
00222242.DOC;1
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
\J
Trends and Issues
The region is anticipating significant population and employme growth. The population of the ___
Eugene-Springfield area is expected to grow by 41 percent b 15 Employment in the region v-
is expected to grow by 43 percent during that same period. A forecast oftrends during the
planning period 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 2.7 percent
oftotal miles traveled to 1O.6.percent, a 293 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 the 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 oftotal trips under one mile in length would decline by 9.2
percent.
Overview of the Regional Transportation System Plan
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (I'ransPlan) guides regional
transportation system planning and development in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
TransPlan includes provisions for meeting the transportation demand of residents over a 20-year
planning horizon while addressing transportation issues and making changes that can contribute
to improvements in the region's quality oflife and economic vitality.
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 ofland use, transit, demand management, and bicycle strategies 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 forecasted trends.
Compared to the future Trend Conditions. there will also be:
c::> 8 percent less vehicle miles traveled (VMI) per capita,
c::> 20.5 percent more trips under one mile in length,
c::> 9.3 percent fewer drive alone trips,
c::> 29 percent more non-auto trips, and
c::> II percent less carbon monoxide emissions.
TransPIan
Date Received
APR 7 Z009
July 2002
Chapter 1, Page 2
Planner: BJ
. .
, ,
'. \.,
Transportation Demand Management Policies
TransPlan transportation demand management (fDM) 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
I. TDM addresses federal IS1EA 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 combine ects of an accelerated rate of population growth (41 % projected .
increase from 1995 to 1 and increasing highway construction and maintenance costs; for
example, the City of Eugene increased the Transportation systems development charges by a
total of15 percent to account for inflation from 1993-1996. .
~
2. The Regional Travel Forecasting Model revealed 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 times of the day; and the vast
majority finds roads are congested during morning and evening rush hours.
3. The COMSIS TDM Strategy Evaluation Model, used in August, 1997 to evaluate the impact
ofTDM strategies, found that vehicle miles traveled (VMI) 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~ mandatory 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.
4. Lane Transit District (L TD) system ridership has increased 53 percent since the first group
pass program was implemented in 1987 with University of Oregon students and employees.
5. The OHP recognizes that TDM strategies can be implemented to reduce trips and impacts to
major transportation facilities, such as freeway interchanges, postponing the need for
investments in capacity-increasing projects.
6. 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.
TransPlan
July 2002
Date RecAivedOlapler 2, Page 19
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
,e
.
f
\.
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 jurisdictional flexibility.
Parking management strategies are an important part of an integrated set of implementation
actions that support nodal development, system improvements, 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 carpoollvanpool programs, 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 lev~J!rk!n~~~
developed acre) remains constant and land development andC{lopulation forecasts are accurate,)
then the level of parking spaces per capita will be reduced by more tfian The1 0 peroeilrl'6llUCtlon
required by the TPR. _ ~
Estimated Parking SUPP9'.l?95 to ~~
1995 (2015""')-.....--- (201$)TPR Goal
/-
-. ..
ZoneIPlan
Designation Spaces Spaces Spaces
Capita Capita CaDita
Commercial 51,259 .229 57,865 .194 61,618 .207
Industrial 27,622 .124 30,200 .101 33,205 .UI
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 area.
TramP/an .
Date Received
APR' 7 2009
Planner: BJ
July 2002
Chapter 3, Page 97
.
,e
Part Two: Projected Plan Performance
The combination ofland use, transportation demand management (IDM), and transportation
system improvement (TSn programs and capital investments included in TransP/an 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) A voiding undesirable conditions that would be present without the planned investments and
actions.
o:~
Table 6 shows data for existing con . ons ~ifpf6jections for two future scenarios:
. Existing Conditions 1995, s ws ~em performance as of 1995.
. The first future scenari 2015 nnds, shows system performance for 1995 conditions
6:0- ~~to the year ~1~)Th. is scenario shows projections of what is expected to happen
(~_ by 015 der business as ~Jw.~nds.
. ~~!:':!.Ii~~~n~"fiJ~e.scenarioi~JllV1nanc~.Y ~onstrained TransPlan, shows proje?ted .
draft TransPlanperfoh'tlm1cefor.theyear~.OI5imder conditions of financial constraint. LIke
the second scenario, it assumes implementation ofland use and TOM 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 performance measure is listed
along with the percentage change in that performance measure from 1995 conditions. In the
descriptions of performance measures that follow, ex~~pt~~here explicitly noted, comparisons .,/'
are drawn between 1995 Existing Conditions and th~2015Jlinancially Constrained TransPlan.
Changes to performance measures resulting from the West Ebgene Parkway-related amendment
to TransPlan are presented in this chapter in legislative format."'_~. ' '
~",., _ ;; 00 4{, -----
--""..............................-k /
In general, implementation ofth~m;;;;:ciallY Constrained TransPlan is projected to serve
the region's future travel needs fCil'people and goods, while turning the transportation system
and the service it provides in a more desirable direction than existing trends. The proposed plan
reflects a set oftradeoffs among the communities' goals and objectives. A comprehensive set of
transportation system performance measures provides the framework for a meaningful
comparison of the scenarios.
Date Received
TransPlan
July 2002
Chapter 4, Page 4
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
,/'
,/'"
v
./'
-
"1J
-
s:u :!>
:J -u
:J =0
Cl> -l
., ""
, . =
=
<.0
00
.
--
~
fio:A ')
Table 6 _ Summary of Ke-v Performance Measures 1" / "'-
U,!iEd.dIlB -~".., ~;n.llel.lI)' COlluralllcd
Coadll(oa. ran.PI.II Sun.rla (:Jl
Category Key Denrlptlon Ara.oUIII " CTulfJIC AtnOUIIC " Cia.",.
from IP9S /rluK 1995
Demographics Po ulotlon T .Pla Stud Area 209 800 296 500 41.3" 296 50 4 ."
Em 10 ment ITransPlan SWd Area 106900 163 00 43. " 153 000 43.
PM' Congested Miles of travel (percent of total VMT) 2.8% 10.8% 283.3%
- 5.0% 80.8"
PM2 Roadway Conge,tlon Index 0.78 1.40 79.5"
conU..t1on 96'" 23.1"
PM3 Network Vahicle Hours of Delay (Dully) 9.818 28,407 189.3%
18924 92.716
PM4 % Tr.nslt Mode Sha,e on Con eated Couldors m 5.8% 10.0% 72.4%
PM5a Internal VMT (no commercial vehicles) 2,305.779 3,508.913 52"
3 232 917 40"
Vehicle MII.s Traveled PM5b Internel VMT/ceplta 10.99 11.83 ."
and Trip Length 10,90 -."
PM6 Aver 0' Trl Len th mileS) 3.7 3.9 ." 3.6 .1.7"
PM7 % Person Trips Under 1 Mile 14.5% 13.2% -9" S.6"
15.9%
Mode Sh.,.. a All PMBa Walk 8.93% 1.92% ~f1"
Tripe 9.52% 6.6"
PM8b alke 3.6e% 3.32% .10" 3.6 % .1.1%
PM8c Tranl'llt 1.63% 1.95% 7"
2.73% 49.2"
PM8d Shared Ride (2 cr more 42.04% 44.30% ." 44.53% 5.'"
PM6e Drive Alone "'3.52% 42.52% -2"
39.57% -S.l%
I h PM8f % No .Auto Trl $ 14.43% 13.18% -S" 17 .00% 17.8
PM6" Person Trl 8 or Auto Tri 1.59 1.61 2" 1.7 7.2"
~ PM9 Averege Fuel Efficiency (VMTJGaJ.) 19.1 19.1 -3"
Enylronmentat 19.2 -2.6"
In PM10 125.' ,~
CO Emissions (Weekday Tons) , 1.1 .10.7"
:J t:>> Lend Use ~~g Acree or zoom,d. n~aBI ctevelopment
" offl.,,,!~lIIng unlfs ~~~I!.!? nodes
PM13 % otN w liTo tal" Em 10 ment In Nodes
;! IPM" % of Roadwav Miles Ith Sidewalks 66'" 68'" .." 70% 20.9"
~ PM15 Rallo of Bikeway to Arterial and CQllector M 11818 (PM24) ..... 48'" ."
61'" 85.1ilii
.. PM16 % of Roadw8 s In fair or Better Condition .6'" 60'" -." 60'" .5.9"
PM17 % of Households Within 1/4 Mile of 8 Transit Stc 82'" 92'" 0" 92'" 0.0"
a PM18 Tranell erv ce Hours er Ca Ita 1.29 1.89 3'" 1.89 54.3"
PMHI' % Househo de with Accoss to 10.mlnute ransit Ser Ice 23... 23... 0 86... 81.8"
System Ch.r.ct.rl.Uoe PM20 % Em 10 me t with Accun to 10-m nute Tranall Service 62'" 52'" 0" 9'''' 75
PM21 Bikeway MUss 126.6 135.9 7"
257.8 103.6"
PM22 priority Blke",.y Miles
75.3
PM23 Arterial and Collector Miles 325.6 331.8 2"
355.8 9.3"
PM24 AfCeo.' and Collector Miles (exclUding fWY8) 290.5 296.7 2" 10.0"
319.6
;11 ale _tne.e lC:enarlo.,ac or "m' poC'Cen 'Ie I UIP fill. re uc IOn allowea In Ihe 1 ran.portaUon P ann ng u a amendmllinU lorm,.. -u.. peele.tr,an 'r.nu" ....... .r.du n n." ~..IJ
.
.
.pplled to nOela' d.yelopment ar... Idenllfled In 'he Dro'l Tnll,,,pran.
(2) Nota a Me..ure. In "a/fllt.Ilea lire th. TPR anlllrn.llve plllrformllnc:. me..ur.. appro,.ed by LCDC.
July 2002 Ch8pter 4, Page 5
TramP/an
...
.
,e
The data presented in this chapter stem from extensive computer modeling analyses of different
combinations of land use, TOM, and TSI programs and capita! investments. The analysis draws
on recent surveys of transportation patterns and behavior in the Eugene-Springfield region.
Readers should interpret the data as indicating the magnitude and general direction of change,
and should not attach great significance to the apparent precision of the figures.
Traffic Congestion Measures
Percent Oianges in Congestion MOasw-es
(0/. change from 1995)
en:eot ange
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 0 S ~ ~ 0 8
0 ~ ~ ::l .. M ~ ...
0 ,., '" '" - - N ,.,
~
~
,.,
,
Population
283'10
Employment
Congested Miles ofTravol
Roadway Congestion Index
Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay
1&9%:
,
9&115%
% Transh on Congested Corridors
PM 1: Congested Miles of Travel
This measure represents congested miles of travel as a percentage oftota! vehicle miles traveled.
High levels of congested miles of travel can indicate that the system is not operating efficiently.
The evaluation offuture plan alternatives shows that, regardless of the strategies employed,
congestion will increase significantly over existing conditions. One objective of the planning
effort is to minimize the increase in congested miles of travel. Under the Financially
Constrained TransPlan, congested miles of travel is 5.0 percent oftota! miles traveled, an
increase of 81 percent over 1995 conditions.
/
..
IIllIIlcially Constrained TransPlan Sccoario
PM 2: Roadway Congestion Index
The Roadway Congestion Index (RCI) is a measure of congestion on the region's freeways and
arterials. This measure is based on a method developed to estimate relative regional congestion
for urbanized areas in the U.S. It is a measure of the regional system of freeways and arterials
that. does not account for specific bottlenecks. An index value greater than I indicates generally
congested conditions area-wide. A value less than one means that, while congestion may occur
during certain periods on specific facilities, on average, the freeways and arterials are relatively
TramP/ail
Date Received
APR 7 2009
July 2002
Chapter 4, Page 6
Planner: BJ
.
(
.
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
I 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 _
~ RCI is below Portland's 1994 value of 1.11. ~
'c?~ .
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.
Vehicle Miles Traveled and Trip Length Measures
PM 5: 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, VMT per capita decreases slightly showing no increase
over the 20-year period. The Transportation Planning Rule (fPR) 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.
TransPlan
Date Received
APR. 7 2009
Planner: BJ
July 2002
Chapter 4, Page 7
.
./
.
r...... ~b1VMrlU>dTrip Lmg1h ~
(% ebaDgo from 1!l9S)
-W% -10''\ 0',\
-Cwlgc
10% :w:'A 30% 40% SO% Q)%
Population
S2%
&npI-
_VMf
1nI.""u VMlYCapila
A_ Trip Length (mI!es)
-1.7''\
% Person Trips < 1 'Mile
-9.21
05
/
Amendments to the TPR requrre areas not meeting the VMT reduction target to seek approval
from the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for the use of alternative
measures in demonstrating reduced reliance on the automobile. This process is discussed further
in Part Three: TPR Alternate Performance Measures of this chapter..
PM 6 and PM7: Average Trip Length and Percentage of Person Trips Under 1
Mile
Shorter trip distance is one factor that contributes to making the use of alternative modes more
attractive. As presented in Table 6. trip length reflects the average distance for trips taken within
the region by all modes and does not include trips made through the region. The objective is to
reduce average trip length. Percentage of person trips under 1 mile provides a measure of the
plan's specific impact on short trips. Th~ objective here is to increase the percentage of trips
under 1 mile.
Average trip length is projected to decrease slightly from 3.7 miles to 3.6 miles under the
Financially Constrained TransPlan. As discussed under PM 5. an explanation for why this
change is not greater lies in the fact that a large amount of growth over the planning period that
is taking place on the edges of existing development in the region.
The percentage of trips under 1 mile is expected to increase to 16.1 percent. This reflects the
impact of the plan's proposed nodal development strategy.
Mode Choice Measures
PM8: Mode Shares (All Trips)
This measure shows the relative share of the region's trips taken by each mode of transportation.
The objective is to reduce drive-alone auto trips while increasing the number of trips taken by
TransPlan
Date Received
APR 7 2009
lu1y 2002
Chapter 4, Page 8
Planner: BJ
/.
.
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 imd 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 8f: there is an overall increase in the use of alternative
modes under the Financially Constrained TransPlan.
PM 8fis the sum of all non-auto (walk, bike, and bus) trips. Model analysis indicates that non-
auto mode shares increase by about 18 percent under the Financially Constrained TransPlan.
PM 8g provides an aggregate estimate of the region's reliance on the auto. Total person trips
taken in the region are divided by the total number of auto trips. The objective is to increase the
overall number of person trips taken relative to total auto trips. Model results suggest that
person trips per auto trip will increase by approximately 7 percent under the Financially
Constrained TransPlan.
Population
FmpIO)111tIll
Walk
Bike
Transit
Shared Ride (2 or rmre)
Drive Alone
% Non - Auto Trips
P= Trips per Auto Trip
Tf(J1UPlan
Percent OIange in Mode Sbare Measw-.s - All Tri
(% change from 1995)
PelUllt Olange
.Zoo/o -10% 00/0 10% 200/0 300/0
40%
sO%
-11.00/0 .
'"
'1,ll6.6'..
1.0%
,,~'" ..:c.lft'iitt'l" "m';llI\'flll'~'a.'WI" 'I; ~492'1o
" 11.8%
7.2%
1
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: 8J
July 2002
Chapter 4, Page 9
60%
./
'.
.
Environmental Measures
PM 9: Average Fuel Economy (Miles per Gallon)
This measure provides an estimate of fuel use under the three scenarios. The objective is to
increase fuel economy. Fuel economy is directly related to levels of congestion. Higher levels
of congestion result in more fuel use and lower fuel economy. The Financially Constrained
TransPlan's lower fuel economy is a resuh of increased congestion over existing conditions.
However, ihe fuel economy achieved by the Financially Constrained TramPlan 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 ChaDge iD EDviroDmeDtal Measures
(% chaDge from 1995)
Percentage ChaDge
.20%
0%
40""
10%
20%
30%
.10010
Population
Employment
Avg Fuel Efficiency (VMl'1Gal.)
co Emissions (Weekday Tons)
.10.70,4
II!lI~Treods .~ioaociallY ConstraiDed TransPlao Scenario I
TramP/an
Date Received
APR 7 2009
July 2002
Chapter 4, Page 10
Planner: BJ
sO%
43%
43%
~
,.
.
/
I-Ol:m&ein s,.umChar1lderistie~
. (%<I1aIvlilllnl99S) ~
-50% 0'10 SO'... 100'10 l5O'Io
I'q>llaiCll
EJq:ill)'lIX!t
%of~MJcs\\ilh51_
RalioofBikc M w ArtICclI M
%ofRdv,ys in FaitIWler
O:nlitiCll
%H>l<kWII1I14MJeoflim;it
Slq>
TrarsitScrviceHnsJX<CqilB
%H;bl<k"'^""""w Illirin
Thn;;t
%Enp"'^""""w Illirin
Thn;;t Svc
I3ikev.ayMJcs
l\icdty I3ikev.ay MIcs
Arterial In! Cb1led<r MJcs
_In! CblJeda MJ..
(F.><dWing 1"')5)
-5.90/, ~
-5.9%
&I 9.3% ;
&'110',\
I
1&5.1%
i
I
I
!
i
!
=
,
,
75.0''\\
i
I
I
I
i
~ lw.&h!
I I
~75.J~CS ;
i i
[ I
i
!
!
I
,
w...
25()'10
I
i
i
i
I
2SLIl%
/
PM 15: Ratio of Bikeway miles to A Collector MUes
This measure indicates the percenuige 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
TramPlnn
Date Received
APR 7 2009
July 2002
Cbapter4, Page 12
Planner: BJ
.
..
bikeways, and the proposed striping of several miles of existing ro
to increase substantially from 44 percent today to 8 I percent in 0 I
PM 16: Percentage of Roadways in Fair or Better Condition
This measure provides a swnmary 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 \14 mile of a transit stop.
The objective is to maintain that level of coverage. Given the transit system's maturity and
extensive geographic coverage, focus is not on achieving 100 percent coverage buton improving
the convenience of existing service.
/
.
PM 18: Transit Service Hours per Capita
This measure shows the amount of annual transit service (in hours) per person in the region. The
objective in the plan is to increase transit service hours, ideally in terms of the frequency of
service (e.g., change from service every IS 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. Thet'iOl) Financially Constrained TramPlan v
increases (to 1.99 service hours per capita) ref1;l1!1bstantial increases in service frequency with
the implementation of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). y,;.~ Ll .
~ .
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-minute service frequencies from 23
percent under existing conditions to 88 percent ~_der the Financially Constrained
TransPlan. This represents an increase of appro~82 p;:rcent.
y:;;;;:n
PM 20: Percentage of Employment with Access'torm::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
TransPlan
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
July 2002
Chapter 4, Page \3
~
.
.
I .th /1!f5Jfrl.'. . fro .5.2 .d' .
emp oyment WI access to~e "l11mute service equencles m percent un er eXisting /'
conditions to 91 percent in/20 . under the Financially Constrained TransPlan. This represents ,/
an increase of approximate!. 5 percent .
.
PM 21: Bikeway Miles
This measure indicates the additional bikeway miles and percentage change in bikeway miles
anticipated over the planning period. As described under PM15, additions to the off-street
system and striping of existing roadways result in a significant increase in bikeway miles (103
percent over existing conditions).
PM 22: Arterial and Collector Miles
This measure indicates the additional roadway centerline miles and percentage change in
roadway centerline miles anticipated over the planning period. Total miles of collector and
arterials are proposed to increase by 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 UGB on the edges of existing development As demonstrated above, growth on the edges
leads to longer overall trip lengths, which in turn, makes non-auto modes less attractive. This
makes it difficult to achieve VMT reductions within the planning period.
However, the Financially Constrained TransPlan has been shown to perform much better than
trend conditions in minimizing increases in congested miles of travel, and minimizing area-wide
congestion. An overall outcome stemming from implementation of nodal development is that
the region is able to increase the percentage of person trips less than one mile in length to
approximately 16 percent
Investments in non-auto modes (particularly BR1) 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 hi transit mode
TransPl""
Date Received
APR 7 2009
July 2002
Chapter 4, Page 14
Planner: BJ
..
.
viable nodes along the BRT conidor creates the ability for more riders to use the service to get to
and from the destinations they want to go to.
Transportation Demand Management (l'DM) - TOM is the essential management ofinfonnation
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 TOM 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 significantly improve bicycle users safety
in a given conidor. 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:
automobiles.
Achieving the alternative standard will result in a reduction in reliance on
The plan's perfonnance on this objective can be measured using the Travel Response
perfonnance measures. In general, the travel response described below ,relies on implementation
of the nodal development, Bus Rapid Transit, and expanded TDM strategies set forth in
TransPlan, and the Priority Bikeway Miles. I
,;x);J'1
Reduced reliance on the auto is indicated in the forecasted 18 perc t increase in the Percent
Non-Auto Trips, a measure of the relative proportion of trips oce . g by alternative modes. ~'
This increase is particularly significant when compared to th 0 I Trend Scenario which
indicates a 9 percent decrease without implementation of the plan. An increase in the percent of
the region's trips taken by alternative modes is a direct measure of reduced reliance on the auto.
An increase indicates that improvements made to alternative modes have been successful in
attracting more people to use those alternatives for some trips. Percent Non-Auto Trips is a good
measure of the cumulative effect of the implementation ofall of Trans Plan's key strategies.
ThePercent 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
conidors by 72 percent over the 1995 base is a significant shift in reliance on the automobile.
The fact that this target specifiCally calls for reduced reliance on the automobile in the areas of
greatest congestion is also of significance. By doing so, the measure targets reduced reliance on
the automobile in those areas where the impact will be the greatest
TransPlan
Date Received
APR 7 2009
July 2002
Chapter 4, Page 20
Planner: BJ
.
.
Attachment D
Proposed Text Amendments to the Metro Plan
(Metro Plan, page IIl-F-I)
F. Transportation Element
TransPlan guides regional transportation system planning in the metropolitan area to serve -fer-a
20 year period and serves the transportation needs oftbe-l!..Projected population of296,500 in the
TransPlan Study Area (fn II). The TransPlan Study Area is an area extending beyond the UGB
and Metro Plan boundary that is used for transnortation 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.
Fa 11: The TI"I>6l2I~ etleling PW'J'le5~H9G,50G flmjeete4
l*'I'"latiaa far tllis area iJlslados tlle e"tim"ted 20 15 flofl'lJati.en..emG,~"S all additioBal1 G;WQ
I*"iected fl8fllllatioR fer the TFall!)flortalioR ,\".Iysis Za"e&-taat ."telld b"yond me-lJG!h
Transportation Demand Manal!ement
Findings
14. TDM addresses federal Transportation Equity Actfor the 21" 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 percent projected increase from 1995 to ~2024) 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.
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
ATTACHMENT E
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.l4-135( 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 Springfield 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 ofthe 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 I 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
Date Reeeived
I
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
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 fust
evidentiary hearing.
Notice of the fust evidentiary hearing was mailed to all persons who had requested such notice on March
6,2009, thirty (30) days prior to the fust hearing. Notice was published in the Register Guard, the area's
general circulation newspaper, on March 18,2009, twenty (20) days before the fust 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
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Plan nArD R.I
.
.
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. Goal 3 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 mSTORlC 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 of a PAPA unless the PAPA
affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect 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 aparticular significant
Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or
(c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB andfactual 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 Goal 5 resource. Specifically, the amendments do not create or amend a
list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a plan or code provision adopted in order to protect a significant
Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5, do not allow new uses that could be
conflicting uses with a particular Goal 5 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 . Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
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 ameridments are consistent with Goal 8.
GOAL 9 - ECONOMY OF THE STATE: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for
a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
The 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
oflife. 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 Goal 10.
4
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
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
The 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 - TRANSPORT A TION: 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
Administrative 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 pursilant 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 govermnent 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 CONSERVATION: 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 providefor an orderly and efficient transitionfrom 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 rurallailds for rural uses. Accordingly, the
amendments comply with Goal 14.
GOAL 15 - W1LLAMETTE 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 Willamerte River Greenway area with the Urban Growth Boundary is governed by existing local
provisions that have been acknowledged as COmPly~g with Goal 15. ThoseDat~oR~~~ivedged .
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
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 WilIamette River. Further, the amendments will not affect TransPlan's and the Metro
Plan's compliance with Goal 15. Therefore, the amendments comply with Goal 15.
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 amendment 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 2024. 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 Transportation Study Area
until 2024.
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 fmdings 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 projects as having been completed: Jasper Road
Extension, Project No. 66 (Construct 4-lane arterial); Pioneer Parkway Extension, Project No. 768
(Construct 4-5 lane minor arterial); Beltline Highway, Project No. 409 (Widening to 4 lanes, construction
of Roosevelt extension).
F. Transportation Element
6
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
..
.
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, pedestriao aod bicycle projects as having been completed:
Expaosion of Glenwood [Bus] Operating Base, Project 1320 (expaosion of existing operation aod
maintenaoce); Autzen Stadium, Project No. 1140 (construction oftraosfer station aod park-aod-ride lot);
LCC Station Expaosion, Project No. 1125 (expansion ofLCC station); 11th aod Beltline Station, Project
No. 1340 (construction oftraosfer station); Gateway aod BeItIine Station, Project No. 1350 (construction
oftraosfer 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 WaylKnickerbocker Bridge Connector, Project No. 660
(multi-use path); Oakway Road to Coburg Road, Project No. 678 (route, multi"use path).
F.9 A,dopt 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 traosportation projects that have been
constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy F.l8. Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan's
project lists identifY the following transit projects as having been completed: Expaosion of Glenwood
Operating Base, Project 1320 (expaosion of existing operation aod maintenaoce); Autzen Stadium, Project
No. 1140 (construction of traosfer station aod park-aod-ride lot); LCC Station Expaosion, Project No.
1125 (expaosion of LCC station); 11th aod Beltline Station, Project No. 1340 (construction of traosfer
station); Gateway aod Beltline Station, Project No. 1350 (construction of traosfer station); Springfield
Station, Project No. 1355 (construction of new traosit 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 transport!ltion projects that have been
constructed, demonstrate consistency with Policy F.2I. Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan's
project lists identify the follo'l\omg park-aod-ride project as having been completed: Autzen Stadium,
Project No. 1140 (construction oftraosfer station aod park-aod-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
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
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
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
00223443.DOC;1
00223286.DOC; I
Date Received
9
APR . 7 ZOOg
Planner: BJ
.
.
ATTACHMENT E
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.l4-135( C )(1-2), Eugene Code Section 9.7730(3),
and Lane Code Section l2.225(2)(a) &(h) 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 ofthe amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
This application involves text amendments (non-site specific) and project list amendments to TramPlan,
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 TramPlan and the Metro
Plan are identical; requiring that the three jurisdictions follow the "Type !" amendment process. To
become effective, the amendments to TramPlan 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 Springfield 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
I
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
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 fust 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 nwnerous
opportunities for public involvement.
We fmd 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 fmdings 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 gove=ental 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 prese~e and maintain agricultijateReceived
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
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. Goal 3 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 mSTORIC 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 of a PAPA unless the PAPA
affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect 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 conj/icting uses with a particular significant
Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or
(c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB andfactual 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 Goal 5 resource. Specifically, the amendments do not create or amend a
list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a plan or code provision adopted in order to protect a significant
Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5, do not allow new uses that could be
conflicting uses with a particular Goal 5 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
qualityof 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
Date Received
A~R 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
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 recreatwnal 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 state for
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 providefor 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 Goal 10. .
4
Date Received
APR 7 l009
Planner: BJ
.
.
GOAL 11 - PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and
efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as aframeworkfor urban and rural
devewpmwL .
The 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
Administrative 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 660-01 2-00 1 6(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 CONSERVATION: 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 providefor an orderly and effu:ient 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
Date Received
APR 7 2009
1L11..............-.... n R
.
.
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 compliance with Goal 15. Therefore, the amendments comply with Goal 15.
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 amendment 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 2024. 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 Transportation Study Area
until 2024.
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 [mdings 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 tbe policies and projects in the Eugene-Springf'reld 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.l8. Specifically, the deletions from TransPlan's
project lists identifY the following transportations projects as having been completed: Jasper Road
Extension, Project No. 66 (Construct 4-lane arterial); Pioneer Parkway Extension, Project No. 768
(Construct 4-5 lane minor arterial); Beltline Highway, Project No. 409 (Widening to 4 lanes, construction
of Roosevelt extension).
F. Transportation Element
6
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: 8J
II fIlL41 IIII! '\-II.. tI-AU
.
.
FA 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. 112~ (expansion of LCC station); 11th and Beltline Station, Project
No. 1340 (construction of transfer station); Gateway and Beltline 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 WaylKnickerbocker 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 aU users, include the transportation disadvantaged population.
1
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 Beltline 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
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
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
Date RecAived
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ
.
.
00223443.DOC;1
00223286.DOC;1
9
Date Received
APR . 7 Z009
Planner: BJ
.
~TTACHMENT F
",
Regional Transportation Work Plan
4'" QUARTER 2008
Transportation Work Plan
. October I: Submit draft to LCDC
. October 16: LCDC Meeting
Post-Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA)
. Finalize schedule and responsible parties for
initiation/participation/ co-adoption, including:
o Remove completed projects
o Remove West Eugene Parkway
o Move ODOT projects from Illustrative to Financially
Constrained list for consistency with RTP
o Adjust plan horizon
Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP)
. Continue RTSP framework discussion
. Create definition of regional system
. Agree on geographic boundary
. Determine relationship to or method of incorporation within
other plans
Public Involvement
. Develop multi-agency public involvement plan
. Determine public outreach components
. Identify public outreach schedule relative to work schedule
I ST QUARTER 2009
PAPA Adoption(s)
. Appropriate jurisdictions to amend T ransPlan to achieve RTP-
TSP consistency
o Remove completed projects
"0 Remove West Eugene Parkway
o Move ODOT projects from Illustrative to Financially
Constrained list for consistency with November 2007 RTP
project list
o Adjust plan horizon
Performance Measures
. Assess existing performance measures in T ransPlan
. Estimate Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)/capita for 2004,2015
and 2031
Confirm vehicle trip reduction requirements and determine
relationship between RTSP and TSPs in meeting the
requirements
Undertake additional performance measure assessment and
reporting at city level
.
.
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: 8J
. .
. Complete reporting on TransPlan benchmarks for 2005.
including qualitative discussion about nodal implementation
2nd QUARTER 2009
Performance Measures
. Begin development of Performance Measure position paper
. Identify potential additional actions/procedures for successful
performance measure implementation
3,d QUARTER 2009
Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP)
. Draft RTSP structural and policy framework based upon elected
official discussions and public input
. Begin developing RTSP policy language
Public Involvement
. Publish transportation work outcomes to date for public
comment as appropriate
. Seek public comment on regional transportation framework
4th QUARTER 2009
Performance Measures
. Consider and develop adjustments to performance andlor
implementation measures to achieve benchmarks
. Consider modified benchmarks and performance measures for
the extended planning period
I ST QUARTER 20 I 0 THROUGH 3RD QUARTER 20 II
[Regional transportation planning progressing in coordination with long-ronge land use planning efforts]
4TH QUARTER 2011
Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP)
. Policy develop based upon multi-jurisdictional elected official
direction
. Components drafted for public comment
. Public outreach on RTSP framework
2013
Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP)
. Take Action to meet RTSP requirements including multi-
jurisdictional co-adoption actions
. Take action as necessary to eliminate T ransPlan. including multi-
jurisdictional co-adoption plans
Date Received
APR 7 2009
Planner: BJ.